Jan,
Thankyou for a thoughtful post. We see those so seldom in these kinds of discussions.
The multiverse (bubble universes) is an ancient thing, as is the idea of evolution (species to speices).
Time (according to scripture) comes into existence with the universes, they all come into existence simultaneosly, and they are caused by the breathing of God.
The claim that modern physics was known to the writers of ancient religious texts is quite empty when you look into it. There are no specifics in the bible, or the Bhagavad Gita or in any other text that talk about the big bang, bubble universe, branes, quantum mechanics or any other modern scientific topic. Of course, that doesn't stop believers reading much more into the words than is written. "The bible predicts the existence of black holes." "The Qur'an predicts the order of evolution." etc. etc. No they don't. It is only by stretching the literal meanings of verses to breaking point that the least tenuous links can be made. They may satisfy the ignorant, but they are clearly empty to those who know any science in detail.
The concept of causation is another thing that requires care in this picture, since causation implies time.
Not if there is an agent not affected by time.
You're missing the point. Without time, it makes no sense to say A caused B. If God is outside time, therefore it makes no sense to say that God caused the universe. Not without a lot of winking and bending over backwards.
Are there (physics) specialists in the field of "before time began"?
As it happens, yes there are. Cosmology, particle physics, quantum field theory and the like all have a lot to say about "before time began", and there are indeed people who devote their entire careers to such questions.
Do you accept that the universe is expanding?
Yes. I accept that there was a big bang. But I also know that our current best physical theories can't tell us what happened prior to about $$10^{-34}$$ seconds after the big bang started. In particular, nothing in our current physical theories requires a "cause" for the universe at time t=0.
...And if we look at the multiverse (if it exists), the very idea of a "cause" becomes nebulous.
Why?
See above. Cause implies time. A causes B implies (among other things) that A happens before B.
Why go through this?
You know what my conception of God is, I've stated it often enough.
"God" = Supreme Being, Original Cause,...
What you seem to be saying is that
by definition, your God is the Original Cause of the universe. Therefore, there's nothing to investigate. It's a logical contradiction for you that the universe was not caused by God.
In short, you seem to be begging the question.
I doubt that God sent Jesus to die for our sins. Perhaps you can give biblical reference.
No, I can't. It is, however, accepted Christian doctrine. Go figure.
I also doubt that miracles were performed for our amusement.
Admittedly I was being a little flippant there.
I think you are
attempting to make it sound ridiculous, thereby convincing yourself that the idea of God is foolish.
I don't think the idea of God is foolish. Many people who are much cleverer than I am have been fervent believers in God. My advantage is that I live in the 21st century. The idea of God is not foolish. It's just that the weight of evidence is just not on God's side.
There is only one God, or at least when discussing with me this should be understood so that we can do away with this diversion.
Why are there so many fundamentally and vastly different descriptions of God then? Different religions differ in such basics as whether God is good, how many gods there are, whether God answers prayers, what happens after death, what God requires from his people, and so on and so on.
The holy books of the major religions are also quite at odds with one another about God.
How can 99% of people be wrong, while you have the "correct" understanding of the One God? Luck? Scholarship? Personal revelation?
What do you regard as evidence for God?
There's a lot of evidence for
ideas of God - what people have written and said about that being. There's not much evidence for God.
The
best evidence for God is probably reported experiences by believers of connections with God, feeling "close" to God, having God answer their prayers, feeling that there is "something else" in their lives. The problem with such evidence is (a) that the more specific the claims of believers come the more susceptible they become to be being ruled out by scientific methods (e.g. consider the efficacy of prayer), and (b) all such evidence anecdotal and relatively easy to explain via other means.
The best
argument for God, I think, remains the argument from design. Unfortunately, that one has been whittled down bit by bit since the enlightenment of the 18th century, and as a result the room left for God in the universe has become smaller and smaller.
And while we're at it, the biggest
problem for the idea of a loving God, in my opinion, is the problem of evil. Of course, not everybody believes that God is good.
The reason I ask this, is because you don't seem bothered about understanding who and what God is, outside of your skepticism. This means
you will always be in this state of mind.
The fact is, though, I
haven't always been in this state of mind. So something must have happened to me to change my mind.
With regard to God, I don't see how scientific evidence can
bring one to the realisation that God does not exist.
I don't think scientific evidence alone is enough. What is far more important, ultimately, is learning how to think critically. And I freely admit, of course, that science has no proof that god does not exist - just as it has no proof that there isn't a giant teapot orbiting the Sun. But you don't believe in the teapot, I assume...
Science and religion are two different aspects of knowledge, both leading to the welfare of all beings on the planet, if execute perfectly.
I think that both religion and science can do a lot of good and a lot of evil.
As for "gut feeling" and "wishful thinking", don't you think that applies to people who don't believe in God, as well.
Sure, for some. It's easy to believe either way without good reason - or without reason at all.
I think you try to understand God in such a way as to validate your personal world view. This is evidenced by how you discuss God.
And the same can't be said for yourself, I assume.
I have yet to experience a discussion or debate on this subject matter where wider reading, science, or, critical thinking needs to be employed in order to make a conclusion. The subject matter is quite simple, and science cannot determine one way or the other whether God exists or not.
What this comes across to me as is that you've closed your mind to learning any science because you believe it is somehow "anti-God". Maybe you're afraid of what you might find out. You couldn't be more wrong about the subject matter of things like the origin of the universe being "simple". Without knowing any science, you can only fall back on assumption and religious doctrine. You have half the picture at best. And it seems you're satisfied with that. No confirmation bias for you, right?
But is knowledge of the early universe effective in whether one is a theist or not?
As it happens, it turns out that it is. In fact, deep knowledge of science correlates quite strongly with being a non-theist. Studies have been done.
