Science Refutes God

Evidence for the Big Bang theory: "Redshift of Galaxies: The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang. "Microwave Background: Very early in its history, the whole Universe was very hot. As it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire Universe. The Big Bang theory not only predicts that this glow should exist, but that it should be visible as microwaves - part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum. This is the Cosmic Microwave Background which has been accurately measured by orbiting detectors, and is very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct. "Mixture of Elements: As the Universe expanded and cooled down, some of the elements that we see today were created. The Big Bang theory predicts how much of each element should have been made in the early universe, and what we see in very distant galaxies and old stars is just right. You cannot look in new stars, like the Sun, for this evidence, because they contain elements that were created in previous generations of stars. As such, the composition of new stars will be very different from the composition of stars that existed 7 billion years ago, shortly after the Big Bang. "Looking back in time: The main alternative to the Big Bang theory of the Universe is called the Steady State theory. In this theory, the Universe does not change very much with time. Remember that because light takes a long time to travel across the Universe, when we look at very distant galaxies, we are also looking back in time. From this we can see that galaxies a long time ago were quite different from those today, showing that the Universe has changed. This fits better with the Big Bang theory than the Steady State theory. I have much more evidence as well, but this will suffice for now. As the evidence based on factual evidence shows, the Big Bang theory is a strong theory that has not been refuted nor disproven at any point. No other evidence has shown to contradict it as well. Thus, making the theory more acceptable. At least 97% of scientists accept it, including the catholic church allowing you to accept it into your belief system. But I want to point out that in fact the universe isn't particularly fine-tuned or conducive to life. Most of the universe is rather inhospitable to life. And in fact -- perhaps the biggest fine-tuning problem the field of cosmology, something, in fact, very extraordinary to have proposed in a sense is that the energy of empty space is not zero. The weirdest thing you can imagine, that empty space weighs something, but remarkably the energy of empty space is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than we would na"vely predict. And if it were much bigger than we measure, it's true that galaxies couldn't form, and planets couldn't form, and debates couldn't happen. So the universe appears to be here because we are here. Now, that suggests religion perhaps, but the point is not that that claim of fine tuning is ridiculous because, in fact, if the energy of empty space was zero, which is a -- by far a more natural value, the universe would be a better place for life to live in. We all thought it was zero when I was a graduate student, because that was a natural value. If it was zero, the universe would be a better place. In fact, you can show the value that it has now makes the universe the worst of all possible universes to live in for the future of life. So, so much for a universe created for us. Now, once Darwin had removed the apparent need for God in evolution of life, the last bastion for God was the creation of the universe, how you can get something from nothing. And what -- we're in a remarkable situation of being in is precisely the same situation that Darwin existed in 150 years ago, namely, we have a plausible explanation of how a universe could precisely come from nothing.