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. annemarie

    Religion and science are not so estranged as many people think. Br. Guy Consolmango, S.J., a former physics professor at MIT, was recently quoted in an interview: "Recalling the time when he decided to leave his career in science in order to pursue his vocation to religious life, Br. Consolmagno stated that when “I came back as a Jesuit and all of my friends in the astronomy world came to me and said, ‘You are a Jesuit? That’s so wonderful. Let me tell you about the church I belong to.’” “I discovered so many of my friends were fellow church goers,” he noted, adding that there were “many Catholics, many Protestants, many belonging to churches you’ve never heard of” with whom he began to discuss his faith." (See http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-astronomer-science-opens-the-door-to-dialogue/

    March 23, 2014 at 7:38 am |
    • basehitter

      Science seeks to know facts, reality, and truth, religion does not.

      March 23, 2014 at 7:44 am |
      • annemarie

        Dear Basehitter, Science deals with measurable data. There are things that do not fall into that category: friendship, joy, sorrow, love, hatred, kindness and much else of what makes us humans unique in this measurable universe. In other words, those things that make us persons. Even philosophy limps when it tries to handle what involves personhood. That is where religion can help us understand ourselves as persons.

        March 23, 2014 at 9:52 am |
        • igaftr

          Religion does all those things except makes the huge mistake of presuming there are any "gods". Those things can be accomplished without any god hypothesis.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:57 am |
        • whippstippler7

          @ Annemarie: philosophy can help us understand who we are. Philosophic thought can be neutral; without an agenda. Religion always has an agenda.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:58 am |
    • nepawoods

      One can believe in an incorporeal sentient being, and still seek to have a rational understanding of the universe. One can't base a rational understanding of the universe on one's belief in an incorporeal sentient being.

      March 23, 2014 at 8:11 am |
      • annemarie

        Dear Nepawoods, Your wrote "One can't base a rational understanding of the universe on one's belief in an incorporeal sentient being." There may be believers who base their understanding of the universe on their beliefs, but I am a Catholic, and that has never been the Catholic approach.

        March 23, 2014 at 10:37 am |
  2. jamesroyalty05

    The Earth and Cosmos are too perfectly placed to have just happened that way on its own. Scientists are always looking for ways to prove that it came into being by natural laws but why? Are they really intent on proving that there is no point in human life? Or is all their effort to prove that what people have believed as wrong? I don't get what their point is with all this there is not God stuff. What is the big deal with believing that God created the universe? They claim that they believe what they observe but there are so many things that if they changed by just the littlest bit, Earth would be come uninhabitable, but yet they won't "observe" that things are so perfectly tuned. There is so much order in this universe but yet the scientists can't figure that out, they are looking at the small picture instead of the big one.

    March 23, 2014 at 7:10 am |
    • jamesroyalty05

      All I am saying is scientists get your head out of the microscopes and look at all the animals for instance that could not have evolved into their current form because they have multiple ways that their body works that cannot just be evolved one thing at a time. They have complex systems that have to work together and thus have to have been created at one time. The Giraffe is a great example of an animal that couldn't have evolved. Just the systems it has in its body to just get a drink of water prove that it couldn't have evolved gradually.

      March 23, 2014 at 7:30 am |
      • basehitter

        Small changes add up to big changes over the course of billions of years. The universe is not that orderly. At any time a giant asteroid could smash into our planet and change our world forever. Eventually, the sun will burn out and all life on earth will end. If everything is so orderly, why do we all get sick and die ?

        March 23, 2014 at 7:35 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        "look at all the animals for instance that could not have evolved"

        This alone shows your lack of comprehension of evolution. All creatures have evolved to fit their environment. I highly suggest watching Cosmos so you can be educated outside of your bible on actual facts and evidence.

        March 23, 2014 at 7:45 am |
      • nepawoods

        Nothing in evolution says that different features that work together must develop one at a time. Multiple different parts can evolve through gradual change simultaneously.

        If you want to refute evolution, you'll have to try harder than just repeated long ago debunked creationist dogma.

        March 23, 2014 at 8:18 am |
        • gabriel613

          Most modern data suggests that "gradual evolution" is incorrect; it was a hasty conclusion by those who had decided there was no "God". An accurate portrayal of evolution involves long dormant stages with short rapid evolutionary periods – logically implying a pre-programmed ability to adjust to surroundings.

          March 23, 2014 at 8:29 am |
        • igaftr

          "logically implying a pre-programmed ability to adjust to surroundings"

          Only if you take the term "logically" to mean, jumping to wild conclusion based on nothing, then you are correct.

          When there are x number of creatures, and something happens, say a famine, and most of the creatures die from lack of food, but SOME of them are able to eat something different, the ones that died from the famine are the ones who could not tolerate a change to the diet, the ones that could toleraste the new diet survived. They did not change to the change in environment as you suggest. The ones that survive are the ones who had some minor thing different. The DNA does not adapt on the fly. It is the epigentics that changes by the environment.

          Please educate yourself in how evolution occurs before posting such nonsense.

          You tried to "logically" imply a programmer...that is not logic.

          March 23, 2014 at 8:41 am |
        • gabriel613

          Since I'm sure you're some sort of Biologist, the terms "Punctuated equilibrium" and "Morphogenesis" should be very familiar to you. Do a little research yourself and disprove that a creator may have pre-programmed species to evolve when under duress or in anticipation of future calamity.

          March 23, 2014 at 8:54 am |
        • igaftr

          gab
          You again imply a "creator" when no evidence exists for such a thing. I cannot disprove the hypothesis of a god/creator/programmer, but there is also no evidence whatsoever of one.
          There are many other possibilities. You words show a bias to some sentience behind evolution, where there is no evidence of it.

          March 23, 2014 at 8:58 am |
        • gabriel613

          If you think that there is no evidence in creation of their being a creator, then you must surely believe there is no evidence of an artist when observing art.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:03 am |
        • igaftr

          gab
          Again, incorrect logic.
          Existance is a sign of existance, not of how it came to be.
          Existance is a sign of a creator, that we are in the matrix, that we are in a test tube in some giant superaliens lab, etc, etc, etc.
          Since there are an infinite number of other possibilities, leaping to any "god/creator" is simply unjustified, and illogical.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:13 am |
        • gabriel613

          You are suggesting that it is more logical to imply that a creation doesn't have a creator... I'll just assume you don;'t really exist then.... why am I replying to a figment of my imagination?

          March 23, 2014 at 9:22 am |
        • nepawoods

          gabriel613,

          In our everyday experience, works of art are created. Also in our everyday experience, every sentient being has a physical brain necessary for sentience, and a physical body that feeds that brain, requires food, and is born of parents, and dies. You can't infer everything that looks like a creation has a creator, from everyday experience, without also inferring any such creator must have a physical body, and eventually die.

          Furthermore, our intuitions are just plain wrong. We see a beautiful work of art, exhibiting complexity, order, design, and we intuitively sense there must have been a designer. I would refer you to images of the Mandelbrot set (google it). Incredibly complex, detailed, beautiful organic-looking design and structure, incredible variety. Anyone looking at it would admire the artist that created it. And they'd be surprised to find there is no artist. It's just a graph of a very simple mathematical function. The point is, very simple processes can produce what would appear to our intuition to require a designer.

          As for punctuated equilibrium, it certainly does not logically indicate preprogrammed adaptive ability.

          You say gradual evolution was "a hasty conclusion by those who had decided there was no God". It makes as much sense to say it was a a hasty conclusion by those who had decided there was no Flying Spaghetti Monster ... and I mean that in all seriousness. You say "decided there was no God" as if there being a God were the default rational position.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:28 am |
        • igaftr

          gab
          Again, you are showing a misunderstanding of logic. No, existance does not imply a "creator". By using the word "creator" you imply certain things, such as a sentience. Since there is no indication of any sentience, and the fact that there are an infinite number of other possibilities, the only logical conclusion you can make is no conclusion at all. Throwing the term "creator" in the mix is , again, irresponsible.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:31 am |
      • whippstippler7

        Oh, James – you chose the wrong example! Google the Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe. It runs down from the larynx about 7-8 feet, under the heart, and then 7-8 feet back up the neck, proving that, as the animal evolved and its neck elongated, the laryngeal nerve continues its evolution by stretching.

        If the giraffe was designed, the laryngeal nerve would be a few inches long, and run directly, instead of about 15 feet long.

        Yahhhh science!

        March 23, 2014 at 9:02 am |
        • gabriel613

          I'm not a Veterinarian, but Gray's Anatomy suggests:
          “As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”
          It serves other purposes that explain its length – for being such a devotee to science you show way to much blind faith in Richard Dawkins!

          March 23, 2014 at 9:10 am |
        • whippstippler7

          @ gab; wow! the nerve evolved that way! there is no purpose for the laryngeal nerve to run down the neck, under the heart and then back UP the neck touts ultimate connection. If you want to go from one room in your house an adjoining room, you could just walk directly, by the shortest route. Or, you could walk out the front door, down the street, across town, then walk back, go in the back door, and go the adjoining room.

          Why would a supposedly intelligent designer use such a terrible design? It's less efficient, uses more raw materials, is more subject to injury or damage.

          The straws that believers grasp at! Wow!

          March 23, 2014 at 9:18 am |
        • gabriel613

          Re-read my reply.
          What if you had to walk out the front door and down the street to deposit a letter in the mailbox? And then you walked back, went through the back door to the adjoining dining room for some lunch? If you just went to eat your lunch your letter would still be in your hand.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:27 am |
        • whippstippler7

          @ gab – those are all secondary to the primary purpose – going from one room to another. If you are a designer, which is the better design?

          Why are you people so bent on denying science? Are you SO indoctrinated that you think everything will end, and your lives will be over, or have no purpose, if you question your religious beliefs.

          It's time to stop acting like terrified children, who have been told all their lives that there's a monster under the bed. Take a deep breath, and actually LOOK for yourself, under the bed.

          See? No monster.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:33 am |
    • igaftr

      "The Earth and Cosmos are too perfectly placed to have just happened that way on its own"

      What does that mean? Perfectly placed for what?
      Life evolved on earth, partly dictated by the energy that is available. Earth being a certain distance from the sun means a certain amount of energy is a vailable, and life grew to meet the energy.
      There is no sign of any gods.

      March 23, 2014 at 7:57 am |
      • whippstippler7

        If the Earth was so perfectly placed, why is the vast majority of the Earth completely uninhabitable by humans?

        March 23, 2014 at 9:20 am |
    • nepawoods

      Science does not seek to disprove God any more than it tries to disprove Thor, or Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Zeus, etc. When someone brings up any of those things, science merely points out that there is no evidence for them ... neither direct evidence nor indirect.

      March 23, 2014 at 8:03 am |
  3. gabriel613

    You can see more of her credentials here: http://www.leslieannwickman.com/
    So, if anyone criticizes her ability to properly execute the scientific method... please present your PhD from Stanford.
    On topic... if you consider the back-story of the "Religion vs. Science" debate, any proof of a "Big bang" (Bb) at least allows for someone to believe in a "God."
    Before the Bb had scientific evidence, the going rate in the scientific community was a static universe that always existed; this was clearly hard to reconcile with a creationist viewpoint. At this point, however, scientific data points to a Bb which brings both sides of the debate to comparable logical standing. Either you believe in a "God" that caused the creation of our Universe or you believe in some other causality. Although, even an Atheist must admit now that there was a creation and "something" that caused it.
    In summary: While the most up-to-date Bb data doesn't prove "God", the data doesn't disprove an a priori belief in "God" either.

    March 23, 2014 at 6:38 am |
    • midwest rail

      For the record, an opinion piece does not consti.tute an execution of the scientific method.

      March 23, 2014 at 6:40 am |
      • gabriel613

        You missed the point. People have irrationally questioned her scientific credentials because of an opinion she has that in no way opposes scientific data.

        March 23, 2014 at 6:56 am |
        • nepawoods

          I didn't see any questioning of credentials. Rather, the question is, how can someone with such credentials write such a poorly reasoned article? (the flaws in reasoning having been repeatedly spelled out in prior posts ... and I don't mean to insult anyone by suggesting they need to be spelled out)

          March 23, 2014 at 7:36 am |
        • gabriel613

          What is the poor reasoning exactly? Was it her decision to come to a conclusion that differs from your opinion? Flip it the other way – would it make sense to write an article about the lack of a creator when new data about the creation of our Universe is discovered?

          March 23, 2014 at 8:33 am |
        • igaftr

          gab
          No it was not her conclusion that differs from mine...it was the conclusion itself. There is NO conclusion to make, yet she made that leap...that is the problem. She may have the best credentials, to leap to a conclusion in this case is her mistake.

          This information, while it takes us closer to truth, does not prove or disprove any gods. "god" being brought up in the investigation of this sort is actually quite irresponsible.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:05 am |
    • goneaerial

      I don't doubt this writer can execute the scientific method, but her conclusion is still an extreme leap. Basically in this article she is saying "now that inflation theory seems substantiated god must have initiated the Big Bang". That is not a scientific conclusion, it's wishful thinking.

      March 23, 2014 at 7:13 am |
      • gabriel613

        In the context of the Science vs. God debate, the proof a Big Bang is a huge blow to those who argued that there was no need for a God due to a (now doubtful) assertion that the Universe is static.

        March 23, 2014 at 7:24 am |
        • goneaerial

          The "huge blow" you perceive is non-existent. As usual religious people will desperately interpret anything they can as existence of god. The Big Bang has been an accepted cosmological model for decades and I haven't recently heard of a mass drove of scientists joining religion.

          March 23, 2014 at 7:33 am |
        • nepawoods

          "In the context of the Science vs. God debate, the proof a Big Bang is a huge blow to those who argued that there was no need for a God due to a (now doubtful) assertion that the Universe is static."

          Now doubtful? When was the last time anyone asserted a static universe? That was abandoned long ago. Red shift, the cosmic microwave background radiation ... we've had confirmation of the big bang before. I find it baffling that anyone would claim it's good news for the faithful that science has more evidence for what science already accepted as fact for so long.

          March 23, 2014 at 7:50 am |
        • gabriel613

          To the layman who might not know much about physics, this new data of the Big Bang may be their entry point to the subject. Inflation, along with red-shift, etc. combine to form a model of the Big-bang-started Universe.

          March 23, 2014 at 8:23 am |
    • g2dat

      "...know that there was a creation and "something" that caused it."

      No. "Creation" implies creator and that there wasn't something and then there was. It's more accurate to say there was everything (but it was really small) and then it got bigger.

      March 23, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
  4. nepawoods

    "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."

    Any simple logic of cause and effect (the author employs much hand-waving with that phrase alone) would have cause being prior to effect. Prior means earlier in time. Nothing is earlier in time than the beginning of time itself. Therefore, by that simple logic of cause and effect, there could be no cause of a universe that properly includes time.

    March 23, 2014 at 5:39 am |
    • joshua120

      Yes because the cause exists outside of space and time and is therefore impossible to scientifically prove. Faith alone.

      March 23, 2014 at 6:08 am |
    • gabriel613

      What you call "the beginning of time itself" is merely the beginning of the physical Universe that includes, as one of its rules, a subjective local timing mechanism based on local physical forces (e.g. gravity). Any "God" would clearly be from some point outside of this physical construct you refer to as "time." A Unix computer believes the beginning of time was the start of the Gregorian year 1970.

      March 23, 2014 at 7:07 am |
      • igaftr

        gab
        "Any "God" would clearly be from some point outside of this physical construct you refer to as "time." "

        At least according to YOUR definition of "god" perhaps.By placing your "god" outside of the known universe, you then protect your flawed idea of a god from scrutiny, simply saying god doesn't have to play by the rules, is pure speculation in a) the existance of a "god" and b) where or how this "god" exists if not in our existance.

        Just more wild speculation of some sentient creature that no one can show any signs of.

        March 23, 2014 at 9:10 am |
        • gabriel613

          The most logical explanation is that creations are created by a creator. If this logic is obvious with tangible items (eg. a chair, book or house) why wouldn't the same logic hold for the entire set of tangible items i.e matter, the Universe etc.? Unless of course one has a priory dismissed the idea of the creator of our Universe...

          March 23, 2014 at 9:33 am |
        • whippstippler7

          @ gab: creations are created by a creator? Okay – how do we know that, for example, a computer is created, as opposed to forming naturally? We compare it to other things, and thereby build up definitions of "created" vs. natural. To claim that the universe was created, we would need to compare the universe to thousands of other – what – other universes, I suppose that we KNOW are created to come to any conclusions.

          But we can't make that comparison. So we can't logically state that the universe was created, or that it is a creation.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:38 am |
        • igaftr

          gab
          "The most logical explanation is that creations are created by a creator"
          That may be true, but you have nothing showing the universe or existance is "creation" First off, existance is not creation...that is speculation and shows bias once again.
          Stop calling the universe creation first off. That is where the logic trian has already jumped the tracks.

          Stop using biased terms.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:41 am |
  5. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    "Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?" -only if you are a moron... or a Christian, same thing really.

    March 23, 2014 at 4:48 am |
  6. jrg

    The problem with this piece is not Dr. Wickman offering her opinion, but her attempt to encourage the view that science supports her opinion. She is of course free to allow her feelings upon gazing into the night sky to inform her view of the cosmos. But that in no way supports the assertion that this latest big bang evidence supports the existence of a god, let alone one in particular. Ironically for an opinion piece, she quotes Hoyle stating his opinion as if he being an astronomer will give scientific support to his opinions. Of course that is nonsense. Scientists have all sorts of opinions just like everyone else. But the whole point of what makes science work is that it isn't about opinion.

    When Wickman just assumes that the universe having a beginning implies the need of a causal event she shows how little she knows about modern physics. Her degree (from Stanford) is in human factors and biomechanics and her work in those fields might well be outstanding. But even in the more conventional worlds of quantum mechanics and relativity, let alone cosmology and string theory, what we think of as "the simple logic of cause and effect" goes pretty much right out the window. The steady state theory also was abandoned long ago so the idea of a beginning to the universe has been around for a long time and is not new with this work. This work does not add support that there was a beginning, but provides new data on what was happening a tiny faction of a second after it began.

    She further conflates her opinions with science when she says "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." SHE may conclude this, based on her feelings and opinions and so on, but "we" as science do not do so.

    March 23, 2014 at 3:11 am |
    • gabriel613

      Science doesn't disprove her opinion, so why don't we leave it as her opinion?

      March 23, 2014 at 9:00 am |
      • whippstippler7

        @ gab: she chooses to publish that opinion in the Belief Blog section of CNN, which is notorious for have thousands of comments posted. What? We're not allowed to chime in to demonstrate the views of many that we expect a lot more from those with scientific training?

        March 23, 2014 at 9:07 am |
        • gabriel613

          A lot more of what? It seems to me that she is being unfairly attacked by Atheists in this comments section. The big bang proves a creation of our Universe and that makes her feel good about her assumptions about "God." Since her credentials prove that she understands the science behind her feelings, all one could say is that they don't agree about her belief in "God." It isn't up to the layman to decide what they expect from credentialed individuals.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:19 am |
        • igaftr

          gab
          Her credentials are of a scientific nature, so are completely invalid as far as her opinion of any "god". If she wants to be taken seriously, she needs to stick to the subjects her credentials are valid in.

          Yes she can have her opinion, but when you put your opinion in with a scientific paper, you throw your credibility out.
          Her opinion of a "creator" is NOT what her credentials support, so are moot.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:24 am |
        • whippstippler7

          Her credentials prove that she understands the science behind her feelings????? The science behind her feelings?????? What the hell are you talking about? There's no science behind her feelings. She has those feelings because she is a religious nut bar who obviously has been indoctrinated into the cult of the all-mighty wing nut. She could have a PhD and believe in Santa Claus – does that mean her credentials prove the science behind her feelings that Santa Claus exists?

          Actually, Santa Claus is far more plausible than any god.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:29 am |
  7. dawshoss

    How did this drivel get published? It's bad philosophy, and not even that good writing. It's uninspired, unoriginal, unscientific, and frankly boring.

    Wake up the editors and tell them to pass only quality work. The only thing I learned here is that scientists (well, engineers...) can be stricken with cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias too. Next time, if you don't know Leslie, just admit you don't know. Don't do yourself an intellectual disservice and fill in the blanks with "God must have done it" answers.

    March 23, 2014 at 12:07 am |
    • alfonse2014

      You ask how an article about belief can be printed in CNNs belief section.
      ........ where do azz holes like you come from.

      March 23, 2014 at 12:41 am |
      • observer

        alfonse2014,

        He asked how an article of such poor quality could be published.

        You might do some work on your reading comprehension and grow up so you have more to offer than juvenile insults.

        March 23, 2014 at 12:59 am |
        • alfonse2014

          Apparently the CNN editors disagree with you and DORKHOSS. Pray tell, what are your credentials to be insulting the speculations of this scientist, Yes, scientist, not engineer, DORKHOSS. She has a Phd and worked for NASA for over a decade. But i guess your high school diplomma give YOU much greater incite into all things Scientific AND Philosophical.......

          March 23, 2014 at 1:22 am |
        • observer

          alfonse2014,

          Good night, kid.

          March 23, 2014 at 1:24 am |
        • max2theminimum

          Alphonse, you realize you make a terrible argument here, right? You ask for credentials? Why appeal to authority when the person writing this article possesses only credentials that are easily trumped by many many scientists who would disagree with her. I guess we could just post a quote from one of them and you would then feel obligated to cease making comments here?

          And why are you so eager to defend this author's "argument?" (I put it in quotes, btw, because she doesn't do so much arguing as claiming.) You and the author of this piece, being so determined to put this discovery forward as proof of God, smacks of desperation. It comes off like someone who doesn't actually believe, but is trying to convince themselves to believe. I'm fine with you or anyone else believing in a god, but to claim this discovery as proof or even support of that belief is unnecessary and even detrimental to the larger argument for a god.

          March 23, 2014 at 4:36 am |
      • leonid78

        Technically, it's an attempt at an article about science in the belief section. And a poor one. Perhaps a little less name-calling and a little more observation would suit you better.

        March 23, 2014 at 1:23 am |
        • alfonse2014

          Really? An attempt at an article about science? You do realize that she IS a scientist, don't you. But what the heck, I'll play along with your arrogant and ascertion. WHAT EXACTLY IS INCORRECT ABOUT HER SUMMARY OF THE LATEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE BIG BANG. Now remember,i didn't ask you about her opinions about possible theological ramifications, just her scientific summary. I'll give you a little hint--absolutely nothing.
          ......No, it's quite obvious that you're just another bitter atheist, so full of intolerance that you can't even engage in a metaphysical conversation about theological possibilities.

          .......

          March 23, 2014 at 1:46 am |
        • tallulah131

          The whole leap to "god" based on nothing more than her opinion is what's wrong, phonsie.

          March 23, 2014 at 2:54 am |
        • jesustherational

          Hey, Alphonse. She's not a scientist. She is an engineer masqerading as a scientist, but she's really just a corporate plant. She's an agent for Lockheed Martin, despite her current academic post. She has no scientific credential. She has no published science. She claims to be a science consultant for corporations....like Lockheed Martin. She is about as credible as this ridiculous article.

          March 23, 2014 at 3:09 am |
        • max2theminimum

          Providing a decent summary of the current model of the big bang does nothing to provide proof of a god. It doesn't even prove that there was an act of creation.

          March 23, 2014 at 4:44 am |
        • leonid78

          Regardless of whether you are asking about the author's theological assertions, the combination of theology with science is precisely what is wrong with it. Her description of the science alone would have been fine, but the article is meant to be taken as a whole, and drawing a theological conclusion and describing the proper practice of science as an act of worship takes an article about science and turns it into one about fantasy as those conclusions are baseless and unprovable. Perhaps it would make a decent article on theology to some (not really though, as I've studied theology at length and this reads more like a pamphlet than a stimulating article), but the premise of the article is supposed to be based on science, and whether the Big Bang proves creation. It combines scientific evidence then combines it with faith, which is a total lack of evidence, and that's what makes it illogical, and therefore not a very good article. And she works for Azusa, which makes her bias and inability to maintain any scientific objectivity very apparent, as she must always support the conclusion of a creator first. There is a reason why theology and science don't mix, and that bias is it. What exactly is bitter about making these rather obvious and purely academic observations? You are the one that's continuously shouting accusations and name-calling. If there is anyone here who is bitter, it is pretty obvious who that is.

          March 23, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • leonid78

          And when you get right down to it, her description of the science was not really that great either (which is not surprising, considering her experience in the space program was as an engineer, not a scientist), so it's wrong to say there is nothing wrong with her synopsis. This discovery did not affirm there was a beginning. We already knew that. This illustrated what happened immediately after the beginning. This further illustrates some rather obvious facts: she is laughably far from being expert on cosmology so her own scientific conclusions on the matter are not only inadequate, but totally irrelevant.

          March 23, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
      • doobzz

        You sound like a bitter Christian who hates seeing your book of fantasy becoming more and more irrelevant.

        Bitter, bitter, bitter.

        March 23, 2014 at 1:57 am |
        • alfonse2014

          I assume you're a progressive liberal and most likely a democrat – which means that your' a hypocrite
          --But please prove me wrong.
          Tell us all, right now what your opinion is of the MAJORITY of the democratic base.
          You know, all of those Mexicans that are devout catholics. and all of those Black baptists.
          .......Come on, don't be embarassed, let us know..... do you think they're stupid?
          You obvioulsly do, BUT why oh why don't you call them that when your "pandering' for their votes.
          Hateful and hypocritical is a bad combination.

          March 23, 2014 at 2:09 am |
        • doobzz

          You sound bitter.

          March 23, 2014 at 2:24 am |
        • max2theminimum

          I think the vast majority of both Democrats and Republicans are pretty stupid, tbh. But this whole bit is waaaaay off topic. Try to focus, Alfonse.

          March 23, 2014 at 4:48 am |
        • doobzz

          He's just bitter.

          March 23, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
      • richzip

        If you want your post to be taken seriously, you may want to avoid resorting to juvenile name-calling. If you want to imply someone is not very smart by using a snide remark about a high school diploma, it's a good idea to learn how to spell diploma.

        March 23, 2014 at 4:39 am |
      • nepawoods

        The original poster wrote "How did this drivel get published?"

        You equate that to: "You ask how an article about belief can be printed ..."

        Some might say there could be articles about belief that are not drivel, but you equated the two.

        March 23, 2014 at 5:45 am |
  8. Celsus

    This is how you play tennis with no net.

    March 22, 2014 at 11:47 pm |
  9. @techrament

    I'm really surprised CNN published this. Have people forgotten basic philosophical & logical distinctions? A physical discipline that limits itself to natural explanations (science), by.definition.can neither prove nor disprove a metaphysical claim (theism – that God exists). It never will because of its inherent limitedness, which allows science to be so useful as an area of inquiry. Science can no more prove or disprove God than it can the existence of free will or justice. Why? Because those aren't empirical phenomena. They're metaphysical – they go beyond what we can see, and hence, are not the proper subjects of science. But they are the proper subjects of theology and philosophy. In the future, CNN Belief Blog, I'd be happy to write something next time there's a discovery like this that's a bit more theologically and scientifically honest. http://techrament.com/2013/08/25/limits-of-science-and-theology/

    March 22, 2014 at 11:11 pm |
    • alfonse2014

      Truth is truth, whether Scientific or Philosophical. And even though science deals only with modeling of the physical, and philosophy deals only with theorizing about what is above or beyond the physical, they should not be contradictory.
      ....So all this author was pointing out is that the theory of the big bang in no way refutes or is in conflict with a theological belief of creation, as in, 'In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" or for that matter a Buddhist belief of constant recreation.
      .......What's really amuzing though, is the posts from bitter atheists who seem to think that science provides all the answers of existence. I guess it's true.....YOU CAN"T FIX STUPID

      March 23, 2014 at 1:08 am |
      • doobzz

        You sound like a bitter, disappointed Christian.

        March 23, 2014 at 1:58 am |
        • alfonse2014

          You said that already,
          Now i wouldn't want you to sprain you brain,
          .......take it real slow – reach down really deep – and try to come up with something new.

          March 23, 2014 at 2:14 am |
        • doobzz

          You sound bitter that I said you sound bitter.

          March 23, 2014 at 2:25 am |
      • jesustherational

        What you and the author miss is that justifying the first graph of Genesis with this science, does not reconcile the rest of the christian book of mythology. The book, and the devotees who hold it sacred, believe the universe is only 6000 years old. They believe that this loving merciful, infallible , all-knowing, omniscient god decided he made a terrible mistake at one point (which sort of negates his credibility as a 'god') and committed global genocide with a flood. The book then contends that one man was able to build a boat, and on that boat he carried 2 of every species on earth. Science says there are upwards of 42 million species on the earth. What are the chances that they were all within walking distance of Noah's boat? Or that they'd fit? Of course, I could go on and on, but this article represents a tired old canard of the creationist apologists. To look at a single event in isolation, and then to use that isolation to justify a belief, is anti-scientific in every way. The argument the author uses here is a cudgel with which she beat her own 'scientific' credibility into oblivion.

        March 23, 2014 at 3:19 am |
      • noheavononearth

        No, we can't fix stupid, which is why you are a lost cause. You are so narrow minded, intransigent (look it up in the dictionary), and without any ability to think outside of your little "box" called the bible. Go back to your house of worship which certainly doesn't represent the majority anymore (look how many people are now agnostic or atheist OR are Christian but have not association with the church but just maintain 'tradition" such as Xmas etc). This is because the house of god has lost it's way, telling women to live in the dark ages, telling 3rd world countries with rampant HIV and excessive births and infant mortality to continue abstaining and not use appropriate birth control akin to the idiot savant named George W Bush whose policies perpetuated this. Look at how the church has protected old old men who have abused little boys and the old men never pay for their sins.
        Going to church on a sunday is as exciting as watching the 162nd baseball game of the year between two teams who have missed the playoffs....what's the point? At least in the baseball game there is entertainment value....the church has lost it's entertainment value just under 6000 years ago except for the times they massacred or indoctrinated entire civilizations in the new world........
        If god shows himself, I will be a believer but there has been NO evidence ever, unless the bible from 6000 years ago which is not a very good read, counts.
        In the books of those of us with the intelligence to be critical of ourselves and the ideas around us......it doesn't count.
        Get a life and educate yourself....

        March 24, 2014 at 12:50 am |
  10. ugetthefacts

    christian/muslim/witchcraft,, superst!tion remains strong for the weak

    March 22, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
    • alfonse2014

      Your right, we should all try to be more like those secular beacons of leadership of the last century
      You know. More like:
      Stailin .....who killed 20 million in the name of his wonderful secular paradise
      Mao..........who killed over 20 million in the name of HIS wonderful secular paradise
      Pol Pot ....who killed milllions
      Idi Amin....who killed over a million

      March 23, 2014 at 2:20 am |
      • doobzz

        Only in your bitter mind would you confuse secularism with totalitarianism.

        March 23, 2014 at 2:42 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        You forgot the crusades, the inquisition, Hitler, the Salem Witch Trials...all done in the name of the christian god!

        March 23, 2014 at 7:51 am |
      • leonid78

        Communism is technically atheist in that it lacks belief in an unseen supernatural being, but make no mistake: it is a secular religion, complete with iconography, strict moral codes and worship of a supreme leader.

        March 23, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
  11. hennarhymer

    If time travel can only be achieved with travel faster than the speed of light, then during this faster-than-the-speed-of-light expansion the growing Universe was experiencing, couldn't the entire universe at that time have been going backwards, or possibly forwards, in time itself?

    March 22, 2014 at 10:04 pm |
    • hologramreality

      Gravity slows time relative to those outside of its field. If you were to emerge from such a strong field you would find everyone you knew has long passed away but you've hardly aged and indirectly traveled into the future.

      March 22, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
    • wilburw7

      Time dilation does not predict moving backwards in time. It says that the faster mass moves relative to another mass the time frame slows down relative to the other slower moving reference frame. Relativity also predicts that mass can not exceed the speed of light.

      March 23, 2014 at 1:14 am |
    • jrg

      The expansion was > C, but nothing was moving faster than C.

      March 23, 2014 at 2:29 am |
  12. observer

    truthfollower01,

    Do YOUR morals allow you to believe it is EVER RIGHT to SELL an 5-year-old girl into SLAVERY (including s3x)?

    YES or NO?

    Still NO CLUE about your own MORALS? Wow!

    You must think God is impressed with someone who REFUSES to says "YES, I agree with those morals in the Bible".

    Still CLUELESS about yourself?

    March 22, 2014 at 10:04 pm |
    • wilburw7

      Does God approve of s3x outside of marriage? No.
      So a s3x slave would not meet God's approval.

      “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Jesus Christ

      March 23, 2014 at 12:58 am |
      • observer

        (Numbers 31:18) “But do not kill the young women who have never had s3x. You may keep them for yourselves."

        – – God's right-hand man Moses

        March 23, 2014 at 1:19 am |
        • wilburw7

          How many times must I explain this to you? How come you cannot comprehend it?

          Actual words by Jesus Christ: "Moses...permitted you to divorce."
          "And I [Jesus Christ] say to you, whoever divorces his wife...commits
          adultery [one of the ten commandments]"

          So according to Jesus Christ, following the law of Moses could violate one of the 10 commandments.

          March 23, 2014 at 1:23 am |
        • observer

          wilburw7,

          Moses was the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD to supposedly hear the Ten Commandments and you are apparently saying that he shouldn't be trusted.

          Well done.

          March 23, 2014 at 1:28 am |
        • wilburw7

          I did not say that Moses can not be trusted. I am saying that God's commandments are different than the law of Moses. The law of Moses are like civil laws made by a government. The ten commandments were not written by Moses. Literally his hand did not write it into the tablets.

          March 23, 2014 at 1:33 am |
        • observer

          wilburw7,

          "Literally his hand did not write it into the tablets."

          (Exodus 34:27-28 “Then the Lord said to Moses, “WRITE THESE WORDS"

          Get some sleep. Read a Bible tomorrow.

          March 23, 2014 at 1:38 am |
        • otoh2

          wilbur,

          We had this discussion last week. (reprint, FYI)

          wilbur,
          " Moses wrote the law of Moses, which are like our federal and state laws."

          Listen, over and over and over again (don't make me go in and count them – probably 100s of times) your book says the "The 'LORD GOD' spoke to Moses and said: "blah blabbity blah", delineating each law that was supposed to be transmitted to the people.

          So Moses LIED about these little tete-a-tetes with "LORD GOD"? Then, *POOF!* – there goes your "God" character down in flames, since Moses also wrote every other piece of alleged god-specific info in those first 5 books, beginning with Genesis – and Moses cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

          March 23, 2014 at 1:45 am |
        • wilburw7

          otoh2, According to Jesus Christ, what you wrote is wrong. He said:

          Matthew 19:7
          "They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for s3xual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

          You can follow the law of Moses and divorce your wife for something other than s3x immorality, but you would be breaking one of the 10 commandments according to Jesus Christ. If this is wrong then explain.

          March 23, 2014 at 4:16 am |
        • otoh2

          wilbur,

          Did Moses continually say that the "LORD GOD" spoke to him and gave him those laws and specifications (not only the Top Ten, but the many, many others)?

          (There are other problems with things in that book called "Matthew" too; but you seem to be easily confused, so I won't bother bringing them up here.)

          March 23, 2014 at 4:50 am |
  13. His Panic

    Why so much anxiety hysteria and even Panic about the First Big Bang? The next BIG BANG is the Return of Jesus Christ God's Only Son to this world to Establish His Kingdom. ↓↓↓

    ↓↓↓

    2nd. Pet. 3:10-11
    10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
    11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
    12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!

    Now, that is going to be a Real BIG BANG. ↑↑↑

    March 22, 2014 at 9:55 pm |
    • noheavononearth

      You may as well quote passages from Winnie the Pooh. The bible, a "book" written thousands of years ago lends no credence to the existence of god, particularly when you associate yourself with but one of the innumerable religions man can choose from. To take literally passages from an old relic of a book, written by man many millennium ago, and interpreted once again, by mortal man since, is rudimentary and without any credibility. You have a vision, but it is narrow and without imagination. This is what distinguishes you from Scientists, whom have answered questions that were previously not answerable and are responsible for progress in our society. You may believe in your God and the verses in the bible, but your convictions have absolutely no supportive evidence of it's existence. The burden of proof is upon you to prove the existence of god but all you can do is quote texts from thousands of years ago. Me, I can quote ground breaking scientific studies that have fundamentally changed the way we view our world, our universe. You are a relic and there will be no salvation for you or anyone else. Go back to the house of god full of pedophiles, old men with nothing better to do then give the masses false hope.
      A complete joke. In the world of science, none of you would be given the time of day..........

      March 23, 2014 at 12:03 am |
    • Doris

      Ah – a quote from Gullible's Travels, Part 2 – how cute. Of course the authorship of Peter is highly contested. Some think it could even have been written by one of his followers as a tribute.

      March 23, 2014 at 12:43 am |
  14. nekonathan

    All this is evidence for is cosmic inflation. Yes, that does imply a beginning, but it does not imply a magic man caused it. Additionally, for all the religions trying to co-opt this discovery, this was predicted by science. It was not a surprise. It was expected. And it was predicted by strong scientific research and discovered by strong scientific examination. Because they can spin it, religion wants to jump in and claim it, but religion did not predict these waves, nor discover them. Remember that. Science predicted this. Science found this. Science was not surprised by this. This doesn't equal supernatural powers.

    March 22, 2014 at 9:41 pm |
    • declaytor

      Ummm, I didn't need science to tell me that the universe had a beginning. ..ever heard this verse? In the beginning God created the heavens (that's the universe) and the earth. Genesis 1:1. BTW, you think that atheism owns science? No, it does not. Simply put science is knowing or knowledge but knowledge apart from God is foolishness. Ever knowing (learning) but never coming to the knowledge of the truth. This "discovery" does absolutely nothing for my faith...it doesn't move it, increase it etc. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. Can I explain every minute detail? No, because I wasn't there when He stretched out the heavens but neither were you. Keep learning my friend but one day I hope you'll find the Truth.

      March 22, 2014 at 10:21 pm |
      • dawshoss

        So you just needed a book written by desert nomads thousands of years ago...yeah that beats needing evidence.

        March 23, 2014 at 12:11 am |
      • nekonathan

        Tell you what, you come find me when you use that Bible to actually make a testable prediction in advance, rather than waiting for other people to do all the hard work and then glumming onto it and trying to back-wedge it into your va gue metaphors.

        Oh, and I have heard that verse...and the LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF OTHERS that claimed the EXACT SAME THING in religions that PREDATED or had no contact with Judaism or Christianity. EVERY religion claims their god started the universe. Big deal, it's a natural starting point for any mythos. This evidence doesn't support your god's existence OR being the one actually start the universe any more than it proves Odin's, Quetzlcoatl's, Ra's, Kronos's, or Ahura Mazda's existence or claims of starting the universe.

        March 23, 2014 at 12:46 am |
      • otoh2

        declaytor,
        "He stretched out the heavens"

        You seem to think that this co-relates to the expansion of the Universe. GMAB

        What did those Israeli nomads live/sleep in? How are they set up? GMAB

        March 23, 2014 at 12:46 am |
  15. samacnab

    Unfortunately the outhor's logic is quite circular. She clearly demonstrates her lack of understanding of the true implications of the recent discovery supporting the theory of the big bang by not addressing the evidence at all. The only argument proposed in this article in favor of the existance of a god is that according to current scientific understanding the big bang was the beginning of the universe, in the bible it states "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.” Therefore god created the universe. I guess she finds some correlation in that both statements use the term beginning. Yet even this has monumental flaws. According to the same theory proposes the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe the earth was not created for another 10 billion years. She even openly admits in her argument that the sole basis of her argument was not a piece of literature meant to accurately depict the methods through which matter, energy, the Earth and life came about.
    Though the article was cleverly devised as an appeal to emotions. Cleverly devised wording and points are used to give the appearance of logic and support amongst the scientific community are used. Why else point out that Fred Hoyle was an "Atheist-turned-Agnostic"? Simply because the scientist who proposed the idea fo the big bang went from being certain that there was no god to unsure does not mean that there must be one.
    The only other arguments proposed are the same old God-of-the-gaps arguments stating that since we don't currently know what the cause was it must be god. I personally find this to be one of the most detrimental arguments for humanity as if we instead of searching for the answer just smooth over the holes with god like some theoretical putty then we now have an answer and do not continue to search for the truth.

    March 22, 2014 at 9:40 pm |
    • declaytor

      "certain there is no god => not sure this is one =>..." what's next in his progression or regression dependent upon one's perspective. My question to you is are you sure this is no GOD? Could it be that GOD can only be know through faith and not intellect? Else one with a superior intellect would have the advantage over one that is inferior. GOD has no respect of persons. He can be known through faith alone and intellect does not give one an advantage. If the universe had a beginning then the only "logical" conclusion would be that it had a designer or creator (if you will). Now, after making that conclusion the next step his how do we get know this Designer? He is known through and by faith alone. What is faith and how do I obtain it? I'm glad you asked. The bible says that faith cometh by hearing the word of GOD.

      March 22, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
      • leonid78

        In no way is that the only "logical" conclusion, and to assume so is actually a logical fallacy. There is no current way of conceptualizing the idea of anything that happened "before" spacetime existed, but fabricating a magical being isn't a very intellectual way of dealing with that uncertainty. And simply put, faith is belief with no evidence, therefore hardly belongs in any conversation regarding science.

        March 23, 2014 at 12:12 am |
      • dawshoss

        Doesn't always have be a progression. Many just stop at the admitting to not knowing. Besides if it was a progression, who is to say that agnosticism wasn't the pinnacle? Personally I think it was a regression myself...especially if the next step was what you implied.

        March 23, 2014 at 12:15 am |
      • mmortal03

        "Could it be that GOD can only be know through faith and not intellect?"

        You can't know something through faith. The concepts of knowledge and faith are mutually exclusive. If you know something, you no longer need to have faith. This is practically epistemology 101.

        March 23, 2014 at 12:38 am |
        • wilburw7

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

          March 23, 2014 at 1:20 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          So the Bible says that Jesus said he is god....can it get any less impressive than that?

          March 23, 2014 at 1:31 am |
      • max2theminimum

        "He can be known through faith alone"

        This is a terrific way to justify belief in any number of ridiculous things.

        "Why do you believe the Earth is the center of the universe?"
        "Faith."

        "Why do you believe Rick Perry is secretly a Martian superman who is 4000 years old?"
        "Faith."

        "Why do you believe Satan ate your homework?"
        "Faith."

        If faith is your path to "knowledge", you are unmoored from reality and may drift along, believing whatever is handed to you. You have signed ownership of your mind over to chance.

        March 23, 2014 at 5:08 am |
  16. bostonsysadmin

    You are not using "simple logic" to draw your conclusion that there must be an all powerful creator if the universe arose from a single point in space and time. Can you not see that you are following the same logic that people without scientific knowledge have followed since the beginning of recorded human history? For example, many ancient people saw the sun move across the sky and since they had absolutely no scientific understanding of the earth, sun, or the universe, they drew the conclusion that magical beings in the sky must have moved the sun. Can you honestly not see the parallel to this and the conclusion that you are drawing?

    It is really ok that we don't know what caused the big bang yet, but it is harmful to humankind to simply take the easy route towards answering it and shrugging our shoulders and pointing towards a higher being. We are part of an amazing species that has some mind boggling-ly smart people that will absolutely find the cause. I know, many people think its a bleak world without an afterlife, but people really need to take a step back and look at humankind and what we have accomplished. I am not scared to die because I feel so extremely lucky and proud to be a human. We can truly accomplish anything that our society sets out to do. It really was just yesterday that the Wright Brothers flew the first airplane just after 1900, then within a single person's lifetime, human beings were able to step on the face of the moon. If that doesn't give you goosebumps and make you say wow, then there is something wrong with you. Be proud to be a human, use that amazingly complex brain of yours to figure out all of the mysteries of the universe and stop thinking without being honest and critical of your ideas. If the big dude really does exist, then I would have to think that he would be embarrassed of the billions of people that lazily beg him to get into heaven and throw away their gifts of intelligence. Why would he not want us to use our brains to their full potentials and figure out all of the complexities of the universe?

    March 22, 2014 at 9:35 pm |
  17. etiendelamothecassel

    Big Bang: God farted thus creating earth aka HELL.

    March 22, 2014 at 9:23 pm |
  18. mtrivoldi76

    This is absolute garbage. "Blah blah blah, the universe cant be infinitely old because that's impossible. It must have been made by god." Ok, so where did your god come from? "god has always been there"... so its conceivable that your god can have existed forever, but for this universe to have existed forever in contracting and expanding states is inconceivable?

    Proof by assumption. I assume that whatever i believe is true, so it must be true.

    Also, I love how religion constantly attacks and puts down science and learning, and then tries to take credit for it when a discovery is made. Religion is poison for your mind.

    Also, for anyone out there who wants to give that garbage about "universe is so complicated, it must have been created by someone", then I ask this: If your god can snap its fingers and create the universe, dont you think that they must be the most complicated being that we would know of, and so must definitely have had a creator? After all, if complicated things need a creator, then your super being must be the ultimate example of it.

    March 22, 2014 at 9:18 pm |
    • declaytor

      I have responded to various posts from atheists and agnostics but I have no idea what you're getting it. Can you please re-phrase without the vitriolic tone-you sound angry and confused: not a good combination.

      March 22, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
  19. jkflipflop

    Actually, all this supports is the idea that there's a "Big Crush" to go along with the "Big Bang". The only possible way this would point to the existence of some deity is if you're already setting out to find one in the first place.

    March 22, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
    • Vic

      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 9:02 pm |
  20. blogreader555

    The Big Bang Theory was initially met with skepticism by many scientists precisely because its theological implications rankled them. The theory of the static, timeless universe had been scientific dogma since Newton (who, by the way, was a Christian). The Big Bang Theory does indeed provide support to the idea of a creator (*support*, not proof). But let's be honest, it does not provide any support to the literal interpretation of the Bible. How many times will it be necessary to have this debate? Even the Pope has already declared that the Bible is a symbolic book. It is the most important book in Western Civilization, it is a wonderful piece of literature, full of wisdom, poetry, and moral content. But it's just that, a book, written by human authors. Do not let your faith in God stand or fall on the literal interpretation of a human book.

    March 22, 2014 at 8:12 pm |
    • noheavononearth

      how the hell does the big bang theory lend support of a "creator"????
      Yes creation occurred in it's literal definition, but how/whom/ is unknown. Certainly it does not lead credence to a superior being creating the universe....
      And which creator are you referring to, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Thor, the Easter Bunny? Please elaborate oh great one......

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

        Thor was the son of Odin and did not create anything but awesomeness.

        March 23, 2014 at 12:57 am |
    • Tom Paine

      Well put.

      March 22, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "The theory of the static, timeless universe had been scientific dogma since Newton (who, by the way, praticed alchemy)."

      Just as relevant.

      March 23, 2014 at 2:49 am |
    • tallulah131

      Actually, the Big Bang Theory does not support the existence of a creator. "Creator" is simply a placeholder for the unknown.

      March 23, 2014 at 3:00 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
« Previous entry
Advertisement
About this blog

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