home
RSS
March 20th, 2014
11:14 AM ET

Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?

Opinion by Leslie A. Wickman, special to CNN

(CNN) The remarkable discovery, announced this week, of ripples in the space-time fabric of the universe rocked the world of science - and the world of religion.

Touted as evidence for inflation (a faster-than-the-speed-of-light expansion of our universe), the new discovery of traces of gravity waves affirms scientific concepts in the fields of cosmology, general relativity, and particle physics.

The new discovery also has significant implications for the Judeo-Christian worldview, offering strong support for biblical beliefs.

Here's how.

The prevalent theory of cosmic origins prior to the Big Bang theory was the “Steady State,” which argued that the universe has always existed, without a beginning that necessitated a cause.

However, this new evidence strongly suggests that there was a beginning to our universe.

If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent – separate and apart from the effect – that caused it.

That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.”

So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused – or created – by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.

MORE ON CNN: Big Bang breakthrough announced; gravitational waves detected

Atheist-turned-agnostic astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the term “Big Bang,” famously stated, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics."

As Hoyle saw it, the Big Bang was not a chaotic explosion, but rather a very highly ordered event – one that could not have occurred by random chance.

We also need to remember that God reveals himself both through scripture and creation. The challenge is in seeing how they fit together. A better understanding of each can inform our understanding of the other.

It’s not just about cracking open the Bible and reading whatever we find there from a 21st-century American perspective. We have to study the context, the culture, the genre, the authorship and the original audience to understand the intent.

The creation message in Genesis tells us that God created a special place for humans to live and thrive and be in communion with him; that God wants a relationship with us, and makes provisions for us to have fellowship with him, even after we turn away from him.

So, we know that Genesis was never intended to be a detailed scientific handbook, describing how God created the universe. It imparts a theological, not a scientific, message.

(Imagine how confusing messages about gravity waves and dark matter might be to ancient Hebrew readers.)

As a modern believer and a scientist, when I look up at the sky on a clear starry night, I am reminded that “the heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1). I am in awe of the complexity of the physical world, and how all of its pieces fit together so perfectly and synergistically.

In the Old Testament book of Jeremiah, the writer tells us that God “established (his) covenant with day and night, and with the fixed laws of heaven and earth.”

These physical laws established by God to govern interactions between matter and energy result in a finely tuned universe that provides the ideal conditions for life on our planet.

As we observe the complexity of the cosmos, from subatomic particles to dark matter and dark energy, we quickly conclude that there must be a more satisfying explanation than random chance. Properly practiced, science can be an act of worship in looking at God’s revelation of himself in nature.

If God is truly the creator, then he will reveal himself through what he’s created, and science is a tool we can use to uncover those wonders.

Leslie Wickman is director of the Center for Research in Science at Azusa Pacific University. Wickman has also been an engineer for Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, where she worked on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and International Space Station programs. The views expressed in this column belong to Wickman. 

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Culture & Science • Faith • Opinion • Science

« Previous entry
soundoff (4,918 Responses)
  1. jvance83

    John Vance • 4 hours ago

    Science is a technique developed by humans for the evaluation of the physical world. It has nothing to do with God or other immeasureable phenomenon.
    Neils Bohr criticized his close friend and fellow Nobel prize winner Arthur Holly Compton (the son of a Presbyterian minister and Mennonite mother) for mixing the two.
    "Compton would like to say that for God there is no uncertainty principle. That is nonsense. In physics we do not talk about God but about what we can know. If we are to speak of God we trust do so in an entirely different manner."

    March 21, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
    • wilburw7

      Paul Davies (astrophysicist)
      "The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance, and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe" astrophysicist Paul Davies; Superforce (1984)

      "Yet in the whole of the universe there is no force that is either intelligent or eternal, and we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit. This is the very origin of all matter.” Max Planck (Founder of Quantum Mechanics.)

      March 21, 2014 at 5:04 pm |
      • distrbnce

        Oh boy, poetry time!

        Wilbur, we consider data, not stories and musings.

        March 21, 2014 at 5:25 pm |
        • wilburw7

          Physicists also consider data.

          March 21, 2014 at 5:37 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Yes, that's fine. That doesn't make their opinions data.

          March 21, 2014 at 5:46 pm |
      • jvance83

        Dr Bohr wasn't suggesting there wasn't a God, only that science is not designed to prove or disprove His existence. He would make the same comment to Dr Planck and Dr Davies. You can use the marvelous beauty shown by scientific investigation to bolster your personal beliefs, but not to "prove" them.
        It is a subtle but very important difference, science can never, ever state more than it can know and it cannot know God.

        March 21, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
  2. sdfrankie

    Stupid argument. The universe has a beginning, therefor it had a creator. But if you ask where that creator came from they'll just trump your logic with "magic". As usual, no rules for god.

    March 21, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
    • wilburw7

      You statement is illogical. No matter how you look at it, either something always existed or something was a first cause. God always existed.

      March 21, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
      • kenmargo

        Welcome Back Will burrr. Taking time out from reading your self help scientist science fiction books? Or are you reading the greatest fiction book of them all, the bible.

        March 21, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
        • drowlord

          I read it. It's over-rated.

          March 21, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
      • distrbnce

        Wilbur buddy, he was being sarcastic. It was meant to be illogical.

        March 21, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
  3. averagejoe7six

    How laughable. Pretending to know the designer of all reality. I can't even get a human at the DVM when I call....... yet, some people know the designer of every particle in existence. Well color me 'impressed'.

    March 21, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
    • alfonse2014

      How laughable, Atheists pretending to know how everything was, or was not created.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        Ha, perfect case. "You don't know everything!"

        March 21, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
      • bostontola

        I have never encountered 1 atheist who thought they knew how everything was created.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
      • distrbnce

        Can you link to a comment of an atheist pretending to know everything? Or are you pretending yourself?

        March 21, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
      • drowlord

        How ironic. Atheist claim they don't know what triggered the big bang. The religious insist that they do. Yet the religious say "How laughable. Atheists pretending to know how everything was, or was not created"

        How are religious people so twisted up that they fundamentally can't put two thoughts together without getting them screwed up?

        March 21, 2014 at 6:01 pm |
    • Joeseph Eclaire

      Yeah, well, you should be impressed. Cause anything mankind attempts to create ultimately always leads to fundamental flaws.
      And don't let all this technology fool you, we have now become 'disassociated' from one another.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
      • distrbnce

        averagejoe is sarcastically impressed by your pretending, so you say he should be impressed because the things we create always leads to fundamental flaws?

        What does this mean?

        And don't let this technology fool you? What the heck were you referring to there? I feel like random words and half-thoughts are just being cobbled together at the last second at this point.

        March 21, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
  4. kenmargo

    It's amazing. The prez shows 2 birth certificates, Newspaper posting, confirmation from a gov. and some people still don't believe he was born in this country. We have an explosion in space (one of trillions everyday) and people equate that with god. Our education system needs a total overhaul.

    March 21, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
  5. snowr14

    Why is it that people always "interpret" old books to retrofit every new findings into convoluted lines of illogical nonsense? Why couldn't they have "interpreted" them before someone actually proved them?

    March 21, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
    • Joeseph Eclaire

      The question should be why are people trying to equate a God with religion.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
      • G to the T

        Because "God" equals "Yahweh". Or did you mean "god"?

        I really wish christians would just use their god's name, it confuses the matter unnecessarily.

        March 24, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
    • alfonse2014

      You do understand that EVERY scientific theory and equation has been modified and will continue to be modified, e.g. Newton's laws of motion were wrong – they worked ok at low speeds, but were nontheless wrong: they have since been modified. Science is a never ending iteration towards the truth.
      If that is the case with science, what the heck is your problem with modifications of textual understandings?

      March 21, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
      • bostontola

        Because science doesn't represent it's theories as truth, just as models that work. Newton's laws weren't wrong, they worked over a limited range, the theory of relativity has a wider range. Religion represents itself as truth, that shouldn't be malleable. Christianity has over 40,000 denominations with various interpretations of truth. That is silly to represent as truth.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
      • snowr14

        what bostontola said!

        March 21, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
      • G to the T

        "If that is the case with science, what the heck is your problem with modifications of textual understandings?"

        Because the correct understanding of science doesn't determine your afterlife prospects. According to christianity, your understanding of the bible does. So if our understandings of the bible change over time (towards a greater level of certainty) it means that those before didn't have the "word of god" and thus were handicapped in their journey to god.

        Does that sounds like an omnipotent, omnibenevolent way to do things or a very human way to do things?

        March 24, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
  6. alfonse2014

    To all of you, who apparently mis-characterize science as the source of ALL KNOWLEDGE, which it is not, nor was ever intended to be (It is merely a discipline involved in the modeling of our PHYSICAL universe) riddle me this:
    Is Quantum mechanics correct or is String Theory correct.?
    What are the proper number of dimensions in String Theory and Why?
    What is the next Theory that will replace String Theory?
    What are the Strings in String Theory? (I'll give you a hint – they are nothing but mathematical constructs – and that being the case, what do they represent in reality?)
    What is the nature of your consciousness.
    Is there a non-physical component to any aspect of nature, including your own mind and thought processes.
    What existed before the Big-Bang
    What exists outside of our universe's 'Bubble'
    ...
    And lastly, why do you suffer from the delusion that you know everything, or maybe, more properly put, why do you believe that if you don't understand something, or don't like it, well then, it simply doesn't exist. AND THE IRONY IS THAT 99% OF YOU UNDERSTAND VERY VERY VERY LITTLE ABOUT MODERN PHYSICS.

    March 21, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
    • ramblingsofnihility

      A repeat reply to alfonse2014...

      "I have answered you a dozen times"

      No, you haven't.

      "It is not my assertion, it is the assertion of general philosophy."

      Are you not asserting that the general philosophy you keep referring to is correct? If so, why? Does the general philosophy you seem to strongly associate yourself with, describe the properties of a conscious enti-ty that exists above and beyond our universe and how it created the known universe and how it verifies it?

      "And while we're at it your assholiness, riddle me this:"

      The answers to all your questions is I don't know.

      "And lastly, why do you suffer from the delusion that you know everything, or maybe more properly put, if you don't understand it or don't like it, well then, it simply doesn't exist."

      I have made no such assertion, and you are being totally dishonest if you think I have.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
    • ramblingsofnihility

      Someone makes a claim, alfonse2014 included, and someone else says, I don't believe you based on lack of evidence, and alfonse2014's canned response is, "Why do you think you know everything, you don't know everything!" Pathetic.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:48 pm |
    • kenmargo

      I do not think science knows all. If it did it would know how to cure cancer. Science does deal with facts. Even when science changes the answer, There's usually logic behind it. You don't have to "have a belief" when it comes to science. The proof will be in front of you.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
    • bostontola

      alfonse,
      "To all of you, who apparently mis-characterize science as the source of ALL KNOWLEDGE"

      That addresses the null set.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
    • distrbnce

      Alfonse... I'm going to try to convey this to you again...

      Us not knowing something does not threaten our worldview. Hell, it's exciting to not know something!

      Being ashamed of not knowing something is a feeling exclusive to the dogmatic and religious. Have fun with that!

      March 21, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
  7. pandeist

    I just hope that this author, and other theists considering this question, will give fair consideration to the possibility that the modern theological theory of Pandeism accounts for this. Pandeism reconciles elements of Pantheism and Deism to determine through logic and reason what the most probable means and motivation of a Creator would be. It is, at the least, intellectually dishonest for any theist to dismiss the possibility of Pandeism without giving an explanation as to why it is impossible. Blessings!!

    March 21, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
    • G to the T

      It can't be proved impossible because it's an unfalsifiable theory. So if believing the universe is somehow god's rotting corpse makes you feel better – have at it.

      March 24, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
      • pandeist

        Rotting corpse? That is quite the misunderstanding of the proposition. Are the atoms of your body rotting? Are you a "rotting corpse" while you dream? Your conflation error lies with imagining our Creator as a physical body, perhaps with cells which break down and fluids which seep out.

        April 29, 2014 at 1:27 am |
  8. The Editor

    fat ass americans

    March 21, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
    • laurenashley66

      you must not've been able to understand the article so this is all you can comment?

      March 21, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
      • distrbnce

        I think he was referring to the fact that most countries aren't as backwards as we are.

        March 21, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
  9. pourangk

    "While Ahura Mazda created the universe and mankind, Angra Mainyu, whose instinct is to destroy, miscreated demons, evil yazads, and noxious creatures (khrafstar) such as snakes, ants, and flies. Angra Mainyu created an opposite, evil being for each good being, except for humans, which he found he could not match. Angra Mainyu invaded the universe through the base of the sky, inflicting Gayomard and the bull with suffering and death" Wikipedia

    You see, it 's actually proof of Zoroastrianism creation myth. Anything that doesn't match is just allegorical language

    March 21, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
  10. markinfla

    Author lost me at "new".

    Trying to spin a new discovery ABOUT the Big Bang as if the Big Bang is suddenly new is just plain silly. This no more proves the existence of a god than a pretty sunset.

    March 21, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
    • distrbnce

      Seriously, I don't see how more evidence about the big bang somehow meant a new argument for god.

      There is nothing new in this article. I guess she just wanted to ride the wave of one of the greatest discoveries of our time.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
  11. Dr. Eric E. Shore, Esq.

    Wickman's credentials as a scientist and engineer are impressive, but his understanding of atheism and logic is less so. No rationale person, atheist or theist would argue that nothing greater or more powerful than humans could exist. There is as little evidence for that as for the existence of a god. Then, to argue that proof of the Big Bang theory is evidence for a god that created everything utilizes the logical fallacy of an "Appeal to Ambiguity." In other words, the argument goes that if our universe did not exist at some point, and then it did, its existence implies the existence of a "creator." This applies lessons from human experience at a cosmological scale where, as in the sub-atomic world of quantum physics, many realities are counter-intuitive. Current theory does not suggest that our universe was created from nothingness, but rather was an offshoot of one of an infinite number of other universes in an "n" dimensional Multiverse. This does not rule out the existence of a god or gods, of course, but certainly offers no proof of their existence either. Let's accept science for what it is – questions and answers about the who, what, when, where and how, and leave the "why" to Philosophy and Theology, where it properly belongs.

    March 21, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
    • Doris

      I'm not sure the "spooky physics" department can have all the why's. We might give 'em one or two..

      March 21, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
      • Joeseph Eclaire

        Would that be the soap opera dept. ?

        March 21, 2014 at 4:31 pm |
    • bostontola

      Dr. Wickman does have an impressive resume, but not in physics or cosmology. Her basic lack of understanding is apparent, her lack of logic is much more troubling. That kind of non-critical thinking if applied to her field of expertise would be frightening.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
  12. qsmurf

    Religion, in any of its various forms, is essentially a very ancient, very elaborate game of telephone.

    Handed down verbally from generation to generation until somebody finally decided to put down in writing the most embellished version of the original story.

    If we concede that Jesus was a real person, more likely than what is illustrated in the telephone version of the story (a.k.a. the bible) was that he was a man of conscience that saw the corruption and cruelty towards people in his day and spoke out about it, which led to his death at the hands of those he was speaking out about.

    All the supernatural elements of resurrection, water-to-wine, walking on water...embellishments, added to make the overall myth that much more appealing to humans who wouldn't have known better.

    March 21, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
  13. DB

    It is perfectly reasonable to believe that if the universe had a beginning it had a cause. Anything that began to exist must have been caused by something else. That is absolutely logical.

    Now, if you can accept that the universe had a cause (and you really should) but you don’t want to call it “God,” then you’ve got to find something else to call it, or admit ignorance as to who or what the cause is. And if you don’t know who or what the cause is, then you likewise don’t know that theists are wrong about who or what the cause is.

    Once you are able to accept that the universe was indeed caused, think about what must be true about that cause. Even if you can’t bring yourself to call it “God,” it is undeniable that the cause, whatever it is, must be transcendent and preexistent, as it had to have existed before everything else in order to have caused everything else; it must be immaterial, as its existence preceded the existence of matter; it must be intelligent, as evidenced by the complexity of the universe it caused; and it must itself be uncaused, existing necessarily rather than contingently.

    What Christians and other theists are saying is that this causative agent is God. To reduce this to a silly “God of the gaps” argument is to misunderstand. We aren’t just saying “God did it,” we are saying that an intelligent, transcendent, immaterial, preexistent, uncaused being – called God – did it. That doesn’t mean stop the science. That doesn’t mean stop investigating. That doesn’t mean stop asking questions. By all means, keep digging! God wants us to discover the nuances of his creative activity. He is not worried you might find something that disproves him. But to approach the investigation with the ironclad presupposition that God does not exist, and to maintain that as inflexibly as atheists do despite the necessity of a transcendent cause for the universe, seems a bit disingenuous.

    March 21, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
    • bozobub

      Nope. In fact, complex behavior and mechanics develops from complex systems quite often. You immediately fail.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
      • bozobub

        *Pardon, SIMPLE systems.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
      • DB

        But you did say 'develop from," correct? Is that not causation?

        March 21, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      logic fail.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
    • qsmurf

      And all we are saying is that it's actually not logical to conclude with no evidence that something intelligent must have been involved in creating the universe.

      Occam's Razor is typically the best way to rule out the less probable likelihood of a "creator".

      March 21, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
      • markinfla

        There you go applying logic to a discussion about science. We can't have that. We must only use logic as it applies to religion and then use religion to explain science.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
      • DB

        For me, the resultant complexity of the universe – the systems of nature, the physics, the mathematics, etc. – this complexity is evidence of prevenient intelligence. What the evidence means to you, or whether you take it as such, are different matters.

        March 21, 2014 at 5:17 pm |
    • bostontola

      DB,
      Finding something reasonable is different than it being right. We find it reasonable to assume that any particle's position and velocity can in principle be determined. Quantum Physics says you can't at very small scales. Not that it is too hard, it is impossible. It says that the position/velocity state doesn't even exist. As unreasonable as that sounds, our most accurate experiments have shown it is true. Same thing goes for time at tiny scales and where there is enormous gravity (warped spacetime). Your reasonable assumption that time and causality are well behaved is not true.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
    • ramblingsofnihility

      "whatever it is, must be transcendent and preexistent, as it had to have existed before everything else in order to have caused everything else; it must be immaterial, as its existence preceded the existence of matter; it must be intelligent, as evidenced by the complexity of the universe it caused; and it must itself be uncaused, existing necessarily rather than contingently."

      Please provide credible, convincing, verifiable evidence that any of these attributes are required. Then also provide credible, convincing, verifiable evidence of the origin of the enti-ty you claim created the universe.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
      • DB

        Umm, why don’t you comment on the suggestions I’ve already made? For example, I stated that this causative agent would have to be immaterial because it preceded matter. So… do you disagree with that? Do you think the causative agent that preceded matter could have been material? How could it have been material if it there was no matter?

        March 21, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
    • distrbnce

      "perfectly reasonable" is irrelevant and useless to the critical mind.

      Your comment serves only to warm you up.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
      • DB

        Are you kidding? Reason is absolutely essential to critical thinking.

        March 21, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
        • distrbnce

          No, I'm not kidding. And I didn't say reason wasn't essential to critical thinking. You tried to create a strawman.

          I'm saying believing something because it's "perfectly reasonable" is not critical thinking.

          March 21, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
        • G to the T

          Reason and logic are only as good as their premises. Garbage in = garbage out.

          March 24, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
    • G to the T

      "It is perfectly reasonable to believe that if the universe had a beginning it had a cause. Anything that began to exist must have been caused by something else. That is absolutely logical."

      Nope. As with so many things, common sense fails whenever we leave the scale we are used to dealing with. Once we start working with the VERY small (quantum) and the VERY large (cosmic), we often find that they operate in counter-intuitive manners to what we normally experience at the "normal" scale of things.

      As your very first sentance is a fail, I don't see a good reason to continue disecting your post.

      March 24, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
      • DB

        I see two good reasons why you should continue examining my post: your misspellings of “sentence” and “dissecting.” These errors indicate that you are fallible. It’s okay, we all are! This is precisely why we need to carefully consider each other’s ideas, especially on matters of such magnitude as the origins of the universe!

        Now, if you were just trying to be dismissive because you don’t know what to think about the rest of my post, or rude because my beliefs differ from yours, then that’s fine, too. You don’t have to give my post another thought. But you might want to consider this: if you are correct that my initial sentence is “a fail,” i.e., that it is NOT reasonable to believe that a universe that had a beginning was caused, then why should scientists continue trying to discover what caused the Big Bang? Scientists do not know why the universe began, but they continue to investigate. Yet, in your assessment of my initial sentence as “a fail,” you seem to be suggesting that it is unreasonable to assume that there is a “why” to discover, as “why” indicates cause. Do you think scientists should stop searching for the “why” because such a quest, or at least the catalyzing belief, is unreasonable? Should the science stop because it is unreasonable to believe there was any cause to the Big Bang? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth here; I’m just making inferences. But if this is your view, it is a rather comical appropriation of the “God did it” reduction to, essentially, “Nothing did it.”

        March 25, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • G to the T

          Please excuse my dyslexia, it sometimes gets in the way. Usually the spell checks are good enough to catch the worst of them.

          As for your statement – If your initial premise is flawed (all effects require a cause) then you can't build from that premise. You certainly seem very passionate about it and perhaps I came off a bit gruff, but I've been dealing with this same flawed logic around here quite a bit lately.

          Why are scientists still trying to find the cause? Because there may be one. Just because I've outlined that it's possible to have an uncaused event doesn't mean that there wasn't a cause for the Big Bang. I'd like to think that someday will find out either way, but the only honest answer right now is "nobody knows".

          March 27, 2014 at 8:44 pm |
  14. drowlord

    On the unfortunate side of things, however, it still happend more than a dozen billion years ago, and not 6000 years ago, so the Bible is still unequivocally wrong.

    March 21, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      If you think the Bible contains an error, it is
      1) A translation error
      2) A metaphor
      3) Taken out of context

      It's like dealing with Holly, the computer on Red Dwarf:

      Holly: I'm the nearest thing you can get to infullible.
      Lister: Infallible.
      Holly: Exactly.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
    • Vic

      In extreme short:

      Instantaneous Senescence can be done Supernaturally, no problem.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
      • distrbnce

        Of course it's "no problem", what exactly would entail a problem in your world of the supernatural??

        March 21, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
      • the0g0to0the0t

        That's part of the problem Vic. ANYTHING can be done supernaturally. Once you all for the supernatural, you throw open the doors for a near infinite number of explanations, not just a single creator god.

        March 22, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
    • foodingaroundtown

      It doesn't matter how long ago it happened, the Bible does not teach that creation took place 6,000 years ago. Extremist creationists proclaim that, but that's just thier uninformed opinion or intepretation to fit their theology. I am a Christian, and I accept science in many ways. But I also accept that life and history have many mysteries and many things that go well beyond our material, factual lives. We were created to dream and imagine. There is nothing wrong with spirituality. You have to go back to first cause. What CAUSED the big bang?? You don't have the answer. I think God caused it. Taht does not demean my intellect. If God is the ultimate intellect, then I am enhanced. Nothing that science has found contradicts the Bible's account of creation if one stays open-minded and non-dogmatic. But that's the problem, science thinks science is the answer: religion things religion is the answer. Science is a wonderful way to expore the known world, and even the unknown. But my belief in God does not hinder me from the wonder of science. I wish you felt the same about your belief in science. The idea of a spiritual, unseen world is fundamentally no different than scientific curiosity about parallel universes or other dimensions. Perhaps we are looking at the same thing? Would be nice if we could all be more open minded.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
      • distrbnce

        No, we've done experiments that hint at other dimensions.

        No experiment has ever hinted at god. It's completely erroneous to believe such a thing.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Which you can totally do if you want to, just don't try to bring science into the conversation, or enact laws based on what that God's translators say he wants.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
      • drowlord

        Even if what you're saying is true (and it's not. The bible clearly demarks generations, along with the number of years people lived, to a good enough degree that a pretty clear timeline of creation is readily derivable), The biblical account of events is clearly off on time scales. The creation of the stars, the earth, and all life on the planet is demonstrably strung out over more than 7 days.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
  15. neverbeenhappieratheist

    I know this is a bit off topic but i'm just curious to find out:

    How many of you would believe your English Lit Professor in regards to the premise and details of the book "A Tale of Two Cities"? All of you? Okay. So what if the Professor admitted he had never read the book and was just going off what his Professor had told him when he was in school? Not so sure anymore are you?

    Now what of biblical premise and details? How often do you think the promoter or poster of biblical advice on the blogs or in person, has that person actually read the entire bible cover to cover? 1%? 10%?

    Follow up question to all the regular religious posters: Have you read your bible cover to cover? If not, what are you doing here?

    March 21, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
    • kenmargo

      You could read Harry Potter or the bible from cover to cover. You're still reading fiction.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
      • Dyslexic doG

        "Hearing voices no one else can hear isn’t a good sign, even in the wizarding world."
        -Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

        March 21, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        But if you had never read Harry Potter, how sure would you be that it is fiction? Would it not be possible for someone to convince you that it was the real life biography of a young boy who lived under some stairs?

        The more people read it the more it will be exposed for the fiction that it is.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Being 52, I'm little hard to convince. Could I be convinced as a child? Sure. Ultimately I deal with reality. Reality wins every time.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
      • markinfla

        However, Harry Potter is far less violent and more logical. And FAR more enjoyable.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
    • drowlord

      I have read it cover to cover, but considering your name... I think we're on the same side of things.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
      • distrbnce

        From my experience, most people that have read the bible cover to cover are atheists. And that is some dense nonsense. Leave it to the curious to conquer it.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Man, I was HUNGRY for the Bible when I was a kid. Who wouldn't want to read through the magic book that contained all the secrets?

          In the end, I should've stuck with Grimm.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • markinfla

          Grimm was less grim that the Bible.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        That is my point. I want more believers to read their bibles. If they did they would most likely stop being believers. It's not often you get those opposed to something telling the followers of it to read their own manuals.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
        • distrbnce

          We should start a Read The Bible campaign. And you have to REALLY read it, not just say you did. God can see through all that ya know.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • drowlord

          I don't even care if they stop believing... just want people to be at least somewhat honest about their beliefs. Seriously, it offends me from a basic logical level that someone would "believe in" a bunch of stuff that they haven't even been exposed to. If this stuff is important, read it at least once.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
    • foodingaroundtown

      That's sort of like saying, "you can't understand or talk about science if you haven't read this or that book". The Bible is one book among thousands on religion, spirituality, and related. Where would you draw the line? You can read the whole Bible and still be a dunce. I've read books on string theory, so then I'm a qualified expert on that? Your logic is constrained. i know tons of close-minded science believers, and the same for Bible believers. It doesn't negate the value of their thoughts and minds and opinions. Don't be so close-minded. Science and faith are both wonderful ways to explore the world around us and the unknown. By the way, the majority of the great minds of science that pre-date our modern era were also highly religious and believed in a higher power or God. Does that negate their great intellect and work??

      March 21, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
  16. chitownmatt

    Absolutely nothing about the study of cosmology of the early universe and big bang would lead to the conclusion that it somehow required action or planning.

    This ridiculous excuse for GOD is the same one we have been fed since the begging of time, "We don't know... so it MUST be GOD."

    There was a time in human history when we didn't know why the sun "rises" from the East every morning, so we invented an explanation that involved a super being and that pulled the sun across the sky with his chariot.

    That explanation is no longer favored by the scientific community in favor of the heliocentric solar system model that explains it by the way the earth rotates around its axis once daily.

    I would love to know every secret of the universe and I will forever seek out those answers. But in the meantime, I don't feel a need to make up some silly hocus pocus to explain the things I don't know.

    Thank you for your sermon, but I'll just stick with, "I DON'T KNOW"

    March 21, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
    • laurenashley66

      amen! see what I did there...But seriously, i couldn't agree more.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
  17. pitt04

    God is the Creator of the Universe and we are NOT running NOTHING....IF WE WERE... WE WOULD HAVE FOUND THAT MISSING PLANE BY NOW.....duh

    March 21, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
    • kenmargo

      Why can't god point out the plane to us?

      March 21, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        maybe everyone on board was gay...?

        March 21, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Shouldn't matter to god. He/she created gay people too.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
    • bozobub

      Cuz yeah, if there is no God, humans must be perfect, yeah, that's it, yeah.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
    • nepawoods

      God is hiding the plane from us? Sometimes we find stuff, sometimes we don't, but you think God is the reason we're not finding this plane. I'm more astonished every day by the mental contortions some people engage in for the sake of religion.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
      • kenmargo

        Don't be surprised. Keep reading, your head will explode from some of the nonsense you'll read here.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
  18. Amy Cavenaugh

    Reblogged this on A Twisted Writer's Thoughts and commented:
    I've never understood why we can't believe in both Creation and the scientific explanation...

    March 21, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
    • distrbnce

      You can, there just isn't any reason to.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
      • alfonse2014

        Yes there is. Science and philosophy are two differenct and distinct branches of study. Not mutually exclusive and both necessary. Just because you happen to be philosophically challenged, don't expect the rest of the world to de-educate themselves.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Like I said, you can believe things based on poetry and prose if you want to. There just isn't any reason to.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          You are so philosophically challenged you cannot describe the properties of a conscious enti-ty that exists above and beyond our universe and how it created the known universe and how you verified it using your superior ability of philosophy you keep referring to.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Tell me, Alfonse. What is the reason one should believe in a man's ramblings on the universe?

          March 21, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Talk about not answering questions...

          March 21, 2014 at 6:02 pm |
        • G to the T

          Philosophy is great. I've studied quite a bit of it in my time. But philosophy can't describe where "love" comes from, but science can.

          Philosophy is great when dealing with abstract, human concepts (beacuse it's process is based around the human as the standard) but without some way to test philosophical treaties, you are just doing thought experiments which may or may not have any bearing on events in the "real" world.

          March 24, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
      • joedriver1001

        Sure there is the science of today didn't exist yesterday and will be totally different tomorrow. Jesus was here predicted some would believe others wouldn't and at death they will fully understand. So what's the deal folks everything we learn supports the fact we don't know anything our assumptions are always changing except one thing we will die.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
    • kenmargo

      If you want to, you could believe both. You'll just have to explain why both are right.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
      • distrbnce

        I don't care if they can explain it. Just don't enforce laws because of it.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
      • joedriver1001

        Easy the both right at the time we believe they are than we discover something new.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
  19. sagark1985

    Confirmation bias is one problem, the other is absolutely lying about several scientific facts:
    "If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent – separate and apart from the effect – that caused it."

    "As Hoyle saw it, the Big Bang was not a chaotic explosion, but rather a very highly ordered event – one that could not have occurred by random chance."

    That's to name a couple of glaring BS arguments. Since the author's "credentials" have been stated at the bottom of the article, I find it hard to believe that she really has such a poor understanding of science. Its either that or she is deluding herself and posting absolute lies in her article. Shameful that garbage like this gets posted on a news site.

    March 21, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      I agree with you but please note that this is an Opinion Blog.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
    • alfonse2014

      She is the scientist and you ARE NOT. So it is, most probably, you who are in error about the science.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
      • bozobub

        Anyone with access to the internet can easily research the refutation to your claim, silly. There are "scientists" who still think the Earth is flat, you know.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
      • distrbnce

        Authority means nothing. Evidence does.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
    • chitownmatt

      I absolutely have to agree with you, especially your analysis of her error in conclusion regarding the cause and effect relationship.
      There is absolutely nothing that logically connects a cause and effect with the requirement of that an "agent" had to have caused it.
      The Moon pulls on the ocean and causes the tide to rise and fall, but there is nothing that would logically lead one to conclude an intelligent "agent" has any hand in it.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
  20. alfonse2014

    Here's the bottom line. The type of atheists, like most on this post, that continue with the ridiculous assertion that there can be nothing greater than us that exists above or outside of our little physical realm, are simply either intellectually stunted individuals, or more likely, bitter people who have gotten their panties in a bunch because some religious text contains some apparent condemnation of their lifestyle.
    It's really kind of pathetic that they can't distingush between conversations about general philosphical probabilties and conversations about interpretations of particular texts.

    March 21, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
    • distrbnce

      None of us are asserting that.

      We just aren't convinced. Carry on with your assumptions.

      March 21, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Man is the predilect object of Creation and the entire Universe exists as it does simply to have us in it.

      The Universe only appears to be billions of years old because The Creator willed it thus.

      God is anthropocentric – it says here right on the label.

      The rest of the universe, oh so simple and boring compared to humanity, is simply window dressing – God really concentrated when making The Earth as opposed to, say – the Andromeda galaxy.

      You see, when God was creating the Earth he placed it in a time dilation bubble in order to give it the attention it needed.

      This is how we see light from distant galaxies – they are, relativistically speaking, billions of years old – but thanks to God's chronoton singularity, we are only a few thousand years old.

      God bestowed certain seemingly normal objects with chronoton field generation capability, like Moses' staff and Noah's ark.

      How else did the seas part or the ark able to support two of every animal despite it's physical dimensions?

      In recent studies, credible theologians have revealed that the physical dimensions of Noah's Ark were actually much, much smaller than those depicted in the Bible. They theorize that the source texts were modified to be more believable as nobody would be able to imagine all life on Earth fitting into a box no bigger than a phone booth.

      The oral histories of a small, reclusive sect of ultra-orthodox Jews say that the Ark made a "Vworrrp Vworrrrp" sound before it gradually faded from sight. Stone tablets retrieved from this same sect show that the name "Noah" is actually an ancient Hebrew word from a long lost dialect that translates to "Healer".

      They also found evidence that Moses' staff was really a small, hand held device about the size of a pen that emitted a high pitched squeal and glowing green light. "Staff" also appears to be a mistranslation. The original word was "screwdriver".

      Leviticus is full of rules of conduct for the Hebrew people, but there was one particular passage that caused so much confusion and strife at the Nicene Council that they elected to omit it from the Bible.

      Scraps of that ancient text were found in the same cave as the Dead Sea Scrolls but have yet to be publically released. The text seems to be proclamations from a long forgotten prophet, but there is little context to make any sense of them.

      Thus far, scholars have translated: "run", "don't blink", and a thoroughly confusing psalm praising the virtues of decorative neckwear.

      March 21, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
      • mythless

        Sweet! All my questions have now been answered!

        March 21, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
    • Akira

      Not really. Asking for proof doesn't equate bitterness. It really just shows that people who are asked hard questions about their faith don't have the answers about THEIR "lifestyle". It seems much more likely that when asked about their texts, the expectation that their texts may not be criticized in any way is what really gets believer's all twisted up in knots, so they go on the defensive. After all, a good defense is to be offensive.

      And I'm not an atheist.

      March 21, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
    • Joeseph Eclaire

      Don't humor them. They don't really know what they believe. They go with the latest sound bite and fad. And it it keeps them from feeling guilty about getting high or poking their neighbors wife or even the husband all the more better.

      They got fooled into believing the same things as the religious loons do about a God.
      And while mankind came to learn about a God through religion it is highly likely because of mankind's inquisitive nature we would have still question our existence here on this earth regardless if religion was around.

      March 21, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Is that why Abraham's God is so adamant about curiosity being the Original Sin for which we all must die?
        Don't question – just believe.....

        March 21, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          Don't ask me, I don't read nor follow the Bible.

          March 21, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Ask me! Ask me!

          Because if you ask questions, God disappears!

          March 21, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
      • distrbnce

        For a non-critical thinker, "don't really know what they believe" is the scariest thing you can imagine.

        For a critical thinker, it's another day of learning.

        March 21, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          Problem is you are not a critical thinker you only think you are. You are a follower of fashion.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Can you prove that?

          Or are you just some guy online assuming something about me?

          March 21, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Also, I don't see how that's a problem. It's true whether I'm a critical thinker or not.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Wait a sec, I think you just wanted to insult me there. Class act, bromie!

          March 21, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
      • Akira

        Atheists believe in no gods. And...that's it.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      Alfonse here is suffering from the "Dunning–Kruger" effect which is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptltude.

      March 21, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
      • distrbnce

        Ignorance is sweet, righteous bliss.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
      • Joeseph Eclaire

        Have you ever thought about a career in politics ?

        March 21, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Wouldn't get anywhere with all that science-talk.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          I had a career in religion as a Pastor for over a decade, then I decided I wanted a job that dealt with reality and went into insurance. Funny thing, there is not "act of God" in insurance policies as I had previously believed, so at least from a legal standpoint, God doesn't exist.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          Well, you see that was your first mistake right there you actually believed God is somehow related to religion.
          Or maybe it was simply a Gay coming out of the closet that had you question your role.

          And even maybe the collection plate offerings dried up.. Somehow your so called reality transformation doesn't jive with you spiel here.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Joseph, if you don't follow a religion, why would you bring up "a Gay"?

          I can't imagine your lawless god has a problem with gay people...

          March 21, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          Who knows, but the Gays sure sound desperate to be acknowledged and excepted by main stream religions. One would think if relgion was so important to them they would start their own.

          Or perhaps it's get society to accept Gay as normal behavior, rap it up in holy matromoney, make it look clean and wholesome. Slick..

          March 21, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Is it surprising to you that a group of people would be "acknowledged" and "desperate" for equal rights?

          Are you suggesting that's bad or something?

          Can you provide a single example of the Gays trying to be *accepted* into main stream religions?

          What about being Gay isn't clean and wholesome? Did some text tell you that (remember, you don't follow the Bible) or is it just hate coming from your own mind?

          March 21, 2014 at 6:06 pm |
    • kickgas

      something about "assume" going on here.

      March 21, 2014 at 4:00 pm |
    • ramblingsofnihility

      I have asked about a dozen times now for you to describe the properties of a conscious enti-ty that exists above and beyond our universe and how it created the known universe and how you verified it using your superior ability of philosophy. What's wrong, can't do it?

      March 21, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
      • alfonse2014

        I have answered you a dozen times but you are apparently dumber than a brick. It is not my assertion, it is the assertion of general philosophy. Try getting an education.
        And while we're at it your assholiness, riddle me this:
        Is Quantum mechanics correct or is String Theory correct.?
        What are the proper number of dimensions in String Theory and Why?
        What is the next Theory that will replace String Theory?
        What are the Strings in String Theory? (I'll give you a hint – they are nothing but mathematical constructs – and that being the case, what do they represent in reality?)
        What is the nature of your consciousness.
        Is there a non-physical component to any aspect of nature, including your own mind and thought processes.
        What existed before the Big-Bang
        What exists outside of our universe's 'Bubble'
        And lastly, why do you suffer from the delusion that you know everything, or maybe more properly put, if you don't understand it or don't like it, well then, it simply doesn't exist.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Alfonse, you're still avoiding the question.

          And it's weird that you would pose all those questions, like we have some problem with not knowing the answers to something.

          You're the one that makes assumptions when you don't know the answer to something.

          We simply wait for the answer.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "I have answered you a dozen times"

          No, you haven't.

          "It is not my assertion, it is the assertion of general philosophy."

          Are you not asserting that the general philosophy you keep referring to is correct? If so, why? Does the general philosophy you seem to strongly associate yourself with, describe the properties of a conscious enti-ty that exists above and beyond our universe and how it created the known universe and how it verifies it?

          "And while we're at it your assholiness, riddle me this:"

          The answers to all your questions is I don't know.

          "And lastly, why do you suffer from the delusion that you know everything, or maybe more properly put, if you don't understand it or don't like it, well then, it simply doesn't exist."

          I have made no such assertion, and you are being totally dishonest if you think I have.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Also, the reason you're not giving us an answer is painfully clear.

          Come on, prove us wrong!

          March 21, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Alfonse, dear, I do wish you would stop running away from these questions.

          It's flaccid and pathetic.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
      • chitownmatt

        "Is Quantum mechanics correct or is String Theory correct.?"

        One is not exclusive of the other. Quantum mechanics theory is one of the most scientifically tested theories in the history of science. ST has never been tested, nor has anyone even conceived of an experiment to test it.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
        • alfonse2014

          Whoosh, that's the sound of a point going right over your head

          March 21, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
        • chitownmatt

          "Whoosh, that's the sound of a point going right over your head"

          Wow, that is pretty insulting. – I was politely trying to give you prod about your post.
          Perhaps, my point was that you asking such a question in the first place was clear evidence that you understand neither. Using concepts that you CLEARLY don't understand in your arguments is about as logical as your conclusions.
          Good luck trying to answer questions you don't understand with concepts you understand even less.

          March 21, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
        • chitownmatt

          SMACK, that's the sound of a point hitting you right in the face!!!

          March 21, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
« Previous entry
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.