But possibly. At one time, people thought nature didn’t extend past Earth. I see no reason why nature should be defined as just our universe.
Here we are on a tiny planet, orbiting a medium sized star, which is just about one of about 250 billion in our galaxy and that galaxy is just one in a super-cluster of about 50,000 other galaxies, which is 110 million light years across and there are about 10 million of these super-clusters in the visible universe.
And it is all for us. 
1 Like
Especially if you don’t want God to exist.
Nope. It’s to increase God’s joy by sharing it and adding to his family, as has been mentioned before elsewhere here at PS.
That’s not the case. If God exists I’m fine with that.
But you want his existence scientifically proven, right? Ain’t gonna hap’n.
Science can’t prove if God exists or doesn’t. Hugh Ross is mistaken to think that there are hundreds of cosmologist who are trying to prove there isn’t a God. These scientists are too busy studying the data trying to figure out what the universe is and what it was like in the past. It is really amazing how much we have learned in the past decades. I live in backyard of the famous Horn antenna that Penzias and Wilson used in 1964. Today we discuss observations in cosmology that have 1% precision. Imagine what our children and grandchildren will learn about the universe in the century ahead.
1 Like
Hark, an echo. 
Did he cite a poll, do you have one, or is that just your hyperbole?
2 Likes
Wrong. I am open to being convinced by non-scientific evidence. I have no idea of what experiences I may have in the future, nor what would convince me. I’m not as closed minded as you may think.
5 Likes
That’s good to hear.
1 Like
From the Hugh Ross article:
Cosmic Creation Implications
The now comprehensive verification of general relativity leaves little speculative room for physicists seeking an alternative to the God of the Bible to explain the existence of the universe.
Sorry Hugh there are no physicists seeking an alternative to the God of the Bible to explain the existence of the universe because we already know that the God of the Bible doesn’t explain the existence of the universe. Using the Bible (and the God(s) of the Bible) to explain the existence of the universe is of no scientific value.
Citation needed.
Citation needed. (That sounds more like an atheist’s wishful thinking.)
Hark, an echo.
You mean “Absence of a citation needed”, right?
That statement needs some foundation. Citation needed.
Like what? An article that says “I did a survey of all the physicists in the world, and every single one agreed that they weren’t seeking an alternative to the God of the Bible to explain the existence of the universe”?
Yes, that would support the claim, wouldn’t it.
It’s not “Absence of a citation needed”, in any case.
1 Like
It would also be interesting to know how many physicists agreed that they weren’t seeking an alternative to the God of the Bible to explain the existence of the universe because they already believe in him. There are more than a few I think I can safely say without needing to support the claim. (There are two at RTB, and @Mike_Strauss and @MStrauss is a member here… or is he duplicitous 
. May I count him to make my more than a few? And I am neglecting the other Christian physicists here.)
1 Like
Which reminds me:
Reading through part 2 my jaw pretty much drops at statements like these:
They stated in their paper that what they discovered “constrains modified theories of gravitation that exhibit large non-perturbative effects around black holes.”3 In other words, some of the theoretical speculations designed to eliminate the need for a cosmic Creator have themselves been eliminated.
So scientists trying to workout theories of modified gravity or quantum gravity are designed to eliminate God? What the heck? And despite all of the wonderful things he writes about General Relativity, we know that it is incomplete and not the ultimate description of gravity. This whole thing is just weird and anti-scientific.
1 Like