# The Argument Clinic

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Comments\
**Created:** [November 22, 2022, 2:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561 "2022-11-22T14:16:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 63

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lee\_merrill](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/lee_merrill/32/14458_2.png) [@lee\_merrill](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/lee_merrill)\
**Post date:** [November 26, 2022, 3:01am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/63 "2022-11-26T03:01:47Z")

</div>

> [@The most current scientific evidence for the existence of God?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-most-current-scientific-evidence-for-the-existence-of-god/15549/138):
>
> I can state with _absolute certainty_ that no scientific paper of the Big Bang has stated that it is “evidence for the creation of the universe”.
> 
> In the case of Fine Tuning, all we have is **arguments not evidence**.
> 
> In the case of genetic code, what we have is **assumption not evidence** – in this case the (much repeated by ID-advocates, but repeatedly-debunked) _assumption_ that information cannot arise through natural processes.

But scientific papers can point to God, if the conclusion of the paper is that the universe had a beginning. And arguments use evidence, you are confusing categories here. If the universe had a beginning, and the expansion rate of the universe was fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^20. And information can arise by natural processes, like evolution, but the arrival of the first genome is still prohibitively improbable.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561)._