Top 10 Scientific Proofs of God’s Existence

[toobfreak]

"The temperature in outer space is generally 2.73 Kelvin (-270.42 Celsius, -454.75 Fahrenheit). This is actually the temperature of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is spread throughout the universe."

Yes, but that is a measure of HEAT.

 

[ding]

Yes, but that is a measure of HEAT.

He has a problem admitting that he is wrong.

 

[toobfreak]

He has a problem admitting that he is wrong.

Like so many tards, I don't think he has the brains to really comprehend scientific concepts he tries to talk about.

 

[emilynghiem]

Many atheists want to have proofs of God's existence.
In my opinion the information from below is one of the bests in internet
Also, guys, read, think about and ask God for forgiveness of your sins
And begin to read the Holy Bible

Gods Existence-
I often get the “Prove to me God exists” question, usually from people who really do not desire any answers. However, there is occasionally a few who really want to know…This info is based upon about 6 hours of condensed note taking…Hopefully it will be instrumental in your ministry as well…
Technically, “Proof” (like a picture or video tape) is non-existent any more than I can technically “prove” that Washington was president…There are writings that can be cited that will support his presidency and are accepted as fact but technically I believe that Washington was president because I have read the accounts and writings of those present in that day who have documented the history and I believe what has been presented to me as fact. It is a given however, that History is MUCH different than Science.
I have had many of the same questions myself that people ask me concerning science and God. I am an analytical person and am not satisfied with only someone else’s experience and faith as a basis for my own beliefs. I believe that there is nothing wrong with faith, but blind faith without logical analysis or deductive reasoning can be very dangerous and even naïve in some circumstances. I have studied extensively on the subject of God’s existence and actually have a lot of material to reference (books, audio series, notes, etc)…Some of which is so deep that I don’t really understand it completely myself with examples dealing with Quantum Physics and such…but in my studies I have never been diligent enough to write down or organize my notes…Until now…
I do not take credit for any of this material, most all of it is taken from my notes and personal recollection of information that I have listened to and read from several sources…Some of the commentary is mine, but nearly all of the information in this outline comes from an audio series titled Top Ten Proofs by a Detroit radio host named Bob Dutko. If you are interested in owning the audio CD teachings on this subject, they can be purchased at this web-site (www.toptenproofs.com). There are several other topics of study that he addresses in this series but much of the “info” below comes from his audio CD titled top 10 proofs of God’s Existence.
I wrote this info in outline form in an attempt to shorten it and still relay the content. The content is almost completely referencing scientific justifications for God’s existence and not simply “faith based” revelation.
I believe, in order to establish any “faith” in God, there must first be an understanding of TRUTH that there IS A GOD…If a person has never had an “experience” justifying that “truth” then, for many, there must be legitimate scientific evidence presented in order for faith to have a foundation on which to build…Hopefully, this outline will be a basis for that.
So I start with the most simple of scientific questions:
What is science?
Science, by definition, is formulating a hypothesis or theory based upon observation, testing or the ability to make predictions.
I am convinced that a belief in God is, IN FACT, Scientific and that science DOES back up and prove that there is a God…Here are some of my reasoning’s for that belief system
1. The Scientific law –The First Law of Thermodynamics…
a. Scientific conservation of energy law which states that in the universe we have matter and energy and that matter or energy can be converted into each other but cannot be created from nothing. This law also states that matter or energy cannot be destroyed to the point where it ceases to exist, it can only take on different forms…
b. Now consider the entire universe and all of the matter and energy in it…if there is NO GOD…then Scientifically, the universe cannot exist…otherwise it would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics because science states that “something” in our universe and within the laws of science cannot come from “nothing”…This is the FIRST law of thermodynamics and all scientific law about matter and energy are based upon this first laws foundation.
c. The Big Bang theory does not support this law. Science has proven that the universe is expanding and theorize that everything came from a small “dot” of compressed matter which exploded into what is now our expanding universe…The reason that they teach this theory and the fact that the universe came from the explosion of this compressed “Dot” is because of the first law of thermodynamics…without that compressed dot, the first law of thermodynamics collapses. But still, that theory is self defeating because the compressed “dot” that held the universe and exploded, still contradicts The First Law of Thermodynamics, because matter, regardless of how small or compact, according to scientific law, cannot come from nothing…
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics-
a. Scientific Heat law- which states that everything will move toward a state of equilibrium. For instance, take a cup of hot coffee and a cup of ice and set them together on the same table…Assuming there are no outside influences (which is called a “closed system” in science and scientists who do not believe in God’s existence or influence would concur that the universe is a closed system), over time, both will equalize to the same temperature and reach a state of heat equilibrium.
b. Also within the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a principle that states that things move from order to chaos, degrade, become sloppier and ultimately move toward a state of entropy. A simple example of this is, if you were to have a stack of papers on your desk at work, as people walk by, and the wind blows, over time your desk will become messier as the papers slowly move from a state of order to mess, they will NEVER become straighter or neater over time as this would become a violation of the law of entropy within the second law of thermodynamics…with this law understood scientifically, if there were no God, and the universe is a closed system with no outside influence, when the “big bang” took place 15 billion years ago, the universe could not have gone from an explosion to order…this argument violates scientific law…Explosions cannot turn into order scientifically.
i. Considering these first 2 laws, occasionally scientists who believe in a closed system will argue under the first law of thermodynamics that perhaps all the matter in the universe always existed…However, the second law of thermodynamics invalidates that theory because if everything in the universe always existed, we would no longer have disparity of heat in the universe. Over the course of “forever” we would have achieved heat death and everything in the universe would be the same temperature based upon the second law of thermodynamics…But as we know, that is not the case in the universe…there are stars that burn at different temperatures and galaxies with varying heats depending upon their distance from their star. We also see comets which are balls of icy matter existing in the same universe …which are the equivalent of the hot coffee and ice cups on the same table…so they could not have been here forever because the second law of thermodynamics disproves that within a closed system without having reached a place of equilibrium by now not to mention the fact that the universe could not have reached this level of complexity from an explosion based upon the law of entropy within the second law of thermodynamics…
3. Based upon scientific law, “Life cannot come from Non-life”
a. This is called A-biogenesis and is unscientific.
i. Science, by definition, is formulating a hypothesis or theory based upon observation, testing or the ability to make predictions.
1. Discredit 1- Science is a hypothesis based upon observation- has anyone ever observed life coming into existence from non-life? The answer is no, it has never been observed in any laboratory in history.
2. Discredit 2- Is there any test that can be done that will produce life from non-life? The answer again is No.
3. Discredit 3- Is there any predictions that can be made that will produce life from non-life…Again, No…so based upon scientific law A-biogenesis is an unscientific hypothesis.
b. With this said, based upon the definition of science, the scientists who hold strongly to the belief that Life came from Non-life (a-biogenesis) are not being “scientific’ at all in their assessment of what they say they believe. But what seems even more controversial, is that they then accuse Christian beliefs of being unscientific.
c. Because life has NEVER came into being from non-life scientifically, believing that there is a God is in fact scientific because we know scientifically that the laws of science will not allow life to come from non-life. So it is a scientific conclusion that there must be a “being” capable of creating life from non-life.

.................................
...............................

You can continue to read here:

Top 10 Scientific Proofs of God’s Existence

tattoopreacher.com

AnkitDS BreezeWood

 

[JoeBlow]

Many atheists want to have proofs of God's existence.
In my opinion the information from below is one of the bests in internet
Also, guys, read, think about and ask God for forgiveness of your sins
And begin to read the Holy Bible

Gods Existence-
I often get the “Prove to me God exists” question, usually from people who really do not desire any answers. However, there is occasionally a few who really want to know…This info is based upon about 6 hours of condensed note taking…Hopefully it will be instrumental in your ministry as well…
Technically, “Proof” (like a picture or video tape) is non-existent any more than I can technically “prove” that Washington was president…There are writings that can be cited that will support his presidency and are accepted as fact but technically I believe that Washington was president because I have read the accounts and writings of those present in that day who have documented the history and I believe what has been presented to me as fact. It is a given however, that History is MUCH different than Science.
I have had many of the same questions myself that people ask me concerning science and God. I am an analytical person and am not satisfied with only someone else’s experience and faith as a basis for my own beliefs. I believe that there is nothing wrong with faith, but blind faith without logical analysis or deductive reasoning can be very dangerous and even naïve in some circumstances. I have studied extensively on the subject of God’s existence and actually have a lot of material to reference (books, audio series, notes, etc)…Some of which is so deep that I don’t really understand it completely myself with examples dealing with Quantum Physics and such…but in my studies I have never been diligent enough to write down or organize my notes…Until now…
I do not take credit for any of this material, most all of it is taken from my notes and personal recollection of information that I have listened to and read from several sources…Some of the commentary is mine, but nearly all of the information in this outline comes from an audio series titled Top Ten Proofs by a Detroit radio host named Bob Dutko. If you are interested in owning the audio CD teachings on this subject, they can be purchased at this web-site (www.toptenproofs.com). There are several other topics of study that he addresses in this series but much of the “info” below comes from his audio CD titled top 10 proofs of God’s Existence.
I wrote this info in outline form in an attempt to shorten it and still relay the content. The content is almost completely referencing scientific justifications for God’s existence and not simply “faith based” revelation.
I believe, in order to establish any “faith” in God, there must first be an understanding of TRUTH that there IS A GOD…If a person has never had an “experience” justifying that “truth” then, for many, there must be legitimate scientific evidence presented in order for faith to have a foundation on which to build…Hopefully, this outline will be a basis for that.
So I start with the most simple of scientific questions:
What is science?
Science, by definition, is formulating a hypothesis or theory based upon observation, testing or the ability to make predictions.
I am convinced that a belief in God is, IN FACT, Scientific and that science DOES back up and prove that there is a God…Here are some of my reasoning’s for that belief system
1. The Scientific law –The First Law of Thermodynamics…
a. Scientific conservation of energy law which states that in the universe we have matter and energy and that matter or energy can be converted into each other but cannot be created from nothing. This law also states that matter or energy cannot be destroyed to the point where it ceases to exist, it can only take on different forms…
b. Now consider the entire universe and all of the matter and energy in it…if there is NO GOD…then Scientifically, the universe cannot exist…otherwise it would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics because science states that “something” in our universe and within the laws of science cannot come from “nothing”…This is the FIRST law of thermodynamics and all scientific law about matter and energy are based upon this first laws foundation.
c. The Big Bang theory does not support this law. Science has proven that the universe is expanding and theorize that everything came from a small “dot” of compressed matter which exploded into what is now our expanding universe…The reason that they teach this theory and the fact that the universe came from the explosion of this compressed “Dot” is because of the first law of thermodynamics…without that compressed dot, the first law of thermodynamics collapses. But still, that theory is self defeating because the compressed “dot” that held the universe and exploded, still contradicts The First Law of Thermodynamics, because matter, regardless of how small or compact, according to scientific law, cannot come from nothing…
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics-
a. Scientific Heat law- which states that everything will move toward a state of equilibrium. For instance, take a cup of hot coffee and a cup of ice and set them together on the same table…Assuming there are no outside influences (which is called a “closed system” in science and scientists who do not believe in God’s existence or influence would concur that the universe is a closed system), over time, both will equalize to the same temperature and reach a state of heat equilibrium.
b. Also within the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a principle that states that things move from order to chaos, degrade, become sloppier and ultimately move toward a state of entropy. A simple example of this is, if you were to have a stack of papers on your desk at work, as people walk by, and the wind blows, over time your desk will become messier as the papers slowly move from a state of order to mess, they will NEVER become straighter or neater over time as this would become a violation of the law of entropy within the second law of thermodynamics…with this law understood scientifically, if there were no God, and the universe is a closed system with no outside influence, when the “big bang” took place 15 billion years ago, the universe could not have gone from an explosion to order…this argument violates scientific law…Explosions cannot turn into order scientifically.
i. Considering these first 2 laws, occasionally scientists who believe in a closed system will argue under the first law of thermodynamics that perhaps all the matter in the universe always existed…However, the second law of thermodynamics invalidates that theory because if everything in the universe always existed, we would no longer have disparity of heat in the universe. Over the course of “forever” we would have achieved heat death and everything in the universe would be the same temperature based upon the second law of thermodynamics…But as we know, that is not the case in the universe…there are stars that burn at different temperatures and galaxies with varying heats depending upon their distance from their star. We also see comets which are balls of icy matter existing in the same universe …which are the equivalent of the hot coffee and ice cups on the same table…so they could not have been here forever because the second law of thermodynamics disproves that within a closed system without having reached a place of equilibrium by now not to mention the fact that the universe could not have reached this level of complexity from an explosion based upon the law of entropy within the second law of thermodynamics…
3. Based upon scientific law, “Life cannot come from Non-life”
a. This is called A-biogenesis and is unscientific.
i. Science, by definition, is formulating a hypothesis or theory based upon observation, testing or the ability to make predictions.
1. Discredit 1- Science is a hypothesis based upon observation- has anyone ever observed life coming into existence from non-life? The answer is no, it has never been observed in any laboratory in history.
2. Discredit 2- Is there any test that can be done that will produce life from non-life? The answer again is No.
3. Discredit 3- Is there any predictions that can be made that will produce life from non-life…Again, No…so based upon scientific law A-biogenesis is an unscientific hypothesis.
b. With this said, based upon the definition of science, the scientists who hold strongly to the belief that Life came from Non-life (a-biogenesis) are not being “scientific’ at all in their assessment of what they say they believe. But what seems even more controversial, is that they then accuse Christian beliefs of being unscientific.
c. Because life has NEVER came into being from non-life scientifically, believing that there is a God is in fact scientific because we know scientifically that the laws of science will not allow life to come from non-life. So it is a scientific conclusion that there must be a “being” capable of creating life from non-life.

.................................
...............................

You can continue to read here:

Top 10 Scientific Proofs of God’s Existence

tattoopreacher.com

1. We don't know where the BB came from, that doesn't prove an invisible superbeing. It can be a theory like the ones science currently has. But they don't pretend to know for sure. Do you pretend to know for sure that an invisible superbeing poofed everything into existence?
2. It was around 400 million years after the BB that the gas started to clump up and form stars. The elements we have today came from those early exploding stars.
3. is bullshit, because we haven't figured out the process yet it can't exist? Nope. Gravity existed before we figured it out.

 

[ding]

1. We don't know where the BB came from, that doesn't prove an invisible superbeing. It can be a theory like the ones science currently has. But they don't pretend to know for sure. Do you pretend to know for sure that an invisible superbeing poofed everything into existence?
2. It was around 400 million years after the BB that the gas started to clump up and form stars. The elements we have today came from those early exploding stars.
3. is bullshit, because we haven't figured out the process yet it can't exist? Nope. Gravity existed before we figured it out.

<ahem>

The spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

 

[JoeBlow]

<ahem>

The spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

Do you even read your own links?

“An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given”,

An idea. No proof.

 

[ding]

Do you even read your own links?

“An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given”,

An idea. No proof.

Why didn't you keep reading, dummy?

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE).

 

[FA_Q2]

Why didn't you keep reading, dummy?

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE).

Funny, you seem to be conflating proof in a scientific sense with proof in a mathematical sense.

 

[ding]

Funny, you seem to be conflating proof in a scientific sense with proof in a mathematical sense.

It's both. And it's not conflation, it's confirmation. And it's not me doing it, it's the scientific community doing it. The scientific basis is red shift, inflation, quantum mechanics, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equation and the cosmic background radiation.

 

[Stann]

Many atheists want to have proofs of God's existence.
In my opinion the information from below is one of the bests in internet
Also, guys, read, think about and ask God for forgiveness of your sins
And begin to read the Holy Bible

Gods Existence-
I often get the “Prove to me God exists” question, usually from people who really do not desire any answers. However, there is occasionally a few who really want to know…This info is based upon about 6 hours of condensed note taking…Hopefully it will be instrumental in your ministry as well…
Technically, “Proof” (like a picture or video tape) is non-existent any more than I can technically “prove” that Washington was president…There are writings that can be cited that will support his presidency and are accepted as fact but technically I believe that Washington was president because I have read the accounts and writings of those present in that day who have documented the history and I believe what has been presented to me as fact. It is a given however, that History is MUCH different than Science.
I have had many of the same questions myself that people ask me concerning science and God. I am an analytical person and am not satisfied with only someone else’s experience and faith as a basis for my own beliefs. I believe that there is nothing wrong with faith, but blind faith without logical analysis or deductive reasoning can be very dangerous and even naïve in some circumstances. I have studied extensively on the subject of God’s existence and actually have a lot of material to reference (books, audio series, notes, etc)…Some of which is so deep that I don’t really understand it completely myself with examples dealing with Quantum Physics and such…but in my studies I have never been diligent enough to write down or organize my notes…Until now…
I do not take credit for any of this material, most all of it is taken from my notes and personal recollection of information that I have listened to and read from several sources…Some of the commentary is mine, but nearly all of the information in this outline comes from an audio series titled Top Ten Proofs by a Detroit radio host named Bob Dutko. If you are interested in owning the audio CD teachings on this subject, they can be purchased at this web-site (www.toptenproofs.com). There are several other topics of study that he addresses in this series but much of the “info” below comes from his audio CD titled top 10 proofs of God’s Existence.
I wrote this info in outline form in an attempt to shorten it and still relay the content. The content is almost completely referencing scientific justifications for God’s existence and not simply “faith based” revelation.
I believe, in order to establish any “faith” in God, there must first be an understanding of TRUTH that there IS A GOD…If a person has never had an “experience” justifying that “truth” then, for many, there must be legitimate scientific evidence presented in order for faith to have a foundation on which to build…Hopefully, this outline will be a basis for that.
So I start with the most simple of scientific questions:
What is science?
Science, by definition, is formulating a hypothesis or theory based upon observation, testing or the ability to make predictions.
I am convinced that a belief in God is, IN FACT, Scientific and that science DOES back up and prove that there is a God…Here are some of my reasoning’s for that belief system
1. The Scientific law –The First Law of Thermodynamics…
a. Scientific conservation of energy law which states that in the universe we have matter and energy and that matter or energy can be converted into each other but cannot be created from nothing. This law also states that matter or energy cannot be destroyed to the point where it ceases to exist, it can only take on different forms…
b. Now consider the entire universe and all of the matter and energy in it…if there is NO GOD…then Scientifically, the universe cannot exist…otherwise it would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics because science states that “something” in our universe and within the laws of science cannot come from “nothing”…This is the FIRST law of thermodynamics and all scientific law about matter and energy are based upon this first laws foundation.
c. The Big Bang theory does not support this law. Science has proven that the universe is expanding and theorize that everything came from a small “dot” of compressed matter which exploded into what is now our expanding universe…The reason that they teach this theory and the fact that the universe came from the explosion of this compressed “Dot” is because of the first law of thermodynamics…without that compressed dot, the first law of thermodynamics collapses. But still, that theory is self defeating because the compressed “dot” that held the universe and exploded, still contradicts The First Law of Thermodynamics, because matter, regardless of how small or compact, according to scientific law, cannot come from nothing…
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics-
a. Scientific Heat law- which states that everything will move toward a state of equilibrium. For instance, take a cup of hot coffee and a cup of ice and set them together on the same table…Assuming there are no outside influences (which is called a “closed system” in science and scientists who do not believe in God’s existence or influence would concur that the universe is a closed system), over time, both will equalize to the same temperature and reach a state of heat equilibrium.
b. Also within the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a principle that states that things move from order to chaos, degrade, become sloppier and ultimately move toward a state of entropy. A simple example of this is, if you were to have a stack of papers on your desk at work, as people walk by, and the wind blows, over time your desk will become messier as the papers slowly move from a state of order to mess, they will NEVER become straighter or neater over time as this would become a violation of the law of entropy within the second law of thermodynamics…with this law understood scientifically, if there were no God, and the universe is a closed system with no outside influence, when the “big bang” took place 15 billion years ago, the universe could not have gone from an explosion to order…this argument violates scientific law…Explosions cannot turn into order scientifically.
i. Considering these first 2 laws, occasionally scientists who believe in a closed system will argue under the first law of thermodynamics that perhaps all the matter in the universe always existed…However, the second law of thermodynamics invalidates that theory because if everything in the universe always existed, we would no longer have disparity of heat in the universe. Over the course of “forever” we would have achieved heat death and everything in the universe would be the same temperature based upon the second law of thermodynamics…But as we know, that is not the case in the universe…there are stars that burn at different temperatures and galaxies with varying heats depending upon their distance from their star. We also see comets which are balls of icy matter existing in the same universe …which are the equivalent of the hot coffee and ice cups on the same table…so they could not have been here forever because the second law of thermodynamics disproves that within a closed system without having reached a place of equilibrium by now not to mention the fact that the universe could not have reached this level of complexity from an explosion based upon the law of entropy within the second law of thermodynamics…
3. Based upon scientific law, “Life cannot come from Non-life”
a. This is called A-biogenesis and is unscientific.
i. Science, by definition, is formulating a hypothesis or theory based upon observation, testing or the ability to make predictions.
1. Discredit 1- Science is a hypothesis based upon observation- has anyone ever observed life coming into existence from non-life? The answer is no, it has never been observed in any laboratory in history.
2. Discredit 2- Is there any test that can be done that will produce life from non-life? The answer again is No.
3. Discredit 3- Is there any predictions that can be made that will produce life from non-life…Again, No…so based upon scientific law A-biogenesis is an unscientific hypothesis.
b. With this said, based upon the definition of science, the scientists who hold strongly to the belief that Life came from Non-life (a-biogenesis) are not being “scientific’ at all in their assessment of what they say they believe. But what seems even more controversial, is that they then accuse Christian beliefs of being unscientific.
c. Because life has NEVER came into being from non-life scientifically, believing that there is a God is in fact scientific because we know scientifically that the laws of science will not allow life to come from non-life. So it is a scientific conclusion that there must be a “being” capable of creating life from non-life.

.................................
...............................

You can continue to read here:

Top 10 Scientific Proofs of God’s Existence

tattoopreacher.com

Why do you attribute these natural laws to God ? You could have just as easily attributed them to evolution. Belief in God is just that a belief, God is not of this world therefore it cannot be proven.

 

[JoeBlow]

Why didn't you keep reading, dummy?

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE).

C'mon, you're not seriously going to claim that the universe was created out of nothing because of an equation?

 

[ding]

C'mon, you're not seriously going to claim that the universe was created out of nothing because of an equation?

That's just the confirmation of the data. The data shows the universe was created from nothing. That's why they did this work in the first place. They went where the data took them. Stop being a fundie.

 

[JoeBlow]

That's just the confirmation of the data. The data shows the universe was created from nothing. That's why they did this work in the first place. They went where the data took them. Stop being a fundie.

Nope, we don't know how the universe started because we can't see that far back yet, anyone who says they know is a jackass. It's a theory, that's all. You must be some kind of crazy Christian Scientist...

From your site "Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv.". So they'll publish anything, lol

 

[ding]

Nope, we don't know how the universe started because we can't see that far back yet, anyone who says they know is a jackass. It's a theory, that's all. You must be some kind of crazy Christian Scientist...

From your site "Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv.". So they'll publish anything, lol

Taz, we do know how the universe began. Paired particle production which left the cosmic background radiation signature.

 

[JoeBlow]

Taz, we do know how the universe began. Paired particle production which left the cosmic background radiation signature.

You can't possibly think that we can tell how the universe started by one colored blob photo? Too simplistic, even for you.

 

[ding]

You can't possibly think that we can tell how the universe started by one colored blob photo? Too simplistic, even for you.

How else did that blob get there other than mutual annihilation of paired particles?

 

[JoeBlow]

How else did that blob get there other than mutual annihilation of paired particles?

You're talking about that blob picture being proof of where the universe came from? Um...no.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's both. And it's not conflation, it's confirmation. And it's not me doing it, it's the scientific community doing it. The scientific basis is red shift, inflation, quantum mechanics, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equation and the cosmic background radiation.

Both.

Something is both a mathematical proof and a scientific proof.....

LOL, you have no idea what those terms mean then.

 

[ding]

Both.

Something is both a mathematical proof and a scientific proof.....

LOL, you have no idea what those terms mean then.

Says the anonymous poster arguing against a published paper on the origin of the universe by renowned physicists without offering an alternative explanation for the origin of the universe.