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. dlcarr1985

    There's an outbreak of Christian-PHOBIA!

    March 21, 2014 at 8:48 pm |
    • bostontola

      Phobia connotes an irrational fear, fear of Christians is rational.

      March 21, 2014 at 9:14 pm |
      • dsangiovanni

        No its not ratio al at all.

        March 21, 2014 at 9:33 pm |
        • observer

          dsangiovanni,

          It starts to look at lot more rational when you think of Phelps and dim bulbs like the one on here who wants "laws to try to eliminate the gay lifestyle".

          March 21, 2014 at 9:56 pm |
  2. neverbeenhappieratheist

    A Christian, a Jew and a Muslim were out taking a walk together when they happened upon some tracks. The Christian said "Those are Deer tracks!" but the Jew disagreed "No! Those are bear tracks" and the Muslim interjected "No! They are Tiger tracks!" and they were all still arguing when the train hit them...

    The religious always seem to have time to argue over the facts but never seem to have any facts of their own to share...

    March 21, 2014 at 8:22 pm |
    • iconoclast1

      Faith is an entirely different track from evidence.

      March 21, 2014 at 8:26 pm |
      • bostontola

        Exactly why there are thousands of versions to choose from.

        Physics is the same at Harvard, and UCLA.

        March 21, 2014 at 8:38 pm |
        • iconoclast1

          When you believe in something that can't be disproved, you're set for life. People who accept things on faith, without evidence, won't be swayed by evidence.

          March 21, 2014 at 8:51 pm |
      • multiversatile

        I have faith in evidence. I only even consider "blind" faith when evidence is scarce, or the sources are suspect. Even then I prefer intuition. At least intuition is informed. "Blind" faith is the abandonment of all information.

        March 21, 2014 at 8:48 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Even then I prefer intuition. At least intuition is informed"

          Weeeelllll, I wouldn't go that far. One of the reasons science has worked so well when other systems have failed is that it doesn't rely on intuition/common sense, because they are so often wrong when dealing with the realities of the universe.

          March 24, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
    • whippstippler7

      @ never: Two Irishmen walk out of a bar.

      No – really.

      March 21, 2014 at 10:26 pm |
  3. multiversatile

    I think there were an infinite number of Big Bangs, not one. And none of them have any bearing on religion. If you consider the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics, and the notion that time is simply a measure of entropy, and the notion that there are infinitely many pasts as well as futures, then the inescapable conclusion is that each and every past leads inexorably to a minimum-entropy singularity that can do only one thing – bang.

    None of them are really "the" Big Bang, any more than any of them is really "the" past. They are only a result of reckoning time by entropy. And certainly, none of them needed a creator, let alone a sentient one.

    March 21, 2014 at 7:50 pm |
    • sanjosemike

      I do agree with you that in order for multiverses to exist, based upon decision trees and expanding entropy, a supreme being or sentient creator is absolutely not necessary, which suggests that such a "being" probably does not exist.

      But consciousness and the ability of conscious measurement that affects quantum realities suggests some out-sided issues that bothered Einstein and Bohr enormously. For Einstein it was "weird action at a distance." For Bohr, it was the nature of observational changes to wave forms that collapsed them.

      Rather than postulate a supreme being, one could suggest that a particular universe with OUR set of physical laws might in fact allow itself to become conscious, by making it possible for biologic beings to develop and allowing it ALL over our particular Universe.

      Of course that is utterly speculative, as I'm sure you would correctly counter. But it IS obvious that statistically, there is a very, very large probability for life to occur throughout OUR particular Universe. We have the physical laws that not just allow it, but even demand it.

      Even if it is true that our own Universe is "conscious" that does not mean it is a god. Rather, it is just another example of a life form that encourages self-awareness. Some people might choose to worship such a life form. I think that's silly.

      Why would you worship ANY life form? Instead, that life form might enjoy and appreciate our ability to evaluate and study it, at least until we self-destruct.

      sanjosemike

      March 21, 2014 at 8:02 pm |
      • dsangiovanni

        Read the life and words of someone called "Jesus", and think about why someone like him lied and why lots of followers died like Esteban. Was Peter a liar too, he could testify about his resurrection, and died martyr too.

        March 21, 2014 at 9:46 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          "Jesus" – wasn't her the second baseman for the 1989 Cubs? Batted .316 that year/ Won the Golden Glove?

          I never realized that he was also a published author. Cool.

          March 21, 2014 at 10:25 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Was Peter a liar too, he could testify about his resurrection, and died martyr too."

          If only we could ask him. Unfortunately all we have are 2 books allegedly written by him (an illiterate fisherman). From what I've read about those earliest times, it seems more likely that Paul and Peter were at odds, Paul won and (his followers) got to write the history as they saw fit.

          March 24, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
    • iconoclast1

      Infinity is pretty hard to fathom. Einstein thought the universe is finite yet unbounded. Who really knows? We probably don't have enough information to even guess, especially when it comes to other universes. As for your "inescapable conclusion" that "each and every past leads inexorably to a minimum-entropy singularity that can do only one thing – bang," I don't think you can support such an "inescapable conclusion." It's OK to admit that we just don't know.

      March 21, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
      • sanjosemike

        Infinity is indeed hard to grasp. Mathematically, it leads to all kinds of problems, and even has resulted in "counted vs. uncounted infinities" as Cantor suggested.

        I also agree with you about "decision trees" resulting in changes that occur in multiple universes. If the latest gravity wave discovery comes to be viewed as an accurate "perception" of our universe, then the existence of multiverses is much more, or even highly likely.

        You're right about infinity. But if we have an infinite universe, then it is absolutely guaranteed mathematically that we must also have a duplicate for our own universe, planet and everything about us.

        We can never contact them. But if our science establishes an infinite series of multiverses, a decision tree for each of our decisions must also exist.

        None of this points to a god or gods. But it suggest the strong possibility that at least OUR universe is conscious. I take the a priori argument (which you probably do not), that if our universe promotes consciousness, it must also be conscious itself.

        I don't take this position lightly. As soon as it was discovered that conscious observation collapsed wave forms, it becomes a necessity. Consciousness is part of our universe, by definition.

        sanjosemike

        March 21, 2014 at 9:06 pm |
        • iconoclast1

          I find quantum physics to be downright bizarre. It seems to me there must be something basic that we just aren't comprehending. It's a subject I have to study some more. The particle/wave nature of light is also troubling to me. Strange stuff. I make no claim to any deep insights on these subjects.

          March 21, 2014 at 9:47 pm |
        • fhillscitizen

          "conscious observation collapsed wave forms,"...

          Ah, then your belief is easily fixed. conscious observation does not collapse wave forms.

          March 22, 2014 at 7:55 am |
    • truthfollower01

      Infinity doesn't exist in the material universe. We can talk about abstract things such as numbers being infinite, but an actual anything physical being infinite leads to absurdities.

      March 21, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
    • dlcarr1985

      The problem with your statement are the first few words "I think"

      March 21, 2014 at 8:51 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        I personally don't have a problem with people speculating, it can lead to great discoveries. However, I do have a problem with people who are speculating, and try to pass it off as being true.

        March 21, 2014 at 9:01 pm |
  4. waynegage

    "...If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent – " And this is where the nonsense starts. Somehow they are privileged to know, First Cause. Chances are we will never know first cause...that does not mean reality requires a god.

    March 21, 2014 at 7:26 pm |
    • truthfollower01

      To paraphrase Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, the cause of the universe must be a transcendent cause beyond the universe. The cause must be itself uncaused because an infinite series of causes is impossible. The cause must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy.

      March 21, 2014 at 8:48 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        You and WLC can use the word must all you want, but all those musts provide zero evidence.

        March 21, 2014 at 8:54 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Please provide reasons why the statements are incorrect. I.E. "The cause must transcend space and time, since it created space and time." Why is this incorrect?

          March 21, 2014 at 9:04 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "Please provide reasons why the statements are incorrect. I.E. "The cause must transcend space and time, since it created space and time." Why is this incorrect?"

          I didn't say they were incorrect, I said the statements do not provide any evidence. The statements by WLC says must this and must that. Where is the verifiable evidence to any of the musts? If there is verifiable evidence, why not just provide the evidence, no musts needed.

          March 21, 2014 at 9:16 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          If they're not incorrect, then what is the problem?

          March 21, 2014 at 9:33 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "If they're not incorrect, then what is the problem?"

          Are you suggesting that they are correct?

          March 21, 2014 at 9:49 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Yes I am.

          March 21, 2014 at 9:53 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          Can you provide verifiable evidence that proves the statements to be correct?

          March 21, 2014 at 9:58 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          I'll take that as a dodge on your part. For example, take the statement: "The cause must be itself uncaused because an infinite series of causes is impossible." Infinity doesn’t exist in the material universe. We can talk about abstract things such as numbers being infinite, but an actual anything physical being infinite leads to absurdities. If you know of an example of an actual material infinite, please provide.

          March 21, 2014 at 10:12 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          I'm not the one asserting that I have ruled out all possibilities except for one, you are. You are the one asserting that it must be this. I have asserted nothing.

          March 21, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          If you have no objections to the statements, what is the problem?

          March 21, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "If you have no objections to the statements, what is the problem?"

          What I object to is anyone claiming those statements to be absolutely correct when no evidence can be provided to prove they are absolutely correct. You can't tell me that every possibility has been ruled out leaving this as the one and only possibility.

          March 21, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Please provide an alternate possibility if you disagree with the statements.

          March 21, 2014 at 11:17 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          Don't have an alternate possibility. Does that mean that there are no possibilities left? Was I the last rock unturned, and if I didn't have the answer, then yours is the only viable option left?

          March 21, 2014 at 11:32 pm |
        • fhillscitizen

          l

          March 21, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          If you have no other possibilities, where do the ones I presented fail?

          March 21, 2014 at 11:38 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          They fail with your inability to provide verifiable evidence for them.

          Why use the word "must"? "Because of that, this MUST be true" That statement suggests you have ruled all other possibilities, so that one must be correct. Have some balls and say, "Because of that, my evidence is this.", and then based on your evidence, one can analyze it as to whether or not your evidence can be verified to be correct.

          March 21, 2014 at 11:48 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          I have already commented in depth on the infinite scenario. You have failed to engage in any statement to show where it fails nor have you offered any alternate possibility. You even said that you didn't say they were incorrect. I see no reason why the statements given as is are incorrect.

          March 21, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "I have already commented in depth on the infinite scenario."

          Really? That is what you consider to be "in depth"?

          "You have failed to engage in any statement to show where it fails nor have you offered any alternate possibility. You even said that you didn't say they were incorrect. I see no reason why the statements given as is are incorrect."

          I can neither say the statements are correct, nor incorrect. Why? Because what you consider to be an "in depth" statement, is far short of that. How is one able to determine whether or not what you say is correct or not when you have not presented a full case? You have only provided an opening statement. Whether or not I can present alternate possibilities as to whether or not your statements are correct or incorrect are completely meaningless. Your statements either stand or fall on your evidence alone. But you have not presented evidence, only assertions.

          And go ahead an declare yourself a victory, which I'm sure you will, but I am so done with this conversation, we are getting nowhere.

          Goodnight.

          March 22, 2014 at 12:15 am |
        • distrbnce

          Truthfollower, just because one doesn't have an alternate scenario doesn't magically make your guess reality. That's a bizarre and childish way to think of the universe.

          The reason it "fails" is the lack of evidence. People shouldn't just believe everything they hear, it's a dangerous way to live life.

          March 22, 2014 at 9:05 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Disturbance,

          Do you disagree with any of the statements? If so, why? If not, what is the issue?

          March 22, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
      • LinCA

        @truthfollower01

        You said, "the cause of the universe must be a transcendent cause beyond the universe."
        Not necessarily. While it appears that everything inside the universe must have a cause, it is not a given that this also applies to the universe itself.

        You said, "The cause must be itself uncaused because an infinite series of causes is impossible."
        If you accept that there can be uncaused causes, you need to go no further. The universe can be uncaused.

        You said, "The cause must transcend space and time, since it created space and time."
        If there was a cause, yes, but as you've already indicated, a cause is not necessary.

        You said, "It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy."
        Well, it was a big bang.....

        March 21, 2014 at 10:02 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Are you saying that the universe caused itself?

          March 21, 2014 at 10:16 pm |
        • LinCA

          No, I'm saying that we don't know how it got started, which includes whether it was caused by anything external, or uncaused.

          March 21, 2014 at 10:19 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          So you believe that it is possible that the universe could cause itself?

          March 21, 2014 at 10:21 pm |
        • LinCA

          @truthfollower01

          You said, "So you believe that it is possible that the universe could cause itself?"
          I don't exclude that possibility. Do you?

          March 21, 2014 at 10:23 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Of course! It is impossible that the universe could bring itself into being. In order for the universe to create itself, it would already have to exist. As William Lane Craig has said, "It would have to exist before it existed."

          March 21, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
        • LinCA

          @truthfollower01

          You said, "Of course!"
          That's odd since you acknowledged uncaused causes. What kind of uncaused cause do you believe is possible and why would it not apply to a universe?

          You said, "It is impossible that the universe could bring itself into being. In order for the universe to create itself, it would already have to exist."
          Not necessarily, physics at those scales is far stranger than anything on human scale.

          But if you feel that you've got it figured out, you should write a paper about it and have it peer-reviewed. If it holds up, it is certainly Nobel prize material.

          March 21, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          follower,
          "... It is impossible that the universe could bring itself into being. In order for the universe to create itself, it would already have to exist. As William Lane Craig has said, "It would have to exist before it existed.""

          How did you verify that it is impossible? You have no trouble accepting that a god could create itself so why not a universe?

          March 21, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Santa,

          "How did you verify that it is impossible? You have no trouble accepting that a god could create itself so why not a universe?"

          This is basic science. How can something create itself without itself first existing to do so? This is incoherent.

          God didn't create Himself. I don't accept that He created Himself.

          March 21, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01

          "I don't accept that He created Himself.'

          So what did create God?

          March 21, 2014 at 11:04 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          "So what did create God?"

          This is akin to asking "are there married bachelors?" The Christian believes that God exists necessarily, not contingently. The Christian believes that everything that begins to exist has a cause. God has always existed. He wasn't created.

          March 21, 2014 at 11:12 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01

          "This is akin to asking "are there married bachelors?"

          Wrong. That has a verifiable answer.

          March 21, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          It's an incoherent question. A married man is not a bachelor. God, who exists necessarily, cannot be created.

          March 21, 2014 at 11:41 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          (Hello again, truthfollower01.)

          You are correct. A married man is not a bachelor. Are there married bachelors? No. It is not an incoherent question.

          March 21, 2014 at 11:58 pm |
        • fhillscitizen

          Space-Time itself is something that has a beginning – there was no "before" as "before" implies time is infinite in both directions, which it is not.

          March 22, 2014 at 1:01 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Sungrazer,

          I apologize for the confusion. I just meant that as the term married bachelors is contradictory, so is the idea of God existing contingently.

          March 22, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
      • fhillscitizen

        That is inherently wrong on many levels. When there is no time, you can have infinte causes and effects happening simultaneously.

        March 22, 2014 at 1:27 am |
        • truthfollower01

          The concept of infinity in the natural world is non existent. We can talk about abstract infinities, such as numbers, but talk of material infinities leads to absurdities.

          March 22, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
  5. waynegage

    Religion does what is does best...confiscating discoveries by others and claims it fits their nonsense.

    March 21, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      It's what they do. Heck, you can't even have a storm without some preacher "wondering aloud" if it might be the hand of God. And don't even get them started on natural disasters, the religious watch some people far away in pain and suffering their first response is to point a finger at any well groomed stylish men they can find and ask "Hmmmm? Could it be the gays? Hmmmm?" Apparently God hates gays and liberals so much he takes it out on anyone in the path of his hurricanes... Of course he is unable to clean his church of pedophiles but have a gay parade and he'll wipe out New Orleans...

      March 21, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
      • kenmargo

        sounds A LOT like the revered phelps that thankfully died. I hope they bury him between two known gay people.

        March 21, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
  6. MadeFromDirt

    Deniers and rejecters (those who call yourselves atheists), I have a question for you to consider this weekend. If your brain is merely a minuscule portion and intermediate result of a guideless process of self-existing particles that just happened to unpack themselves from an unexplained singularity and arrange themselves into various integrated systems of matter and life of increasing complexity over billions of years, which will ultimately disorganize and dissipate into nothingness, why should any value be attached to your thoughts, or to your existence?

    March 21, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
    • waynegage

      The same can be asked of believers.

      March 21, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
    • iconoclast1

      Seriously? So, thoughts and ideas are only valid if they derive from some almighty deity? Wow. Does this theory of yours apply to other things as well? Things have to be deliberately created by a higher power to be worthwhile?

      March 21, 2014 at 7:29 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      Because I value them.

      March 21, 2014 at 7:33 pm |
      • distrbnce

        Wow... You seem really proud about writing this.

        I want you to consider this over the weekend: You don't -have- to jump to a conclusion simply because you don't already know the answer to something. Not knowing something is okay. It's nothing to be ashamed of. It's called critical thinking, and you can learn a lot more about it if you're interested.

        March 21, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          I assume you are replying to MadeFromDirt?

          March 21, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Yeah, thanks

          March 22, 2014 at 9:07 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      If man was made from dirt....why is there still dirt?

      March 21, 2014 at 7:36 pm |
      • Sungrazer

        Ha ha. I hope everyone gets this.

        March 21, 2014 at 7:59 pm |
      • distrbnce

        lol

        March 22, 2014 at 9:08 am |
    • Akira

      I wonder, given your premise,why anyone's should be remembered? Everyone dies.

      March 21, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      I think the more rare a thing is, meaning the chances of it being or happening are very very small, makes a thing more valuable. Warren Buffet has put $1 billion dollars up if someone has a perfect NCAA bracket making it very valuable. Odds of winning are insane, trillions to one. Odds of me being me on this planet orbiting this star? Trillions and trillions to one, so that means i'm one of the luckiest molechular skin sacks of water to have ever evolved in this universe and that is something pretty damn awesome. If i'm just somebody elses pet project and was meant to happen and my life was preordained then it's a 1 to 1 odds that I am who I am and that means i'm just another chess piece on someone elses board and have no real freedom and no real future even if I was to imagine some fluffy afterlife stroking Gods ego for eternity, that is not for me.

      March 21, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
    • multiversatile

      Why indeed? Or to your thoughts.

      March 21, 2014 at 7:56 pm |
    • MadeFromDirt

      I'm disappointed in the quality of the responses and the time spent by responders.

      But anyway, the responses can be placed in two groups:
      1. "I know I will turn into nothingness but I'm ignoring that reality because it's very unpleasant and so I will enjoy my time on earth to the fullest and in my own way."
      2. "I know I am destined for nothingness but so are you."

      Come to think of it, those responses say a lot about the minds, priorities, and future of deniers. So thank you all.

      March 24, 2014 at 7:50 pm |
  7. atheismisfree

    Obviously the iron age "scholars" who penned the bible and didn't even know the Earth was orbiting the Sun. had first hand knowledge about the origins of the universe ..... well maybe if they smoked enough hash .....well even then they didn' know fecal from shinola ,,,, ya pretty much didn't know ass from squat ..............

    March 21, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
    • alfonse2014

      No, the funniest things is listening to DICKWADs like you, with high school diplomas, who probably can't even do their own tax return, ridiculing a Scientist.

      March 21, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
      • iconoclast1

        Unintelligible.

        March 21, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
        • alfonse2014

          I'm sorry, next time I'll use small words and short sentences so that the Nimrods like you can understand

          March 21, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
        • iconoclast1

          @alfonse2014: You like to call people names, I see. I was just pointing out that your reply made no sense. I wouldn't expect the person who made such a comment to understand.

          March 21, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        I am not interested in what this scientist believes, I am interested in what he can demonstrate....apparently not much in this case.

        March 21, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
      • doobzz

        Oooh, she's a SCIENTIST! So what? This article is still only her opinion, not a peer reviewed scientific paper. There's a difference, you know.

        I know a lot of scientists with stupid opinions on various subjects.

        March 21, 2014 at 8:09 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        You have a problem with challenging a scientist that can't provide evidence of their claim?

        March 21, 2014 at 8:27 pm |
      • distrbnce

        Alfonse, you are a delightful example of Christianity. I'm sure you're makin' the big guy proud!

        March 22, 2014 at 9:09 am |
  8. bostontola

    How nutty can some people be?

    They consider science a dubious venture even though objective evidence of it's success is everywhere around us for all to independently verify. Planes fly, communication satellites work, electron microscopes work, buildings stay up, bridges stay up, medicine saves lives, GPS works, we predict weather, we launch telescopes to the L2 point, we can map the cosmic background radiation, etc., etc., etc.

    Then in the next breath, they claim the universe was created by a God that demands allegiance or you get an eternity of pain, but he loves everyone, ALL without one wit of objective evidence.

    Nuts.

    March 21, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
    • Joeseph Eclaire

      Ah yes, that wonderful world of science that in 2014 can be bought and sold like a Sunday preacher poking a $2 who-r with bad make-up.

      March 21, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
      • bostontola

        Nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake.

        March 21, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          Praise the Lord and pass the beans brother,

          March 21, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
        • iconoclast1

          Yep.

          March 21, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
        • Akira

          Is this AB?

          March 21, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
        • bostontola

          Beans, fruitcake, and eclairs, mmmm.

          March 21, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
        • bostontola

          Akira,
          Good call, you always are first to spot the devilish ones : )

          March 21, 2014 at 7:13 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          So how many other Joesephs has anyone ever known? I've known many Josephs, the short of which is Joe, but never a Joeseph...

          Must be how they spell Joseph in Troll...

          March 21, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
        • Akira

          bostontola, he hasn't confirmed yet, and AB always owns up to it...

          March 21, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          AB was much more intelligent than this idiot.

          March 21, 2014 at 7:59 pm |
      • kenmargo

        You said you're a virgin. What do you know about $2.00 who-res

        March 21, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          maybe he meant $2 Hoorays....

          March 21, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
    • iconoclast1

      My theory about that is that it was necessary for the survival of humans for a majority of people to be what you might call obedient followers. Just imagine, from an evolutionary perspective, if everyone had been independent thinkers unwilling to follow others. Yes, this led to blind allegiance – and thus the world's many religions – but it was also a way for groups of people to function better. Groups don't function well if everyone wants to lead or if everyone wants to go in a different direction. You need followers for groups to function and, back then, functioning groups were needed for survival. So, religion may seem anachronistic and dysfunctional today, but the blind allegiance that sustains religions has served an evolutionary purpose.

      March 21, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
      • multiversatile

        No, read Origin of Consciousness. What was necessary was auditory hallucination for the purpose of civil cooperation. It grew into gods, and then fell apart into consciousness. You are your own god now, and those of old are naught but nostalgia and exploitation.

        March 21, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
    • islamistheanswer

      You lose credibility when you generalize your comments to imply people of all faiths. Based on your comment, I would assume (it is just an assumption) that your meant Christianity. I have said once and again that Islam is a continuation of the Abrahamic faiths and that it does complement those faith in ways that go beyond the confirmation but also the rectification of that which has been corrupted by men over the years.

      The proof you demand is readily available but you constantly chose to avoid it. If Science is what you base your "belief" on, then logically when it is demonstrated that the Quran has a lot of the scientific discoveries well illustrated and detailed 1400 years ago, then you should believe that it is a revelation from God. As such, and since the God of Islam is the same God of Christianity and Judaism (according to the Quran that just been certified), Christianity and Judaism are true religions of God with text that has been corrupted ( another reason you find contradictions with science because ordinary humans changed the word of God so you can see the flaws in it).

      Willing to take this challenge? I challenge all here to evaluate the scientific evidence in the Quran and since most are believers of science, it should be no problem thereafter to embrace Islam? Don't you think (at least based on your comment above).

      March 21, 2014 at 8:16 pm |
      • dsangiovanni

        I have not read the Quoran, so I know nothing about your religion. Who in your religion died and resurrected like Jesus did as Saul of Tarso, Peter and John testified ?

        March 21, 2014 at 10:03 pm |
        • islamistheanswer

          Thank you for this question. In a nutshell, The Quran has a unique perspective on Jesus and on resurrection! Muslims believe that Jesus (Peace and Blessings be upon him and his mother, Mary) was a special prophet and that he was not crucified nor was he killed. We believe that he was taken to heaven by God and that he will return one day to this earth. We believe on his return that this planet will be very peaceful and that marks the end of this life (his return is one of the major signs of the nearness of the day of judgement). We believe his return will be upon the spread of the message that the Anti-Christ will carry through. We believe in all the miracles of Jesus (Peace and Blessings be upon him) in addition to more miracles that the Quran mentions. Mohammed (Peace and Blessings be upon him), the Prophet of Islam emphasized that Muslims don't do what nations before did with their Prophets in making them associates of ALLAH (God). Below are some of the verses of the Quran addressing and explaining Jesus' status in Islam to ponder about.

          Same God, Same Message!
          They say, "Be Jews or Christians [so] you will be guided." Say, "Rather, [we follow] the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth, and he was not of the polytheists."(135) Say, [O believers], "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him." (136) So if they believe in the same as you believe in, then they have been [rightly] guided; but if they turn away, they are only in dissension, and Allah will be sufficient for you against them. And He is the Hearing, the Knowing. (137) Quran Chapter 2

          Jesus with a higher degree!
          Those messengers – some of them We caused to exceed others. Among them were those to whom Allah spoke, and He raised some of them in degree. And We gave Jesus, the Son of Mary, clear proofs, and We supported him with the Pure Spirit. If Allah had willed, those [generations] succeeding them would not have fought each other after the clear proofs had come to them. But they differed, and some of them believed and some of them disbelieved. And if Allah had willed, they would not have fought each other, but Allah does what He intends.(253) Quran Chapter 2

          Jesus Raised to Heaven!
          [Mention] when Allah said, "O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ. (55) Quran Chapter 3

          Jesus is like Adam!
          Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was. (59) Quran Chapter 3

          Jesus was not Crucified nor Killed!
          And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. (157) Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.(158) Quran Chapter 3
          Quran and Trinity!
          O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. (171) Quran Chapter 4
          Jesus' Message is Guidance!
          And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. (46) Quran Chapter 5

          March 21, 2014 at 11:29 pm |
        • islamistheanswer

          On Trinity Again and Disbelief
          They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.(72) They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the third of three." And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. (73) So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.(74) The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. (75) Say, "Do you worship besides Allah that which holds for you no [power of] harm or benefit while it is Allah who is the Hearing, the Knowing?" (76) Quran Chapter 5

          Jesus Miracles in the Quran
          [Be warned of] the Day when Allah will assemble the messengers and say, "What was the response you received?" They will say, "We have no knowledge. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen" (109)[The Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Pure Spirit and you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and [remember] when I taught you writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and when you designed from clay [what was] like the form of a bird with My permission, then you breathed into it, and it became a bird with My permission; and you healed the blind and the leper with My permission; and when you brought forth the dead with My permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from [killing] you when you came to them with clear proofs and those who disbelieved among them said, "This is not but obvious magic." (110) Quran Chapter 5

          Jesus Never said he was the Son of God (According to the Quran)
          And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen. (116) I said not to them except what You commanded me – to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness. (117) If You should punish them – indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them – indeed it is You who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.(118) Quran Chapter 5

          More on what Jesus (Peace and Blessings be Upon him) Said
          [Jesus] said, "Indeed, I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet. (30) And He has made me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined upon me prayer and zakah as long as I remain alive (31) And [made me] dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me a wretched tyrant. (32) And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive." (33) That is Jesus, the son of Mary – the word of truth about which they are in dispute. (34) It is not [befitting] for Allah to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is. (35)[Jesus said], "And indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path." (36) Then the factions differed [concerning Jesus] from among them, so woe to those who disbelieved – from the scene of a tremendous Day. (37) How [clearly] they will hear and see the Day they come to Us, but the wrongdoers today are in clear error. (38) Quran Chapter 19 (Mary)

          March 21, 2014 at 11:40 pm |
        • islamistheanswer

          You might be wondering about Mohammed (Peace and Blessings be upon him and all the prophets before him) and how he is viewed in Islam (and the Quran that was revealed through him) as compared to Jesus in terms of his status

          Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him. So if he was to die or be killed, would you turn back on your heels [to unbelief]? And he who turns back on his heels will never harm Allah at all; but Allah will reward the grateful. (144) Quran Chapter 3

          Notice that although the Quran was revealed through Prophet Mohammed (Peace and Blessings be upon him and all the prophets before him), the core message therein remained the same until today. ALLAH (God) is ONE and messengers and Prophets were sent to rely the message to humanity. Nothing special even for Prophet Mohammed (Peace and Blessings be upon him and all the prophets before him). Hope this also helps.

          March 22, 2014 at 12:54 am |
  9. rachel2034

    Lets get ridiculous and say that the author is correct and this finding is proof of god. Which one? Allah? Jesus? Zeus?

    March 21, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
    • iconoclast1

      Or one of the deities from the hundreds of dead religions?

      March 21, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
    • Joeseph Eclaire

      I suspect the on e that wasn't created by mankind.
      A guess mind you.

      March 21, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
    • kenmargo

      Rachel you can make up your own. Everybody else does.

      March 21, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
    • multiversatile

      The smart money's on Gozer.

      March 21, 2014 at 8:02 pm |
  10. Joeseph Eclaire

    _________OK people listen up.

    Jesus freaks form a line to your left and the dopers, atheists and homse-uls form a line to your right.

    Now, on the count of 3 yell at each other as loud as you can.

    March 21, 2014 at 6:54 pm |
    • Akira

      You can stay right in the middle, where assholes go.

      March 21, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
      • kenmargo

        Now now Akira, That's not nice. Please apologize to the azzholes you just offended.

        March 21, 2014 at 6:58 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          As full of s–t as you are and everyone here posting is. (:

          March 21, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
      • Joeseph Eclaire

        I'll have you know I'm a virgin.

        March 21, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Do you want a prize?

          March 21, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          Oh please know..

          March 21, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          So I take it your Eclaire is still filled...?

          March 21, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
        • Akira

          *snerk*

          March 21, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          Still as full of s–t as you are and everyone here posting is. (:

          March 21, 2014 at 7:07 pm |
    • iconoclast1

      What is it with religious people and gays? Why does that bother you so much?

      March 21, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
      • Joeseph Eclaire

        Are you kidding, those freaks where made for each other.

        March 21, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
        • kenmargo

          You haven't sealed the deal yet! How do you know you're not gay? I hope you realize gays got here the same way you did!
          God is against mas-ter-bating (So says religious people) so you must have a lot of wet dreams.

          March 21, 2014 at 7:13 pm |
    • multiversatile

      Why would you group those three things together? I'm only two out of three.

      March 21, 2014 at 8:04 pm |
  11. emethreality

    It annoys me too much to see another generation of physicist deterred by the dumb, messy patchwork called the Big Bang and other called the standard model of particle physics that hide the basic problems physics ought to deal with. Whether this is fraudulent, charlatanry or just thoroughly foolish, we may leave aside but they just don't realize how absolutely unlikely their messy models are. George Bernard Shaw said: "Beware of false knowledge, it is more dangerous than ignorance". I add: time is running and Universe is not going to wait for us to understand. Period of time is limited . This is scandal and very dangerous for our Civilization. Yes!!! I know the true about Universe and my aim is to teach you. I know what we measure as mass and what gravity is. I can explain dark matter and dark energy. I know source of entropy and structure of Time-Space. More , I know possible future.
    We need to get rid of that junk to evolve, survive and be successful part of Universe.

    March 21, 2014 at 6:46 pm |
    • distrbnce

      So put it in a scientific journal for review and we'll get to work...

      What's with all the jibber jabber? Kinda makes me wary about your actual evidence...

      March 21, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
      • iconoclast1

        But.... but..... but he knows the "true about Universe."
        LMAO

        March 21, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
    • ramblingsofnihility

      "I know the true about Universe and my aim is to teach you. I know what we measure as mass and what gravity is. I can explain dark matter and dark energy. I know source of entropy and structure of Time-Space. More , I know possible future."

      Proceed.

      March 21, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
    • distrbnce

      Figures, we ask for more and you vanish

      March 22, 2014 at 9:13 am |
  12. freefromtheism

    "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."

    Actually, no, this is false. This has been what the Kalam cosmological argument has been claiming all along, even though it does not make such a claim explicit (because it cannot; it does NOT follow that there has to be an "agent").

    The following is a version of the Kalam cosmological argument:

    1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
    2. the universe began to exist
    3. therefore, the universe has a cause

    That makes sense, but there is nothing in such an argument that leads one to believe that such a cause MUST be, as the author claims it is, an agent.

    March 21, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
    • Vic

      Dr. Leslie Wickman is right on.

      When you examine the nature of that Cause, you see that it must be outside the universe's beginning, realm and time, and is not subject to it, that is non-temporal—without beginning nor end, hence NON-CHANGING, hence Eternal, hence UNCAUSED, hence Metaphysical, hence "First Cause."

      That's the "Agent" Dr. Leslie Wiskman is referring to.

      March 21, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
      • bostontola

        1. Cause does not require an agent.
        2. Cause/effect is not defined where time doesn't exist (at the moment the universe started).

        March 21, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
      • freefromtheism

        I think you missed my point. I understand what Wickman is saying, but he's wrong. Such a being is NOT the only possible explanation. For instance, our universe could be part of a multiverse that is uncaused, eternal, etc. Why wouldn't this explanation be just as good if not better than a supernatural explanation?
        Not only that, but there is no way to support the idea that a metaphysical being that cannot change, for example, can enact change (create a universe). That is self-contradictory.
        Of course there are many other problems with the triple-O god explanation that I won't get into, but I hope I've made my point clearer.

        March 21, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
        • Vic

          Even if, for the sake of argument, there are infinite universes, aka Multiverse Hypothesis —which, BTW, miserably fails the Occam's razor against the God Hypothesis— that would still require the "First Cause."

          Also, 'Infinite Regression' is impossible, so the universe cannot just be cyclical.

          http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/comment-page-5/#comment-2969113

          Last but not least, you assume that you know the Form of the Metaphysical Supernatural with your argument, which is impossible.

          March 21, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Last but not least, you assume that you know the Form of the Metaphysical Supernatural with your argument, which is impossible."

          The irony is thick Vic....

          March 21, 2014 at 7:19 pm |
        • freefromtheism

          Vic, at this point I'm not sure if you're voluntarily being dishonest or whether you just don't understand what the problems are with what you are saying.
          Firstly, you did not even respond to my objections to the "God hypothesis", secondly, I made no specific claim as to which multiverse theory I was appealing to (there isn't only one), and you simply assumed I was talking about a specific one, one that I do not care to defend.
          Also, you should know that you should back up your claims with a bit more of argumentation (e.g., why would the multiverse hypothesis fail Occam's razor; you can't honestly believe that I would just accept such a conclusion without asking for the justification).
          Either way, what do you mean by the "form", are you talking about the properties of such a being? I did not add any assumptions beyond those that were already given; thus, if my assumptions are not valid, yours, or Dr. Wickman's, are also invalid.
          Finally, because even if you were right about the problems that might challenge the multiverse theory, which, as I said, is only ONE of the possible alternatives, that does not show that the "God hypothesis" is nowhere near being adequate.

          March 21, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        "When you examine the nature of that Cause, you see that it must be outside the universe's beginning, realm and time"

        Not sure I'm comfy with the word "must", but ok, proceed.

        "hence NON-CHANGING, hence Eternal, hence UNCAUSED, hence Metaphysical, hence "First Cause."

        Here you are going to have to supply verifiable evidence.

        March 21, 2014 at 6:57 pm |
        • Vic

          It is self-explanatory:

          For this universe, which is physical and ever-changing, hence finite, hence cannot be infinite/eternal, hence temporal, hence had a beginning, to exist, there must be a cause.

          Since the universe had a beginning and is physical, ever-changing and finite, there must be a cause that is outside the universe's beginning, realm and time, and is not subject to it, that is non-temporal—without beginning nor end, hence NON-CHANGING, hence Eternal, hence UNCAUSED, hence Metaphysical, hence "First Cause."

          March 21, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "It is self-explanatory:"

          To you I'm sure it is.

          March 21, 2014 at 8:31 pm |
    • multiversatile

      I am more inclined to present this argument:

      If material reality is an illusion, then any need for it to have any sort of a cause is also an illusion.

      March 21, 2014 at 8:11 pm |
  13. craschnet

    Great, another "Appeal to Ignorance" fallacy. If your "God" really all about scientific mystery?
    I quote Neil deGrasse Tyson "Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on – so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem."

    March 21, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
    • distrbnce

      That's a little pushy, it's not like they have another choice. It's basically just "how fast is a bunch of adults willing to swallow their pride"

      Many of them simply can't.

      March 21, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
  14. ccfarris

    The big bang breakthrough offers proof of God... You've got to be kidding. Talk about jumping at straws.

    March 21, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
    • kenmargo

      People see god on a slice of toast. The big bang gives them more bang for their buck.

      March 21, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
    • multiversatile

      Welcome to the world of pay-per-click.

      March 21, 2014 at 8:13 pm |
  15. kenmargo

    I know how to make god prove his existence. STOP GIVING MONEY TO THE CHURCH. We'll se how "powerful" god is without any dinero to work with. I'll bet his azz will be on a soup line just like everyone else. Oh by the way, can someone get god to tell us where that plane is.

    March 21, 2014 at 6:15 pm |
  16. alfonse2014

    Nothing amuses me more than to listen to a bunch of bitter hateful Atheists pontificate about all aspects of reality.
    --with their 16 ounces of grey matter, and relative nano-seconds of existence on this little planet circling a little red star in the corner of a galaxy containing billions of stars, separated by millions of light years from the next galaxy in a universe containing billions and billions of galaxies.
    -oh, but they have it ALL figured out.
    ...........Wow, talk about galatic hubris. Most of you probably couldn't even explain why the sky is blue.

    March 21, 2014 at 6:12 pm |
    • bostontola

      I don't know about atheists, but scientists know they don't know everything. It's religion that professes to have the ultimate truth with no objective evidence.

      March 21, 2014 at 6:16 pm |
    • kenmargo

      Why would we be bitter? You are the one that believes in the 'ol mighty one. Why would we be bitter over something that doesn't exist? I was wondering, is there a justice league up there? You know, god, allah and the other million or so gods other uneducated people believe in?

      March 21, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
      • alfonse2014

        Where did i say in that post that i believe in a 'personal god'. You are the one who is claiming to KNOW that the existence of a higher being, beings, or power is not possible. You are the one who is claiming to KNOW what you can not possibly know or prove. You are the one demonstrating the very heights of academic ignorance and arrogance.

        March 21, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Ok armpit breath, where did I mention personal god?

          March 21, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "Where did i say in that post that i believe in a 'personal god'. You are the one who is claiming to KNOW that the existence of a higher being, beings, or power is not possible. You are the one who is claiming to KNOW what you can not possibly know or prove. You are the one demonstrating the very heights of academic ignorance and arrogance."

          I don't see anything like that in his post. Are we reading the same post?

          March 21, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      You presumably believe that you were specially created, that god takes a special interest in you (even the hairs on your head are numbered), and that humanity occupies the central place in the universe. Is there a more arrogant belief than that?

      March 21, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
    • hoeech

      As opposed to listening to the ramblings of a bunch of plagiarists from the dark ages who thought they could figure out the origins of the universe by copying what other religions of the day claimed but tweaking it enough to call it "the truth"? Scientists do not claim to have all the answers yet.....unlike theologians who hang onto 5000 year old fairy tales rather than opening their eyes or their minds.

      March 21, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
    • ramblingsofnihility

      Attention! Attention!

      alfonse2014 is about to provide definite, verifiable proof to everything he believes is true using philosophy.

      Please, proceed.

      March 21, 2014 at 6:24 pm |
    • distrbnce

      Atheists do not claim to know everything, they simply are not convinced by the things that have convinced you.

      Theists have the hubris to pretend they know god, when all they have is a pile of wishes.

      March 21, 2014 at 6:27 pm |
    • multiversatile

      1. Thou dost sound rather bitter and hateful thyself.

      2. Grey matter is but a small fraction of brain matter, but most folks have about 48 ounces or more of the latter.

      3. I've spent approximately 1,671,408,000,000,000,000 nanoseconds here so far.

      4. Our star is decidedly yellow. Ask any child.

      5. Galaxies don't generally have corners.

      6. Quantum entanglement suggests that distance must be an illusion, even millions or billions of light years of it.

      7. The sky is clear at visible wavelengths, and when not clouded. You can see so at night. It appears blue in daylight because it more effectively scatters the shorter wavelengths of the light that mostly originate from old Sol, so that they appear to come from all directions.

      8. I have lots of hubris. So do you.

      March 21, 2014 at 8:27 pm |
  17. Joeseph Eclaire

    Just remember that both science and religion can lead you right over the cliff equally.
    Both require no more prof then what a person says is the truth. The assumption is that some think the person with the Ph.D is any more knowledgeable then the once who claims God has instructed them.

    Both sides where taught by man. Although outside of theology or divinity school one might have paid a little more for that knowledge.

    Mankind is no closer to the truth today then it was 6000 years ago.
    And a God explains what science cannot and never will be able too explain in even another 6000 years.

    March 21, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
    • bostontola

      "Both require no more prof then what a person says is the truth." False.

      Science requires peer review and independent confirmation by having a different scientist run a similar test, and/or run a different test that confirms the result in a different way.

      March 21, 2014 at 6:14 pm |
      • Joeseph Eclaire

        Who created the test ?

        March 21, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
        • bostontola

          A scientist.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          Doesn't matter who created the test, it only matters if what is being tested can be repeated and verified.

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

          Lol !
          You smoking some good s–t ain't ya.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:23 pm |
        • bostontola

          Joeseph,
          Your mockery is in the face of mountains of successful science. telescopes work, microscopes work, NMRs work, airplanes fly, medicine works, the list could go on for pages. No other method has such a record of success. You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:28 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Both require no more prof then what a person says is the truth."

          The irony of the fact that you typed this on the computer and sent it over the internet escapes you. You are a loon.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:28 pm |
        • distrbnce

          We've established in another thread that the scientific process is a foreign concept to joeseph.

          When you get to a part he doesn't understand, he'll say you're smokin' "dope"

          March 21, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Let's not forget he joined this conversation saying that the moon landing was staged.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:34 pm |
    • ramblingsofnihility

      "Both require no more prof then what a person says is the truth."

      Really? Is that how science works, someone claims something to be true, and everybody else just agrees?

      "The assumption is that some think the person with the Ph.D is any more knowledgeable"

      I would expect a person with a PhD to be more knowledgeable in their field of expertise then those without a PhD. I have a reasonable expectation that my primary care physician has more knowledge than I do in health care. Course, some get their PhD's from non-reputable sources.

      "Mankind is no closer to the truth today then it was 6000 years ago."

      I guess that depends on how you define "truth".

      "And a God explains what science cannot and never will be able too explain in even another 6000 years."

      I might agree to that if you can provide verifiable evidence of such a god, the amount of said god's knowledge, and what science will know 6,000 years from now.

      March 21, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
      • Joeseph Eclaire

        Can you prove there is no God ?

        March 21, 2014 at 6:22 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          Never asserted there wasn't. But to answer your question, no, I cannot.

          Can you prove there is?

          March 21, 2014 at 6:26 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          Yes.
          But not for you..

          March 21, 2014 at 6:28 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          Ah geez, pretty please, with peanut butter on top?

          March 21, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Yes.
          But not for you.."

          Which is exactly the same as "no I can't"

          March 21, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Joe if you can prove god exists, you might be able to convert him/her/it.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          If I have to try and prove it to anyone other then myself would that not mean my faith is weak ?
          Quite frankly I don't care what you believe in. Cause you will never, ever catch me trying to convince you other wise.

          What ever works for you, or helps you get through it all.
          I really don't give a damn.

          Seriously.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:34 pm |
        • distrbnce

          "If I have to try and prove it to anyone other then myself would that not mean my faith is weak?"

          No. Think it through, Joeseph. If you could prove it to anyone other than yourself, you could discard faith and rely on evidence. Faith is the thing you've been told you must cherish, because it's absolutely all you have.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:36 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          The interesting thing of course is why you feel the need to prove Gay is a normal behavior, have your doubts do ya 'ole queen ?

          March 21, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "If I have to try and prove it to anyone other then myself would that not mean my faith is weak?"

          I don't know, would it?

          March 21, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Mean no offense joe, But your faith stinks. We pray after every school shooting that the shootings stop. But they don't. Why? Because praying is a waste of time. Always has, always will be. People pray for a lot of things. 99.9% the prayers aren't answered. The .1%. Luck. With a failure rate like that. I don't see the value of religion.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "If I have to try and prove it to anyone other then myself would that not mean my faith is weak ?"

          You mean like your ability to reason?

          March 21, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "The interesting thing of course is why you feel the need to prove Gay is a normal behavior, have your doubts do ya 'ole queen ?"

          Who said anything about gays?

          March 21, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Joeseph, why do you think I have a desire to prove Gay is a normal behavior? From what I know that's already been proven, plus, it doesn't matter much to me.

          And why would I care if you try to assert that I'm gay? Why would I have a problem with that? Do you think I'm that self-conscious? Are you familiar with projecting?ve Gay is a normal behavior, have your doubts do ya 'ole queen ?

          March 21, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
        • demfromsc

          You are the one that is hypothesizing (I prefer the term "fantasizing") about a being that is supposedly even more difficult to understand than the universe. Physicists have, in fact, shown that subatomic particles can arise out of nothing in a vacuum. So, theoretically, it IS possible that the universe sprang into existence from, literally, nothing. I find that much more believable than the presence of some preexisting sky fairy (which came from where?) who somehow created the entire universe and still controls every molecule in that universe. It is up to you to prove the existence of such a being; it's not up to us atheists to prove that there is no god because your belief has exactly zero evidence to support it.

          March 21, 2014 at 7:28 pm |
        • Woody

          "Yes. But not for you.." – Joeseph Eclaire (when asked if he could prove there was a god).

          Congratulations Joe. If you can absolutely prove that any god exists, you'll be the first person in the history of the world to do so. Of course your "proof" will have to survive all scientific scrutiny. Good luck with that. Others have tried, all have failed. You'll simply be another one on the "failed" list.

          March 21, 2014 at 9:47 pm |
    • iconoclast1

      "Just remember that both science and religion can lead you right over the cliff equally."

      Wow. Talk about false equivalence.

      March 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
    • multiversatile

      Fortunately for you, neither scientific doctoral programs nor theological ones have very stringent requirements as to spelling or composition. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that you have a doctorate.

      March 21, 2014 at 8:32 pm |
  18. Tom Paine

    Lol. I can only imagine (because I have no intent on reading the comments of CNNs frequently anti-religion audience) but I bet this one will generate comments for days and days.

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

      Why are you here?

      March 21, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
      • Tom Paine

        Oh, I care about faith and about people. I just don't care to fill my mind with negativity.

        March 24, 2014 at 12:24 am |
    • 1ohreally1

      You know, it's was encouraging to see this comment. I had come to the same conclusion myself. But being who I am I just couldn't resist reading a comment or two. Well this was the first and I will read no more. As believers we should be attuned for confirmation regarding decisions we make. This incidence sure fits the bill.
      I enjoy contemplating the wonder that is God, and am saddened to read the hateful, horrible, misery inspiring trash that articles with anything to do with God provoke.
      Thanks for helping me, albeit grudgingly, stick to my original plan.
      Being that God is so good, I got to comment without taking in a bunch of stuff that just doesn't promote comfort.

      March 21, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
      • kenmargo

        Why are you here?

        March 21, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
      • Tom Paine

        That's it . It's one thing to consider other points of view but God doesn't want us to fill our heads with negativity. And just the mocking and deriding of people for their faith doesn't build anyone up.

        March 21, 2014 at 6:46 pm |
        • iconoclast1

          So, it's all about believing those things that are the most pleasant? It has nothing to do with reality, facts or evidence?

          March 21, 2014 at 6:57 pm |
        • Tom Paine

          It has to do with faith icon. And that's hard for many 21st century folks (honestly it has always been hard). But I don't believe the search for God is the search for evidence. And I'm glad to talk to anyone who isn't of the mindset that if they mock people enough, they will change their outlook. FYI, I also love science and what it teaches us.

          March 21, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
        • kenmargo

          I thought you left?

          March 21, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
  19. mvrunner

    Hogwash, Ms. Wickman. In your eyes, NO scientific discovery or breakthrough will convince you that your belief system is wrong. EVERY scientific discovery or breakthrough will instead somehow prove that your belief system is right.

    I suppose that's alright for some people – it's called "faith" for a reason. But pretending that science supports your faith is disingenuous, to say the least.

    March 21, 2014 at 6:07 pm |
    • alfonse2014

      You're not very good with logic are you.
      IF the theoligical belief IS correct THEN all 'correct' scientific discovery WILL support it.
      Of course the opposite would also be true
      IF the theological belief IS NOT correct THEN all 'correct' scientific discovery MAYor MAY NOT support it.
      .....of course, you and the bitter Atheist are bringing personal opinion to the analysis and improperly presupposing that ALL theological premises are incorrect.

      March 21, 2014 at 6:22 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        Wow, that is amazing logic. Something may or may not be correct. Genius.

        March 21, 2014 at 6:28 pm |
        • wilburw7

          He said something is not correct if it disagrees with a correct theology.

          If you know that Christianity is correct, then you know any scientific conclusion disagreeing with it must be wrong

          March 21, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
        • Akira

          Wilbur, I’ve asked this several times; perhaps you missed my question, or I’ve missed your answer: you’ve said you’re a scientist.

          In what field?

          March 21, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Left field.

          March 22, 2014 at 9:16 am |
      • wilburw7

        Correct.

        March 21, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        "of course, you and the bitter Atheist are bringing personal opinion to the analysis and improperly presupposing that ALL theological premises are incorrect."

        I have presupposed nothing, asserted nothing, and have said nothing about theological premises being incorrect. I am just waiting for someone, anyone to provide verifiable evidence. Is that really too much to ask for?

        March 21, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
  20. bostontola

    "Proof of God is not from without, but from within." That pretty well sums up the approach of religious people. They consider their feelings proof.

    Human feelings, sensory perceptions, thinking process, etc. are all highly limited in range and flawed within its range. You can't trust them. They are far from proof of anything. They aren't even considered objective evidence of anything.

    Science recognized this many years ago and developed a system to guard against such flawed processes, the scientific method. It has worked much better than any other system ever devised. Bridges rarely fall, planes don't often fall out of the sky, etc.

    The scientific method doesn't rely on any individual scientist, that's why it works. In the science community, you are rewarded as much for de-bunking bad science as for discovering new science. That's all that's needed. It weeds out bad science unless every scientist is in a conspiratorial cabal with every other scientist. One honest scientist will rat out the others.

    The religious method is similar to classic monarchies. Top down, power concentrated in very few, dogma is defined and unquestioned. It is the polar opposite of the scientific method, where power is distributed to the entire community.

    There may or may not be a God, but religions are false. I trust science as much as i could trust anything. I distrust religion as much or more than political systems.

    March 21, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
    • wilburw7

      Your guess is incorrect. A Christian believes in God by divine revelation, which is beyond your understanding. This is not my idea; it is my experience and it is explained in the Bible:

      Matthew 16:15
      Jesus asked: “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered and
      said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered
      and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood
      has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

      You do not understand that God exists because of reasoning or the lack of reasoning. That is a very incorrect idea.

      March 21, 2014 at 6:07 pm |
      • distrbnce

        divine revelation = "GAWD TALKED TO ME I SWEAR!! I'M A UNIQUE SNOWFLAKE!!"

        March 21, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
        • wilburw7

          You are doomed.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:16 pm |
        • distrbnce

          lol.

          So are you. Thou shalt not judge.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
        • wilburw7

          distrbnce wrote: "lol. So are you. Thou shalt not judge."

          You do not even know what you are talking about. I am not your judge. I am your warning. After you die, it is TOO LATE. You are like a blind man waking toward a cliff. I am telling you that you are heading towards a cliff. And you are saying I can't see a cliff so I am going to keep walking until I have proof of a cliff. And I am saying if you do that you are DOOMED because your first indication of the cliff is the sensation of falling and the you can't stop from hitting the ground because it is TOO LATE.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:26 pm |
        • distrbnce

          You just cast judgement upon me by telling me I'm doomed. You aren't tricking me so I doubt you're tricking God. You have committed a deadly sin, and are pridefully pretending you have not.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:28 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Comment however you want, I'm not the one you need to answer to.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:29 pm |
        • wilburw7

          distrbnce, That is not what that passage means. You are wrong. I am not sentencing you or condemning you. I am telling you how your actions are going to lead you to hell based on the Bible. And Ironically, you are doing the same thing as me by telling me I am judging you and telling me I am also doomed for doing it. If you continue to not seek God and fail to get redemption through Jesus Christ, then GOD WILL JUDGE YOU. I will not judge you. GOD WILL JUDGE you. I am only telling you that you are doomed. Me telling you that, does not sentence you.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:34 pm |
        • distrbnce

          The difference here, which you bizarrely can't seem to grasp, is that "judgement" means absolutely nothing to me.

          I'll live my life in a kind and loving way. I'll advise you that you're going to hell, based on the laws of the God you believe in. I'll die fat, happy and peacefully, after a long and fulfilling life.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Also, 4/5 on the backtracking. I'm pretty sure God will be convinced by that.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:40 pm |
        • wilburw7

          I have no memory of backtracking whatsoever. I said you are doomed. Why? because you are. You are waiting for evidence that will not come before you do the one thing that can stop you from being doomed. So you are doomed regardless of any idea going through my brain whatsoever.

          March 21, 2014 at 7:05 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Whether you have memory of it or not is irrelevant.

          I've been baptized and I've accepted Jesus into my heart. What else would you have me do, O' messenger of God?

          March 21, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Wilbur, why have you forsaken me? Where'd ya go!.

          March 22, 2014 at 9:18 am |
      • bostontola

        Not my guess, it's the statement of a religious person and applauded by others.

        What proof do you have that your book was divinely created?

        March 21, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        " A Christian believes in God by divine revelation, which is beyond your understanding."

        Cult logic

        .... where an ideology or belief claims "certainty" but only through accepting that belief can one know "true" knowledge. It can't be demonstrated to non-believers until they accept the belief. And non-believers cannot be taken seriously in their criticism of the belief BECAUSE they are non-believers and do not have access to the "true" knowledge. It is religious babble.

        March 21, 2014 at 6:15 pm |
        • wilburw7

          Incorrect. It is not logic. It is not reasoning. It is divine revelation.

          God chooses who he gives this divine revelation to. What inspires him to pick certain people?

          Jeremiah 29:13
          "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."

          That is not what you are doing. That is why you do not know that God exists. Does someone with more reasoning skill automatically not believe in God? NO. It has nothing to do with it. Newton had very excellent reasoning skill:

          "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by
          those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."– Isaac Newton

          March 21, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Oh god, pick me, pick me.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:22 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "That is not what you are doing. That is why you do not know that God exists."

          Cult logic

          March 21, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "Newton had very excellent reasoning skill:

          "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by
          those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."– Isaac Newton"

          Wow, he had a belief. No evidence, but a belief.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:32 pm |
        • wilburw7

          ramblingsofnihility, Yes. Newton did not have evidence, and you will not have evidence and God will have solid absolute proof that you sinned. And then you will be judged. If you do not have Jesus Christ as your savior, then God will throw you into hell. Yes. You Newton did not have evidence. Newton had something more valuable. He had faith. Newton is not in hell.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "God will have solid absolute proof that you sinned. And then you will be judged. If you do not have Jesus Christ as your savior, then God will throw you into hell."

          Your fear mongering will not sway me.

          "Newton is not in hell."

          How do you know Newton is not in hell? How do you know he didn't have an unforgivable sin in his life? Have you examined hell to verify that he is not there? You certainly seem to like to assert things you don't know.

          March 21, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
    • wilburw7

      It is only a correlation but it seems to be a very very consistent correlation that Christianity is usually present around increases in science. And a lack of scientific accomplishment is usually found in atheistic cultures. Why do you think that is?

      March 21, 2014 at 6:14 pm |
      • bostontola

        Great question. Hundreds of years ago, priests lived off donations. Everyone else had to make a living other than the very few rich people. Scientists were either priests or rich, those were the only ones with spare time on their hands.

        March 21, 2014 at 6:19 pm |
        • wilburw7

          Newton and Faraday were not financed by Churches. They both contributed more than any atheist.

          No atheistic majority country ever led scientifically over that last 400 years. How do you explain that?

          March 21, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
      • Joeseph Eclaire

        Because what the 20 something rebels without a cause haven't figure out yet is that there can be no science without a God. And no God without science.
        Both are mutually inclusive of each other.

        March 21, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
        • bostontola

          I've never seen a science book with God in it. I have seen religious books with science in them, much of which is wrong.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:24 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          And you probably never will.
          They still think America was discovered by Christopher Columbus.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "They still think America was discovered by Christopher Columbus."

          Who is they?

          March 21, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
        • bostontola

          That's why science doesn't need God, they are not mutually inclusive.

          Who is "they"? Historians?

          March 21, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          Who is they.
          Every school district in the nation.
          And by the time you reach 60 I'm sure the evolution will be reversed back to the pen-s and but-tock.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:36 pm |
        • bostontola

          What do school districts have to do with science vs religion? Please try to stay focused, you're fading on me.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          Yes, knowledge can be frighting for some uh.
          Thanks for playing.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
        • bostontola

          You are a conspiracy theorist. Cool.

          March 21, 2014 at 6:50 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "Every school district in the nation."

          Really? You have surveyed every school district in the nation to confirm this? Can you provide verifiable evidence?

          March 21, 2014 at 6:51 pm |
      • Akira

        Wilbur, I've asked this several times; perhaps you missed my question, or I've missed your answer: you've said you're a scientist. In what field?

        March 21, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
        • Akira

          Placed wrong; apologies.

          March 21, 2014 at 7:04 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.