Proof vs. Evidence (as it relates especially to the origin of the Universe)

    It has before been stated that the burden of proof or disproof of God's existence rests upon the theists and not the atheists because it is impossible to prove that something does not exist.
    It has also been stated that the claim of the theists is that no one will ever be able to prove or disprove God's existence because God prefers it to be that way.

    This brings us to an important note of life: The difference between proof and evidence.

    The difference between these two words is very noteworthy and imperative to understand because failure to comprehend their proper respective meanings can result in a plethora of incorrect assertions.
To illustrate this I will refer to a statement made by a former professor of mine named Spear:

    Professor Spear, a geologist (and a man of great erudition in my estimation), erred in a definition he gave attempting to clear the air on the shadow of doubt regarding what we call the Big Bang "Theory".  He said, "Most of you have an incorrect idea of what a theory is because you've watched too many detective movies where they say, 'I have a theory about what happened.'  The detective doesn't have a theory, he has a hypothesis."  Then he continued, "A theory is defined as a conclusion drawn from a hypothesis to which there is no contrary evidence."

    Now this statement is erroneous.   How do we know?  First of all, if this was the case there would be little to no theories in existence.  There is always contrary evidence.

• There is contrary evidence to the existence of the God of the Bible in that the book, written allegedly by the inspiration of God, gives a timeline from the beginning that equates the age of the Earth to close to 6,000 years, while scientific evidence (plate tectonics, folded rock layers, radiocarbon-dating, etc.) suggest the Earth to be closer to 4.5 billion years old.  This is evidence in opposition of God, but the evidence is inconclusive
•  There is contrary evidence to the Big Bang Theory.  According to the Big Bang Theory, a spinning dot smaller than a typed period exploded at the beginning of the universe, disseminating matter in every direction.  It is because of this spin that all of the planets now rotate.  This, however, defies the laws of physics since two of the planets in our solar system do not spin in even a conceivably similar direction, and the law of the conservation of angular momentum would decree that if the origin of the motion was the same, then all projectiles of that force must behave in the same fashion.  This is evidence in opposition to the Big Bang Theory, but the evidence is inconclusive.

Why then is the evidence inconclusive?  Answered simply: because it is incomplete.

Evidence is always incomplete.

This is because of a rule of science never to be forgotten: There is always something as of yet undiscovered or unconsidered.

So the statement that should have been made by Professor Spear is: A theory is defined as a conclusion drawn from a hypothesis to which there is no contrary proof.

• There is no contrary proof to God, nor to the Big Bang Theory

    It needs not to be stated that there is certainly evidence for the Big Bang Theory, for there are copious amounts of classes dedicated to its research.  But is there evidence of God?
    Yes there is.  Though the evidence is of a base nature, not one of sophistication.  If we assume that God is a master craftsman of life and nature, then we can make the assertion that God wove his evidence into the fabric of creation in a subtle manner so as not to be perceived by the eye of the scrutinous, the mind of the educated, or the heart of the proud.

    Picture an extremely simplistic scene of a person whose entire existence has been in a sealed glass cube in the middle of a natural environment.  Would that man know that there was such a thing as wind?  He would not be able to experience it with any of his five senses - He could not taste, smell, hear, see or even feel it .

Yet the answer is YES, he would know that there is wind because he would see the leaves blowing in it.  Or in essence, he would see its effects.  He may not even understand what he is seeing but he would know that something is causing it to be so.

    This is the type of evidence that speaks of God's existence.  He is imperceptible, yet to the innocent heart, the effects are visible.  And God is not found but by those who have learned to seek honestly, earnestly, and innocently.