Using Science to prove that God EXISTS!!!

[John Dibble]

You are wildly misconstruing scientific theory.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm

But...but... the conclusion is undisputable!

[John Dibble]

You are wildly misconstruing scientific theory.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae261.cfm

But...but... the conclusion is undisputable!

You should think more before talking, that way you won't waste as much time removing your foot from your mouth.

He still talks more sense with his foot in his mouth than you do with your feet on the ground

[John Dibble]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncaused_causer

The above is on the idea you have described here, as well as criticisms. Go to that section, specifically the scientific ones.

[John Dibble]

You read it how you wanted to - nothing in there validated your point whatsoever. The end statement was infact that there is no scientific consensus that the universe has a finite age.

Further, nothing in your point really proves God anyways - even assuming a universal finite age, it could have been something else entirely that brought it about, including natural forces that we simply do not currenlty know about.

[John Dibble]

So, you are like the scientist you quoted – when your idea runs contrary to current scientific understanding, you claim current theories are wrong and that you will be proven right when science replaces its current theories.

Let me tell you a little story about something called "The Law of Gravity". It was previously thought that we knew everything about the behavior of gravity, so it was thought of as a scientific law. Later it got booted down to theory, because it turned out that gravity behaves differently in certain circumstances, and we don't know everything about it after all. The lesson - 'current scientific understanding' is not absolute and all knowing, so it's foolish to pretend otherwise.

[John Dibble]

So, you are like the scientist you quoted – when your idea runs contrary to current scientific understanding, you claim current theories are wrong and that you will be proven right when science replaces its current theories.

Let me tell you a little story about something called "The Law of Gravity". It was previously thought that we knew everything about the behavior of gravity, so it was thought of as a scientific law. Later it got booted down to theory, because it turned out that gravity behaves differently in certain circumstances, and we don't know everything about it after all. The lesson - 'current scientific understanding' is not absolute and all knowing, so it's foolish to pretend otherwise.

Again, you're basing your argument on presumption of undiscovered theories that will prove current theories wrong.  Basically, your basis is nothing more that "hope" itself because your ideas contradict every single scientific observation made by man.

You keep saying 'your ideas' as if I've expressed a belief in them. I'm only expressing that you're not proving squat. You have yet to use science to prove God exists, and since science is incomplete your 'proof' is incomplete to begin with.

As muon2 mentions, just because there was probably a big bang does not necessarily say there was nothing before the big bang. All energy that exists now may have existed in a previous universe, or it may be that this is the first universe and God created it. Either way, you lack proof as science is incomplete on this subject.