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. Vic

    ♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰

    The significance of this discovery —existence of Gravitational Waves— in relation to God is that it confirms amongst other evidence that the universe had a "beginning" AND that the universe "expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light, right at the Big Bang."

    That implies that only a "Supernatural Power" can do that, hence the "Spoken Word," the "Breath" of God.

    This discovery speaks volumes of the Creation Ex Nihilo.

    March 22, 2014 at 4:12 am |
    • nepawoods

      "That implies that only a "Supernatural Power" can do that"

      Really? How so?

      March 22, 2014 at 4:17 am |
      • Vic

        When this massive universe pops out of nothing in a flash, at a rate faster than the speed of light, that is a fair enough implication of a Supreme Supernatural Being behind it.

        March 22, 2014 at 4:23 am |
        • nepawoods

          Who says it popped out of nothing? And why would popping out of nothing, or expansion of space faster than the speed of light, imply a supreme being?

          March 22, 2014 at 4:31 am |
        • Vic

          With this discovery of Gravitational Waves for the first time in history, which Albert Einstein theorized about back in 1916, it is a clear indication that the universe had a beginning and expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light, right at that beginning, hence Creation Ex Nihilo.

          March 22, 2014 at 4:47 am |
        • sichoyexcite

          The latest in "I don't know about how X works in the universe, therefore a god did it" argument.

          March 22, 2014 at 4:48 am |
        • Vic

          That kind of Big Bang makes sense.

          March 22, 2014 at 4:49 am |
        • ssq41

          Oh, Vic...you and Dr. Wickman speculate so elegantly....

          When either one of you get back from the other side of that singularity, do tell what was there.

          Bring a camera...and please put it on a tripod so we don't get the typical Bigfoot and UFO blurry pics....PLEASE!

          March 22, 2014 at 4:59 am |
        • Reality

          And who created your "superman" or was a "superwoman"?

          March 22, 2014 at 8:12 am |
        • g2dat

          "When this massive universe pops out of nothing in a flash"

          What part of the big bang theory says there was ever "nothing"? That is not my understanding of it.

          March 23, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
  2. lighterthanairflight

    I love this. Religion once again adopting the latest scientific evidence as "proof" that God does exist. First the earth doesn't rotate around the sun, then evolution is a farce and dinosaurs fossils are tricks placed by the devil to tempt people into not believing, and now the big bang is more proof that when the bible said the world was 6000 years old... it meant 18 billion years old.
    No surprise here... religion is for goops.

    March 22, 2014 at 4:10 am |
    • wilburw7

      Christians mathematically proved the earth rotates around the sun, not atheists. Remember that.

      Nicolaus Copernicus
      (1473-1543 Astronomer-Mathematician Catholic Cleric . Mathematically
      proved the heliocentric theory of the solar system) said: "The Universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator"

      Galileo Galilei
      1564-1642 Italian Physicist, kinematics, heliocentric system
      "Both the Holy Scriptures and Nature proceed from the Divine Word.."

      Johannes Kepler:
      1571-1630 German Astronomer
      (planetary orbits, optics, mathematical language of science
      The 3 laws of planetary motion. Advanced Copernicus' heliocentric theory.)
      "I believe only and alone in the service of Jesus Christ. In him is all
      refuge and solace."

      March 22, 2014 at 4:15 am |
      • sichoyexcite

        "Christians mathematically proved the earth rotates around the sun, not atheists. Remember that."
        So? All this means is people can self deceive and perform science at the same time. Not sure how showing earth rotating around the sun proves the existence of a god... unless you're making some non sequitur comment.

        March 22, 2014 at 4:45 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        wilbur: Science proved it not christians, not Atheists.

        March 22, 2014 at 5:00 am |
      • doobzz

        "Christians mathematically proved the earth rotates around the sun, not atheists. Remember that."

        And that information was suppressed by religious leaders and the scientists who proved it were punished in various ways. The RCC didn't admit that it handled the Galileo affair poorly until 1992. Remember that.

        Anyone who wanted an education didn't have much choice but to claim they were believers, since the RCC controlled all higher education at the time. Remember that.

        They made those discoveries because they were scientists, not because they were believers. Remember that.
        Can you imagine how much further Copernicus or Galileo could have brought scientific knowledge if they hadn't been suppressed by religious powers?

        March 22, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
  3. noheavononearth

    Who said that atheists believe that life popped into existence from nothing? We are not pretending to know anything about where and how we evolved, with the exception of allowing science to gradually put part of the puzzle together. You, on the other hand, have already assumed that intelligent design, which is a term coined and invented by man (as is god), is how we and the universe evolved. Proof please?

    We can look at science to prove that evolution of life forms has actually occurred, carbon dating proving the time horizon for events on earth. As one who spent almost 12 years in post secondary education learning about science, which admittedly has more questions than answers but at least has SOME of the answers, I have a lot more expertise than the masses who accept religion for no other reason than their exposure as children via indoctrination. Lemmings jumping off a cliff is no different than the followers of mass religion. Give me evidence rather than fairy tales. Science has evolved and religion is a relic that has stood still. People are fundamentally weak and that is where religions has a role......life after death, the devil is why the world has so much adversity. My GOD, can there be some logic and rational thought in the debate, not emotions based on one's childhood indoctrination as a defence?

    March 22, 2014 at 3:42 am |
    • quackaddict

      Pray tell me what an Atheist does believe then? If an Atheist admits they do not know what the origin of our universe is, then how can you also deny it was created? How can an Atheist claim the universe was not created without proof, while also requiring the Creationist to prove this same concept? If an Atheist admits they do not know the true origin of our existence, how then can they also state it was NOT created? How can an Atheist not consider the concept of creationism while also admitting they do not know the origin of the universe? Are you saying Atheists do believe there could be a God that created our universe but they need proof first? That to me seems more Agnostic than Atheist.

      Who has the burden of proof?

      March 22, 2014 at 4:03 am |
      • nepawoods

        The atheist points out that there is no evidence it was created. or reason to believe it was created.

        March 22, 2014 at 4:12 am |
        • wilburw7

          The improbability of life forming by chance makes life being designed seem very very reasonable. The number of reasons for believing that life was designed dwarfs the number of reasons to believe that a dog and a fish have a common ancestor. Yet, a fish and a dog having a common ancestor is a fact as far as YOU are concerned huh?

          March 22, 2014 at 4:23 am |
        • quackaddict

          Yet the laws of the universe that atheists use to argue this fact are in direct contrast to anything but creation by something or someone. It begs the obvious question, what is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? An agnostic does not believe in a creator because there is no proof, but they also do not completely dismiss the idea of creation due to the same lack of evidence in denial. Yet, an atheist claims there is no creator, or possibility of a creator, even though they have no proof of such a claim, while also requiring the creationist to provide said proof.

          If an atheist cannot come to terms with the hypocrisy of the above outlined sentiments then it is they who fail to pass their own logic test. The burden of proof is then shifted from the theory of creationism to the atheist, because the atheist is the one denouncing the possibility, without providing anything but concepts that are in contrast to their own beliefs, that creationism could have occurred.

          March 22, 2014 at 4:24 am |
        • nepawoods

          wilburw7: The improbability of life forming by chance makes life being designed seem very very reasonable.

          We don't know the process by which life first formed. Mankind has countless times not understood something's natural origin, said "God did it", and later understood its natural origin. "We don't know" does not imply God.

          wilburw7: Yet, a fish and a dog having a common ancestor is a fact as far as YOU are concerned huh?

          Considering the abundance of evidence, yes, it's a proven fact.

          quackaddict: Yet the laws of the universe that atheists use to argue this fact are in direct contrast to anything but creation by something or someone.

          How are the laws of the universe in direct contrast to anything but creation?

          quackaddict: Yet, an atheist claims there is no creator, or possibility of a creator, even though they have no proof of such a claim, while also requiring the creationist to provide said proof.

          What is your position on Thor, Zeus, Odin, etc? The atheist has the same position on God.

          quackaddict: the atheist is the one denouncing the possibility

          In the same sense that you denounce Thor, Odin, Zeus, etc.

          March 22, 2014 at 4:45 am |
        • doobzz

          "The number of reasons for believing that life was designed dwarfs the number of reasons to believe that a dog and a fish have a common ancestor."

          Please list these reasons you have found in peer reviewed scientific journals.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
      • nepawoods

        The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

        There is no evidence of a God. That makes God one of an infinite number of things that could exist without evidence. The atheist does not single God out from that infinite collection of things, then state it does not exist. The atheist merely says there is no evidence for any of them. The very word "atheist" is biased in focusing on one thing of that infinite number of things, only because there happen to be a lot of theists running around.

        March 22, 2014 at 4:26 am |
        • wilburw7

          Explain how you know there is no proof of God. I am not saying there is or is not for the sake of argument when I ask you for that information. Just explain how you know there is no proof.

          March 22, 2014 at 4:36 am |
        • quackaddict

          Nepawoods, you're describing an agnostic and not an atheist. The idea the universe has a beginning, and is incredibly well-ordered, does beget creation based upon the laws of our universe. Yet an atheist goes to great lengths to refute this theory while also subscribing to concepts such as macro evolution, that also lacks proof, yet is believable due to other laws of the universe. If an atheist would admit that the origin of the universe COULD be the act of creation, then they would be considered agnostic. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim there is an infinite amount of possibilities for the creation of all we know, while also claiming it could not be via creation.

          Are you telling me it is not possible we were created by a superior intellect? Are you saying that you're a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena? Are you saying you're a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God?

          March 22, 2014 at 4:40 am |
        • nepawoods

          wilburw7: Explain how you know there is no proof of God.

          To be clear, Thor, Odin, God, Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster are all in the same boat. Perhaps a hermit in a cave somewhere has evidence one (or more) of them exist. Until someone presents evidence or an argument why one of them might exist, neither one of them merits greater consideration than another.

          The atheist doesn't run around denying God any more than he runs around denying the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The theist brings up God, the atheist responds rationally, and the theist sees the atheist as having singled out God to deny. Not so. Why don't we talk about the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead? Do you have greater evidence for God, that you want to stick to debating that?

          quackaddict: The idea the universe has a beginning, and is incredibly well-ordered, does beget creation based upon the laws of our universe.

          How so? More blanket claims without backing argument.

          quackaddict: ... If an atheist would admit that the origin of the universe COULD be the act of creation, then they would be considered agnostic.

          The big bang could be the act of creation, or the universe could be a matrix-style simulation by a race of more intelligent but mortal beings, or the universe could have been created yesterday by Satan, etc. Lot's of things could be. The atheist only refutes that there's any more evidence for any of those than for any other.

          March 22, 2014 at 5:03 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          wilbur: You're the one making the claim, we're simply asking you to back the claim. It's no different than someone saying unicorns exist and you asking for proof.
          quackaddict: Agnostic applies to knowledge not belief. Any honest person is agnostic because no-one can know with certainty. One can be an Agnostic Atheist...not sure but do not believe due to lack of evidence for. A person can be agnostic about many things, not just the imaginary gods. Learn to use a dictionary!

          March 22, 2014 at 5:06 am |
        • distrbnce

          lol, explain how there is no proof of god...

          Uh, because you haven't found any? Jeeze, that was easy.

          March 22, 2014 at 9:22 am |
      • ericg513

        Please provide verifiable evidence that supports your claim that a god exists. Once you have proven existence, you must then provide verifiable evidence that your god has the ability to create the universe. You will also be required to provide verifiable evidence that your god wanted and did, in fact create the universe. Then, you will need to provide an example of a "not created" universe for comparison.

        Let's start with the basics...... Please provide verifiable evidence that your god exists. The evidence you present will need to withstand the same intellectual scrutiny as any other accepted and verified theory.

        March 22, 2014 at 7:25 am |
      • noheavononearth

        OMG...whoops shouldn't use this term as an atheist.

        I believe in what science proves. Period. Science is scrutinized as will the recent evidence of the big bang theory. It will not be blindly accepted. Science has disproven that the world was created 6000 years ago in your Christian world, has disproven the church's theory that the sun rotated around the earth, that the earth is flat, that creationism is responsible for the diversity of species. Start educating yourself, read about evolution and the extensive evidence of it's existence.
        What do I believe in? Facts not man made stories. You obfuscate the issue and my post to turn things around because you have no legitimate argument and never will. You are like a child believing in the tooth fairy and santa clause. The same people who brought you the forced destruction of civilization by Christians from Europe with the loss of cultures in South America, Africa and North America. The same people who not only abused young boys in your house of god, but were protected by no less the last pope and moved around and supported by your church of god. Jesus Christ, you are spellbound by your indoctrination as a child. This, is the only explanation for why you are a Christian, and not a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Sikh.
        Oh by the way, which god neatly explains the existence of mankind and the universe? All of them? Just as I thought.....

        March 22, 2014 at 11:12 am |
  4. shafiqifs

    It was Lemaitre, a priest, who first suggested the concept of Big Bang but he did not consider the simple fact that for any existence the basic requirement is that it should be some substance which would occupy space. Under Big Bang Theory there is no space for God to exist and to cause Big Bang. However adopted paradigm of physics is under standing open challenge and this challenge is to all the physicists of the world since last one & a half years at http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6476&tab=2 as Big Bang Theory including Cosmic Inflation has been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally proved as baseless in the published paper "Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe" which is available at the journal site at http://indjst.org/index.php/indjst/issue/view/2885

    March 22, 2014 at 3:35 am |
    • deecee10000

      Vast majority of in Big Bang and most now accept String Theory which proposes there are many universes.

      March 22, 2014 at 3:49 am |
  5. quackaddict

    I would challenge any sane and logical person to provide a better solution to the origin of our species and universe over creation by a superior intellect. The most basic scientific principles rule out matter being created from nothing. Everything that we as humans see and interact with, outside of "nature", has been created by a predecessor. Yet, when faced with the overwhelmingly organized laws of the universe; the incredibly organized DNA structure (that seems to mimic computer programming at the human level); many continue to steadfastly denounce the idea of creationism. My response has always been: "Why?" – Were you abused by someone who believes in creationism? Has the false notion of an adversarial relationship between science and religion caused such division in subscribed beliefs that one can no longer view science and the belief in a superior intellect as a harmonious precept? Has science convinced you that something can be produced from nothing, even though science tells you this is impossible? Talk about "blind faith". At least those who believe in creationism aren't asked, or willing to, believe in something completely opposite of what our "experts" are telling us.

    In addition, science is still unable to explain away the fact that millions and millions of people across the entire world are reporting near death experiences that are similar enough to rule out cultural, scientific, or religious bias. Yet, these same people who denounce any notion of creationism will also sooner slit their own throats than investigate their brethren's eye witness accounts of the afterlife.

    The bottom line in all of this is akin to the two party American political system. Somehow, and in someway, in all of our lives, someone or something has influenced us to BELIEVE that there are only two sides to the issue of the Origin of our Species or what happens after we die. Moreover, both sides, much like the Repubs and Demos in our political system, cannot view anything passed the length of our own noses if it is in contrast to the "beliefs" we hold dear to us as humans. This holds true in our political as well as our spiritual spheres, even though the fact is we are ALL the same race that enjoys the same origin and will also enjoy the same demise.

    When will we each question the group we currently find ourselves belonging to? When will we all open our minds to the possibility that neither science, nor religion, has it all correct? When do we all realize that science and spirituatily can not only exist in harmony, but exist with the same goals and ideals?

    It all begs an obvious question for me. Who is more insane? The atheist who believes there cannot be a God or superior intellect, while also believing the universe "popped" into existence from nothing; or the Creationist who believes that in order for the universe to have "popped" into existence that it must have first had influence and direction by a source, or superior intellect, outside the creation of the universe itself.

    I myself prescribe to scientific study as well as the belief the universe was Created. Much like the author of this article has suggested, albeit with limited correlation to science itself, recent science has only instilled a greater confidence in the concept of Creationism, because to believe everything poofed into existence from nothing flies directly in the face of logic itself.

    March 22, 2014 at 3:04 am |
    • wilburw7

      I agree. I think life forming as the result of intelligent design is a perfectly rational scientific theory. It is the fear that religion will take over science that stops it from being considered.

      March 22, 2014 at 3:18 am |
      • deecee10000

        This "article" is utter garbage. Please go to Science.com if you are really interested in reading about this discovery. This finding was expected and predicted years ago by scientists. . . which is why they were looking for it in the first place. This mostly gives more credence to the idea that there is a very good chance we are living in a "multiverse" which means there can be countless universes of all types, some very different than ours while some very similar to ours. Why CNN allowed this writer to put up this nonsense on this page is utterly stupid. Go to a science website if you are looking for the facts, obviously you can't count on CNN to give you the facts about his subject.

        March 22, 2014 at 3:30 am |
        • quackaddict

          Deecee10000, there is zero proof of a multi-universe, it is as theoretical as the idea that there is only one universe created by a superior intellect. Moreover, how does the concept of a multi-universe discredit the concept of a creator?

          I find it rather comical that one argues that there cannot be an eternal being who created our universe, yet there can be an infinite amount of universes created from nothing.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:45 am |
        • wilburw7

          The stupidest thing that I have ever heard in my life is that life formed by chance. That is not a scientific statement, that is a subject for a comedy sketch

          March 22, 2014 at 4:01 am |
        • wilburw7

          Please go to the Bible.

          March 22, 2014 at 4:17 am |
      • quackaddict

        Wilburw7,

        You've successfully and succinctly explained exactly what I tried to point out in my lengthy rant above. Science and creationism are not mutually exclusive concepts. Yet those who prescribe to one notion or the other seem to believe science and creation are mutually exclusive. One does not preclude or disprove the other. Hopefully, one day, believers of both sides can see the advantages of investigating both ideals.

        March 22, 2014 at 3:35 am |
        • wilburw7

          I do not believe science and religious beliefs are incompatible. I think organized religion and organized science are incompatible.

          March 22, 2014 at 4:19 am |
    • shafiqifs

      Here is the beginning of revolution in physics. Physics, according to which God cannot exist, shall have to be soon discarded. Read http://www.express.co.uk/news/science-technology/455880/Stephen-Hawking-says-there-is-no-such-thing-as-black-holes-Einstein-spinning-in-his-grave
      Absence of Black Holes means Stephen Hawking has finally accepted that there are serious problems with both Newton's perspective of Gravity & Einstein's General Theory of Relativity because both require Black Holes at the center of the galaxies.
      This justifies standing open challenge to the adopted paradigm of physics which is at http://worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6476&tab=2
      Read also http://www.principia-scientific.org/hawking-s-latest-incantations-on-black-holes.html

      March 22, 2014 at 3:37 am |
    • deecee10000

      Oops you're completely wrong. Recent science has gotten closer to proving there is no need for a "Creator". You seem to have it backwards. In fact, subatomic particles come in and out of existence out of nowhere all the time and this has been proven for some time now. Don't rely on this things like this article to get your facts.

      March 22, 2014 at 3:37 am |
      • quackaddict

        Decee10000, Do you read your own posts? Your exact words are that science is closer to proving that something can indeed exist from nothing, in direct contrast to the laws of our universe, yet its impossible for you to believe that our, and all, universes were created? How is this logical?

        March 22, 2014 at 3:52 am |
        • g2dat

          One is science, the other is faith. That's why.

          March 22, 2014 at 5:27 pm |
    • nepawoods

      "Who is more insane? The atheist who believes there cannot be a God or superior intellect, while also believing the universe "popped" into existence from nothing; or the Creationist who believes that in order for the universe to have "popped" into existence that it must have first had influence and direction by a source, or superior intellect, outside the creation of the universe itself."

      The atheist does not believe there cannot be a God or superior intellect, but only that there is no evidence of a God. The atheist does not necessarily believe the universe "popped into existence from nothing". The Big Bang Theory does not stipulate "nothing". The atheist, and the scientist, and any rational theist too, knows that sometimes the answer to a question is "I don't know", and knows that that doesn't imply a God.

      The creationist you describe thinks the universe "must have first had influence and direction by a source, or superior intellect" ... Why? Because what else could it be?

      "Everything that we as humans see and interact with, outside of "nature", has been created by a predecessor." ... What we see and interact with are objects and events within space and time, not the entirety of all space and time and everything in it. Simple math example: Consider the infinite set of all the integers. Each has a predecessor. So does that mean the set itself must have a predecessor? The question makes no sense.

      Furthermore, regarding "everything that we as humans see and interact with", in that world every "superior intellect" has a physical body and a brain, is mortal, and was born and will die. We have no reason to believe any sort of intellect can exist without a physical body ... some sort of mechanism to implement intellect (like our brain).

      March 22, 2014 at 4:10 am |
    • emax1987

      This new scientific discovery proves god! Disclaimer: my specific god, to my specific religion, and my specific denomination, and not any other god in any other religion or any other denomination which believes in a god which created the universe.

      March 22, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • g2dat

      "The most basic scientific principles rule out matter being created from nothing."

      True, and there is nothing in the Big Bang theory that would suggest that something came from nothing. Perhaps you should look into it a bit more rather than assuming what it means? "Nothing" has never existed to my knowledge.

      March 23, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
  6. Ron

    It is sad that such a ridiculous thing is posted on a mainstream news site. This should be in the backwaters of the web.

    Yes the universe AS WE KNOW IT had a beginning. That in no way implies that some kind of intelligent being created it from magic any more than a drop of water condensing out of a cloud implies someone crying in the sky.

    March 22, 2014 at 3:00 am |
  7. Blessed are the Cheesemakers

    "Yes. I agree, you don't find Georges religious beliefs interesting.A lot of people do, though."

    I already admitted this, because they are also christian. But the science is what makes him interesting enough for you to mention him, Without his science yiu wouldn't have brought up his name....we covered this at least twice now.

    "It is quite logical to find people on a religious blog that do find his religious beliefs interesting."

    Yes, but you specifically brought up his name because of his science findings in an effort to somehow give his religious belief validation...and therfore yours...it doesn't.

    "Ok, how come you never answer my questions? But always attack me if I don't answer all yours? I honestly try to answer yours. And usually I'm just met with hostility."

    I have never avoided your questions...anyone who reads back through these threads will see you are the one making the initial personal attacks...I have only called you a liar after you have lied.

    "Why do you spend so much time on a religion blog? Why don't you spend more time studying science? Or discovering new advancements in technology that will contribute to our scientific knowledge?"

    More deflection in an effort to sidestep the point.

    "No body on this blog can stop you from doing that. Only you can."

    So I am supposed to shut up but you should be allowed to spread your BS unopposed...blow me.

    March 22, 2014 at 2:58 am |
    • Dalahäst

      There is no point! You told me you didn't like Georges religious views.

      No, I'm not telling you to stop posting here. I'm honestly curious why you post on a religion blog so much. And you mostly only engage with Christians. Why?

      I'm not sidestepping – I'm asking a question.

      And it seems you are sidestepping actually.

      Anyway, dude, you are a strange duck. When I was a non-believer, I had better things to do than seek out Christians and try and prove myself right to them. I mastered a science, actually.

      March 22, 2014 at 3:12 am |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        Dala,

        If you don't like being responded to don't post....I have no more reason to have to justify why I post here than you do...I have never asked you why you post. This is a public forum. I know you stich Dala. You want to turn every discussion into a "personal" issue and ignore the ideas and arguments...it is all you have. I am not taking your bait.

        March 22, 2014 at 10:42 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't mind being responded to. I was just curious why you visit a blog dedicated to faith, religion and belief so much. Thanks for your answer, which kind of sidestepped my question. As the internet atheists love to say: "Nice dodge".

          March 22, 2014 at 10:54 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I did dodge the question...I fully admit that. And if I thought you were being honest in your inquiry I would probably respond Dala. But I have had enough interaction with you to know you are asking this in an effort to gain more personal information to make personal attacks. You have done it more than once to me whan I have answered. I don't trust you....not because you are Christian or because you believe in god....I don't trust you because you have shown yourself to be dishonest.

          March 22, 2014 at 11:13 am |
        • Dalahäst

          But you have made personal attacks against me, so that is not a fair argument to make. And have asked loaded and personal questions of me – at least I attempted to answer. And you berated and made more personal attacks against me for not answering in the manner you desired.

          If you are afraid I'll hurt your feelings or the truth about why you are here is not worthy of discussing, then just avoid it. No non-religious person that religiously posts on this blog has given me a good answer on that question yet. I understand why you don't want to talk about it. But you are not the first person I've asked. And it is not an personal attack. I just wanted to know why. I have my speculation why.

          March 22, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "But you have made personal attacks against me, so that is not a fair argument to make. And have asked loaded and personal questions of me – at least I attempted to answer. And you berated and made more personal attacks against me for not answering in the manner you desired."

          I don't think any of this is entirely true. I have berated you for honesty when you were dishonest. You called me a bigot in no uncertain terms. I truly try to stick to issues and ideas. You often try to take things to a personal level when your arguments fail. I have at times stooped to your level....but with me you get what you give. I do not make personal attacks unless I am personally attacked.

          "If you are afraid I'll hurt your feelings or the truth about why you are here is not worthy of discussing, then just avoid it. No non-religious person that religiously posts on this blog has given me a good answer on that question yet. I understand why you don't want to talk about it. But you are not the first person I've asked. And it is not an personal attack. I just wanted to know why. I have my speculation why."

          Religion and religious ideas permiate our culture and have been given carte blanche to spread its unsupported and dangerious ideas. Honestly this is an outlet for many to express dissention because some here may not be able to express dissention in other areas. I have explained this to you before. Religious ideas are generally allowed to spread unopposed. I think both sides of an issue should be heard. I have a question for you....why is this an important question to you? Do you think those opposed to your religious ideas should have to justify why they choose to oppose them? Do you think you should have to justify why you spread them?

          March 22, 2014 at 11:39 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I believe you act like a bigot sometimes.

          I may be wrong, but that doesn't make me a liar. I say something like "You seem (implying to me) that you dislike Christians... and you reply back that that makes me a liar. And then you insist you love Christians. But you don't demonstrate it.

          I asked you once "How are you not a bigot?". And you launched into a personal tirade against me that lasted days.

          There was nothing worthy of how you behaved. And you trying to tell me that you are better than me is just that: you trying to tell me that.

          March 22, 2014 at 11:57 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "I may be wrong, but that doesn't make me a liar. I say something like "You seem (implying to me) that you dislike Christians... and you reply back that that makes me a liar. And then you insist you love Christians. But you don't demonstrate it."

          Except I didn't call you a liar for that. I refuted your implication that I and ssq41 did not respect christians. I don't love and respect christians because they are christian...they just happen to be christians and I don't hold that against them. Same goes for atheists too...I don't respect a person for their belief or non-belief. You need to seperate the idea of respecting a "person" and respecting an "idea" or "belief"...you often conflate this.

          What I called you a liar for was for saying that I didn't find Georges' interesting when you posted to ssq41....when my whole point had to do with he IS interesting...but the reason his life is relevant to those outside of CHristianity is his science. Issac Newton was a devote CHristian...but nobody would know his name without his science. You lied about my position on this to ssq41.

          "There was nothing worthy of how you behaved. And you trying to tell me that you are better than me is just that: you trying to tell me that."

          I have never said I was better than you.

          "I asked you once "How are you not a bigot?". And you launched into a personal tirade against me that lasted days."

          You asked this question more than once...and then you followed it up with a post calling me a bigot in no uncertain terms. I then attacked you for worshipping a bigot...and going by the definition of a bigot you yourself posted you do.

          "There was nothing worthy of how you behaved. And you trying to tell me that you are better than me is just that: you trying to tell me that"

          When someone gets snarky and personally attacks me the gloves come off and I make no apologies for that.

          Dala, here is the point stick to issues and ideas and be honest in doing so and I will do the same.

          March 22, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "I believe you act like a bigot sometimes."

          Opposing ideas is not the same as intolerance...this is something else you often conflate.

          March 22, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          And I will assume that my response to your question of "why do I (and atheists in general) post here?" ....was sufficient in answering your question since you did not respond. If it wasn't now is the time to address any issues you have with what I said....otherwise I don't want to see you posting that "no one has answered this question properly".

          March 22, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
  8. justme1n1

    Yes, in simple terms god had gas. All is well now.

    March 22, 2014 at 2:48 am |
  9. noheavononearth

    This is absolutely insane. A scientific breakthrough now supports the contention that God has in fact created the universe. Which religion is the author referring to? The hundreds that no longer exist, the dozens of religions that currently exist or a
    "new" religion invented by man? The world is not flat, the world is not thousands of years old.....I could go on but what is the point? Childhood indoctrination results in acceptance of the fables of the past.
    As Stephen Roberts has stated "I contend we are all atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you will know why I dismiss yours"

    Case closed.

    March 22, 2014 at 2:09 am |
    • dikelmm1

      There is one flaw in your logic. The Big Bang was followed billions of years later by Jesus' face appearing in a piece of toast. So the Big Bang must be proof of Jesus being God and also Son of God, so he was his own father and son at the same time.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:38 am |
      • ssq41

        ...a tortilla down south...

        March 22, 2014 at 2:41 am |
      • deecee10000

        "it's a mystery" is what they always tell you! But hey, at least I can still pretend to know SOMETHING by telling everybody that I have knowledge that it's a "Mystery". oooooo sounds so . . .mysterious. lol You won't sound as dumb, especially if you happen to be a leader if you tell "your people" that you at least know about the mysterious instead of just being real and admitting you really have no idea how the earth, those twinkling lights in the black sky and the sun all work. He77, is wasn't all that recent that we learned of bacteria and other things that are only visible through a microscope or the advances in the sciences dealing with mental health.

        March 22, 2014 at 3:00 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "It's a mystery" is just code for "We don't have a fvgging clue..."

          March 22, 2014 at 3:08 am |
  10. nengos

    "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" What if God is the cause- and that which is caused? The Creator(a convenient word) and the created.

    March 22, 2014 at 1:43 am |
    • the0g0to0the0t

      What if god was created along with the universe and there's a higher plane of reality he isn't even aware of?

      Once you open the door to supernatural explanations, anything goes.

      March 22, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
  11. johnpaily

    Big Bang, Cyclic or Ekpyrotic Universe Scenario, Biblical Creation and Truth of Calvary sacrifice all can become one when we visualize universe as a Living Being that is capable of self-sustaining through transformation process. Universe need to be understood as information Unfolding and Enfolding – It is consciousness and intelligence of the creator unfolding and enfolding http://www.scribd.com/doc/208568404/The-String-Atom-of-Life-Soul-Consciousness-and-Future-Technologies

    March 22, 2014 at 1:38 am |
    • deecee10000

      I seriously doubt a "creator" would allow the amount of suffering that inevitably happens to all big brained creatures. . .I really really don't.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:04 am |
      • ssq41

        If he's as sadistic (and masochistic) as we are, then he might. Certainly the OT/NT God is.

        March 22, 2014 at 2:10 am |
        • wilburw7

          Jesus is God. He suffered on the cross so that you might not suffer for those sins that you decided to commit. No one is more loving than Jesus Christ.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:38 am |
        • observer

          If Jesus was God, he only suffered (if God can physically suffer) for a relatively short time knowing for certain it was just a matter of time before returning to heaven.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:39 am |
        • deecee10000

          "He" would have to be sadistic beyond our imaginations. Imagine the billions and billions of life forms since the beginning of life just here on this planet that have suffered death or have been eaten alive by predators. I really don't think a "Grand Creator" would willfully impose that type of existence on innocent creatures. . . not to mention the religions that have preyed on the innocent members of our own species and still do while pretending to be "of god".

          March 22, 2014 at 2:43 am |
        • deecee10000

          "wilbur7" so why do all animals (including yourself) suffer? Did every animal commit some "sin" that they have to suffer? Why do some babies suffer from cancer or some other painful deadly disease? And don't tell me they suffer because the "first woman" committed the first sin in the "garden of eden". You'll have to offer a scientific explanation, not some crazy observation made by senile old men 3000 yrs ago.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:47 am |
        • wilburw7

          deecee10000, The suffering I was talking about was hell. I think you are wimping out if you think life is suffering. What Jesus experienced on the cross was the punishment for the sins of more than 100 billion humans. We have no idea how bad it was.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:57 am |
  12. mpoidvin

    As far as I can tell the author is an engineer and not a scientist. As Sheldon will tell you, an engineer is not a scientist.

    March 22, 2014 at 1:09 am |
    • emax1987

      Sheldon would say: "Engineering: where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the visions of those who think and dream. Hello, Oompa Loompas of science!"

      March 22, 2014 at 1:28 am |
    • deecee10000

      Seriously? They couldn't get a real scientist, someone who has actually studied cosmology to comment on something they've speculated for years? (Without inserting the "Genesis" idiocy of course.) Why is it that religious people always try to highjack everything? They're like the bully on the playground who steals the toy from the kid who was going to share the toy in the first place. This has to be one of the most pathetic "articles" I've seen on CNN "news". Shame on CNN for putting this garbage online.

      March 22, 2014 at 1:35 am |
    • Dalahäst

      Relax. It says "Opinion by Leslie A. Wickman" not "Scientific fact proved by Leslie A. Wickman".

      March 22, 2014 at 1:43 am |
      • deecee10000

        CNN couldn't ask a real scientist? Seems somewhat discriminatory. Why are they giving this person a platform and not the people who specialize in this field?

        March 22, 2014 at 1:55 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Why not get different perspectives on a subject? No 2 scientists will have the same exact opinions on the findings on this. Why not let other voices react to the findings?

          It is clearly marked as an opinion. It doesn't change anything about the findings.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:17 am |
      • ssq41

        Dalahast,

        I like you...but you need to take your own advice, particularly in the spout with Cheese...you're quite reactive about his questioning the relevance of something that is obviously important to you...here, you remind someone that this is an "opinion piece."

        Yes, D, this is an opinion section on CNN and this is a "belief" blog where opinons and beliefs are presented.

        The double standard doesn't look good on you.

        March 22, 2014 at 2:02 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Hey, you are now doing the same things I was doing to Cheese.

          So, now you have to take your own advice, too?

          Cheese just shared his opinion that Georges is not interesting. And I disagreed with his opinion. Some agree with him. Some disagree.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:19 am |
        • ssq41

          Back in the '70s with the Jesus movement, we at least had some measure of the importance of humility as it applied to God's word.

          Thanks, D...I get you now.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:25 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Cheese just shared his opinion that Georges is not interesting."

          Dala...that is just a lie...that type of dishonest BS is why I have very little respect for you...I think you are a lying POS. I very CLEARLY stated Georges IS intersting BECAUSE of his science....not his religion. That was the argument....

          "don't bear false witness" and all that right Dala?

          March 22, 2014 at 2:34 am |
        • Dalahäst

          How humble were you in the 70s? Were you a doormat? Or did you stand up for what you believed in?

          March 22, 2014 at 2:40 am |
        • ssq41

          A "doormat"...and here we see how deeply American pop-psychology informs today's Christian..."Low self esteem" of the Body of Christ....

          Arrogance looks really good on you, D...you, in fact, are the perfect example of the impotence of Christianity in the world today.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:44 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Blessed,

          Yes. I agree, you don't find Georges religious beliefs interesting.

          A lot of people do, though.

          It is quite logical to find people on a religious blog that do find his religious beliefs interesting.

          Ok, how come you never answer my questions? But always attack me if I don't answer all yours? I honestly try to answer yours. And usually I'm just met with hostility.

          Why do you spend so much time on a religion blog? Why don't you spend more time studying science? Or discovering new advancements in technology that will contribute to our scientific knowledge?

          No body on this blog can stop you from doing that. Only you can.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:45 am |
        • Dalahäst

          ssq41

          Can you demonstrate a better way to act? You seem to be doing the same thing your are criticizing me about.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:47 am |
        • ssq41

          You are supposedly a Christian...you are supposed to set the example...clearly, you know nothing of the Gospel message and the commandments and example of your savior.

          You know nothing of the letters and epistles of those who claimed to follow Jesus and provide you with an abundance of explanations and example of how to live....

          You are supposed to be in a relationship with the all powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe...that "fact" should be enough to inspire such profound humility...the kind of humility that people genuinely respect and are influence by.

          The example you present here shows how little you care about the message you bring here.

          As I've said so many times before, the atheist need only point to the daily lives of the Christian...there is all the proof one needs to know your God doesn't exist.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:54 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Yes. I agree, you don't find Georges religious beliefs interesting.A lot of people do, though."

          I already admitted this, because they are also christian. But the science is what makes him interesting enough for you to mention him, Without his science yiu wouldn't have brought up his name....we covered this at least twice now.

          "It is quite logical to find people on a religious blog that do find his religious beliefs interesting."

          Yes, but you specifically brought up his name because of his science findings in an effort to somehow give his religious belief validation...and therfore yours...it doesn't.

          "Ok, how come you never answer my questions? But always attack me if I don't answer all yours? I honestly try to answer yours. And usually I'm just met with hostility."

          I have never avoided your questions...anyone who reads back through these threads will see you are the one making the initial personal attacks...I have only called you a liar after you have lied.

          "Why do you spend so much time on a religion blog? Why don't you spend more time studying science? Or discovering new advancements in technology that will contribute to our scientific knowledge?"

          More deflection in an effort to sidestep the point.

          "No body on this blog can stop you from doing that. Only you can."

          So I am supposed to shut up but you should be allowed to spread your BS unopposed...blow me..

          March 22, 2014 at 2:59 am |
        • Dalahäst

          ssq41

          Uh hu. Luckily most atheists I know and love do not act like you.

          I'll go ahead and thank evolution for that fact. And I'll sleep quite well knowing the love I share with atheists is deeper and more meaningful than anything that has transpired between you and mine misunderstandings and communications with each other.

          What do you do to seek humility in your life?

          March 22, 2014 at 3:03 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Blessed,

          I honestly am asking you: If you love science so much, why don't you study one? It seems like you spend a lot of time seeking out Christians to refute them. Especially me. You engaged me.

          Sorry if that seems like a personal insult. It is just my observation.

          You also do everything you accuse me of. "You spot it, you got it." Yes, I'm guilty, too.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:07 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Dala,

          I can guarentee I love and respect more Christians than you do atheists, with out a doubt...so just shut it with the fake morality

          March 22, 2014 at 3:09 am |
        • ssq41

          Clearly, D, I overestimated you based on our conversation the other day.

          I wish you well.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:10 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "I honestly am asking you: If you love science so much, why don't you study one?"

          I already told you I have.

          "It seems like you spend a lot of time seeking out Christians to refute them. Especially me. You engaged me."

          You seem to want to spend a lot of time engaging atheists. And I did engage you on a specific point that you have failed to address properly. You have every right to lie and distort arguments and I have every right to call you on it. You just don't like being opposed...too bad.

          Sorry if that seems like a personal insult. It is just my observation.

          You also do everything you accuse me of. "You spot it, you got it." Yes, I'm guilty, too.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:15 am |
        • Dalahäst

          "I can guarentee I love and respect more Christians than you do atheists, with out a doubt...so just shut it with the fake morality"

          Uh, how would one prove that? That is just silly.

          I think you are getting a little unreasonable and over compet.itive now. Sorry if I touched a nerve asking about your obsessive involvement with religion blogs.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:18 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          ssq41,

          I have been down this road with Dala before....this is standard opperating proceedure....Dala is not able to carry on an honest dialog past a certian point. Once he runs out of argument he has to make personal attacks.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:19 am |
        • Dalahäst

          You don't like being opposed either. You are projecting your feelings onto me.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:20 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Dala,

          I can guarentee that because 90% of the people I love and respect are Christians...

          Are 90% of the people you love and respect atheists?

          March 22, 2014 at 3:22 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Cheese,

          You actually take yourself way to seriously.

          I may be wrong. But I haven't been lying. I have been honest about myself and what I believe.

          You spend a lot of time trying to tell others about me, or insisting what I must believe.

          I'd rather hear what you have to believe. It seems like every belief you have is in opposition to religion. Which may be why you are often found on a religion blog – just opposing everything religious.

          There has got to be more to you than that!

          I'm honestly sharing what I believe. To often I get others trying to share what they think I believe. That is annoying. I don't like having others push their views on me.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:24 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I have no problem being opposed...if you will notice my arguments attacked your assertions...you are the one who wants to make it a personal issue. Argue ideas and leave it there.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:25 am |
        • ssq41

          Agreed...he seemed like a nice person when we exchanged a few posts.

          It is sad to see how Christians can't comprehend the power of humility. There is a quiet, powerful, influential strength that comes with it. i've concluded that like the society they live in, Christians need to feel offended...it is some kind of badge of honor.

          It certainly won't get their names in the next edition of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, however....or maybe it will.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:27 am |
        • Dalahäst

          This is getting silly.

          Go and love more. I need to do the same. Good night.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:29 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "I may be wrong. But I haven't been lying."

          You lied when you said I expressed that Georges' wan't interesting...that isn't what I said and you know it.

          "You spend a lot of time trying to tell others about me, or insisting what I must believe."

          Blah, blah blah....more deflection

          "I'd rather hear what you have to believe. It seems like every belief you have is in opposition to religion. Which may be why you are often found on a religion blog – just opposing everything religious."

          I do oppose religion...pretending to know things you don't know is the same as lying.

          "There has got to be more to you than that!"

          There is...notice I have never implied that what you write one here encompasses who you are.

          "I'm honestly sharing what I believe. To often I get others trying to share what they think I believe. That is annoying. I don't like having others push their views on me."

          And to get back to my original point Georges' is interesting for his science...everything else you have brought into this discussion is an effort to distract from the point. And nobody is pushing their views on you....quit playing "victim"...it is unseemly

          March 22, 2014 at 3:37 am |
        • Dalahäst

          You totally blew my comment to another person out of proportion.

          You decided to engage me in conversation and insist I only used his name because of his science background.

          No, duh. I was talking to a religion-hating anti-theist that kept claiming religion was "hijacking" science... because some lady wrote an opinion piece on a religion blog.

          There are some dudes that actually think that all scientists are religion hating atheists. Seriously. That guy (or guys, it seemed to be someone posting under multiple names) seemed to be one of those.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:45 am |
    • ddeevviinn

      In the event of an apocalyptic nuclear disaster in which the only survivors were myself and one other human being, I would pray to God that that other individual would be an engineer.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:13 am |
      • ssq41

        Gender? Age? Any survival training? Do you know edible plants from non-edible ones? Medicinal plants? Do you or he/she know how to lay basic traps? Basic hunting techniques.

        If your engineer shows up with an armful of technical manuals, a pocket full of chic tracks, William Lane Craig's latest book, printed notes from NT Wright's website, and an irradiated bananna, but no knowledge of these things, then evolution will once again have the opporunity to evolve another primate...

        hopefully a little wiser, this time.

        March 22, 2014 at 2:23 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          Having found myself surrounded by engineers throughout most of my days, whether through friends, co -workers or marriage, I can assure you that they would be more likely to possess those skills than the majoity of the human race.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:23 am |
        • ssq41

          Well, your "as.surances" aren't comforting...but if it works for you.

          My experience with engineers: most of my pilots and NFO's, and others I encountered, had engineering degrees. Without their survival training in Pensacola and Eglin, they couldn't survive their way out of a paper bag.

          I had no degree at the time and neither could I...most of the population of the US has very little training/experience in basic survival skills.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:34 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          The very essence of engineering is the ability to improvise and analytically problem solve. I will stand by my choice and take an engineer over " survivorman" any day of the week.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:50 am |
        • ssq41

          Yes, devv...with a slide rule in one hand, a cup of french vanilla cappuccino in the other, and a hardhat on while leaning over a drafting board.

          Good luck...however, prayerfully reciting Psalms 120 will only occupy your thoughts until the intractible vomitting begins from the radiation poisoning.

          March 22, 2014 at 4:46 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          Death will soon visit each of us, whether from radiation poisoning or a big old rogue tumor. In the end, reciting the Psalms may prove more benificial than any survivor skills.

          March 22, 2014 at 5:34 am |
        • ssq41

          "Death will soon visit each of us..."

          Now, devv...keep in context...you're the one commenting about surviving a nuclear holocaust.

          And I concur, citing a Psalm, the Lotus Sutra, a few lines from Rumi, or singing AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" might very well be more beneficial for most as they express their final breaths rather than expending oxygen in an attempt to set a rabbit snare.

          March 22, 2014 at 5:55 am |
        • Dalahäst

          And you only appear cute to your mother because of biological chemistry: her brain tricks her into finding you attractive in order to carry on her genes. It is all about survival of the fittest. You attractiveness to her is nothing more than chemical reacting in her brain to you (and you are just a stimulus). It is all scientifically explained.

          haha. Sadly, somebody actually tried to make that argument to me once.

          March 22, 2014 at 8:55 am |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        And I would hope it is not a theologan.

        March 22, 2014 at 2:27 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          But chesse, just you and a theologian, the irony of that would be more than SWEET.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:17 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          devin,

          It would be sweet to a point....but the person's theology would be useless.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:41 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          " but the person's theology would be useless"

          Only to an atheist cheese, only to an atheist.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:54 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Oh but devin, even you're an Atheist...you deny all other gods but your own....the hypocrisy is cute.

          March 22, 2014 at 6:34 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          Truth ( and I use that name lightly)

          No, I am a theist who believes in a specific God to the exclusion of all others.

          You know, I would have thought by now a little light bulb would have gone off in your head that would make you think to yourself, " this pattern I've developed of replying to posters in such a childish manner only makes me look, well, childish."

          March 22, 2014 at 8:28 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Atheist is not a proper noun. The only reason you would capitalize it is if it refers to an organized belief system – like The Church of Atheism. Most people do not ident.ify as atheists*, so they are not Atheists. I'm not an Atheist, because I believe in God. Neither is Devin. Sure, you can call him an Atheist or call him cute, but that doesn't make him an Atheist. Or cute.

          * ( Our aggregated data from 2012 show that 2.4% of American adults say they are atheists when asked about their religious ident.ity, up from 1.6% in 2007.) http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/23/5-facts-about-atheists/

          March 22, 2014 at 8:30 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          Dal

          But I am cute!!! My wife and mother both told me so.!!!

          March 22, 2014 at 8:38 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Devin,

          Do you have any peer-reviewed scientific studies that prove your cuteness? Your wife "feels" you are cute. But that doesn't mean she "knows" it. Your wife is actually agnostic on your looks.

          Peace!

          March 22, 2014 at 8:50 am |
        • Dalahäst

          And you only appear cute to your mother because of biological chemistry: her brain tricks her into finding you attractive in order to carry on her genes. It is all about survival of the fittest. You attractiveness to her is nothing more than chemical reacting in her brain to you (and you are just a stimulus). It is all scientifically explained.

          haha. Sadly, somebody actually tried to make that argument to me once...

          March 22, 2014 at 8:56 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          Dall

          " But that doesn't mean she knows it. Your wife is actually agnostic on your looks."

          I could not object more strongly to this statement . I am convinced that my wife knows that I am cute and can prove it because she has direct access to divine revelation. I know this to be fact because every time we are in the throes of love making I hear her cry out " Oh my God "

          ( Please tell me I didn't just type this).

          March 22, 2014 at 9:11 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Well devin, at least I don't rely on a book written 2000 years ago for my truth. So you're a theist when it comes to your god but an atheist about all other gods.

          March 22, 2014 at 9:15 am |
        • Dalahäst

          You are lying Devin! Look at you dance around the subject and fail to stick to my perfectly logical and scientifically backed statements. Why do you always dodge my points? That was a non-sequitor straw man argument, please, stay on topic. And the topic is I'm always right and you are always wrong.

          hehe

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

          truth

          No, once again, I'm a theist. Nothing more, nothing less. If I were an atheist I would not be a theist, but in that I'm a theist I cannot be an atheist. Capish ?

          I would kindly implore you to reconsider "relying on a book written 2000 years ago." You may find a peace and satisfaction to your life that has never yet been experienced.

          March 22, 2014 at 9:24 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Devin,

          If TP says you are an Atheist, you are an Atheist! Quit dancing around the subject. Why can't you Christians just accept what we Atheists insist about you?

          In 1995 Stephen F Roberts commanded: "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

          And ever since then we have all been Atheists. It is a docu.mented fact.

          March 22, 2014 at 9:34 am |
        • ddeevviinn

          Dal

          You're a quick study. I see you've become more than familiar with the modus operandi here.

          Just remember, like I've told many of my naysayers on this blog, " Jesus calls me to love my enemies and be His disciple. What he does not call me to be is a Casper Milktoast." Simply consider the source when someone equates your ability to verbally chastise their argument with that of not being a humble Christian.

          March 22, 2014 at 9:34 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Oh, and babies, which are helpless and completely self-centered creatures are also Atheist. So there!

          March 22, 2014 at 9:35 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Devin,

          I wish I could mimic and satirize the hostile anti-theist tone as well as The Onion:

          http://www.theonion.com/articles/local-church-full-of-brainwashed-idiots-feeds-town,34860/

          They hit the nail on the head!

          March 22, 2014 at 9:41 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Only to an atheist cheese, only to an atheist."

          devin,

          How useful would you find a Witch Doctor?

          March 22, 2014 at 10:33 am |
  13. whozgod

    Hey abigchocoholic, take you for the kind of guy who goes up for seconds during the Eucharist.

    March 22, 2014 at 12:55 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Ok...I found that funny....

      March 22, 2014 at 1:01 am |
  14. 77tucker

    De Nihilo Nihil (nothing comes out of nothing). It's impossible for there to be absolutely nothing. Before the Big Bang there was something out there such as many other universes. The infinite and eternal Universes were not created because they have always been there. Therefore, there is no Creator (male deity).

    March 22, 2014 at 12:50 am |
    • iconoclast1

      It seems that we assume that nothingness is the natural state and that something cannot possibly be created from nothing. This creates a dilemma, which cannot be resolved whether one believes in God or not. But it could be true that "somethingness" is the natural state.

      March 22, 2014 at 1:04 am |
    • suhaibhasansiddiqui

      Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (Qur'an, Surah Al Anbia, Verse 30)

      And He it is Who has created the heavens and the earth in six Days and His Throne was on the water, that He might try you, which of you is the best in deeds. But if you were to say to them: "You shall indeed be raised up after death," those who disbelieve would be sure to say, "This is nothing but obvious magic. (Qur'an, Surah Hud, Verse 7)

      And a sign for them is the night, We withdraw therefrom the day, and behold, they are in darkness. (Qur'an, Surah Ya-Seen, Verse 37)

      And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed). That is the Decree of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing.(Qur'an, Surah Ya-Seen, Verse 38)

      And the moon, We have measured for it mansions (to traverse) till it returns like the old dried curved date stalk.(Qur'an, Surah Ya-Seen, Verse 39)

      It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit.(Qur'an, Surah Ya-Seen, Verse 40)

      We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their ownselves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur'ân) is the truth. Is it not sufficient in regard to your Lord that He is a Witness over all things? (Qur'an, Surah Fussilat, Verse 53)

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

        So, who wrote that piece of crap book of yours? Poets, philosophers, scientists? Using your book to prove your beliefs is a pretty silly exercise.

        March 22, 2014 at 2:50 am |
    • suhaibhasansiddiqui

      And He it is Who has created the heavens and the earth in six Days and HIS THRONE WAS ON THE WATER, that He might try you, which of you is the best in deeds. But if you were to say to them: "You shall indeed be raised up after death," those who disbelieve would be sure to say, "This is nothing but obvious magic. (Qur'an, Surah Hud, Verse 7)

      March 22, 2014 at 1:32 am |
      • whozgod

        Nothing relevant just more "be good, give you life to God."

        Thats what happens with religion, your only opinion is Gods. The US Military took this very brain washing technique from faith.

        Clearly it has worked.

        March 22, 2014 at 1:58 am |
        • ssq41

          What's fun to see, whether in the Quran, New or Old Testament, etc. is how they hedged their bets.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:08 am |
    • Keith

      I guess you didn't read the article

      March 22, 2014 at 2:48 am |
  15. emax1987

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

    Why this woman doesn't mention than this cartoon called Jehovah created the Earth and the plants before the Sun and the rest of the stars as it is said in Genesis? Oh, and by the way, the Earth doesn't exist since "the begining" as in your "holy" book mentions. If you're scientist you should know that.

    As science learns more and more about how the Universe works, the ignorance gaps in our scientific knowledge become smaller and smaller... the same with your man made god named Jehovah.

    "How can you create a universe from nothing? Well if you calculate the total matter of the universe it is positive. If you calculate the total energy of the universe it is negative because of gravity. Gravity has negative energy. When you add the two together what do you get? Zero, so it takes no energy to create a universe. Universes are for free. A universe is a free lunch.

    And then you may say to yourself well that can't be right because positive and negative charges don't cancel out, therefore, how can the universe be made out of nothing. Well if you calculate the total amount of positive charge in the universe and calculate the total amount of negative charge in the universe and you add it up what do you get? Zero, the universe has zero charge.

    Well what about spin? Galaxies spin, right? But they spin in all directions. If you add up all the spins of the galaxies what do you get? Zero, so in other words, the universe has zero spin, zero charge and zero matter energy content. In other words, the universe is for free. " – Michio Kaku: Space Bubble Baths and the Free Universe

    March 22, 2014 at 12:50 am |
    • emax1987

      To be more specific, according to the Bible, Jehovah (not God) created the Earth in the first day, the plants in the third and the Sun and the rest of the stars in the fouth day. I guess she didn't mention that because it is not consistent with our current knowledge about the Universe. As always. Christians cherry-picking Bible verses that it suit with their BS, and ignoring the rest.

      March 22, 2014 at 1:08 am |
      • wilburw7

        When did scientific understanding not change and show very large errors? On the day I was born, the earth was 2.2 billion years old. Now it it 4.54 billion years old. I don't feel 2.34 billion years old.

        March 22, 2014 at 2:29 am |
        • ssq41

          And like the vast majority of your brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ, you have no understanding of how science works.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:36 am |
        • observer

          wilburw7,

          Science is always searching for new information to increase knowledge.

          The Bible, in 2,000 years, has never updated itself with new knowledge and that's why it's stuck still supporting slavery, etc.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:38 am |
        • wilburw7

          ssq41. I know how science works. Remember this: Christians have made more contributions to science than atheists.

          Science works by constantly changing as the data comes in; thus it has very large errors. To say that something that has very large errors is disagreeing with something else is not a convincing argument as to which one is correct. The comparison between statements in the bible to modern science does not show some obvious laughable scientific error in the Bible. The reasonable different interpretations of the Bible can explain the difference reasonably well. Now take modern scientific facts and compare them to scientific claims made only few hundred years ago and then you have a comedy.

          And when you compare the Bible to modern science, you are comparing something that was partly written 5,000 years ago.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:53 am |
        • emax1987

          The difference is, Science does not claim to be the word of god. The Bible it does (although is not).

          March 22, 2014 at 4:30 am |
        • ssq41

          wilbur,

          your posts are filled with unsupported claims and conjecture.

          You might want to put down your copy of "Scientists Who Believe" and look around you.

          Oh, and along with your conjecture and claims, I appreciate your selective history when you spoke of Corpernicus and Galileo.

          Although I'm not atheist, your behavior here certainly provides me with an abundance of reasons to consider their claims.

          March 22, 2014 at 4:39 am |
  16. abigchocoholic

    Really? You're trying to hijack this scientific finding to support your ancient collection of ignorant fairy tales?

    Now I've heard everything.

    March 22, 2014 at 12:32 am |
    • Dalahäst

      And Georges Lemaître cries.

      March 22, 2014 at 12:35 am |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        Georges Lemaître is only interesting because of the science....his religous belief is inconsequential.

        March 22, 2014 at 1:12 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Haha.

          Thanks for sharing your opinion. Obviously a lot of people find him interesting for his religious and other beliefs, too.

          Is there anything interesting you've contributed to science? Or anything? Or are you just an expert on what is non-interesting, because you've mastered that?

          March 22, 2014 at 1:25 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          What I know about science is beside the point. What I am arguing is that Georges Lemaître religous belief has nothing to do with what makes him relevant.

          Seriously, if all he offered was his religous opinion would you bring up his name in this debate? I highly doubt it....

          March 22, 2014 at 1:36 am |
        • Dalahäst

          He has demonstrated that he is a highly intelligent man. And what he teaches about the Bible is very relevant. I have great respect for what he did both for science and my understanding of God.

          You seem to be more interested in religion and God than science. Most people interested in science... practice science. Not religiously post on faith and belief blogs. Most scientists wouldn't find that interesting.

          March 22, 2014 at 1:52 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "He has demonstrated that he is a highly intelligent man".

          Yes he did...with science

          "And what he teaches about the Bible is very relevant."

          Yes...to you and those who are christians. The rest of us would not give a f'k without the science and you would not bring us his name

          "I have great respect for what he did both for science and my understanding of God."

          I have great respect for what he did for science....I don't give a f'k about your understanding of god....that opinion is no better than any other BS position.

          The rest of your garbage is nothing but personal attacks in an effort to deflect the argument...

          March 22, 2014 at 2:08 am |
        • Dalahäst

          If you like science so much, why not study it? Why talk to non-scientists all day long?

          For someone who doesn't give a fvck about Christians you sure do seek them out.

          I do give a fvck about others. Even if they don't share my same views. Or even if they don't contribute to science.

          I use and embrace science every day. It belongs to all of us. Even those who love God and the Bible.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:30 am |
        • ssq41

          Wow, D...a shining witness for the Lord Jesus Christ...

          March 22, 2014 at 2:40 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "If you like science so much, why not study it?"

          I have.

          "Why talk to non-scientists all day long?"

          It is not my only interest.

          "For someone who doesn't give a fvck about Christians you sure do seek them out. "

          More lies Dala. I care about many people who are christian...I don't care about how Georges contributed to your Christian belief....big difference.

          "I do give a fvck about others. Even if they don't share my same views. Or even if they don't contribute to science."

          Non-sequitor straw man argument...please...stay on topic.

          I use and embrace science every day. It belongs to all of us. Even those who love God and the Bible.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:40 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "I use and embrace science every day. It belongs to all of us. Even those who love God and the Bible."

          Yes it does...and good for you....

          March 22, 2014 at 2:43 am |
        • Dalahäst

          What?

          Stay on topic?

          The topic is your personal opinion.

          There is no logical fallacy on my part. I hold a different opinion. And I know for a fact you only are speaking for yourself.

          No big deal.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:52 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Yes and my personal opinion is you would have never brought up Georges' name if it wern't for the science....and you have yet to dispute my point...

          March 22, 2014 at 3:04 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Of course. The OP (he was posting under different names for a few hours) about religious people "hijacking" science.

          I was willing to bet he had no clue that Georges fathered the Big Bang Theory.

          He also wrote extensively on The Bible not being a science manual. That is relates to spiritual matters. And nothing in the Bible prevents one from learning and mastering science. In fact, from his understanding, it actually encourages it.

          So, yea, I made posted Georges name hoping the guy would Google it and read up on the guy and learn something new.

          A lot of non-scientist anti-theists have no clue about science.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:39 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Many, many christians add to science all the time. I will agree to that without issue.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:44 am |
        • doobzz

          Thank you, Dala, for pointing out once again that believers and non believers have made contributions to our body of scientific knowledge.

          Be sure to remind the teacher when she forgets to assign homework, too.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
    • whozgod

      Not just any tale my friend, a tale of of how the Smurf's escaped the horrible Gargmel. Wait..wrong tale, sorry.

      March 22, 2014 at 12:43 am |
    • iconoclast1

      Yep.

      Scientists discover the structure and nature of DNA: "This confirms the existence of God."
      Astronomers discover millions of galaxies: "This confirms the existence of God."
      Big bang theories are confirmed: "This confirms the existence of God."
      The Higgs Boson is discovered: "This confirms the existence of God."

      It looks like pretty much everything confirms the existence of God, just as you would expect when the existence of God is based entirely on faith and cannot be refuted by anything.

      March 22, 2014 at 12:45 am |
      • whozgod

        You should have seen the angelic image in my oatmeal today, proof!

        March 22, 2014 at 12:49 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        Now you'd just need to provide the evidence for that god and determine which of the many gods it is. Ignorance is bliss within your ilk!

        March 22, 2014 at 5:10 am |
        • iconoclast1

          You misunderstood my comment. I was making the point that, for religious people, everything confirms their beliefs. I don't share that view.

          March 22, 2014 at 5:42 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Sorry about that.

          March 23, 2014 at 4:57 am |
  17. whozgod

    Fred Phelps Sr is in heaven......right?

    March 22, 2014 at 12:21 am |
    • whozgod

      Sorry people, got him confused with Philip Seymour Hoffman.

      March 22, 2014 at 12:23 am |
  18. evinar

    Sorry, this just f$%#@in makes me mad. Real people did a crapload of work, late nights, using the most they could of their brains, to bring you this evidence about the early Universe....

    And then some SCHMUCK comes along and puts it into a cute little CNN article, riding on the coat-tails of legitimate work, in order to prove that, really, "pfhah... we knew it all along... see, it SOUNDS like our book, here".

    What friggin' talent and insight it takes to write that the beginning of the Universe was dark and empty! Unfortunately, that's just about the only part they got right. Man isn't made of dust, the sky isn't a fixed firmament, the moon isn't a light source, etc. etc. etc. etc. Only excuses will answer these falsehoods in the Bible–they are FALSE.

    March 22, 2014 at 12:21 am |
    • whozgod

      Amen to that.

      March 22, 2014 at 12:25 am |
    • Dalahäst

      This lady is not really riding on anyone's coattails. This is an "opinion piece" located in the "opinion section" of a blog dedicated to religion, faith and belief.

      Science has not answered the questions many are asking about the origin of the universe. And it will probably never answer "why" according to some of the world's most brilliant minds. So it is up to us to ask and express our opinions on that matter.

      “Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values.

      The two are not rivals. They are complementary.

      Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.” – Martin Luther King, Jr

      'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' – Albert Einstein

      I've seen a lot of 'internet-atheist' non-scientists ride on the coat tails of scientists and claim science is on "their side". That is just silly though, not really infuriating.

      March 22, 2014 at 12:29 am |
      • whozgod

        Sorry, can't quote Einstein with religion. He married his first cousin, had an illegitimate child and to top it off had many extramarital affairs.

        Try again.

        March 22, 2014 at 12:39 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I have no room to talk if one has to be morally perfect or morally good to talk about religion.

          March 22, 2014 at 12:42 am |
      • observer

        Dalahäst,

        The Bible contains a lot of science fiction.

        Can you name ONE SPECIFIC ADVANCEMENT in science that was announced in the Bible?

        March 22, 2014 at 1:25 am |
        • Dalahäst

          It is not a science manual.

          There is nothing in it that prevents a Christian from mastering a science and winning a Nobel Prize. Or that prevents a Christian from teaching at an elite university. In fact if you wanted to learn more about science, there is a good chance you would receive part of your education from a Christian who believes in the Bible.

          The Big Bang Theory, fathered by a Catholic Priest who was also an elite scientist said this:

          "Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses . . . As a matter of fact neither Saint Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity."

          The Bible is not a science manual. Yes, some people try to use it as one. I don't. Nobody at my church suggests I should. In fact, we actually have scientists that speak to us about... science. There is no conflict.

          If you have a conflict that is not my problem. Because I have no conflict with science and my religion.

          March 22, 2014 at 1:30 am |
        • observer

          Dalahäst

          "It is not a science manual." It was, however, written about (arguably) the smartest person who ever lived and who supposedly pushed love and was all for making the world better for people. Yet, he didn't contribute ONE THING to science to make life better. All he had to do was to tell people to wash their hands because of germs, for instance. We got ZILCH.

          For a book that should have been perfect, the "science" in it contained errors and, in effect, claimed that all the laws of science are OPTIONAL.

          "There is nothing in it that prevents a Christian from mastering a science and winning a Nobel Prize." No argument there. NO ONE is claiming that Christians have not contributed to science. They certainly have. It's their BOOK we are talking about.

          March 22, 2014 at 1:44 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Yes. You sure do talk about it.

          Why not study science instead? Or are you only capable of talking about the Bible all day long?

          March 22, 2014 at 1:52 am |
        • observer

          Dalahäst,

          It's not scientists as a whole who are out trying to deprive fellow Americans of equal rights or calling law-obeying people "murderers".

          March 22, 2014 at 1:54 am |
        • Dalahäst

          And who as a whole who is out trying to deprive fellow Americans of equal rights or calling law-obeying people "murderers"?

          Remember, as a whole would entail every person does it. You can't say Christian because I am one and don't do those things. Nor does anyone in my Christian community. In fact, we do the opposite.

          So, who as a whole does it?

          March 22, 2014 at 2:11 am |
        • observer

          Dalahäst

          "As a whole" means "all things considered". And, all things considered, scientists have not been the ones to collect millions of dollars to deprive people of rights.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:17 am |
        • observer

          Dalahäst,

          Kudos to you and your Christian community. My issues are not with you or them. It's with people like the Christian bigot on here who wants laws to separate gays from the community.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:25 am |
        • Dalahäst

          All things considered, science has been used to promote racism and discrimination. In the wrong hands, science can destroy the planet. Scientists can be bigots. Scientists have murdered people. Scientists commit horrible crimes. Scientists have admitted they made mistakes that can't be fixed and regret their actions.

          I oppose all bigots. Non-religious bigots. Religious bigots. Anti-theist bigots who post on religion blogs all day long.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:58 am |
        • wilburw7

          Can you name one major scientific claim made 5,000 years ago that does not sound ridiculous today?
          The book of Job was written over 5,000 years ago. Job says:
          "He [God] hangs the earth on nothing."

          How would he know to even say that? It sounds scientifically correct today even though 5,000 years ago the terminology was not available to him to use.

          March 22, 2014 at 3:35 am |
    • abigchocoholic

      I suggest you laugh at them rather than get mad.

      They are laughable. They don't rise to any substance worthy of anger.

      March 22, 2014 at 12:35 am |
      • whozgod

        Cause breaking the commandments is laughable.

        March 22, 2014 at 12:53 am |
  19. evinar

    This "first cause" thing is SUCH dumbed-down philosophical bull#$%!ery... CAUSE AND EFFECT come necessarily from SPACETIME. You know, time? The thing that marks the sequence of cause and effect? If you don't have time, you don't need a "first cause", and if you don't have space, there is nothing OUTSIDE of it!

    This article is trying to trick you into believing that this new discovery brings up 'new points' about the 'God debate'. Christians HATED the Big Bang at first, but then they quickly scooped it up and re-tooled it as 'proof' and all this 'first cause' CRAP. It's old hat for them by now, and there is no 'God debate'. Just people who bring science and people who bring hopes inside their heads.

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

      Christians like to read the words and make up their own meanings

      March 22, 2014 at 9:26 am |
  20. evinar

    Proof of God... what a laugh. This seems so desperate and pathetic, though, that it's hard to laugh. I try and then it just dies when I think about people going to even half the lengths that REAL SCIENTISTS go to in order to get these proofs of the real workings of the Universe... going to half those lengths even just to connect a million dots in their little sideways "proofs" (to themselves only) of a god.

    March 22, 2014 at 12:04 am |
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.