Scientific Proof of God;
Archaeological Proof of Bible
Scientific Proof for the Existence of God
There are no conflicts with Scripture and Nature. Both are the work of God.
There are conflicts with theology and science because:
Theology is man's study of God's inspired scriptures
Science is man's study of God's created natural world
Both groups, theologians and scientist) are subject to error -
Galileo (1564-1642) was kept under house arrest by the church for eight years for supporting the Copernican theory that stated that the earth revolved around the sun.
Science once believed in the eternal cosmos. They taught that the universe had always existed up until the days of Einstein and Hubble.
Either group is subject to correction by the other
Science has refuted the flat earth theory so theologians can no longer use the scriptural referring to the "four corners of the earth" as literal.
Science held to spontaneous generation into the mid-1800's even though scripture taught God made animal life to reproduce "according to their kind."
The Bible is not a science textbook, but it is scientifically accurate.
Science is constantly in the process of developing
Bertrand Russell wrote in 1935 that science had successively refuted all the main tenets of religion.
He explained that the modern understanding of the universe was the product of two major scientific revolutions:
The Copernican, that showed that humanity was not the center of the universe as the Bible taught.
The Darwinian, that demonstrated that it was no longer necessary to posit an act of divine creation to explain the origins of human life.
Sigmund Freud then nominated his own discovery of the "unconscious" as a third revolution
Upon these discoveries, Russell then described humanity as a "curious accident in a backwater."
The above numbers 1 and 2 gave Friedrich Nietzsche the confidence in 1885 to say what many people in the Western world were thinking: "God is dead."
In 1917 Einstein published his theory of relativity and tried to conform it to the cosmology of the day which was the Static Universe Theory. (This theory taught that the universe was infinite in age and had always existed. Stars drifted randomly. The Milky Way was all there was.) But, Einstein's general relativity equations demanded that the universe had a beginning. In 1927, Edwin Hubble's telescope showed there were galaxies far outside our own. This was exactly what Einstein's theory had predicted. Science then took a 180 degree turn and needed to develop what became known as the Big Bang Theory. Einstein wrote after looking through Hubble's telescope that it was his desire "to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thought, the rest are details."
A periodical from July 2000 called Science lists these recently establsished facts that are demanding a response:
If the physical forces within stars wree only slightly different, our universe would be almost devoid of carbon and oxygen, and life would not exist.
If gravity was slightly stronger, all stars would be red dwarfs, too cold to support life.
If gravity was slightly weaker, all stars would be blue giants, burning too briefly for life to develop.
The mass of the neutron in an atom is delicately balanced with the mass of the proton; if it were not protons would decay into neutrons and make life impossible.
This same article had these quotes from scientist in it:
"I am not a religious person, but I could say this universe is designed very well for the existence of life."
"The basic forces in the universe are tailor-made for the production of . . . carbon-based life."
"Imagine a univers-creating machine, with thousands of dials representing the gravitational constant, the charge on the electron, the mass of the proton, and so on. Each dial has many possible settings, and even the slightest change would make a universe where life was impossible."
"The laws of the universe are cunningly contrived to coax life into being." They "somehow know in advance about life and its vast complexity."
The Templeton prize-winner for 2000 says, "the universe in some sense must have known we were coming."
If the nineteenth century's understanding of the universe had been at today's level we would have avoided the entire "death of God" phase of Western history.
Here are somemore facts concerning the perfect balance of our universe for life to exist:
21% of gases are oxygen. If it was 25% fires would break out spontaneously around the globe. If it were 15% higher life would suffocate.
If protons were not almost exactly 1,836 times heavier than electrons molecules would not be able to form and there would be no chemistry, no life and no one to wonder why.
The position and angle of the earth is set. A few degrees closer we disintegrate. A few degrees away we become a frozen rock.
The 23 degree axis of the earth provides equal distribution of sun and makes possible the food chain.
The atomic clock is the most accurate time instrument we have invented. They are accurate up to within 3 seconds a millennium. We use the rotation of the stars to set and chech these clocks.
After 150 years of study, fossil records are beginning to agree with scripture's account that life forms appeared abruptlly with no transitional forms.
Scientist today who reject the concept of God scramble to craft alternative explanations for the obvious existence of God. They have come up with a variety of ways to explain how life and the universe came into existence without God. Each of their reasons agrees with Romans 1:21,22: "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools." Here is what the fools in science are saying:
There are "many worlds" and infinite universes. The odds are one would produce life eventually. We were the lucky universe. (Now, if that is good science then the lottery is a logical thing to invest in.)
The zillions of universes are like bubbles in foam. Each one contains more and more little bubbles. (To believe this takes more faith (more blind faith) than any religious explanation. Thus, we see that this phase of science has entered the realm of religion. )
All possible states of a quantum interaction have to be actualized, so that slightly different versions of our universe are constantly splitting off - creating a near-infinitude of new universes every moment. (One scientists points out that this statement is not science when he says, "Invoking an infinitude of unobservable universes to explain the one observable univers is a grotesque violation." Remember science is based in observation.)
Life must have been sent here in a spaceship from a dying civilization and perhaps just the astronauts bacteria survived the journey. Two physicists conclude that just the genetic material was sent here in the first place. Both of these last two ideas come from scientists who have earned Nobel prizes and discovered natural laws. (With this kind of science we are clearly headed back into the dark ages. Bring your flashlights!)
BOOKS from Galyn's Shelf:(back to the top)
"Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament" by Philip Wesley Comfort
"How We Got the Bible" by Neil R. Lightfoot
"Books and Their Makers in the Middle Ages" by Geo. Haven Putnam
"Light from the Ancient East" by Adolf Deissmann
QUESTIONS(back to the top)
Does archeology confirm the Old Testament's accuracy?
What is the Masoretic Text?
What are some of names of the text forms or translations that preserve the ancient Old Testament?
Give examples of how Jesus used the Old Testament as historical.
What do these theories of the origin of the universe all have in common: Big Bang, Oscillation Theory and Static Universe?
How does cause (cosmological) and design (teleological) reasoning prove the existence of a God?
Give an example of science being proved wrong by the Scriptures.
Give an example of theology or scriptural interpretation being proved wrong by a scientific discovery.