It's official: SCIENCE says God is real

[ZroC]

I've no stake in this. I just thought it was interesting.

The actual WSJ article is behind a pay wall
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place - science itself.

But you can read about it here.
http://www.biznews.com/undictated/2014/12/31/alec-hogg-science-switches-now-makes-the-case-for-god/


That’s nothing, though, compared with conditions required for the universe itself to exist. The odds of them occurring simultaneously are one in 100 000 000 000 000 000. (17 noughts). That’s the same as a randomly tossed coin coming up heads 10 quintillion times in a row.

These latest developments have rocked science to its core. Most famously, writes Metaxas, the beliefs of astronomer Fred Hoyle who coined the term “big bang.” Hoyle admits his atheism has been “greatly shaken by developments…. a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics……the numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

 

[kahiljabroni]

Congratulations

 

[TSO]

I find it hilarious when religious people try to math.

 

[Madmick]

Here is the reprint of the WSJ Christmas Day article in full (permission bestowed by Metaxas):
http://www.biznews.com/thought-lead...ow-science-now-supports-the-existence-of-god/
Now that we have actual source material for the forum to openly inspect we can keep the thread.

I find it hilarious when religious people try to math.

As usual...you offer nothing but empty sarcasm.

 

[hitcher]

Check Mate Atheists.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That

 

[UpaLoompa]

As usual...you offer nothing but empty sarcasm.

In this case he's pretty much right.

 

[Snackbar]

I find it hilarious when religious people try to math.

Great rebuttal. That grade 10 education is paying off in spades I see.

 

[Banchan]

My old church in Korea had the best potlucks. I would go back to attending regular service for the food alone.

 

[FinalFight]

I'll wait for a peer reviewed article if there is one.

 

[Madmick]

In this case he's pretty much right.

Anyone who knows my post history knows my position...but I'd love to hear him sound it out without any assistance.

 

[lts5025]

A response to the article by an actual scientist.

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/12/letter-to-the-editor/

 

[AdamNewsome666]

Which God is that?

 

[ultramanhyata]

I don't think this article comes as a surprise to those of us who've sought to approach the question of biologic origins rationally and impartially.

I began, personally, with a strong, strong faith in an intelligent, creating agency who was a benevolent, intercessory, Father-God creator - one who desired to reveal Himself to mankind and establish relationship with us.

The evidence, the reality of the human condition, led me to an anguishing rejection of this interpretation of the creator.

However, the statistical evidence for a creating agency - of some kind - has remained untouched, or I should say greatly enhanced, as I've gone ever deeper into the current science. Particularly aspects of quantum mechanics and the ideas of Michio Kaku. To say nothing of the entirely self-refuting theory of mutation and selection as the driver of evolution.

But I'm afraid that in the same way that most Father-God theists will desperately cling to that conclusion despite the mountains of empirical evidence against it, the majority of atheistic science cultists will continue to cling to their own dogma, in spite of the insurmountable problem of probabilities.

 

[UpaLoompa]

To say nothing of the entirely self-refuting theory of mutation and selection as the driver of evolution.

Self-refuting? No, not at all.

But I'm afraid that in the same way that most Father-God theists will desperately cling to that conclusion despite the mountains of empirical evidence against it, the majority of atheistic science cultists will continue to cling to their own dogma, in spite of the insurmountable problem of probabilities.

You mean misestimated probabilities that fail to understand when multiplication should be used?

 

[genecop]

I believe.....would it not be some shit if after all the science and research, the Bible in some context turns out be the blueprint for creation...

 

[Bob Charlie]

How many coin tosses can be performed in infinity amount of time? What is the probability of any potential result in a span of infinity?

 

[Orgasmo]

I believe.....would it not be some shit if after all the science and research, the Bible in some context turns out be the blueprint for creation...

It's a shitty work of fiction that belongs in the dollar bin at the book store.

 

[genecop]

It's a shitty work of fiction that belongs in the dollar bin at the book store.

Shitty? I think Steven King himself would have been honored to have sold as many copies as the Shitty Bible.....it might turn out to be all bullshit, but it definately was a marketing success....

 

[KILL KILL]

Edit