What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[Pat Mustard]

All you've done, snowy, is say that the Universe was created by something with the ability to create a universe, follow it up with some storybook references to "God" making a universe, then conclude that that proves "God" exists. That literally is all you have succeeded in doing. The fact that you feel the need to play it up as a dichotomy with unsupported emphasis on the impossibility of the opposite extreme only highlights your insecurity in your own argument,

Perhaps 100 years ago the logic would be circular, but discoveries in science have validated the Bible which said it first.
1. Universe has constant laws of physics - “I have established the covenant of day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth” .
2. Universe is expanding - He created the heavens and stretched them out.” and ‘stretching out the heavens like a tent’ - the Hebrew verb form here indicates a continual or ongoing stretching.
3. Universe is decaying - In Romans 8 it’s state that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay.
4. Universe had a beginning - “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”.

What sciences says:
1. Astronomers have look back into time within 200,000 years of the big bang event and have seen no change in the physical laws, and other sciences have not detected any changes.
2. Hubble discovered this shortly after General Relativity published.
3. 2’nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
4. The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand.

On your four "points":

1) Just because A says X and B says something similar you cannot infer that A supports the truthfulness of B. The fact that, as far as we know, scientific principles are constant across the universe does not even remotely lead one to be able to surmise that god exists nor that science has provided evidence for god. In fact everything we know in science leads us to be confident that god is not necessary, and what is not necessary can be safely disregarded without evidence (for which the god hypothesis has none). Also in your "science says" part you give scientific evidence which flat out contradicts biblical "truth". The bible states the world is c. 6,000 years old and yet you can agree that scientists can accurately see to within 200,000 years of the big bang (an event which itself contradicts biblical creation).

2) No the bible didn't posit an expanding universe. The bible posits that the "heavens", to which we are generous in accepting that they meant the universe (the fact is ancient hebrews knew fuck all about the universe thinking stars were simply fixed pinpricks in the "heavens" and other absurdities), is a fixed plane which is permanently put in place above the world and doesn't move. Thus the bible posits a stationary non-expansionary universe not an expansionary one.

3) We don't actually know if the universe is decaying overall, while it probably is the universe may not be a closed system (which is one of the necessary conditions for 2 Thermodynamics to hold) and if it is not, it need not decay, just like the earth is not decaying currently as it is receiving energy from an outside source. Plus the "law of decay" you refer to in Romans is not talking about entropy but talking about the "decay" one is supposed to experience when one is "removed from god", in order to show that such decay exists you have to prove the existence of the christian god, an impossible task because he doesn't exist.

4) Again, the big bang refutes biblical creation. In the biblical creation we have a group of gods (as per the bible) creating the world ex nihilo and then creating the "heavens" as a cloak to put around the flat earth described in the creation. This myth doesn't accurately describe the shape of the world, never mind the circumstances in which came about. An accurate bible creation story would have talked about the singularity that existed before space time had meaning, its expansion and how c.9bn years after this expansion started a clump of dust in a nebula accreted to form the proto star which became sol, and that the ring of dust around it clumped together to form the small planetisemals which eventually, by a process of hovering up other gasses and dust in the cloud and collisions, formed the planets and asteroid belts which we know as the solar system. As you can see the biblical creation myth has absolutely nothing to say about reality, and therefore science has no way to validate it.

Of course your nonsense comes to a deeper problem with your assertions. You are asserting that the bible has "predicted" scientific principles or cosmic history when it has done nothing of the sort. What others have done, and you have swallowed, is mendaciously cherrypicked passages from the bible which on a very superficial and ignorant reading of scientific principles can be made out to agree with those scientific principles, after the science was developed. If those passages were truly scientific, then we would expect medieval scholars to be able to show scientific knowledge like the laws of thermodynamics, and explain phenomena like solar system formation simply from reading the bible and applying the knowledge therein to the world they saw. Instead we see medieval scholars posit a very simplistic view of the universe, full of wrong suppositions and ideas which were generated by their reading of the bible.