Evidence for design?
The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.
Yes it does. Being extremely unlikely makeup is just how it is. If you want to say it was god and if that does make you happy that's fine for me. To me it was just an explosion.
The Big Bang
The Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.
Yes that's it, and there are loads of evidence for the Big Bang Theory otherwise it wouldn't be generally accepted by the Scientific Community as it is today.
Excess quarks
Quarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge–parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families.1 However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.
So since there isn't a scientific reason
yet on why quarks ratio aren't equal to antiquarks you claim that "God did it" ?
The reason why there is what there is it's mainly because of asymmetries otherwise if all elementary particles were symmetric then there would be no universe or anything since they would annihilate each other.
This disparity you're talking about is named as
Baryogenesis and it's mostly related with baryons and antibaryons. That's one of the history holes you can't explain
yet.
Large, just right-sized universe
Even so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.2 Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger,3 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
So basically since there is yet no explanation lets claim that "God did it". Yes because a few years ago Big Bang wasn't accepted by the Church, now what happens to come is that the Pope claimed that the Big Bang was God job. Once Galileu said that the Earth was the one moving around the Sun, the Church said it didn't, hundreds of years later they accepted it. My point is what Religion can't understand they claim to be God, Science keeps investigating, while Church habits tell them to say everything happens is God. I say that there is a logic and scientific explanation for everything, however I don't claim that we know everything, I say that there is still a lot to know and what we don't know we look forward and try to understand, while the Church close their eyes to new developments and say everything is God job.
Early evolution of the universe
Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into the[se] 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.4
Just right laws of physics
The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 10^37 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 10^40, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 10^55 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10^120 would completely negate the effect.
Universal probability bounds
"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 10^80 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (10^18 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10^-45 sec),5 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:
10^80 x 10^18 x 10^45 =10^143
So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.
Those are all the "loop-holes" that science hasn't explained yet. What about everything science explained?!
Observational evidence:
The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis)[Google it if you don't know what it is]. These are sometimes called the three pillars of the big bang theory. Many other lines of evidence now support the picture, notably various properties of the large-scale structure of the cosmos which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard Big Bang theory.
Hubble's law and the expansion of space.
Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are redshifted—the light emitted from them has been shifted to longer wavelengths. This can be seen by taking a frequency spectrum of an object and matching the spectroscopic pattern of emission lines or absorption lines corresponding to atoms of the chemical elements interacting with the light. These redshifts are uniformly isotropic, distributed evenly among the observed objects in all directions. If the redshift is interpreted as a Doppler shift, the recessional velocity of the object can be calculated. For some galaxies, it is possible to estimate distances via the cosmic distance ladder. When the recessional velocities are plotted against these distances, a linear relationship known as Hubble's law is observed:
v = H_0 D \,
where
v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy or other distant object
D is the comoving proper distance to the object and
H0 is Hubble's constant, measured to be 70.1 ± 1.3 km/s/Mpc by the WMAP probe.
Hubble's law has two possible explanations. Either we are at the center of an explosion of galaxies—which is untenable given the Copernican Principle—or the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. This universal expansion was predicted from general relativity by Alexander Friedman in 1922 and Georges Lemaître in 1927, well before Hubble made his 1929 analysis and observations, and it remains the cornerstone of the Big Bang theory as developed by Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson and Walker.
The theory requires the relation v = HD to hold at all times, where D is the proper distance, v = dD⁄dt, and v, H, and D all vary as the universe expands (hence we write H0 to denote the present-day Hubble "constant"). For distances much smaller than the size of the observable universe, the Hubble redshift can be thought of as the Doppler shift corresponding to the recession velocity v. However, the redshift is not a true Doppler shift, but rather the result of the expansion of the universe between the time the light was emitted and the time that it was detected.
That space is undergoing metric expansion is shown by direct observational evidence of the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle, which together with Hubble's law have no other explanation. Astronomical redshifts are extremely isotropic and homogeneous, supporting the Cosmological Principle that the universe looks the same in all directions, along with much other evidence. If the redshifts were the result of an explosion from a center distant from us, they would not be so similar in different directions.
Measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation on the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems in 2000 proved the Copernican Principle, that the Earth is not in a central position, on a cosmological scale.[notes 5] Radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times throughout the universe. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion, and excludes the possibility that we are near the unique center of an explosion.
Cosmic microwave background radiation
During the first few days of the universe, the universe was in full thermal equilibrium, with photons being continually emitted and absorbed, giving the radiation a blackbody spectrum. As the universe expanded, it cooled to a temperature at which photons could no longer be created or destroyed. The temperature was still high enough for electrons and nuclei to remain unbound, however, and photons were constantly "reflected" from these free electrons through a process called Thomson scattering. Because of this repeated scattering, the early universe was opaque to light.
When the temperature fell to a few thousand Kelvin, electrons and nuclei began to combine to form atoms, a process known as recombination. Since photons scatter infrequently from neutral atoms, radiation decoupled from matter when nearly all the electrons had recombined, at the epoch of last scattering, 379,000 years after the Big Bang. These photons make up the CMB that is observed today, and the observed pattern of fluctuations in the CMB is a direct picture of the universe at this early epoch. The energy of photons was subsequently redshifted by the expansion of the universe, which preserved the blackbody spectrum but caused its temperature to fall, meaning that the photons now fall into the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The radiation is thought to be observable at every point in the universe, and comes from all directions with (almost) the same intensity.
In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the cosmic background radiation while conducting diagnostic observations using a new microwave receiver owned by Bell Laboratories. Their discovery provided substantial confirmation of the general CMB predictions—the radiation was found to be isotropic and consistent with a blackbody spectrum of about 3 K—and it pitched the balance of opinion in favor of the Big Bang hypothesis. Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize for their discovery.
In 1989, NASA launched the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE), and the initial findings, released in 1990, were consistent with the Big Bang's predictions regarding the CMB. COBE found a residual temperature of 2.726 K and in 1992 detected for the first time the fluctuations (anisotropies) in the CMB, at a level of about one part in 105. John C. Mather and George Smoot were awarded Nobels for their leadership in this work. During the following decade, CMB anisotropies were further investigated by a large number of ground-based and balloon experiments. In 2000–2001, several experiments, most notably BOOMERanG, found the universe to be almost spatially flat by measuring the typical angular size (the size on the sky) of the anisotropies. (See shape of the universe.)
In early 2003, the first results of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy satellite (WMAP) were released, yielding what were at the time the most accurate values for some of the cosmological parameters. This satellite also disproved several specific cosmic inflation models, but the results were consistent with the inflation theory in general, it confirms too that a sea of cosmic neutrinos permeates the universe, a clear evidence that the first stars took more than a half-billion years to create a cosmic fog. Another satellite like it, scheduled for launch in April 2009, the Planck Surveyor, will provide even more accurate measurements of the CMB anisotropies. Many other ground- and balloon-based experiments are also currently running; see Cosmic microwave background experiments.
The background radiation is exceptionally smooth, which presented a problem in that conventional expansion would mean that photons coming from opposite directions in the sky were coming from regions that had never been in contact with each other. The leading explanation for this far reaching equilibrium is that the universe had a brief period of rapid exponential expansion, called inflation. This would have the effect of driving apart regions that had been in equilibrium, so that all the observable universe was from the same equilibrated region.
Abundance of primordial elements
Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and lithium-7 in the universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen, H. All the abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons, which itself can be calculated independently from the detailed structure of CMB fluctuations. The ratios predicted (by mass, not by number) are about 0.25 for 4He/H, about 10−3 for ²H/H, about 10−4 for ³He/H and about 10−9 for 7Li/H.
The measured abundances all agree at least roughly with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. The agreement is excellent for deuterium, close but formally discrepant for 4He, and a factor of two off for 7Li; in the latter two cases there are substantial systematic uncertainties. Nonetheless, the general consistency with abundances predicted by BBN is strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements, and it is virtually impossible to "tune" the Big Bang to produce much more or less than 20–30% helium. Indeed there is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young universe (i.e., before star formation, as determined by studying matter supposedly free of stellar nucleosynthesis products) should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than ³He, and in constant ratios, too.
Galactic evolution and distribution
Detailed observations of the morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars provide strong evidence for the Big Bang. A combination of observations and theory suggest that the first quasars and galaxies formed about a billion years after the Big Bang, and since then larger structures have been forming, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters. Populations of stars have been aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies (which are observed as they were in the early universe) appear very different from nearby galaxies (observed in a more recent state). Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model. Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the universe and are helping to complete details of the theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence
Now to your "God" argument.
God?
A common objection to the "God hypothesis" is the problem of how God came to be. If everything has a cause, why does God get an exception? The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the Big Bang. A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims - that God has always existed and that God created time, along with the entire universe, being described as an expanding universe.Why can't the universe be uncaused? Of course, it is possible that the universe is uncaused. However, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that contradicts that idea. So, an atheist who claims to live by logic and evidence cannot arbitrarily assign eternity to a universe that is clearly temporal.
Yes indeed if you think that way. If you think of a line. You have the first and the last point. What is before the first point. Nothing exactly. Same analogy can be used for the universe. See the universe as a line and you can use the argument you did, where time and space were created with the big bang. However think of the Universe as a circle and you'll see a cycle where there is no beginning and no end where there were always space and time.
Yes I do believe the universe is uncaused. On a side note assuming that there is a cause will lead you to the problem of induction. And for further note that leaves you in a very tight position mainly logical. First you're supposing the existence of a "God" when you have no proof. And by proof I mean something that you can see, touch, test. Then you're generalizing for every happening that what did happen had a cause and that "God" was the cause. So basically we enter on the philosophical problem called "Existence of God". Basically what happens?
In favor of the existence of God people claim that there was a "first cause". Other arguments are also "University Complexity" and let me tell you complexity is all over the world and I seriously don't understand why it should be related to God. The "mind-body problem" where God defenders claim to be better understood by believing in God.
Just some deductive arguments against God existence, something that in favor arguments don't have and by this I mean deduction.
- The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to the argument from design. The argument from design claims that a complex or ordered structure must be designed. However, a god that is responsible for the creation of a universe would be at least as complicated as the universe that it creates. Therefore, it too must require a designer. And its designer would require a designer also, ad infinitum. The argument for the existence of god is then a logical fallacy with or without the use of special pleading. The Ultimate 747 gambit points out that God does not provide an origin of complexity, it simply assumes that complexity always existed. It also states that design fails to account for complexity, which natural selection can explain.
- The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: "Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than itself?".
- Another argument suggests that there is a contradiction between God being omniscient and omnipotent, basically asking "how can an all-knowing being change its mind?" See the article on omniscience for details.
- The problem of hell is that some consider the existence of Hell in several religions to be morally indefensible, or inconsistent with God's omnibenevolence or omnipresence. [To be honest this argument isn't that strong since you must assume there is hell and to me there is no hell or heaven.]
- The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will - or has allotted the same freedom to his creations - by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. According to the argument, if God already knows the future, then humanity is destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore our free will contradicts an omniscient god. Another argument attacks the existence of an omniscient god who has free will directly in arguing that the will of God himself would be bound to follow whatever God foreknows himself doing in eternity future.
- The Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God contests the existence of an intelligent creator by suggesting that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science. A more general line of argument based on this argument seeks to generalize this argument to all necessary features of the universe and all god-concepts.
- The counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") takes its assumption that things cannot exist without creators and applies it to God, setting up an infinite regress. This attacks the premise that the universe is the second cause (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause).
- Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable by scientific tests. [Which I've stated earlier in this post]
Not a deductive but inductive argument which I believe also to be good is:
The "no reason" argument tries to show that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically by creating the universe, because it would have no needs, wants, or desires since these very concepts are subjectively human. As the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist.
Empirical Reasons:
Empirical arguments
Empirical arguments depend on empirical data in order to prove their conclusions.
* The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures — such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an — by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts. To be effective this argument requires the other side to hold that its scriptural record is inerrant, or to conflate the record itself with the God it describes.
* The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.
* The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that life-forms, including humans, seem to exhibit poor design.
* The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.
* The argument from parsimony contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods,[23] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.
* It is argued that belief in God does not help make accurate predictions of future events in the real world, so Occam's Razor may be applied to eliminate this unnecessary hypothesis.
* The analogy of Russell's teapot argues that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the theist rather than the atheist.
Conclusion
No, God has not left His name etched onto the surface of planets. However, there is abundant evidence that the universe was designed by super intelligent Agent, who purposed that the universe should exist and be capable of supporting advanced life. The design of the universe is just one line of evidence that God created the universe. The design of the earth and solar system is also quite impressive. Likewise, chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that life evolved on earth. In addition, human beings are remarkably different from every other animal on earth, suggesting a departure from naturalistic processes.
The design? Is that the evidence you have from God? The design of my new car is awesome, god did my car and it's awesome design that's why I believe in God.
Humans are being remarkably different from every other animal on earth.
Natural Selection and Darwinian Evolution explain that.
Conclusion:
To me this discussion is futile and this post had one purpose, to show you that your beliefs have no logical or deductive explanation. I don't really care about this question because at the end of the day it's up to each one to decide if they do or do not believe in god. I prefer to stick with things that I can prove logically, test, touch, see, etc. Others prefer to believe in something they don't see, they never had a proof of, etc.
To me the deductive arguments against God Existence are more than enough to prove that God does not exist, I don't really ask myself "What's my purpose on Earth?", " What am I supposed to do?" etc...
And honestly I don't fear death, hell or anything. How was it before living? The same way to me it will be after dying.
Now related to the Big Bang, I strongly agree with this theory mainly because I've been studying science since I remember and it makes sense and is a theory that actually has enough proof. What hasn't been explained so far, will be explained. That's how it works, you have a problem you develop a theory and test it. If it verifies then you've solved your problem other than that you keep trying.
To me what Theism does is to attack Science non-discoveries the problem is that Theism is getting less and less to criticize and that has made several religion leaders to change their view towards Science.
On a side note I've changed my view from agnostic to Apatheism.
Now the disclaimer.
DISCLAIMER:
- I do not hold any grudge towards anyone.
- This is my personal view on this matter, respect it.
- If you don't like it, well I don't care.
- Don't ask questions before reading twice.
- If you want to criticize go ahead, you can criticize my personal opinion but it won't change, you can criticize facts but like I've learned "You can't argue facts"
- Definitions of all words I believe to be important will be posted below.
- Definitions of all terms used above will be posted below.
- Definitions of scientific words/terms will also be posted below.
- All websites will be posted below.
- Scientific Information posted has been tested and so is considered as scientific truth.
- Be open minded while reading my post.
- Being closed-minded won't help you at all, knowledge isn't about liking or not is about understanding other's opinions and to acknowledge them. You may not like what I'm saying but acknowledge my opinion and I'm sure you'll learn something.
Definitions:
Scientific:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Features.2C_issues_and_problems
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis
"God":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Definition_of_God.27s_existence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
Words definitions:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empirical
That's all.
