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. pancakesandwildhoney

    Someone may have already mentioned this, but gravity waves and gravitational waves are not the same thing.

    March 22, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
  2. alfonse2014

    I get a kick our of all of you high school diploma'ed hissy-fit atheists. Why don't you all, first, go and get YOUR Phd, then you can write your article.
    It's freakin' hilarious....... if anyone disagrees with any scientist who supports global warming, you hypocritcal bozo's are the first to say, "hey, he's a scientist and your not, why don't you shut your face." But now, all of a sudden, in this case, it's A OK for mental midgets to critique the scientists. ......... What a bunch of whiney arrogant blowhards.

    March 22, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
    • bostontola

      Do you have a PhD?

      March 22, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
      • alfonse2014

        Am I the one saying that this author, this scientist, doesn't know what she's talking about?
        -My god, how dense can you be???

        March 22, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
        • Akira

          Is Boston's question ambiguous?

          March 22, 2014 at 7:45 pm |
        • nepawoods

          Are you saying she does? I'm saying she doesn't. I've explained previously, and I can again. It's not about credentials, despite your complaint that "if anyone disagrees with any scientist who supports global warming, you hypocritical bozo's are the first to say" ... whatever. I don't weigh in on the global warming issue, so your complain doesn't apply to me. And if I did weigh in, I would not use an appeal to authority.

          March 22, 2014 at 7:49 pm |
        • bostontola

          Her PhD is in Biomechanics, not physics, let alone cosmology. That means she is no more qualified than anyone else to discuss this.

          Are you a scientist?

          March 22, 2014 at 8:16 pm |
    • nepawoods

      Rather than just make blanket statements about people being mental midgets, it's better to address what they actually say. If they're actually mental midgets, that should be fairly easy.

      March 22, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
    • noheavononearth

      I am actually a DOCTOR, and judging from your linguistic skills on your post, it is not clear how much education you have completed or need to complete. Atheists are not "arrogant". We are secure with the knowledge of science that may be ever expanding, but is incomplete. We don't know what we don't know and we admit it. However, we certainly do not believe in the hundreds of god's that currently exist, the tooth fairy, santa clause, nor the fable of the Creation of the Earth some 6000 years ago or less depending on which religion one follows. Do not ask us to prove that god doesn't exist, just like you should not ask us to prove that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.
      Please provide the evidence of god's existence, any god, from any time period and any religion. I can prove the existence and explanation for fossils and evolution, electrons, neutrons, dinosaur's, and now the big band theory. None of these have any connection with man made books from thousands of years ago that apparently describe the origin of life.
      Go back to your cave, cave man and leave it to atheists and agnostics whom are representing a larger and larger percentage of young people with the ability to analyze, reason, and critically critique life through science. You can rub your two rocks together whilst reading the bible but be careful it doesn't catch on fire....after all it is "holier than though"

      March 22, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
      • alfonse2014

        It's hilarious that you had the balls to claim that "scientists" don't believe in gods, in the comment section of AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY A SCIENTIST THAT BELIEVES IN GOD. You my friend are no scientist, you are a LIAR of the worse order.

        March 22, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
        • noheavononearth

          OMG....she isn't a scientist, she belongs to a Christian university and "worked" on scientific projects in the past.
          We call this "pre selection bias" as her mind has already been made up. A true scientist tests a hypothesis and runs an experiment to see if the hypothesis is valid. The experiment may be validated by others, the data is critiqued by other "experts" and then conclusions are reached. Wait....this is what has happened with the big bang theory and further analysis is forthcoming. However, Neanderthals such as yourself need to evidence and no validation. You BELIEVE in something whereas we PROVE the existence of things. That is why I can call myself DOCTOR and you cannot as my peers will scrutinize everything I do.
          As for yourself? You will go to church and ask the priest who may or may not have abused little boys, whether you have committed a sin yourself, will ask for forgiveness, will give money to the church as for some inexplicable reason the house of god needs donations from the poor and desolate, and you will go home and feel good about yourself for being so committed to a statue.
          Look in the mirror buddy. You are a follower, you have been indoctrinated since you were a child, and you have so independent thought. Shame on you.........

          March 22, 2014 at 7:59 pm |
        • tr0623

          A belief in God doesn't make what a scientists says any more truer or false. A formal paper by scientists is expected to be met by the test of scrutiny. Since God is transcendental, empirical proof does nothing in proving nor disproving the existence of God. Everyone can argue one side or another and in the end neither can be right. This result strengthened the author's belief in God, for others it will strengthen their belief there is no God. Using belief as a means to separate the believers from the non-believers is no different than to separate on race or color. Looking at one's differences is what leads to hatred and wars. Try looking at the similarities and the rejoicing of scientists on this success. How many of you can with imagination and mathematics create a theory and 30 years later see proof that you were right? What is not mentioned is the many other theories that were just as credible that were destroyed by these findings. This is what true science is about, proof that you were either right or wrong. Belief has nothing to do with the results, yet the results can strengthen or weaken a belief. So which is stronger, the belief or the results?

          March 22, 2014 at 8:29 pm |
        • noheavononearth

          She is a director of research for WHAT exactly? Name one scientific study that she has performed, one theory, anything that has been supported by her peers You dimwit, she has no Scientific credentials. She is a PhD who worked on a bloody telescope but has no objectivity as she already believes in what she believes in. Her article is not science.
          It is making false and ridiculous conclusions based on scientific data but she didn't create the data, she is interpreting it.
          You are like all other religious zealots.....your intransigence and lack of critical thought obfuscates your ability to discriminate between fact and fiction. Continue following your god, your statue, your hypocritical ways,
          Just prove to us once and for all that your god, not others from diverse religious groups around the world, actually exists. Not conjecture, not your spiritual connection or feeling, just a shred of evidence......

          thought so.
          Enjoy going to church tomorrow. Empty your pockets, support the house that hides pedophiles and bow your head to the statue that you are certain will look after you. After all, heaven must be a great place to look forward to as there certainly cannot be any leukemia in children, natural disasters that kill the innocent nor other calamities that afflict the masses as occurs on earth, the place in which god is omnipresent, looking after his followers.

          What a complete joke.....I am still waiting for the proof please of the existence of your god....any god....from any religion....anywhere in the world. Oh Thor, where are you.......

          March 22, 2014 at 8:42 pm |
      • blogreader555

        Holier than "though" ? Let's at least read about and understand religion before setting out to destroy it.

        March 22, 2014 at 8:02 pm |
        • noheavononearth

          I do not need to destroy religion. Religion is destroying itself. How many wars past and present are a result of religion. Shia and Sunni Muslims cannot get along, Catholic and Protestant's cannot get along...and they are respectively part of the "same religion"
          Atheists do not need to destroy religion. You are doing a fine job on your own.........
          Maybe Christianity is just an older version of the 20th century Scientology movement in which a man created a story/religion.

          Just a theory.......I have no evidence.....maybe I should start an even newer religion on this premise....it's certainly been done before

          March 22, 2014 at 8:10 pm |
        • alfonse2014

          NOHEAVENONEARTH, so you and some others here claim that the author is no scientist

          Leslie Wickman, Ph.D., is the Director of the Center for Research in Science (CRIS) at Azusa Pacific University (APU). She is an internationally respected research scientist, engineering consultant.
          For more than a decade Wickman was an engineer for Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, where she worked on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and International Space Station Programs, receiving commendations from NASA for her contributions and being designated as Lockheed's Corporate Astronaut.

          I'm out a here, i didn't realize i was trying to have conversations with a bunch of lying tur ds.

          March 22, 2014 at 8:24 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          alfie, She did not reach a scientific conclusion – she offers no basis in science for her comments; her conclusion is informed purely by her religious beliefs.

          March 22, 2014 at 9:07 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        Noheavenonearth,

        Do you believe that objective morality exists? Objective morality is morality that is valid and binding, independent of personal opinion. As an example, to say that the Holocaust is objectively morally evil is to say that it is evil even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was morally good. Even if the Nazis had won World War II and either killed all opposers or brainwashed everyone into believing that the Holocaust was morally good, it would still be morally evil.

        March 22, 2014 at 8:05 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          There probably are some morals considered "objective morality". Slavery and other biblical discriminations would not fall in that category.

          March 22, 2014 at 8:14 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer, welcome. I addressed in-depth the Exodus passage you brought up in our last discussion. I don't know if you saw my complete response.

          On atheism, what is the foundation of objective morality?

          March 22, 2014 at 8:27 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Are you EVER going to answer this question?

          Where do the morals come from that tell you the Bible is WRONG to support the OWNING of other people; discrimination against women, discrimination against the handicapped, unpunished BEATING of slaves, children, etc.?

          Still COMPLETELY STUMPED?

          March 22, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer, do you even read responses? Did you see my response to our last conversation concerning the slavery in the Exodus passage you cited?

          March 22, 2014 at 8:38 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Do your morals allow you to believe it is EVER RIGHT to SELL an 8-year-old girl into SLAVERY (including s3x)?

          YES or NO?

          No hiding. YES or NO?

          March 22, 2014 at 8:40 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          Exodus 21:7-11

          7 “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8 If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10 If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11 If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

          According to Paul Copan, "As we've seen earlier, this is another example of case law (casuistic law). Such regulations don't assume that the described states of affairs are ideal. Case law begins with specific examples that don't necessarily present best-case scenarios: "if two men quarrel" or "if someone strikes a man" are examples of case law. So the law here instructs Israelites about what should be done under certain inferior conditions ("If a man sells his daughter...")"

          1. "even if conditions are less than ideal, the goal is to protect women in unfortunate" circu-mstances.

          2. "When a father sells his daughter, he's doing so out of economic desperation,"
          "the father is going this out if concern for his family, and Israel's laws provided a safety net for it's very poorest."
          "Voluntary selling was a matter of survival in harsh financial" circu-mstances.

          3. "As far as the marriageable daughter goes, a father would do his best to care for her as well. Here, he is trying to help his daughter find security in marriage;"

          – "If the man rejects the servant woman as his wife, she is to be given her freedom (redeemed/bought back).

          – "If his son wants to marry her, she is to be taken in as a family member and treated as a daughter."

          – "If the man marries another woman, the servant woman is to receive food, clothing and lodging"

          All quotes are from Paul Copan's book "God is not a Moral Monster.

          Also, are you just pulling the child being 8 years old out of the air? Please provide Biblical evidence for this.

          Please read the verses around the one you quote. I quoted them above.

          March 22, 2014 at 9:01 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          The Bible had ZERO limits. Any age.

          Do your morals allow you to believe it is EVER RIGHT to SELL a SIX-year-old girl into SLAVERY (including s3x)?

          YES or NO?

          Why are you such a COWARD about giving a YES or NO answer?

          March 22, 2014 at 9:11 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          As indicated above, "So the law here instructs Israelites about what should be done under certain inferior conditions". Did you read that from my post? INFERIOR CONDITIONS. I certainly agree that this an inferior condition.

          The big question is, why on atheism, is slavery morally wrong?

          March 22, 2014 at 9:49 pm |
        • joey3467

          You don't believe in objective morality or when god ordered genocide it would also be immoral. So you have subjective morality just like everyone else in the world.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Joey,

          "You don’t believe in objective morality or when god ordered genocide it would also be immoral. So you have subjective morality just like everyone else in the world."

          Your assuming that genocide is always objectively morally wrong. On atheism, why is this? Take the slaughter of the Amalekites for example. I believe that God carrying out judgement on the guilty is objectively morally good and can not be morally wrong. This is certainly not subjective morality, which is what you have on atheism. The act by God in this instance can be nothing but morally good.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          The Bible had ZERO limits. Any age.

          Do YOUR MORALS allow you to believe it is EVER RIGHT to SELL a SIX-year-old girl into SLAVERY (including s3x)?

          YES or NO?

          Don't be a COWARD again. Answer the question if you have the GUTS.

          March 25, 2014 at 12:05 am |
      • michaeltodd63

        I know many physicians and physician is the term the great majority use when referring to their occupation. You, my friend, have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.

        March 22, 2014 at 8:09 pm |
      • Vic

        The doctors I have ever met have an honorable code of ethics, amongst which many are Christians, who do not necessarily bash people the way I see happening here, but that's a different story.

        Regarding Christians providing proof for the existence of God, there is evidence, it depends on what you consider is evidence. We always point to this existence, the universe and life in it, as "Prima Facie" circumstantial evidence of God, hence "Natural Revelation," as well as the Scriptures, hence "Special Revelation." As for empirical evidence for God in His Form, that is impossible for He is Metaphysical and outside the realm and time of this existence. Now, having said that, you cannot require Christians to provide empirical evidence for God while you cannot provide empirical evidence for 'Abiogenesis.'

        FYI, Christians founded all branches of Modern Science as well as the Modern Scientific Method, and have been continually pioneering and contributing to it.

        Oh, BTW, 'Origins of Species,' aka 'Evolution,' has NEVER been empirically proven.

        March 22, 2014 at 8:37 pm |
    • whippstippler7

      Alfe – it's time for your bath, and then off to bed, you little rapscallion. Time to let the adults talk.

      March 22, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
    • Akira

      You are certainly embodying the teachings of Christ with your insults. That's fabulous.

      March 22, 2014 at 7:43 pm |
    • iconoclast1

      Nothing "whiney or arrogant" about your comments, no siree. There happens to be a broad scientific consensus about global warming. What there is most certainly NOT a broad scientific consensus about is the need to invoke God or some creator in order to explain the known universe. So, your inference that we should respect scientists has backfired in a big way.

      March 22, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
    • doobzz

      You are just another bitter Christian hanging by your fingernails onto the shredded remnants of your silly book.

      March 23, 2014 at 2:01 am |
  3. holacem

    The universe is a proof in some way that there is a intelligent design behind that, because if not, the universe will be all chaotic. All elements which compose the universe is interrelated and is in harmony, the human being is lucky to live because if there are not something that gives harmony and "smooth movement" all is going to fall apart. The big bang prove in some way that there is an agent that is behind the beginning of the universe, do you agree with this affirmation? maybe yes or maybe not, but you could not affirm that something behind our understanding happened before the beginning of the universe. For me this shows me in someway about the existence of something or someone that is beyond our understanding.

    March 22, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
    • nepawoods

      "The universe is a proof in some way that there is a intelligent design behind that, because if not, the universe will be all chaotic."

      Why does any sort of order require an intelligent designer?

      March 22, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
      • holacem

        What will happen if the sun move a little be or what happen if the earth move a little be, who control them? There are a lot of situations where the human being could not control, however, the universe is going. However, the big question if what happen if . . . a little be change? Have you though about that? The universe is too big and in someway we are too small.

        March 22, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
        • nepawoods

          What is your question? Are you asking what will happen if the laws of physics were to spontaneously change? We'd all be screwed. What's your point. The universe seems to be governed by consistent laws that don't change. It's quite mechanical and deterministic. Is there reason to conclude an incorporeal sentient being must be involved? If so, I haven't heard it, and I've been waiting for a while.

          March 22, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
    • bostontola

      Gravity alone creates order, no intelligence required.

      March 22, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
    • G to the T

      So you think god is gravity?

      Does god have to fashion each snowflake? That's an example of order without design.

      March 24, 2014 at 9:20 am |
  4. tyrfryer

    I sincerely wish all people would recognize the difference between belief and and knowledge. Belief is something you feel inherently, for whatever reasons. Knowledge is something you know through experience, empirical evidence, whatever. Once we all accept the difference between belief and knowledge, we can all honestly, objectively agree that none of us actually KNOWS whether or not there is a higher power. That knowledge is simply beyond the ken of our minds. We can then all just respect, not tolerate, each others beliefs, for being what makes each of us the unique individuals we are. Just because I don't believe in a higher power, that doesn't mean I have the right to belittle the belief of anyone else. Rather, if that belief is healthy for them, I must respect it and be glad for them, that they have it.

    March 22, 2014 at 6:50 pm |
    • holacem

      I agree with you, but you could not negate that in someway my beliefs affect my understanding of my reality and my knowledge affects my beliefs. I think both are related, the problem is when one impose his belief in someone, however, there is true in all situation, whether I have or not. For me, knowledge and belief are interrelated, because both affect our understanding of our reality.

      March 22, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
  5. spacelasers

    This entire article is nothing more than confirmation bias in action. The mental gynmastics these people can pull off to cram new scientific discoveries into their preconceived, static notions of the world are downright impressive sometimes.

    March 22, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
  6. bostontola

    Dr. Wickman missed the boat with this opinion piece.

    First, she got the science and the logic wrong. There was nothing in this extraordinary experiment that adds to the first cause argument. Inflation takes place after the origin event.

    Secondly, she missed an opportunity to discuss what confirmation of Inflation means to our place in the universe. Confirmation of the greater than light speed expansion of our universe means that there definitely is a part of the universe that we can't see, even in principle (that was hypothesis before). That part of the universe is too far away for its light to reach us. That opens up a lot of interesting questions, many of which are more interesting than first cause (and could render first cause irrelevant).

    Oh well, maybe next time Dr. Wickman.

    March 22, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
    • nepawoods

      "she got the science and the logic wrong. There was nothing in this extraordinary experiment that adds to the first cause argument. Inflation takes place after the origin event."

      If there was an origin event ... if the concept actually makes sense in that context.

      I earlier cited (of all things) the theme song to The Big Bang Theory (tv sitcom) ... "Our whole universe was in a hot dense state, then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait..."

      The theory doesn't say what came before. The theory never set out to explain origins, but to explain what was observed.

      March 22, 2014 at 6:36 pm |
      • bostontola

        Sorry, I am missing your point.

        March 22, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
        • nepawoods

          Just saying the theory doesn't say there was an origin event, and that it should be kinda common knowledge. How can a scientist (as she supposedly is) forget that?

          March 22, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
      • bostontola

        I'm not sure what you are saying, but the Big Bang theory goes back before the Inflationary period. Origin refers to the origin of our observable universe. Dr. Wickman does not understand the theory, because Inflation isn't the beginning of our observable universe, so it doesn't bear on the first cause (the argument central to her opinion). All her arguments have already been made on the basis of Big Bang evidence (relation between the distance and speed of galaxies, nucleosynthesis, etc.).

        March 22, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
  7. gwtars

    Why is everything on this Belief blog centered around Christianity? From a contemporary Buddhist point of view, which would never be included in the journalistic scope of this blog, this "new" discovery is not anything groundbreaking, it simply reinforces the laws of cause and effect. Simply put, from a Buddhist perspective, everything in the Universe, including the Universe itself, has undergone countless cycles of birth, death and rebirth, with no anthropomorphous divine being necessary.

    March 22, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
    • Reality

      So 100 years ago or so you were what and now reborn as gwtars? Any memory of this?

      March 22, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
  8. bpuharic

    She doesn't know what she's talking about. BEFORE this discovery, Christians said there was NO explanation for the fine tuning of the uniformity of the background radiation. God did it. So they were wrong. AND this is support for Andrei Linde's Chaotic Inflation, which says our universe is a subset of a larger universe which had no beginning.

    So her argument is just moving the goalposts...and is wrong.

    March 22, 2014 at 5:56 pm |
  9. mariosphere

    The author errs. Even if a beginning for the so-called Big Bang can be demonstrated, that doesn't mean there was an agent or creator. That's an incredibly huge leap of logic into fantasyland, where gods of all stripes and sizes reign supreme.

    March 22, 2014 at 5:20 pm |
    • bjnibbejr

      Leaps of logic into fantasyland... Well it seems that even scientists make leaps of logic. Shall we start with the beginning of life? Arguing that there is substantial evidence for life having begun through natural causes to me seems difficult because life can only arise from life. Another leap of logic is the assumption that energy comes from nowhere. The fact is both sides make tremendous assumptions to back up their claims. "Long ago and far away there was a dot that expanded rapidly into the universe..." that in itself is a leap in logic my friend... many assumptions made about cosmic background radiation that we know very little about. As I see it, the theories of evolution and cosmology have just as much imagination as Greek mythology in some instances.

      March 22, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
      • MidwestKen

        @bjnibbejr,
        "Arguing that there is substantial evidence for life having begun through natural causes to me seems difficult.... "

        I don't think anyone is arguing that. There are many hypotheses, but no conclusive evidence, yet on how life got started.

        "... because life can only arise from life."\

        And your evidence of this is?

        March 22, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
      • Reality

        Might want to read Bryson's book, " A Short History of Nearly Everything" pp. 287-301 to get a hint as to how life on this planet started some 3.5 billion years ago.

        March 22, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
        • Reality

          An update to Bryson's review can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis .

          March 22, 2014 at 6:24 pm |
      • nepawoods

        "life can only arise from life"

        Do you have an argument to defend that premise?

        "the assumption that energy comes from nowhere"

        Who's assumption is that? (and please cite some backing for your answer)

        "'Long ago and far away there was a dot that expanded rapidly into the universe...' that in itself is a leap in logic my friend... "

        Which part of the rationale and evidence behind that conclusion do you find tenuous? Or are you unaware of the rationale and evidence? In any case, that author claims this is proof of a God, so why quibble?

        March 22, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
        • cw1989

          Nepa, regarding the "life can only come from life", refer to the Law of Biogenesis.

          March 22, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
        • nepawoods

          There is no "law of biogenesis". You're probably referring to Pasteur, who (with others) showed that abiogenesis was not an everyday occurrence, as was believed at the time. People thought they saw living things arise from non-living all the time, that it was the norm. He showed that wasn't so. There is no other law of biogenesis than that, which says nothing about the origin of life.

          March 22, 2014 at 7:57 pm |
      • mariosphere

        Apart from your cheap philosophy shots, got anything else to say?

        May 28, 2014 at 6:37 pm |
      • Torbjörn Larsson, OM

        "Shall we start with the beginning of life? Arguing that there is substantial evidence for life having begun through natural causes to me seems difficult because life can only arise from life."

        That is like saying that molecules can only arise from molecules. But nucleosynthesis in the early universe, in stars and in supernovas show differently.

        Similarly, astrobiology predicts that life emerges out of geophysics via chemistry. No large steps, only darwinian survivable ones. [See Russell's SETI seminar on youtube.]

        "Another leap of logic is the assumption that energy comes from nowhere."

        Well, it does. Inflationary cosmology shows that the universe is exactly zero energy. The internal phase changes that separate matter positive potential energy from gravitation negative potential energy are no more mysterious than other phase changes like separating ice from water. [See Susskind's cosmology seminars on youtube.]

        "The fact is both sides make tremendous assumptions to back up their claims. "Long ago and far away there was a dot that expanded rapidly into the universe..." "

        Science doesn't do philosophical prior assumptions, it works by posterior testing and updates. Similarly inflationary cosmology doesn't claim that the entire universe derived from a point, not even that the observable universe did. It predicts that the observable universe derived from a very small volume, something that has been accepted for a century. [ibid]

        June 3, 2014 at 8:32 am |
  10. nepawoods

    The author is either extremely ignorant of science or extremely dishonest.

    Why would this discovery "rock the world of religion"? Has the world of religion been rocked by the decades of near universal acceptance in the world of science of the Big Bang? No, so why now? Now, because science discovered something, and the author wants to ride it's coattails and claim it supports her notion of a creator.

    Science had no doubt of inflation. There is other proof. The author claims inflation implies God. Are we to believe the world of religion was holding out for more solid proof of inflation? Suddenly, they are the one's who require proof of what they claim in turn proves God's existence?

    She writes "this new evidence strongly suggests that there was a beginning to our universe", when she knows darn well she means only our universe as we know it. That had a beginning. This we've always known.

    Then she claims some unspecified "simple logic of cause and effect" (talk about a hand-waving argument), wherein an effect must have a cause, but a first cause can just be, and must logically be the God of the book of Genesis. I guess she did her research and knows that there are people who will be bamboozled into believing there's logic there if a scientist with a PhD says there is.

    March 22, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
    • mariosphere

      The poor woman strongly believes in a god of the gaps.

      March 22, 2014 at 5:23 pm |
    • seedenbetter

      The religious have always been envious of science with its evidence based system. They tout faith as something equal that should have the same respect but reveal themselves with articles like this.

      March 22, 2014 at 6:03 pm |
      • nepawoods

        Indeed, it is ironic that she should tout scientific proof of anything as reason for people of faith to rejoice.

        March 22, 2014 at 6:25 pm |
      • Russ

        @ seedenbetter:
        "it is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science." – Nietzsche

        science still presupposes metaphysics.
        you're comparing the walls to the foundation here. it's apples & oranges.

        March 22, 2014 at 6:28 pm |
    • tired-of-america.com

      It seems as if science has backed christian fundamentalism into a corner and the christians aren't quite sure how to react about it.

      March 22, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
  11. drwizard002

    "by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent – separate and apart from the effect – that caused it".... Simple logic hardly applies to quantum mechanics or the kinds of math involved in deducing gravity waves.

    It doesn't apply to a belief in God, either - there's still the question of where God came from, unless you cut the Gordian knot by saying God is an effect without a cause, as believers have done for thousands of years.

    Believers believe, regardless of proofs or lack thereof. They believe because their parents taught them to believe certain things, they can't do without the companionship of other believers, or they need to have some comforting story to help them deal with hard times.

    As for me, I can't believe in an human-like being that designed and jump-started the universe 13.8 billion years ago and set aside a planet for His special favorite creations, so He'd have someone to keep Him company and sing songs praising Him, then gave Bronze Age hermits a book of His orders to mankind that includes "thou shalt not round thy head nor cut thy beard" on penalty of eternal suffering ... just CAN'T, any more than I can force myself to believe the world rests on the back of giant turtle.

    I can believe electrons exist and mathematical proofs reflect reality, however, because I plug a cord into a wall and electrical things work.

    March 22, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
  12. timelesswheelman

    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?"

    It has been available and unchanged for 1400 years.

    March 22, 2014 at 5:04 pm |
    • g2dat

      I suppose you could interpret it that way, just as "let their be light" could be conflated with the big bang but I think it's just as much of a stretch.

      March 22, 2014 at 5:23 pm |
    • eccoodamo

      Quran unchanged claims is pretty far fetched. The quran didn't exist as a book till after Muhammad's death and if it wasn't changed then why did Othman burn 100s of different versions and make his the only standard version? Quran is a cheap imitation of the Bible of which it has twisted much of it to produce a counterfeit faith denying much of the claims of the Bible.

      March 22, 2014 at 9:09 pm |
  13. kaelinda

    Whether you prefer to call it a Singularity or God, it resulted in or caused the Big Bang, which was the creation of the universe in all its glory. You like the theory of evolution just because it's more or less proven fact? Great! Where in the Bible does it say God can't use evolution to create and/or change species of both living and non-living things? What? You say the Bible says everything was created in six days? Okay... but the earth wasn't created until the third day, and so there couldn't have been a first or second day (see the definition of 'day'). The Bible also says that to God, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day – so God is outside time as we know it and HIS six days could have been six billion years – or six seconds. Science tells us the answer to questions like this. Further, the Bible says that eventually ALL will be revealed – so if science is the mechanism by which things are revealed to us, why do some Christians fight it?

    March 22, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
    • Vic

      Respectfully:

      Gravitational Singularity is only a theory at best, and what it concerns is something of this world, that is infinite gravity and density—however, they are not really infinite but because all the known Laws of Physics breakdown at that point, they call them infinite, hence a created matter, so it cannot possibly be self-existent nor "First Cause."

      Regrading the 'Origins of Species,' aka 'Evolution,' that is only an upgraded hypothesis that was NEVER empirically proven, hence NOT a scientific fact.

      Now, regarding Christians, this is how we view the matter of the Belief/Faith and Empirical Science:

      Belief/Faith in God explains the "Origin" of the universe and life in it, hence God's Creation.

      Empirical Science explains how God's Creation physically works, hence God's "Natural Revelation."

      March 22, 2014 at 5:23 pm |
      • nepawoods

        "Regrading the 'Origins of Species,' aka 'Evolution,' that is only an upgraded hypothesis that was NEVER empirically proven, hence NOT a scientific fact."

        You have a little catching up to do. The theory of evolution is now proven fact.

        March 22, 2014 at 6:23 pm |
    • joey3467

      The story told in the Bible requires a literal reading of Genesis for the sacrifice of Jesus to have any meaning. If Adam and Eve did not exist then there was no original sin and thus no reason for Jesus to die on the cross. So if science proves Genesis wrong Christianity falls apart.

      March 22, 2014 at 5:26 pm |
    • joey3467

      Why quote that to god a day is like a thosand years and then claim that could mean a billion years? You might as well just be making it all up as you go along.

      March 22, 2014 at 5:28 pm |
  14. darthtojedi

    I am not religious but believe in a higher being that had a hand in the creation of our universe but two laws in science already proves the point of this article and that is the law of conservation of energy and mater which states that you can neither create nor destroy either which means that something have to created it to begin with. There is your cause and effect. This is nothing new.

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

      and again if something created whatever it doesn't automatically mean it was a being or possessed intelligence.

      March 22, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
    • islamistheanswer

      As it pertains to the law you mention, The Quran says the following: (Interesting isn't it?)

      Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]? (35) Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain. (52:36)

      March 22, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
    • the0g0to0the0t

      "you can neither create nor destroy either which means that something have to created it to begin with."

      I may be misunderstanding, but this is completely contradictory. Matter cannot be created to it must have been created?

      March 22, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
      • g2dat

        Please note the handle change – I couldn't stand all the 0's... It's still me, G to the T...

        March 22, 2014 at 5:24 pm |
        • Vic

          Just in case you didn't notice:

          You can still use spaces and CAPS in your Public Display Name.

          March 22, 2014 at 5:56 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @g2dat,
          Thank you. Not sure how a string of characters can be annoying but your's was.

          March 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
  15. masadavt

    Ah the old trick of trying to steal a scientific discovery and re-label it as "proof of god".... shame on all you religious nut bags.

    March 22, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
  16. ericg513

    To any believer......

    Which is more important? Your belief or knowledge?

    March 22, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
    • islamistheanswer

      Here is an Islamic Perspective:

      Islam urges people to read and learn on every occasion. The verses of the Qur'an command, advise, warn, and encourage people to observe the phenomena of nature, the succession of day and night, the movements of stars, the sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies. Muslims are urged to look into everything in the universe, to travel, investigate, explore and understand them. This helps to better appreciate and be thankful for all the wonders and beauty of God's creations. The first revelation to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) illuminates the importance of the role of knowledge.

      "Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,- He Who taught (the use of) the pen,- Taught man that which he knew not." – Qur’an English Translation [96:1]

      Indeed God speaks of knowledge as a reward for the righteous:

      "When he (Moses) reached full age, and was firmly established (in life), We bestowed on him wisdom and knowledge: for thus do We reward those who do good." – Qur’an English Translation [28:14]

      "And that those on whom knowledge has been bestowed may learn that the (Qur'an) is the Truth from thy Lord, and that they may believe therein, and their hearts may be made humbly (open) to it: for verily Allah is the Guide of those who believe, to the Straight Way." – Qur’an English Translation [22:54]

      So READ my friend and expand in knowledge and pursue science and all the different subjects in this universe for they do nothing but make you a better human being and better aware of your Creator (ALLAH).

      March 22, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
      • Sp-ank Your Imam

        islamspammer, tsk tsk. Do not be selling the Islam serially here as such and with embracement without having received prior spanking intensively. Officiating imam and spamming brothers and sisters and yourself must be spanked to red posteriority before and after embracing actions.

        Both buttcheeks of embracers must receive high frequency applications at significant vigorousness and amplitude to cause bright blushness. Imams should receive such spanking thusly in triplicate. Sitting difficulties will proceed but temporarily if Allah is willing and healing of reddishness is granted.

        Thus it is spa.nken.

        Here it is written and must be so.
        Here it is written and must be so.

        March 22, 2014 at 8:20 pm |
        • islamistheanswer

          Obviously, you have nothing to say but the above which is nonsense! It would be both beneficial to you and others here if you were to really comment on my posts with something relevant. I can't say it better than the Quran

          And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth easily, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words of] peace, (25:63)

          Peace Unto You.

          March 22, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
        • Sp-ank Your Imam

          islammerspammer, quoting the Cooo-Ran-Ran without vestal goats present and with video is disallowed by present authority. Submit yourself to the nearest ass whacking station for a thricely repeated butt thumping, and assume the position. For you it will be quite cerebral as such.

          No longer be selling the Islam serially here as such and with embracement without having received prior spanking intensively. Officiating imam and spamming brothers and sisters and yourself must be spanked to red posteriority before and after embracing actions.

          Both buttcheeks of embracers must receive high frequency applications at significant vigorousness and amplitude to cause bright blushness. Imams should receive such spanking thusly in triplicate. Sitting difficulties will proceed but temporarily if Allah is willing and healing of reddishness is granted.

          Thus it is spanken.

          Here it is written and must be so.
          Here it is written and must be so.
          Here it is thricely written and must be so. The Coo-ran-ran. The Coo-ran-ran.

          March 22, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
  17. orionnewell94

    This article seems like a convenient way to artificially insert god into this latest scientific discovery which should not be necessary if according to believers, there is actual evidence to support its existence.

    Perhaps the most interesting part is where she claims that "by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent – separate and apart from the effect – that caused it." This logic of cause and effect that she refers to is based on the interaction of material things i.e. the rearrangement of materials by a causal agent into something new. If the universe really did appear out of nothing then this logic would dictate that it had no causal agent.

    March 22, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
  18. maduabuchiubani

    The truth remains D̶̲̥̅̊α̲̅τ̲̅ only fools say there is no God.
    I believe in the supreme being and his sovereignty supersits D̶̲̥̅̊α̲̅τ̲̅ of the earthly government and authority.
    More fact will continue to unveil but I doubt if people will still have the rapt attention to listen
    God help us all

    March 22, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
  19. justageeker

    I reckon anything can point to a God creating us or us just appearing from nothing. Since no one can explain what was before God or what was before the Big Bang the whole debate is a bit useless. Both sides acting like kids on a playground...you're wrong...no you're wrong...and back and forth with neither side having nothing more than a theory to try to prove themselves right. Sigh...let the guessing games continue for everyone...forever.

    March 22, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
    • Doris

      and ever... R'amen.

      March 22, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
    • nepawoods

      What is supported by evidence and reason, and what is not? This can be discussed intelligently.

      March 22, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
  20. timelesswheelman

    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?"

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

      I read all I need to know about Islam in the NY Times on September 12, 2001.

      March 22, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
      • SeaVik

        All I need to know about Christianity is the hideous result of childhood mental abuse (as in all these Christian adults who actually believe in a fairy).

        March 22, 2014 at 4:09 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.