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. atroyfoster

    "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

    March 22, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
    • Russ

      @ atroyfoster:
      deGrasse is simply inverting the God of the gaps fallacy – which is to make the same mistake (just reciprocally).
      Theists are claiming transcendence (by definition, a 'god outside the system'), not a 'god within the system' which deGrasse assumes here.

      science cannot address metaphysics directly because it *presupposes* them.
      to claim otherwise is to conflate physics with metaphysics.

      it's the difference between science's purposeful "methodological naturalism" & the FAITH of philosophical naturalists.
      the former is science. the latter is metaphysics/faith/religion/etc.
      as Nietzsche said: "it is STILL a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science." (my emphasis)

      deGrasse (in this quote) is doing metaphysics & calling it science.
      and – to make matters worse – he seems unaware.

      March 22, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
      • distrbnce

        Science can not address metaphysics because it's pagan bullshet

        March 22, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • Russ

          @ distrbnce: you might want to look up the definition of metaphysics.
          EVERYONE does metaphysics – not just the religious.

          March 22, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
      • iconoclast1

        Tyson is right, although ignorance is receding at a painfully slow rate. "God" is simply a crutch that people have used over the centuries to explain the unknown, to quell fears and to provide psychological relief. People rarely use God in the context of some metaphysical creator. If people want to suppose that our known universe had a creator of some sort, I'm fine with that. Who knows? But when they muddy water by pretending that science confirms the God, myths and fables of the Bible, then that is just preposterous. Faith and science are two different things and mixing them is an insult to the scientific method.

        March 22, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
        • Russ

          @ iconoclast:
          you said: ""God" is simply a crutch that people have used over the centuries to explain the unknown, to quell fears and to provide psychological relief." then you said... "Faith and science are two different things and mixing them is an insult to the scientific method."

          these are two contradictory sentiments. either you are claiming science addresses metaphysics & thus you have a basis for criticism OR science does not address metaphysics and your criticisms are *equally* doing metaphysics (which is an admission that your complaint is NOT science, but your own competing metaphysical grid/faith/religion).

          so which is it? you have no basis for criticism? or you are not doing science but advancing your own competing faith?

          March 25, 2014 at 6:16 pm |
      • joey3467

        Placing god outside the universe so that you don't have to proide evidence for said god seems like a cop out to me, and how can god be outside the universe and interact with beings inside of it?

        March 22, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
        • Russ

          @ Joey:
          you appear to be using "outside" spatially, but i am speaking philosophically.

          if you want to think in spatial terms, then it would be more like this:
          the material universe is the 'walls' of the house.
          the underlying metaphysical reality is the foundation of the house.

          note: science (even for a naturalist) is still necessarily CONTINGENT on metaphysics.
          it's not a question of whether or not one believes in metaphysics, but simply through WHICH metaphysics is one seeing everything? you are dependent on metaphysics either way (even if you are a purely naturalistic materialist).

          in terms of your argument here: you seem unaware that naturalism *equally* has metaphysical presuppositions (located OUTSIDE science – as you have put it). in that regard, your criticism is self-defeating.

          March 25, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
    • areluctantatheist

      I hesitate to condemn all believers as suffering from "ignorance," despite my own belief that there isn't a God. True believers can just as easily say that atheists are.ignorant of God. I don't believe, but I don't dismiss the beliefs of others. I explore this on my blog, areluctantatheist.wordpress.com.

      March 23, 2014 at 11:37 pm |
  2. pindershclauss

    She may had a traumatic head injury that wasn't properly treated on the other hand there are other idiotic and/or insane PhDs without any history of head injuries, so, either way, forgive her, for she knows not what she says.

    March 22, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
    • Doris

      Well in your latter group there are also those just out to make $$. I.e., Andrew Snelling who obtained credentials for his expertise as a geologist in dating things, but who simultaneously worked for one of the big "young-earth" groups. Only he can answer why he sells two stories at once...

      March 22, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
  3. colin31714

    I just re-read this article. Oh dear it is garbage.

    She says “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.”

    Uh, not really. Ripples in space time have already been observed when hyper-violent events, such as stars collapsing into black holes or supernova explosions, occur. Further, while a catching development in the field of cosmology, it is totally irrelevant to any religion – unless there is a religion out there that claimed the universe is about 13.7 billion years old and began in an infinitely dense and tiny state. I know of none.

    She later says “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.”

    Not so. The big bang and the current iteration of the Universe having a “beginning” has been generally accepted since Penzias and Wilson stumbled upon the uniform background microwave radiation in 1964. This is just further evidence bolstering an already generally accepted scientific theory. Secondly, it does not offer support for biblical beliefs. It undermines them. Biblical beliefs are clear. The entire Universe was created in six days about 10,000 years ago. That was the universal biblical view for over 2,000 years, until science proved it to be simply mythology. Then, the biblical view had to change to match the overwhelming evidence. Thirdly, if it did support the biblical view of creation, it would equally support ANY religious view of creation that has the Universe popping into existence at a discrete point in time, including the richly diverse and inconsistent Hindu, Norse and Aboriginal Australian and Native American creation myths. There is nothing special about the Judeo-Christian creation myth.

    But then, my favorite of all, that nicely demonstrates the puerile simplicity of this nauseating woman’s pipe dream that she passes off as logic;

    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.

    Wow, just wow. That has to be the greatest leap in logic I have ever heard. Applying temporal cause and effect to an area where the known laws of physics have all broken down. Then the HUGE, HUGE leap. A being “outside the Universe” (a self contained oxymoron by the way) did it and that being is, you guessed it…..her god. Not an alien intelligence, not the Hindu god, Lord Brahma, not nature itself, but her god. I’m sorry, but she is a pathetic apologist for her preconceived worldview.

    Her basic mantra is that the authors of Genesis knew all about the big bang origins of the Universe but chose to write it up as the Adam and Eve myth so as not to confuse their more simplistic fellow Jews. What utter, mind numbing garbage. This entire article is a textbook case of how people can make fools of themselves when they try to stretch 21st Century science back to cover ancient mythology.

    By the way, for those of you impressed with her reference too Fred Hoyle, today, about 93% of the American Academy of Scientists (THE most prestigious scientific body in the USA) reject the idea of the Judeo-Christian god.

    "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." – Albert Einstein.

    “I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." – Stephen Hawkins, 2013.

    “First of all, I’m an atheist. The second thing I know is that the name was a kind of joke and not a very good one.” – Peter Higgs, the discoverer of the Higgs Boson, the so called “God particle,” commenting on how he wishes people would stop using the term to describe the particle.

    March 22, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
    • tallulah131

      The whole article is little more than desperate christian rationalization - an attempt to stay pertinent in a world that has increasingly less use for religion.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
      • colin31714

        I almost had to stop reading it, it is just so bad. I like how she is described as a scientist, too. She has a PhD from some Californian Christian college in biomechanics. I'm guessing her "work" on Hubble ant the International Space Station involved that.

        Or making coffee for the real scientists.

        March 22, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
        • Doris

          maybe the physical characteristics of a glazed donut was inspiring...

          March 22, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
    • eklektois

      The Bible does not literally say the world is 10,000 years old. That is a rationalization of various references of symbolic "days" that spread across numeration in various contexts. Taken literally, the Bible is meaningless. Taking anything literally is a logical fallacy in itself, because this world comprises of two forces: Intentions and relative interactions.

      While I do not agree with every point the author is making, I agree there is intention in absolutely everything in the universe. Newton's laws of inertia, balance, and action/reaction establish intention for energy in general. Furthermore, nothing in the universe is absolute. All energies are intertwined and relative to greater energies regardless of quantum mechanical forces that give rise to their states, and thus there is no absolute perspective anywhere in the universe as Einstein and his theories on special and general relativity clearly identify and solidify with every modern discovery long after his death.

      The Bible as a whole does well to incorporate concepts and examples of intention (good when God inspired and bad when not), and relativity (do unto others, the primary commandment per Christ).

      Honestly, the reason these comments are so critical and judgmental is because the people issuing their ignorant opinions do not see the bigger picture the author intended to paint.

      In MY very honest opinion: Your losses. Woe be unto you for assuming your literal interpretations hold more merit than the very nature of the universe that hashed through eons of seemingly pointless iterations to give your unique, yet ignorant, perspectives. Humble yourselves and you will see much clearer.

      March 22, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Colin:
      it is a rare occasion that i agree with you, Colin – but yes, the author overreaches here (especially with the term "proof").

      however, i have a bone to pick with you here. you seem enraged that someone would read the data & filter out information that doesn't fit his/her pre-existing grid (as you said "she is a pathetic apologist for her preconceived worldview")... and yet when i read your comments here, you seem unaware that you are doing that very same thing.

      while it is a "huge leap" (as you say) to claim the specificity of the Judeo-Christian God in this particular finding, how is it not *equally* (if not more so) a leap to filter out the concept of transcendence (which you call a "self-contained oxymoron"), without any alternate explanation for the paradoxical "something out of nothing" origins of our universe? it's not even that you say "i find that less probable" but that you filter it out from the outset. you are doing the very thing you are criticizing.

      her argument is "sounds to me like what i believe."
      your argument is "sounds to me like what i believe."
      my argument is "sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black."

      March 22, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
      • colin31714

        Russ, you said, "while it is a "huge leap" (as you say) to claim the specificity of the Judeo-Christian God in this particular finding, how is it not *equally* (if not more so) a leap to filter out the concept of transcendence (which you call a "self-contained oxymoron"), without any alternate explanation for the paradoxical "something out of nothing" origins of our universe?"

        If we take the Universe to be everything, then, by definition, it includes the cause of what we can observe in the Universe. I discount any tanscendence, if by that you mean some kind of higher intelligence behind the Universe for the simple reason that we have no evidence of it. If any evidence should arise, I would consider it like I would anything else.

        But your first point – that it IS a huge leap to assume the Judo-Christian god is behind the Universe, is dispositive of the entire article. That is her fundamental premise and it is not just an assumption, it is not even a guess, it is a mere wish. She might have well have written an article suggesting the latest developments in cosmology provide "tantalizing evidence" that there a fairies at the bottom of her garden.

        March 22, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
        • Vic

          I have one word for you that encompasses everything Dr. Leslie A. Wickman is intelligently talking about.

          That word is in the article above: Text Line 9 Word 6

          March 22, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
        • Russ

          @ colin:
          you said: "If we take the Universe to be everything..."

          that's the entire debate. the naturalist *presupposes* the material universe is all there is. but that is a PRE-supposition. it is one taken as a given... on FAITH – not derived from the evidence AFTER the fact. reading the data with that presupposition makes your conclusion a self-fulfilling prophecy (b/c you actively filter out the data that could lead you to a different conclusion). it's the very thing you are accusing her of doing.

          naturalism is NOT science. it's a *particular* faith, and has a particular, faith-based way of reading the data. science painstakingly avoids making the leap naturalism does. failing to see the difference means you will be doing "faith" & calling it science.

          so, no... i do not believe the universe is "all there is." and interestingly enough, even within naturalistic views, newer theories of "multiverses" do not either. but that's still to talk purely *within* the realm of the material universe. and those of us who believe there is more than just the material read the data very differently than you do. you want to *presuppose* that before there was space-time, there could be nothing at all. again, "something out of nothing" is a MAJOR problem for this position – not just causally & physically, but philosophically & categorically. even Hawking & Co. see the problem (hence his shot to explain it in "Grand Design" which was heavily criticized) – but why try to explain a problem if there's NOT one?

          so yes, the very thing you take simply as a given, i see as evidence of the thing you deny: namely, existence itself points beyond itself. while you may not agree with my view, i hope you can see how your presupposition equally is a "leap of faith."

          March 22, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
      • iconoclast1

        Your argument is the one that is indefensible. If the article above was written by a grown adult about the existence of Santa Claus, and if that argument was essentially based on asserting Santa Claus' existence based on faith and the popularity of the Santa Claus myth, then anyone would be justified in scorning those beliefs, especially when that argument extends to declaring that recent findings confirm the existence of Santa (after all, children are still receiving Christmas gifts). All arguments are not created equal. Sometimes when people assert that their beliefs are superior, they are right.

        March 22, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • Russ

          @ iconoclast:
          1) you said: "Sometimes when people assert that their beliefs are superior, they are right."
          i would press the same point – reciprocally.

          2) you said: "Your argument is the one that is indefensible."
          and then you make an argument about Santa Claus as myth.

          a) that was not the discussion at hand. i wasn't (though I'm glad to do so as a Christian) arguing here for the scientific evidence for Christianity. i was arguing that naturalism is *equally* a leap of faith – which (philosophically speaking) is demonstrably so. to say "ignore them! they're making a leap of faith & reading the data thru their leap of faith" while doing the same thing is simply self-defeating.

          b) your implied corollary is that Jesus Christ is merely a myth.
          two scholarly resources to the contrary...

          i) Bart Ehrman is one of the most – if not THE most – liberal biblical scholars on the planet. he's a self-proclaimed "agnostic with atheistic tendencies." (in other words, if you had a friend in the field, it'd probably be him.) here's a link to the foreword of his book "Did Jesus Exist?" – which argues unapologetically that he does. while i certainly HEAVILY disagree with him on most other things he claims, i'd just point out to you that is the FAR EDGE of biblical scholarship on the left... and it excludes your position as too far gone.

          for your reading [it'll take 90 seconds]...
          http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/03/30/the-historical-evidence-of-the-existence-of-jesus-of-nazareth/

          ii) here's one of the leading literary myth scholars of the last century giving a technical essay to biblical scholars on why (even if purely from a literary perspective) claiming Jesus is a myth fails to understand what a myth is.

          http://orthodox-web.tripod.com/papers/fern_seed.html

          a sample (speaking in particular about the Gospel accounts of Jesus):
          "I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage – though it may no doubt contain errors – pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors, or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this has simply not learned to read. I would recommend him to read Auerbach."

          March 22, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
  4. timelesswheelman

    science is true until the next discovery shows it isn't.-lol

    March 22, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
    • otoh2

      As opposed to religion, which has never had a discovery to prove that its fantasies and superst.itions are true - EVER?!

      March 22, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
      • otoh2

        oh, sorry; I forgot to add a snide -lol

        March 22, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
      • timelesswheelman

        http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/

        March 22, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
        • otoh2

          http://www.islam-watch.org/amarkhan/Miracles-of-Quran-Exposed.htm

          March 22, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
    • tallulah131

      It is better to change your mind as you learn than it is to simply believe a lie because you fear change.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
      • timelesswheelman

        We are saying the same thing. I meant scientific discoveries are true until the next one shows us something different. In all of this, one with faith sees these discoveries as proving the existance of Allah(God).

        The Holy Quran, surah(chapter) 21, ayat(verse) 30:

        "30. 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?"

        Anyone with comprehension of what they read understands this to be a very simple description of "The Big Bang Theory", especially considering the vocabulary and knowledge 1400 years ago when this verse was revealed.

        For more science found in the Quran you can go to http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/.

        March 22, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
    • colin31714

      Exactly. As Sagan said, "science is a question that may never be answered, religion is an answer that must never be questioned."

      March 22, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
    • observer

      The Bible is often true until intelligence and logic are applied.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
  5. balzermr

    Quantum mechanics doesn't support cause-effect relationships. I don't see how you can use it to prove a cause-effect relationship.

    The writer should take some science courses before trying to use science to prove something.

    March 22, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
    • Vic

      I am not sure what that means.

      Quantum Physics/Mechanics is based on the Quantum Theory, which, in very simple terms, the discernment of matter existing in discrete quantities.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
      • Bob

        Vic, you are practically clueless about every subject that you post about here. Now go google "energy levels of the hydrogen atom", dummy.

        March 22, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
      • Vic

        I am not sure what the OP means, that is.

        March 22, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
  6. somehardtruths

    It's interesting how the religious will try to hijack scientific breakthroughs to claim it furthers their completely unsubstantiated belief system. You believe in deities because you were indoctrinated to. You have never witnessed anything miraculous or talked with a god, nor has anyone who walked this planet.

    March 22, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
  7. amymay2012

    Funny and sad how some think they have gathered enough knowledge to challenge the existence of God.

    March 22, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
    • Reality

      And what are your proofs of the existence of your version of god??

      March 22, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Funny and sad how some people think that cultural tradition, an old book and special feelings are proof of a supernatural super-being.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
    • majorwiblit

      “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
      ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

      March 22, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
    • sam stone

      And what is your evidence FOR the existence of god, amymay?

      March 22, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
    • LinCA

      @amymay2012

      You said, "Funny and sad how some think they have gathered enough knowledge to challenge the existence of God."
      What is truly sad is that in 2014 there are still adults that cling to the imaginary friends of the childhood indoctrination. Even sadder that some of them wish to force that nonsense on the sane part of society.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
    • Akira

      The only one claiming that is the Christian evangelist 'scientist' that wrote the article.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
    • nepawoods

      How much knowledge does it take to challenge the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or God, or any other thing for which there is zero evidence or rational argument? If you make the claim it exists, the challenge is for you to support that claim. To challenge the existence of God (or Thor, or Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster), one merely asks "Have you any evidence?".

      March 22, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
    • doobzz

      Funny and sad how some think they have gathered enough knowledge to challenge the existence of Zeus.

      March 22, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
  8. bvaudt

    I am neither a studied theologian nor a brilliant scientist, but when I cross the street I look both ways, and yes, even if the signs say one way!

    March 22, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
    • tallulah131

      I look both ways when crossing the street because cars are very real and adhere to the laws of physics.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
  9. nepawoods

    It's scary to think the author is a scientist. She's either woefully deficient in her grasp of logic, or she's being incredibly dishonest in trying to spin this to claim it supports the existence of an incorporeal sentient being.

    March 22, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
    • bostontola

      It could be both. I think the God delusion is strong in this one.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
    • gent49

      You think that because the knowledge of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, and you're perishing. There are a host of Christians whowere great scientists over the ages who would think that your the one who is scary. A few of these are Max Planc, Isaac Newton, Michael Fariday, the Curries, Luis Pastuer. In short, you are the ignorant one and the scary thing is that you're too stupid to even know it.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
      • LinCA

        @gent49

        They were only great scientists to the extent that they kept their religion out of their science. Once you mix the two it ceases to be science.

        March 22, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
      • nepawoods

        "You think that because the knowledge of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, and you're perishing."

        Knowledge of the cross is a matter of spirituality and faith, and does not require one to abandon logic and reason about matters of material fact. St. Augustine wrote of this at length.

        "There are a host of Christians who were great scientists over the ages who would think that your the one who is scary. A few of these are Max Planc, Isaac Newton, Michael Fariday, the Curries, Luis Pastuer."

        They would support the irrational thinking espoused in the article? They may have had faith, but they didn't engage in deception or abandon logic.

        March 22, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
  10. Vic

    ♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰

    I believe in God Almighty, the Father, Son (Lord Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit, and I love science.

    In wake of this discovery, I would like to call upon the Scientific Community to reinstate Metaphysics so Science can truly be to the meaning of its word, that is "Knowledge."

    Early on:
    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/comment-page-16/#comment-2971087

    March 22, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
    • Doris

      reinstate? You are too funny, Vic.

      March 22, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
    • majorwiblit

      “People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs.
      This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.”
      ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

      Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? ~Douglas Adams

      March 22, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
      • Vic

        Beauty is "metaphysical."

        March 22, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          Does metaphysics exit?

          March 22, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • Vic

          Sure does.

          Love, beauty, consciousness, mind, soul, spirit, intuition, basic instincts, etc., are all "metaphysical."

          Metaphysical entities can also manifest in physical forms, e.g. beauty, placebo, etc.

          And, as a Christian, I believe God is Metaphysical, and He manifested physically in the Lord Jesus Christ while on earth.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • Doris

          It does seem to exit when reason enters the room, MK.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • sam stone

          Beauty is subjective, Vic

          March 22, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • Doris

          All kidding aside, metaphysics does attempt to deal with questions about the unknown and well, with just trying to determine which questions to ask perhaps. But when it comes to things yet unknown, what does metaphysics tell us today that is that different from the metaphysical questions of the same things centuries ago? Is that progress? On the other hand, scientific discovery has yielded answers and insights to many things that were previously attributed to magic or something supernatural to one form of deity or another. Is there anything from metaphysics specifically requiring a particular deity in order that the right logic or questions are being applied in science? I would think not. I would think science incorporates and builds upon the rational aspects of metaphysics.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
    • nepawoods

      From your posts, it's difficult to imagine you can actually understand what science is.

      Why does expansion imply a creator, as you've claimed? Understanding science requires capacity for reason, yet you seem to have no reason for your fundamental and oft repeated claim.

      March 22, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
    • Doris

      OK, let me see if I have Stephen King's number in my rolodex. I just like to pass certain things by him. I see throngs of angry fundamentalists carrying torches and clubs approaching various science departments demanding the reinstatement of "spooky physics".

      March 22, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
    • Vic

      Sure does.

      Love, beauty, consciousness, mind, soul, spirit, intuition, basic instincts, etc., are all "metaphysical."

      Metaphysical entities can also manifest in physical forms, e.g. beauty, placebo, etc.

      And, as a Christian, I believe God is Metaphysical, and manifest physically in the Lord Jesus Christ.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
      • Bob

        Vic, the core premise of your disgusting religion is absurd from the get-go. How is it again that your murderous Christian sky fairy couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there.

        Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
        Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
        http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

        March 22, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
    • Vic

      "And, as a Christian, I believe God is Metaphysical, and manifested physically in the Lord Jesus Christ while on earth."

      March 22, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
      • Bob

        Vic, you keep spewing about your murderous "lord" as if it is something to boast about. Ask yourself first why your purportedly omnipotent sky fairy needs worship, or anything else.

        And then, re your stupid Jesus-sacrifice nonsense, how is it again that your murderous Christian sky fairy couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there. Not a being worth calling "lord", especially given how murderous your nasty bible says he has been.

        Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
        Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
        http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

        March 22, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Aw, Vic. It's cute that you think that your opinion has any standing in the scientific world, which has more important things to study than pretend stuff.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
  11. qqqqqjim

    Before one takes this article seriously, you should know that Ms. Wickman is an ordained minister!

    March 22, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
  12. Salero21

    The Evidence for the absolute, complete and Total stupidity of atheism is Bigger than the Universe, and is also ← E X P A N D I N G →

    March 22, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
    • deecee10000

      Why are you against evolution?

      March 22, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
    • whippstippler7

      Hey, Sal: do you believe in Zeus? Ra? Manitou? Thor?

      March 22, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
      • deecee10000

        Salero doesn't know that even our "gods" had to evolve. Your brain is capable of learning new things Salero if you make some room in that tiny little brain of yours. Try it, you'll probably find that learning isn't such a bad thing .

        March 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
    • majorwiblit

      “For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
      ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

      March 22, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
      • kudlak

        Yup! Science wants to shine a light into all the dark places, where religion would prefer that their monsters and boogymen have shadows to remain hidden in.

        March 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
    • Doris

      I just dreamed I was by a beautiful trickling brook. Then I awoke to find that the cat box needed changing. Prophesy fulfilled! Proof of God!

      (the butthurt logic of the Salero troll)

      March 22, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
    • qqqqqjim

      Jeez, I just read an article on Lady Gaga and SHE makes more sense than you do. One can excuse her since she is just trying to sell more albums, but you????

      March 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
    • iconoclast1

      And your evidence, or at least some argument, that this is so? Oh, wait. I almost forgot. Religious folks don't need evidence or any substantiation for their claims whatsoever. You simply assert something and, voila!, it becomes "true."

      March 22, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Blah blah blah troll-cakes.

      March 22, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
  13. majorwiblit

    Geology shows that fossils are of different ages.
    Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time.
    Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species.
    Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together.
    Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!", Does not!, Does not!" ~Author Unknown

    March 22, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
  14. mickmastergeneral

    So, both science and religion say the Universe had a beginning. Granted. They had a fifty-fifty shot of getting it right. But then science presents evidence of red shift, background radiation, and gravity waves; while religion goes on to tell a story involving a talking snake. So, no, this latest development is not going to make me convert any time soon.

    March 22, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
  15. iconoclast1

    Looking on the bright side, there is one positive aspect to the reality that so many people fall prey to religious myths: it is helpful to remember that so many people are irrational. Otherwise, it would be quite bewildering to see people pile into grotesquely overpriced internet stocks and later pile into overpriced homes they can't really afford. In other words, the fact that so many people can be swayed by religious myths and religious dogma helps us understand why the world is so messed up – people can be talked into just about anything, including things that are bad for them. The fact that people can be easily duped is not a good thing, of course, but knowing that this is true can at least help us understand the world we live in.

    March 22, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
  16. fcorama

    Wow. This is a fundamental misunderstanding.

    1. Confirming rapid expansion doesn't mean the universe didn't exist before the expansion, e.g., that it was created. It makes no claim about the state of the universe before the expansion.

    2. Let's suppose the universe was created instead of always exist. OK. So... that's not proof of gods. The creation is more likely to be a natural process.

    To take an incredibly complex thing and say it's too complex to have come about naturally... and that claim by supposing the existence of an even more complex thing (a god) is absurd.

    March 22, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
    • kudlak

      Bit of advice, in no 2 it's more accurate to say that this universe "began", as "was created" really does imply a conscious action being made by an intelligent, creative being.

      See how subtly religious culture has poisoned the well?

      March 22, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
    • qqqqqjim

      You are correct. The author somehow made a giant leap of faith (no pun intended) in writing this article. There's all kinds of logical fallacies involved in her arguing for a 'God.' Her ignorance for someone who has reasonably decent academic credentials is astounding. What in hell are they teaching students at Azusa Pacific? It won't soon get me into any church!

      March 22, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
      • nepawoods

        A leap of faith, or a deliberately crafted attempt to deceive? Can she have a PhD and fail to see the obvious fallacies in her reasoning? If not, it's deliberate, and she just hopes others won't see them.

        March 22, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
  17. Rainer Helmut Braendlein

    The actual issue is not, if there is a God or not, but the issue is, how we can live as faithful Christians in an antichristian world.

    I guess that for many people simply the price they had to pay, if they would follow Jesus, is too high. There is no problem to believe in God's existence, but it is a real problem to obey him in this bad world without facing great loss (money, relations, power, honor, material wealth, etc.)

    According to Charles Wright Mills and David Rothkopf the power elite of the Western World has become quite antichristian or materialistic. Former times the Western leaders were not totally antichristian, but today they are. Seemingly, they don't want to be reminded of any Christian faith be any lousy, backward Christians. They prefer "subjects" having more or less an animal behaviour. You are allowed to behave like a beast as long as you work like a horse (only your performance counts, nothing else). Seemingly, they (the power elite) want to deprive us of any opportunity to think about spiritual matters, or to contemplate. It is clear that it is very hard, nearly impossible, for a Christian today to survive in that demonic system, and one can only hope that Jesus will return soon, and kills those godless leaders (sounds harsh, I know, but they are real criminals making us unhappy in contrast to former leaders who made their people happy holistically).

    Conclusion: God certainly exists (just watch the sun, the moon and the stars he created). The issue just is, how we can follow his Son Jesus in a totally godless world. At least, we should be so honest, not to deny God's existence, but admit that we are to coward to follow him.

    Let us pray that God releases us from any cowardice. Long-term we will get a great reward.

    Renounce here, get a great reward there.

    March 22, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
    • Jill

      Rainer Helmut Braendlein

      There once was a maiden named Stan
      who thought that a bull was a cow.

      On looking upward, she blanched. Trees are for crescents.

      And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.

      March 22, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
      • Rainer Helmut Braendlein

        Gradually, that becomes boring,

        March 22, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
        • Jill

          Whereas boring is your starting point. Break out some radishes and have a feast.

          March 22, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • sam stone

          You are boring from the start, Rainy

          March 22, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
    • bostontola

      God may exist, but the Abrahamic characters defined in the bibles, Yahweh and Jesus aren't it. There are factual falsehoods, internal contradictions, and immoral premises that disqualify them.

      March 22, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
    • Doris

      Translation: "As Christians we really can't prove anything about our belief, therefore we must point out in others how they fail at following our popular religion and what people traditionally associated with it. It's our best attempt to try to reverse the tide – to show that the unbeliever is immoral without our system. We must dance around the hard questions about the foundations of our faith; and we must add a dash of the fear of hell every now and then to hypnotize the superstitious."

      March 22, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
    • Akira

      Love how you decry the western world even as you take advantage of all the US has to offer be emigrating here.

      Conclusion: hypocritical vanity writer who will repost this on every new page.

      Your dreams for domination won't happen in the US. Sorry.

      March 22, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
    • kudlak

      So, you're saying that it's somehow more important to continue following outdated moral dictates than worry whether your God may not actually be up there giving justification for following those outdated moral dictates?

      March 22, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
    • deecee10000

      How typical of you! You are not the first religious fanatic who believes the "godless" scientists should be killed. . .or tortured. . .or imprisoned. It's a good thing people like you are becoming extinct so that our species can be allowed to advance in knowledge.

      March 22, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
    • nepawoods

      "how we can live as faithful Christians in an antichristian world"

      The world is not anti-Christian, it's just more knowledgeable and rational.

      You can be faithful. You can't claim there's rational evidence for what you have faith in without presenting it, and thus far, nobody has presented it. That's why it's called faith.

      March 22, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
      • kudlak

        In fairness, a more knowledgeable and rational world actually does appear to be working against Christian belief. It really was a whole lot easier to be faithful back in the past, before science, when all forms of superst.ition were just accepted as "reality".

        March 22, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • nepawoods

          True. The gaps are shrinking, and we're witness to the god of the gaps always running for cover.

          March 22, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
    • majorwiblit

      When I look up at the stars in the night sky,,,I do not see a gawd,,,or anything mystical or magical,,
      I see the awe inspiring Universe,,,that which science and reading has opened my mind up to the "why"
      facts,,,and reasonable theory,,,not myths from a time when we were afraid of our own shadows,,,
      I look up and see the only thing greater than myself,,the endless Universe...

      March 22, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
  18. bostontola

    The Big Bang says our observable universe had a beginning, NOT that all existence had a beginning.

    Expansion of space time faster than the speed of light is not supernatural at all, in fact, the current mathematical models predict it (i.e. it is completely natural).

    The beginning of our observable universe may have had a cause, but there are a number of completely natural causes that have been hypothesized that require no supernatural power, much less an intelligent agent.

    There is no tested evidence of these natural explanations, much less proof, but the existence of multiple natural possibilities negates the Big Bang and Inflation as proof of God (that doesn't mean it proves No God, it means that it can't prove God did it since there are other alternatives).

    March 22, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
    • ugetthefacts

      some believe it was a defect in a dark matter particle that was pulled apart by the massive force of much larger dark matter working together. Some thought is that it is dark matter outside the universe is the cause for an accelerated expansion. More so that dark matter globs is what attracted the dust particles to making planets and such.. and the stars are dark matter globs which were so large they couldn't collect enough matter, the collisions causes the constant heat.

      Just someones thoughts to share.

      March 22, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
  19. ugetthefacts

    to christians and muslims,, you claim that god made humans in his image and likeness. Would you tell us all what he does with his pen!s?

    Also, is there a dog god who made dogs in the dog god image?

    March 22, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
    • deecee10000

      Gods have always either ra***ped or somehow "magically" inseminated females of our species to produce demi-gods. How do you think the first of our species discovered fire, music and any other early discovery that wasn't written down when the discovery was made? Answer: It was the "gods" who did it! Sounds idiotic nowadays but people to afraid to admit they had no idea where things came from had to invent SOMETHING. Imagine if you were a leader and people looked up to you. Would you want to look like a dumb*as with little knowledge of the world? Of course not. How effective of a leader would you be if your followers believed you had no knowledge of the environment, thus "god" is used to make your followers believe you are smarter than you really are. God isn't an explanation, "God" is just a way of pretending to know something when you really don't. Nowadays "God" = "I have no idea but I'm way too proud to admit I'm completely stupid on the matter." Their "God"-of-the-gaps doesn't work as well as it did in the past.

      March 22, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
  20. denkidemuerto

    This "scientist" ignores what cosmology says about the universe and as a "Christian" she ignores what the bible says about this world. Cosmologists would say vocabulary like cause and effect do not apply to the universe because the universe is something very different than everything else in the universe. To ask what caused the universe into existence is like asking where the film goes in an iphone. Time and physics break down the before the big bang. As "Christian" she ignores how the God of her bible orders the genocide of entire tribes of people, she ignores the subjugation of women, she ignores the r-ap-e of female children, she ignores the enabling of human slavery and torture.

    Ms Wickman, you will eventually cease to exist. Your ignorance of what cosmology says about the universe and your ignorance of the evil of your bible will not buy you an eternal life.

    March 22, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
« Previous entry
Advertisement
About this blog

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