As I see it, science is mostly driven by measurement.
To say that the cosmos is expanding is to say that distances between objects are increasing. But we are not measuring that. Our ability to measure the distance to astronomical objects is too imprecise for us to be able to detect the kind of change that expansion claims. Instead, we are making indirect inference based on other data (such as red shifts). These indirect inferences depend on assumptions which we cannot experimentally test.
So Iâm currently hesitant to make those assumptions.
Yeah, Iâm familiar with Lisleâs Anisotropic Synchrony Convention. I think gravitational lensing debunks it, and several other things do as well. (And you need intelligent photons that know what direction they are traveling to decide how fast to go. )
If the universe was known to have had a beginning(that isnât known, and I suspect youâre equivocating on that word), that would certainly be consistent with some conceptions of God.
But in order to be evidence for the existence of God, youâd need to show that this evidence is more likely on the hypothesis that God exists than on any competing hypothesis.
Evidence is evidence and doesnât vary in likelihood, it just needs to be recognized or denied. Conclusions or inferences drawn, however, will vary with oneâs philosophical bias (and not all biases are wrong).
That just reveals you donât know what evidence actually is. Yes, evidence can vary in likelihood depending on the hypothesis. Evidence is data that is more or less likely to be produced, depending on whether some hypothesis is true or not.
To give a simple example, consider the two hypotheses:
A) This coin is extremely biased and lands heads up 99% of the time and tails 1% of the time.
B) This coin is fair and only lands heads up 50% of the time on average.
On which hypothesis it is more likely to obtain the following evidence (a sequence of coinflips)?
HTTHTHTTTTHTTTHHHHHTHTHHTHT
It should be intuitively obvious that youâre more likely to get that sequence of conflips, which is evidence, on the hypothesis that the coin is fair. As we can also see, the evidence has a probability, a likelihood of being obtained, that depends on which hypothesis is true. If A had been true, that sequence would have been much less likely as weâd pretty much have expected a sequence of only heads in those 27 coinflips(since it would take, on average, 100 flips to get a single tails).
That also means the sequence of coinflips is evidence FOR hypothesis B over hypothesis A, and actually evidence AGAINST hypothesis A.
So now that you too understand how evidence works, you can proceed to show that this putative evidence that the universe had âa beginningâ(whatever you mean by that) is more likely on the hypothesis that God exists than on any competing hypothesis.
Depends on what you mean by beginning. I donât know what you mean by it, though I have my suspicions from over a decade of hearing theistic apologetics about Big Bang cosmology.
What do you mean by the universe having a beginning?
While its possible the universe is expanding from creation week. it seems this is unlikely and just another wrong human idea. the big problem as always is they use light to make calcuations.
Yet the bible is clear light does not have a source except as the fabric/ether of the universe.
So there is no speed of light. indeed , maybe, the idea of one way speed being different from two way is relevant. I read lisle in the creatuon magazine.
it does seem funny to me now to think ITS said there is a speed of light. I understand from youtube videos they do now say there is no speed of light. indeed they say gravity waves goes that fast suggesting its just a common vacume.
i The first verses in genesis was about light. i think the light problem needs to be spolved before more errors.