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. MidwestKen

    " We are certain that there can be no conflict between true science and true theology since God is the source of all truth; conflicts only arise from discrepancies in human knowledge, understanding, and interpretation."
    – author's center (http://apu.edu/cris/)

    March 20, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
    • cruci000fiction

      Which is precisely why the earth is flat.

      March 20, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
      • wilburw7

        "The earth together with its surrounding waters must in fact have such a shape as its shadow reveals, for it eclipses the moon with the arc of a perfect circle." Nicolaus Copernicus (Catholic Cleric)

        March 20, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
        • cruci000fiction

          Is this supposed to be impressive because he was Catholic? How much choice do you really think he had in whether or not he was Catholic in the 16th or whichever century?

          March 20, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
        • distrbnce

          I think it's meant to be impressive that he asked questions despite the indoctrination.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
    • Alias

      I would agree completely if I accepted your assumption that the christian god existed.

      March 20, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
    • igaftr

      ken
      That's hilarious considering that it could easily be truth that no gods exist.

      March 20, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
    • ausphor

      Knowledge is an anathema to the religions and the clergy know it.

      March 20, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      To all,
      Do not misunderstand. I posted this as an example of how bad the author's "science" seems to be.

      March 20, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
    • sealchan

      An interesting perspective...because we can still wonder whether the entire universe is controlled by an alien being who might at any moment do something for which there has been no precedent in all of human memory...we could still see beyond that practically all-powerful being a being that we could rightfully know to be God even to that other being to whom we are at their mercy. This science-fictiony analogy may seem silly and far-fetched, but there is always someone stronger than we are and they cannot be counted on to be just. The universe itself, as described by science, may be seen as our Mother but it can also be a capricious Tyrant who could destroy all of us in the blink of an eye and with less effort at any moment (supernova, asteroid, etc). With our widest moral vision we need to choose to believe in a greater good than what is guaranteed to us and try to live up to that.

      March 21, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
  2. lunchbreaker

    I have no problem with speculating as to what might have caused the Big Bang, so long as people recognize that it happened. People have always attributed supernatural causes to natural processes, that later prove to be only natural processes. So I'm fine with those that say God caused the Big Bang and started and guided evolution, so long as they are ok with those events occuring. I did take notice that although the author recognizes the big Bang, he made sure to avoid any language about the age of the universe or evolution that might upset his YEC brethren.

    March 20, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
    • wilburw7

      I am OK with people thinking the universe had a beginning and that life has shown variation as long as they admit that science does not know how life started on earth, and they admit that God might have created life on earth.

      March 20, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
      • kenmargo

        How can someone admit anything about god, when you don't believe in god?

        March 20, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
        • wilburw7

          kenmargo wrote " How can someone admit anything about god, when you don't believe in god?"

          How many times do I need to say this? You can't prove God does not exist. I did not say believe that God created life, I said might (in other words, do not disallow that possibility). Why would I say "God might have created life"? Again, You can't prove that God does not exist, and science does not know how life began on earth. So you do not have enough information to exclude that possibility. It is not logical to exclude that possibility; instead, it is your blind faith that God does not exist. It is your religion.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          kenmargo wrote " How can someone admit anything about god, when you don't believe in god?"

          "How many times do I need to say this? You can't prove God does not exist."

          Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Where exactly did kenmargo say he had proof that God does not exist. So dishonest of you.

          "Again, You can't prove that God does not exist"

          Again, total dishonesty.

          "So you do not have enough information to exclude that possibility. It is not logical to exclude that possibility; instead, it is your blind faith that God does not exist. It is your religion."

          I don't exclude the possibility, but will only give it an honest consideration when credible, convincing, verifiable evidence can be provided.

          From what I'm reading from what you are saying, is as long as someone can imagine a possibility to the origin of the universe, and we can't disprove it, it should be accepted as a viable option.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • wilburw7

          ramblingsofnihility wrote: Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

          No. But I know you do have a reading comprehension problem. The rest of your comment shows a complete lack of understanding about what I wrote. I did not say kenmargo said he could prove God did not exist. Yet you seem to think I did.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "No. But I know you do have a reading comprehension problem. The rest of your comment shows a complete lack of understanding about what I wrote. I did not say kenmargo said he could prove God did not exist. Yet you seem to think I did."

          So when kenmargo wrote, " How can someone admit anything about god, when you don't believe in god?"

          And you repsonded with, "How many times do I need to say this? You can't prove God does not exist.", your statement was in no way a statement towards what kenmargo just said?

          Just a brain fart maybe?

          March 20, 2014 at 5:00 pm |
        • wilburw7

          ramblingsofnihility wrote:"I don't exclude the possibility, but will only give it an honest consideration when credible, convincing, verifiable evidence can be provided. don't exclude the possibility, but will only give it an honest consideration when credible, convincing, verifiable evidence can be provided."

          I did not say to believe in God in that comment. Yet you are all hostile. Why? I logically said I do not respect excluding that possibility with a reason. I didn't say to blindly believe in God. All I talked about was excluding the possibility. I speculate that your hostility is not about not having proof whatsoever. You have zero proof about a molecule being able to form into an organism too. Yet that is absurd than intelligence designing something. You have direct observation of intelligence designing things. You must be arrogant to think there is no intelligence greater that yours that exists.

          March 20, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • Doris

          wilburrr: "You have direct observation of intelligence designing things."

          That is your opinion.

          wilburrr: "You must be arrogant to think there is no intelligence greater that yours that exists."

          Again just a cursory reading above shows you are trying to speak for others, making claims about absolutes that were not made. But I'm not surprised about this of you.

          March 20, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          ramblingsofnihility wrote:"I don't exclude the possibility, but will only give it an honest consideration when credible, convincing, verifiable evidence can be provided."

          "I did not say to believe in God in that comment."

          "I logically said I do not respect excluding that possibility with a reason. I didn't say to blindly believe in God. All I talked about was excluding the possibility. You have zero proof about a molecule being able to form into an organism too. Yet that is absurd than intelligence designing something. You have direct observation of intelligence designing things."

          Where is anything in my statement that says ANYTHING about YOU and YOUR beliefs, that is was absurd, or anything else? My statement was about me.

          "Yet you are all hostile. Why? I speculate that your hostility is not about not having proof whatsoever."

          My hostility is about you constantly saying people said things they didn't say. Perfect case right here.

          March 20, 2014 at 5:28 pm |
        • distrbnce

          "I logically said I do not respect excluding that possibility with a reason" – Wilbur

          Wilbur, this is not a logical way to operate. This is an express lack of logic.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
      • cruci000fiction

        I am OK with people that believe that a divine being created the universe, as long as they don't breed.

        March 20, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
        • wilburw7

          I am glad that atheist are only 2.2% of the American population and Christians are more than 70% of the population. We are stronger than you .

          March 20, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
        • igaftr

          "We are stronger than you "
          That is a relative term. You are more numerous, that is true.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
        • Alias

          Your 2.2% is too low, and that number is increasing rapidly.
          Enjoy your majority while you still have it.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
        • cruci000fiction

          wilbur, do you know what those numbers become when you look only at people holding PhD's in hard science? aka smart people?

          March 20, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
        • cruci000fiction

          here wilbur, read this

          http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

          March 20, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
        • Doris

          wilburrrr: "I am glad that atheist are only 2.2% of the American population and Christians are more than 70% of the population. We are stronger than you ."

          That's what the sheep keep trying to tell the shepherd. Thankfully, now and then the shepherd steps in and keeps the sheep from wandering into the meadow of poison grasses....

          March 20, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
        • cruci000fiction

          and this as well

          http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/files/2012/02/13-Garfield-Book-2-Vol-33.pdf

          March 20, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
        • distrbnce

          "We are stronger than you."

          What a lovely sentiment from a god-fearing Christian.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • dancmh

          To the stronger than you commenter: Thank you for pointing out exactly what christian principles are these days. Nothing anyone said here could have exemplified your voodoo in clearer, more honest terms.

          March 22, 2014 at 6:39 am |
      • the0g0to0the0t

        "and they admit that God might have created life on earth."

        That's kind of a loaded statement though isnt' it? To accept your premise, I must accept the existinence of much more than an abstract concept of "god". I would have to conceed that the biblical god Yahweh was a possible cause. The only source I have for knowledge on Yahweh is the Bible. I don't see the bible as a reliable source so why should agree (other than in the most esoteric way) that "God did it"?

        If you asked that agree that maybe the universe was created by an agency of some kind, I could agree. There's no way to prove either way at this time. But what you are asking is very different, IMOHO.

        March 20, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
      • igaftr

        I have stated that very thing many times. Now get all of your believer bretheren to admit they do not know if there are any gods.

        March 20, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
      • ausphor

        Wilbur
        How magnanimous of you. You are right science is willing to say that they do not know about a great deal of things because they cannot provide proof. But why can you say god did it without the same degree of proof, 2000 year old scribblings do not meet any standard of proof.

        March 20, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
        • wilburw7

          Because religion is not science. Religion is held to a completely different standard than science. A science text book 50 years ago saying that the universe is 2.2 billion years old does not disprove the scientific method. Religion is a claim to truth based on faith.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
        • cruci000fiction

          But wilbur, you are making claims explicitly about science. The cause of evolution, the big bang, whatever, is a scientific claim no matter if your say it is of supernatural origin or not.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
        • igaftr

          wilbur
          "Religion is a claim to truth based on faith."
          False, again having trouble differentiating the difference between truth and belief.

          What you meant to say is "religion is a claim to one possible truth out of an infinite number of possibilities based on faith that unverifiable claims are correct."

          March 20, 2014 at 4:41 pm |
      • joey3467

        I could see a god who caused the universe to begin and hasn't been heard from since, but I don't buy any of the religions that claim a personal god that has interacted with humanity in any way.

        March 20, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
      • lunchbreaker

        That would put us in agreement wilbur.

        March 20, 2014 at 4:36 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        "I am OK with people thinking the universe had a beginning and that life has shown variation as long as they admit that science does not know how life started on earth, and they admit that God might have created life on earth."

        I am ok with saying maybe God, or a god, created life, the earth, and the universe; nothing wrong with speculation and imagination. The time I will start believing such a god, is when there is credible, convincing, verifiable evidence.

        March 20, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
      • LinCA

        @wilburw7

        You said, "I am OK with people thinking the universe had a beginning and that life has shown variation as long as they admit that science does not know how life started on earth"
        Anyone who has any inkling about the state of science will know that. Is there a point that you were trying to make?

        You said, "and they admit that God might have created life on earth."
        Yes, gods could have been involved with the creation of life on earth, or even the universe. The likelihood of that is on the order of the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy doing it.

        Beliefs in gods and other fictional characters is fine for 5 year olds, but I'm truly saddened that otherwise rational adults can't seem to shed such nonsense. Don't you think it's past time to grow out of such infantile beliefs?

        March 20, 2014 at 7:07 pm |
      • distrbnce

        Wilbur, you would have been a heretic and a blaspheme if you walked alongside Jesus holding those beliefs.

        March 21, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
    • d55may

      WHY do you assume that God is Supernatural and NOT NATURAL. Maybe just maybe he IS natural sense each of us are born with a fundamental belief in God. I promise YOU that on your death bed YOU will call out to him. IF you don't then I feel sorry for your SOUL because you have dammed it to hell.

      March 23, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
  3. MidwestKen

    @Belief Blog,

    Can just anyone write a article now?

    March 20, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      ^ "an article"

      March 20, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
      • distrbnce

        Next Week: "Well... maybe this!"

        March 21, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
  4. dashvader

    Millions upon millions of highly ordered events occur constantly with no influence from any outside force, supernatural or otherwise. Besides, even if this was evidence for the existence of a god, why would it be the Abramic one rather than any of the other billions of deities that various people have worshipped throughout history?

    March 20, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
    • wilburw7

      IF no outside force is influencing as you say, then why is the universe's expansion accelerating? In Physics, acceleration is valid proof of external force.

      March 20, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
      • the0g0to0the0t

        Other than an appreciation that classical physics breaks down at the extreme small and extremely large levels (so we don't know that it requires an outside source of energy), the most honest answer is "I don't know".

        March 21, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
    • rhyskeezy

      http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_christianity_true.html

      The first section here answers your question.

      March 22, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
  5. cruci000fiction

    "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.”"

    And therein lies the reason the author is not suited to provide commentary on science. Who seriously gave Wickman the position to write anything affiliated with an outlet as prominent as CNN? I'm sure there are thousands of highly intelligent writers who could really analyze science news, and the best this blog can come up with is a regurgitation of the cause/effect argument (how cliche) and an even further reach of "that sounds alot like my belief." No thoughtful person would ever say something as ridiculous as, "the human understanding of cause/effect must necessarily apply in all cases, even those we do not understand, so it follows that the first cause is definitely an invisible, white bearded psychopath as described in the Christian Bible."

    Science has demonstrated that rules which most people consider universal are not always followed. See quantum particles. Science gets weird at the infinitely small scales as well as the infinitely large scales. And by weird, I mean that it is too complicated for someone such as Wickman to blunder into some argument without the intellectual tools required to even have a mental picture of what she is commenting on.

    Thank goodness religion is dying.

    March 20, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
  6. Sungrazer

    Can you prove a negative? The answer is yes.

    Imagine I say to you: "There are no quarters in my right front pocket." It would be a simple matter for you to empty the contents of my right front pocket. If no quarters fell out, you have just proved a negative.

    The key is the size of the searchable universe. In my example, my right front pocket was the searchable universe. With god, the searchable universe is the physical universe. Since searching the physical universe is beyond our limits, this is why you hear people say "you can't prove a negative". But this is not strictly true.

    March 20, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      Additionally, I am currently persuaded, that you CAN prove the non-existence of god. First, you could use incompatible properties arguments, which of course are arguments against very specific types of gods. Second, you could make the case that Victor Stenger makes:

      "God should be detectable by scientific means simply by virtue of the fact that he is supposed to play such a central role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans." He concludes: "Existing scientific models contain no place where God is included as an ingredient in order to describe observations."

      Again, this is a very specific god. So I think this kind of evidence, the evidence of absence, is indeed possible.

      March 20, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
      • cruci000fiction

        I also think it would be worth considering the origins of God-claims and religions themselves. If they can be sufficiently reduced to primitive and human creation, then any religious claim becomes a stab in the dark (of the entire universe). Such a stab in the dark becomes completely unrealistic when it makes any kind of specific claim about a divine being.

        March 20, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          Good point. You could argue this about Mormonism in particular. And certainly Scientology, although I'm not familiar enough with it to know what it claims.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        I see what you are saying about how God should be detectable if he is having real world effects. However, when any outcome that happens is simply attributed to Gods actions by his followers it is impossible to separate the natural mundane world coupled with low probability events from some perceived divine intervention. Thus it is impossible to prove to a believer that their God does not exist simply by showing them all the things their God did not fix or help when and where a truly all powerful God would if they simply disregard it as Gods will. Whatever happens happens according to Gods will, or Garps will, or Goo Goo Ga Ga's will, or Lady Ga Ga's will, sadly we can't prove otherwise.

        March 20, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          I agree that is a difficult sell to believers. But I feel it has enough validity to add to my unbelief.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          I think the larger point was lost here though which is when believers make the claim for God the non-believers say "Prove it." which seems perfectly reasonable. In response the religious say "No, you prove our God doesn't exist!" to which the non-believer says "I'm sorry but you can't prove a negative." at least not to any believer who believes their God exists outside of our physical universe and is not bound by universal law.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          I appreciate the conversation. I think nonbelievers should talk to nonbelievers more often here, instead of just pouncing on the latest inanity from believers. I learn a lot more from nonbelievers.

          March 20, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
    • Alias

      Please google 'context'.
      It is pointless to try to have a debate without it.

      March 20, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
      • Sungrazer

        I provided context – the size of the searchable universe. My only point is that "you can't prove a negative" is not strictly true. Seems a harmless enough point.

        March 20, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • Alias

          When other say 'you cannot prove a negative' they are using a completely different contest than your not having a quarter in your pocket. Do I really need to point that out to you?

          March 20, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          And I said as much in my OP. Did I need to point that out to YOU?

          March 20, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
        • Alias

          Searching the entire universe would still not prove that the christian god does not exist.
          I would draw a picture you could understand, but I can't post here in crayon. I don't know why you thought it was necessary to illustrate your point by detailing how to empty a pocket, but that only proves we are not using THE SAME CONTEXT.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          "Searching the entire universe would still not prove that the christian god does not exist."

          I agree.

          "I don't know why you thought it was necessary to illustrate your point by detailing how to empty a pocket, but that only proves we are not using THE SAME CONTEXT."

          Once again, I used that example for the very fact that it does illustrate the point. Once again, I acknowledged that the context used was normally one of proving the non-existence of god. It is not my own point. I once read a blog written by a philosopher making this point about proving a negative and using the very same example. I thought it was a good point and an interesting one. I chose to pass it along here. I did not anticipate that it would be so objectionable for some.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Alias, you could do a google search and just link to an image of whatever you were going to draw in crayon.

          I'm extremely curious to see where you were going to go with this.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      It is true that you can prove something you know to exist isn't where you say it isn't. When people are saying "you can't prove a negative" I believe they mean it in the sense of proving a thing exists or not, as you could not say "There are no quarters" because as soon as it's out of your mouth someone would show you a quarter to prove they exist. I can say "There are no Gods in my right front pocket." and in fact you could not prove this to be true even though ive given you the smaller search parameters.

      March 20, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
      • Sungrazer

        That is an interesting question. Could you not? Most people argue that god interacts with the universe; this implies it is detectable. There may be some reason (technological?) that a god in my pocket couldn't be detectable, but it is in principle. What do you think?

        March 20, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          I would think that by most religious persons definition of "God" or "gods" they would most certainly be undetectable if they so chose, and for some reason Christians and other religions believe their God or gods choose to stay hidden. Thus it would be impossible to prove their was or wasn't a God in my pocket, or even that my pocket isn't a God...

          March 20, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          there was...

          March 20, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          I would say that if god is answering prayers and causing hurricanes to hit New Orleans, then this kind of physical interaction is, in principle, detectable. I suppose you are saying that believers say god could do such things without remaining detected, because he is omnipotent. I wonder why, though, it would help their cause so much more if he was detectable and evident.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Can you empirically prove that the sensation of cold we feel in our hands in cold weather isn't being sent to us telepathically from our pockets and pairs of gloves commanding us to put our hands inside them?

          March 20, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          If he is detectable and evident then he can be tested and that is what pretty much any religious person will tell you not to do with their God, most likely because they have a sliver of doubt in them and really don't want to be proven wrong. They like their little heaven fantasy, and it's always the other guy who's doing it wrong and will be going to heII, never them...

          March 20, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          By the way, according to Christian logic, if they can't disprove my telepathic pockets theory then we should start teaching it in school...

          March 20, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          If gloves were transmitting the feeling of cold in such a manner, then there would have to be a receiver in the hand, a transmitter in the glove, and a transmission mechanism. I think that can be disproven, do you not? Or I suppose at worst, we could say that there was no good reason to believe such. And this is ignoring thermodynamic evidence in support of the alternative.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:32 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Did I say gloves were causing the cold? No, I said they could be telepathically transmitting the sensation to our brains the same way people believe they are communicating with God when they pray. Or possibly they have a quantum entanglement with our brains. My point was before going on the glove tangent, that when inventing something to disprove you can give it any supernatural abilities which do not have to conform to the known world and thus make disproving them essentially impossible. Now when you say there is "no good reason to believe such" you are absolutely correct, but that goes for the disprovable "God" theory as well.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          I misread.

          "...when inventing something to disprove you can give it any supernatural abilities which do not have to conform to the known world and thus make disproving them essentially impossible."

          This is very true. I read about a professor who gave his class an exercise in which he wanted them to prove that there was no such thing as an invisible leprechaun (or some such) in the classroom. He said that they came up with more and more ingenious solutions, like filling the classroom with water and detecting where there was no water (in the shape of the leprechaun). So he said, "Oh, I didn't tell you, the leprechaun is immaterial, so it wouldn't interact with water and therefore he wouldn't be detectable this way." So yes, you can definitely assign attributes to something in such a way that it would be impossible to disprove.

          "Now when you say there is "no good reason to believe such" you are absolutely correct, but that goes for the disprovable "God" theory as well."

          This is primarily why I am not a believer. I simply see no good reasons to believe.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:52 pm |
  7. colin31714

    She says:
    "The new discovery also has significant implications for the Judeo-Christian worldview, offering strong support for biblical beliefs.

    Here's how.

    The prevalent theory of cosmic origins prior to the Big Bang theory was the “Steady State,” which argued that the universe has always existed, without a beginning that necessitated a cause.

    However, this new evidence strongly suggests that there was a beginning to our universe."

    Where the fvck has she been for the last 50 years! The Big Bang had replaced steady state as the generally accepted model by the late 60s.

    As evidence for the Judeo christian god??? Utter garbage. It is no more evidence for the existence of the Judeo Christian god than it is evidence for the existence of Azura Mazda, Angus, Belenos, Brigid, Dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Allah Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Ganesh, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Shiva Thuno, Tir, Vishnu, Weyland, Woden, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, Saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Herne, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, Endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, Ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fukurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac or Zaramama

    or any other god human beings have believed in.

    March 20, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
    • wilburw7

      I wish to measure your intelligence. Explain a prophesy made by Apollo that came true.

      March 20, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
      • colin31714

        Let me save you the time. I'm stupid. And, I am not familiar enough with Greco-Roman mythology to be able to answer you.

        March 20, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
        • wilburw7

          OK. But there is very strong evidence that Daniel in Bible accurately wrote down when Christ would enter into Jerusalem and then be killed. Many Bible scholars believe he predicted it to the exact day.

          Here is another one for you that has not yet happened. Damascus will be destroy in one night.

          Do not misinterpret this as proof.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
        • Doris

          "Many Bible scholars believe he predicted it to the exact day. "

          really. maybe you should shed more light on the wording and who the scholars are. I hope you're not talking about Nutsadamus..

          March 20, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
        • colin31714

          Please extract and post the relevant verses from Daniel that supposedly do so.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • Akira

          I know this is going to be a shock-but somebody reading the prequel can make sure the sequel validates it.

          O.o

          Whoda thunk?

          March 20, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • wilburw7

          colin31714 wrote: "Please extract and post the relevant verses from Daniel that supposedly do so."

          I already have that all written up and all I would have to do is copy and paste it. But what good would it do? It will just annoy me to hear your response that I have already heard 200 times. it will not convince you. I will suggest that you go research it so that you don't have the desire to call me a liar. If you are willing to put the energy into finding the info yourself maybe you will be willing to consider it. I am have thrown too much sacred scripture to the dogs already.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
        • colin31714

          You remind me of my 8 year-old daughter who can prove to me that she has a make believe friend but "doesn't want to because I just won't believe her"

          March 20, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
        • cruci000fiction

          I am have thrown too much logic to the religious nuts already.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wilbur, To be believed the prophesy would need to be very accurate – stating in detail what, who, and when (not some vague statement). It would need to have been proven that it was written in advance of the event. No such prophesy is in the bible.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
        • joey3467

          You would have a much better chance of convincing me that Daniel was prophecy if the people who wrote the New Testament had never heard of Daniel.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:57 pm |
        • colin31714

          Yes, the authors of the Gospels were a bit like a group of screenwriters fulfilling a prediction that James Bond will save the World, get the girl and kill the bad guy as the write the script for the upcoming Bond film.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
        • rhyskeezy

          He told you to look it all up yourselves. So why not do it? Why does he have to do it? It's as if you are trying to question his intelligence rather than the actual answers themselves. This has nothing to do with him. This has to do with the subject; otherwise this turns into battle of ego inflation and power display, not an intelligent and reasoned debate. So keep that in mind the next time you say you do "critical thinking," because you are not in this case.

          March 22, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        The fact is there has never been an empirically proven supernatural prophecy made that can be proven to have come true based upon supernatural powers for any religion. There are many prophecies in thousands of religions that have regional and local fulfillment's throughout the thousands of years of recorded human history, however all of them rely solely on self fulfillment and none have any factual evidence to support any supernatural claims.

        March 20, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
      • QuestionsEverything

        @Wilbur

        I'm confused, are you comparing a Greek god with a mortal man? You ask about a prophecy made by Apollo, and then mention Daniel in your rebuttal; these two have nothing to do with each other except that somebody wrote something about them.

        March 20, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      You could argue that she is lying for Jesus. She knows that this is a confirmation of Big Bang theory, not some brand new way of thinking. She gives herself some small cover by adding "prior to the Big Bang theory". But what she wants is the casual reader to think that this discovery has upended some notion that the universe has always existed, and therefore science proves god (she doesn't explain how), when the truth is that it has only strengthened our existing models.

      March 20, 2014 at 3:43 pm |
    • Dave

      She has quite the credentials, actually. What have you been doing for the last 50 years? Do you have any published scientific works we can read? Or even opinion pieces like this?

      March 20, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
      • colin31714

        "Quite the credentials" hey? Biomechanics? Do biomechanics also make her an expert on economics or palaeontology? She has zero qualification in cosmology. And even if she did, it wouldn't make this artice any less the piece of sh.eet that it is.

        March 20, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • Dave

          What are your credentials (do you have any proof to back up your opinions). I would give my left nut to have her degrees and honors. Even her part time job blow the lid off any of us posting on here (wouldn't you say?). Sheet, man, get real.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
        • colin31714

          However impressive you might find her qualifications, they are not germane to the topic she is writing about. I would not trust my doctor to give me investment advice, nor my stockbroker to fix my bad back.

          If the quality of her logic is as she demonstrated in this article, I wouldn't trust her to tie my shoes. It is a garbage article full of pseudoscientific BS.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
        • Dave

          Nice dodge (are you completely incapable of answering a question?)! What qualifications do you possess? Yes, she is full of sheet. Any child can point that out and offer cute lil' insults. My 9 year old can get online and do that, too. But what about you? No credentials to speak of?

          March 20, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
        • joey3467

          Her credentials are meaningless when you consider this:

          We are certain that there can be no conflict between true science and true theology since God is the source of all truth; conflicts only arise from discrepancies in human knowledge, understanding, and interpretation."
          – author's center (http://apu.edu/cris/)

          You can't claim to be doing science and then reject something just because it disagrees with the bible.

          March 20, 2014 at 5:04 pm |
        • Alias

          He doesn't like what you said, but he can't refute it. Hmmm .....
          Circle the wagons and attack the messenger!

          March 20, 2014 at 5:11 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        What are your credentials that you consider her qualified to make such a statement which is clearly biased by her belief.

        March 20, 2014 at 4:44 pm |
        • Dave

          I'm qualified to question someone who clearly does not have anywhere near the same qualifications as this woman (and who would probably die to be even halfway like her). What qualifications do you have to blog? Same as me? That is what I thought. Welcome to the club. It is called everyone.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
    • dashvader

      Well, to be fair, it would only apply to the gods said to have played a role in the creation of the universe, which would rule out plenty of those. However, it would still leave millions of gods as possible creators, still making this author's point a massive load of crap.

      March 20, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
  8. bostontola

    There is an enormous body of objective evidence for evolution.
    There is objective evidence that Intelligent Design is false.

    Why is evolution so hard to accept? It is actually much simpler and easier to accept than development of a complex organism from a single cell, something that happened to each of us. One cell turned into muscle, nerves, bone, etc. Do you think that is natural or does God intervene on each organism and differentiate the cells into liver cells, heart cells, etc.?

    March 20, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      I don't come from no monkey!

      If evolution explained only the rest of life and not human origins, there would be much more acceptance. There would be believers who rejected it because it still doesn't fit with Genesis, but there would be much less handwringing if it still allowed humans to think they were created by divine spark.

      March 20, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
  9. wilburw7

    Proof of the creator is not what you lack. Even Satan knows God created everything. That fact did not help him at all. The Bible says you were born knowing God exists. It is built into your being. You are rationalizing and fooling yourself. You need to get over that delusion before you die. You need to get redemption through Jesus Christ. You could possibly die one hour from now. Forever is a long time.

    March 20, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
    • igaftr

      When you are hanging upside down before Quetzlcoatl, and you have to explain why you believed in the wrong god, what will you say?

      March 20, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      Delusion is belief in something for which there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence of a god and the religious texts are all incorrect on that god's credentials (creation of the universe and all in it).

      March 20, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
      • wilburw7

        Prove there is no evidence of God.

        March 20, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          asking him to prove a negative eh? How very illogical of you.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
        • colin31714

          To ask for evidence of non existence is absurd. There is no evidence God does not exist. What "evidence" could there be? Think about it. What possible evidence of non-existence can there be? By definition, there is no evidence of a negative. What evidence is there that Santa Claus does not exist? What evidence is there that the Hindu god Shiva does not exist?

          That is the fundamental difference between there being no proof of a fact and there being "no evidence of a non-fact." The latter is meaningless.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "Prove there is no evidence of God."

          Prove there is no evidence of invisible unicorns orbiting Alpha Centauri.

          Instead of trying to prove your God by what we can't prove, why don't you try providing some actual verifiable proof.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
        • wilburw7

          neverbeenhappieratheist, You can prove a negative. That is my point. You are establishing the very point I am making.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
        • wilburw7

          Sorry. I meant you can NOT prove a negative.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • wilburw7

          ramblingsofnihility wrote: "Prove there is no evidence of invisible unicorns orbiting Alpha Centauri."

          I can't prove there are no evidence of invisible unicorns orbiting Alpha Centauri.
          So I guess we do not know if there are invisible unicorns orbiting Alpha Centauri. Right?

          So you agree with my point that you can NOT prove a negative. Thank you for your support.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Where was god on 9/11? You mean to tell me god let Allah get over on him? Allah 1, God 0

          According to religious folks. Children are a gift from god right? Pre marital s3x is a sin right?

          If these things are true, How do unmarried couples conceive? Why would god give the gift of a child to a couple comitting sin?

          March 20, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
        • Doris

          wilburrr – you should not it's not the responsibility of the non-believer to provide evidence for unreasonable claims that have never been universally accepted. it's your task to convince, and you (general speaking about theists) are becoming less and less successful at that in the civilized world in this information age.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
        • Doris

          Give wilbur some time with those questions, kenmargo, I think he has to apply them directly to the forehead for a while...

          March 20, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
        • wilburw7

          kenmargo, What would you rather go through, jumping out of a building on 911 and dying or burning in hell forever?

          March 20, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          See above for my OP concerning proving a negative. It is possible, in a limited sense.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Wilbur, you haven't answered the questions!

          March 20, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
        • wilburw7

          Doris, You seem to think I am stupid. Is that a correct interpretation of your comments?

          March 20, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • kenmargo

          @sun......If god is this great being, he/she shouldn't need mere mortals to prove he/she exists.

          We have premarital s3x, gay marriage, abortions and whatever god doesn't like and we're still here.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • wilburw7

          Sungrazer, Proving a negative on a limit basis yes. But God by definition is not limited.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:02 pm |
        • wilburw7

          colin31714 wrote: "To ask for evidence of non existence is absurd. There is no evidence God does not exist. What "evidence" could there be? Think about it. What possible evidence of non-existence can there be?"

          None. You can not prove non-existence. That is the exact reason why I asked the question to point that out. Now. With that in mind, do you believe that God exists? Yes or No.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:05 pm |
        • kenmargo

          Willlll burrrrrr, You haven't answered my questions.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • ausphor

          Doris
          Are you sure? I picture Wilbur flipping through his Dr. Seuss And Grimm's books to find a relevant passage.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
        • dashvader

          None has ever been found in all of human history, and we've been trying pretty hard for a long time. Time and time again, things that were believed to be evidence of gods have been proven otherwise. The existence of so many different complex lifeforms was once assumed to be evidence that a god had created it. Now the diversity and complexity of life has been explained by one of, if not the most tested and examined theories ever presented in the history of science. If no evidence can be found supporting the existence of something, it cannot be said to exist. Now, you can present the existence of a deity responsible for the creation of the universe as a hypothesis for the observation that the universe exists, but the whole point of a hypothesis is that you test it to see if it's accurate. This has been done for that exact hypothesis again and again and again throughout history, and every time it's actually been tested, no evidence has been found. Ever. That means it's almost certainly wrong, and must be assumed so unless evidence supporting it is found, which, given how hard we've tried over all of history, is unlikely. Besides, let's say we assume there is a system of deity(ies). How do we know that yours is the correct one? Try explaining to Hades why you've been believing in the wrong god.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
        • ausphor

          Doris will answer for herself but I do not see you as stupid (a deceitful, lying SOB) that has a problem answering questions posed to you, a common Christian custom. When did you graduate from bible camp, last summer perhaps.

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

          Well I would say that being wilburw7 seems to avoid the tough questions and recycles his self-validating answers like a wind-up toy on other ones indicates willful ignorance. I can see why some might see that as a form of stupidity.

          March 20, 2014 at 5:01 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        I'm confused, you agree with everyone that you can't prove a negative, but you feel it's ok to ask, "Prove there is no evidence of God."

        Could you be anymore dishonest?

        March 20, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
        • wilburw7

          Right. By asking for the proof I show that you can not prove a negative. He could not supply proof. I hope that helps.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "Right. By asking for the proof I show that you can not prove a negative. He could not supply proof. I hope that helps."

          Stop playing word games. You know dayum well no body is saying there could never been any evidence for God, just that no credible evidence has been provided. Instead of playing games, provide some convincing, verifiable evidence. You're making yourself look like a fool.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
    • ramblingsofnihility

      "Even Satan knows God created everything."

      Even the Joker knows that Batman exists.

      "The Bible says you were born knowing God exists. It is built into your being."

      Your evidence besides the Bible says so is...?

      "You are rationalizing and fooling yourself. You need to get over that delusion before you die."

      I would say look into the mirror when you say that.

      "Forever is a long time."

      Which would be infinite. I thought you didn't believe in infinite.

      March 20, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
      • wilburw7

        When did I ever say that I did not believe in infinite? Never. I said it was illogical to say something is "past infinite". Infinite is an unbound limit. Nothing can go beyond an unbound limit.

        March 20, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
      • wilburw7

        You believe that Batman is a fictional character.
        I do not believe that God is a fictional character.

        March 20, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "I do not believe that God is a fictional character."

          I think that has been apparent.

          I have not however, seen you provide any convincing and verifiable evidence for your god.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
    • Doris

      "Even Satan knows...."

      lol

      ======

      He ain't got no money
      His clothes are kinda funny
      His hair is kinda wild and free
      Oh, but love grows where my Beelzebub goes
      And nobody knows like me

      He talks kinda lazy
      And people say he's crazy
      And his life's a mystery
      Oh, but love grows where my Beelzebub goes
      And nobody knows like me

      There's something about his hand holding mine
      It's a feeling that's fine
      And I just gotta say
      He's really got a magical spell
      And it's working so well
      That I can't get away

      I'm a lucky gal
      And I've just got to tell him
      That I love him endlessly
      Because love grows where my Beelzebub goes
      And nobody knows like me

      There's something about his hand holding mine
      It's a feeling that's fine
      And I just gotta say
      He's really got a magical spell
      And it's working so well
      That I can't get away

      I'm a lucky gal
      And I've just got to tell him
      That I love him endlessly
      Because love grows where my Beelzebub goes
      And nobody knows like me

      [Fadeout:]
      It keeps growing every place he's been
      And nobody knows like me

      If you've met him, you'll never forget him
      And nobody knows like me

      La la la- believe it when you've seen it
      Nobody knows like me

      ====

      oops sorry, I think I was temporarily possessed by the spirit of Apple Bush (well and the Edison Lighthouse...)

      March 20, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
    • Dave

      God should present himself to us, though. Right?

      March 20, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
  10. kenmargo

    Religious people are unbelievable! When science is used to prove god doesn't exist (their is plenty of proof of that!), religious people ignore science. Now religious people are using science to prove god exist. Wow.

    March 20, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
    • wilburw7

      Proof that God does not exist? That is illogical. You can not prove God does not exist.

      76% of Medical doctors believe in God.

      "Science does not know how life began on Earth" - Neil deGrasse Tyson

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

      “Though death brings the thought of judgment, it also brings to the
      Christian thought of Him [Jesus Christ] who died, rose again for the
      justification of those who believe in Him.” –Michael Faraday

      "The Gospel comprises indeed, and unfolds, the whole mystey of man's
      redemption, as far forth as it is necessary to be known for our
      salvation."– Robert Boyle (founder of Modern Chemistry)

      “God existed before there were human beings on Earth" - Max Planck
      (Founder of Quantum Physics)

      “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the
      Creator. Into his tiniest creatures, God has placed extraordinary
      properties ...” - Louis Pasteur (Germ Theory, Pasteurization)

      March 20, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
      • igaftr

        wilbur
        You are getting to be like b-fred...same old incorrect point.

        The number of people who believe a given thing does nothing to the validity of the belief. One person believes or 10 billion, does not effect the validity of the belief.
        The opinions of men who believe are only their opinions and are moot.

        March 20, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
      • kenmargo

        Obviously you don't read what you type. You're quoting humans to make your point. If god is this great being you wouldn't quote humans. God could prove his existence himself!

        March 20, 2014 at 3:33 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        Include as many quotes as you want. Include as many doctors and scientists you want. If they cannot provide verifiable evidence for the existence of God, or any god, their words are completely and entirely meaningless.

        March 20, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
      • Sungrazer

        Once again, the burden of proof is on the claimant, not on the skeptic. That said, I would offer this proof of the non-existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god:

        Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
        Then he is not omnipotent.
        Is he able, but not willing?
        Then he is malevolent.
        Is he both able and willing?
        Then whence cometh evil?
        Is he neither able nor willing?
        Then why call him God?

        March 20, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
  11. Vic

    ♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰

    The God hypothesis is the most plausible and extremely LOGICAL explanation for this existence; there is no other explanation for the "Origin" of the universe and life in it.

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

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

    As a Christian, I believe that LOGICAL MUST "First Cause" is God Almighty, the Father, Son (Lord Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit.

    Romans 1:20
    "20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

    Colossians 1:16
    "16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him."

    Hebrews 11:3
    "3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible."

    Acts 17:24-28
    "24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’"

    All Scripture Is From:

    New American Standard Bible (NASB)
    Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

    http://www.biblegateway.com/

    March 20, 2014 at 3:00 pm |
    • ausphor

      Vic
      If you are not religious why do you keep trying to sell your JC is Lord nonsense. Christian apologists twist the discoveries of science to fit the program, god did NOT do it, period.

      March 20, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
    • Alias

      Science found proof of rapid expansion.
      Your conclusion: Your god did it.
      HAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!

      March 20, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
    • joey3467

      When you can prove to me that everything you just said is true without using the Bible we can talk.

      March 20, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
    • bostontola

      Assertions like "most plausible" are just silly. Words have meaning. Most means greater than all others. That requires quantification. Do you have mathematical analysis showing this?

      March 20, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
    • ausphor

      Oh well a hit and run post by Vic, and Theo below when backed into an untenable position simply runs away, so Christian.

      March 20, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
    • 77tucker

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

      March 22, 2014 at 1:06 am |
  12. ddeevviinn

    I think the dynamic at work here is that many Christians have the maturity level to recognize that most of these issues are based on deep seeded presuppositions, and that no amount of argumentation will changed the minds of those entrenched in their unbelief. A few of us, gluttons for punishment, rather enjoy the banter and don't mind hanging out in the "lion's den."

    March 20, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
    • ddeevviinn

      My apologies, this was intended as a reply to "guidedans" on a previous page.

      March 20, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      You know that taking atheist comments about believers and twisting them to refer to atheists generally results in nonsense. All you need to do is provide evidence of your god and not only would there be no atheists and no other religions, you would be the toast of christendom.

      March 20, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
      • ddeevviinn

        " All you need to do is provide evidence"

        Evidence has been presented ad infinitum on this site, you simply choose to reject it which is certainly your prerogative, just don't pretend it hasn't been made available.

        In all honesty, I have absolutely no idea what you are referencing in your first sentence.

        March 20, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          Yes, evidence has been presented, but it has either not been real evidence or we (I should speak for myself and say I) have found it insufficient. Similarly, there is evidence for evolution, which I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you reject. So what is to be done?

          Question: What do you consider to be the best evidence that the Christian god is the one and only true god?

          March 20, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          If the evidence were available we'd have heard it. All I hear on here is the circular reasoning – you have to believe to believe or the bible confirms god and I believe the bible because it is the word of god. You do not accept such flimsy evidence in any other area of your life; you wouldn't make investments solely on the word of the salesperson.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          Sun

          Good question and one I have considered often.

          There are actually a number of evidences that I would consider "primal" but they are more dependent on the mechanism of faith, something that may not be helpful in this situation.

          Without a doubt, it is the ever present reality of sin, the human condition, and how the bible portrays these concepts that is the most tangible evidence for the Christian God from my perspective. As much as I've tried, and tried I have, I cannot dismiss or deny this principle that has infected and affected every person and thing on this planet. From Adolph Hitler to Mother Teresa, no one is immune. As I was telling someone the other day, most of those who know me would say I'm a pretty decent fellow, I love my wife, I have good kids, I don't beat my dog, yadayadayada. Unfortunately, I know what goes on inside my mind, and It is there that I have committed every sin from adultery to murder. As I read the scripture and I understand that God is not merely concerned with the external but also the internal, I recognize both my deficiency and need for resolution,

          March 20, 2014 at 4:03 pm |
    • igaftr

      "entrenched in unbelief"
      Wow is that wrong. Show me actual evideence ( your god should know what I would accept) and I will believe. I am not entrenched, it is the BELIEVERS that are, since they have accepted NOTHING as evidence of belief and then have to attempt to defend belief in something that even they cannot verify.

      You really do look at it upside down don't you.

      Most people who do not belive in your god, would accept proof if it were offered. Just the believers accept no evidence whatsoever as if it were rea, and like the subject of this article...nothing closer to any god was found, but since it didn't disprove it, they look at it like that verifies something, when it does not.

      March 20, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
      • ddeevviinn

        " Your God should know what I accept"

        And herein lies the rub.

        March 20, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • joey3467

          Is god not all knowing?

          March 20, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          joey

          I think you missed the gist. Emphasis here on " what I accept""

          March 20, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      I think the dynamic at work here is that many non-believers have the maturity level to recognize that most of these issues are based on deep seeded presuppositions, and that no amount of argumentation will changed the minds of those entrenched in their belief.

      March 20, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      I was a Christian until my mid 20s. My beliefs weren't so entrenched that I was not able to change my mind. My "unbeliefs" are not so entrenched that I am not able to change my mind back. Echoing others here, if god exists, he would know what would persuade me back and he would be able to bring it about. I don't want god not to exist. I am not hoping that god doesn't exist. I will go wherever my pursuit takes me. To date, it has taken me to conclude that there are no good reasons to believe any sort of personal god exists.

      March 20, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
      • Sungrazer

        "I don't want god not to exist. I am not hoping that god doesn't exist."

        I was perhaps not being clear here. What I meant:

        It is not as if I want god not to exist. It is not as if I am hoping that god does not exist.

        March 20, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
      • ddeevviinn

        Perhaps I owe you an apology. I do recognize that there are varying perspectives along the atheistic continuum, I had in mind those of a militant persuasion that are in no short supply on this blog. Sorry for any confusion or misrepresentation.

        March 20, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          No, you don't owe me an apology. Honest question, how entrenched are your beliefs? Do you have 100% certainty?

          March 20, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          Honest answer. I can't really quantify your question with a percentage because I don't know. What I do know is that while I wholeheartedly believe my Christian faith to be true, in actuality I have never seen God, verbally spoken to Him, physically touched Him or had any other means of communication with Him whereby we as human beings validate reality. I can assure you that I have gone on every philosophical/theological journey in my mind that is known to man, and as I've stated previously, I have no doubt that I could excel as an apologist for agnosticism.

          For me, ultimately, when I take in all the information that is available, I simply can not deny the truth that I find in the Christian faith, and that truth is both absolute and specific.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          I am just curious if it is 100% or if it is any number less. Meaning, could you concede that it is possible that you are wrong?

          The reason I ask is that my deconversion was initially hampered by the thought that just questioning god's existence was going to get me into very hot water with god. I initially repressed these doubts. Ultimately I was able to overcame the guilt.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
        • Rynomite

          "I do recognize that there are varying perspectives along the atheistic continuum, I had in mind those of a militant persuasion that are in no short supply on this blog."

          How exactly do you define "militant" in relationship to the blogging Atheists? Are they militant merely because they disagree with you and mock lock of logic? Perhaps we should contrast that to "militant" religious who fly airplanes into buildings or beat and kill gays, or kill those of other religions?

          March 20, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
        • ddeevviinn

          I absolutely " could concede that I am wrong" . We are all human beings on this planet trying to figure this stuff out. I imagine the only moment in space/time/history that I will KNOW with 100% certainty is when I find myself in His presence.

          The writer of Hebrews gives what I consider to be the epitome of the definition of faith. " Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" This is my hope, it is something I can not "prove", quantify or otherwise 100% guarantee you of its validity. What I can tell you, is that for me, it is ultimately the most feasible and intellectually satisfying world view available.

          March 20, 2014 at 4:17 pm |
  13. wilburw7

    IF the universe expansion is accelerating then it is being acted on by a force greater than gravitational attraction. That argues against infinite cycles of expansion and contractions. There is no evidence for the universe having ever had any other cycles. As far as we know, this is the only one.

    March 20, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
    • igaftr

      Is there a point?

      March 20, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
      • wilburw7

        We do not have any information to lead us to believe that universe is infinite. It is not at equilibrium and it appears to have begun a finite time ago. Science also does not know how life began on earth nor is it reasonable to speculate that life would form by chance. A creator is a very reasonable explanation for what we have observed.

        "God created everything by number, weight and measure." - Issac Newton

        March 20, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
        • bostontola

          Why is a God (of which there are thousands of wrong guesses) more reasonable than life forming by purely natural means?

          March 20, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • observer

          wilburw7,

          Even if intelligent design turned out to be true, that does NOT prove God did it. It could have been an infinite number of explanations including Zeus, the Great Pumpkin, a committee of zombies, etc. Even if you won that battle, you certainly haven't won the war.

          March 20, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • igaftr

          it offers a lazy mans explaination since there is absolutely nothing to back up the "god" hypothesis

          March 20, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • wilburw7

          igaftr,
          You are right that there is nothing to back up the god hypothesis that you will allow into your brain.

          March 20, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
        • igaftr

          If your god wanted me to accept it, it would know what I would accept.
          You on the other hand, have accepted nothing and call it truth.

          March 20, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • wilburw7

          igaftr, What proof do you have that I exist?

          March 20, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
        • Doris

          wilburrr: "You are right that there is nothing to back up the god hypothesis that you will allow into your brain."

          (Since igaftr's brains are still intact and usable for reasoning and haven't fallen out of their head for the love of mythology like some schoolgirl crush on Justin Bieber.)

          March 20, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
        • bostontola

          wilbur,
          Why is it unreasonable for life to form by purely natural means?

          March 20, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "We do not have any information to lead us to believe that universe is infinite."

          Nor do we have any credible information to lead us to believe that a god exists.

          "Science also does not know how life began on earth nor is it reasonable to speculate that life would form by chance."

          Nor is it reasonable to speculate that it was formed by magic. But, on a side note, science is uncovering evidence of the possibility of life coming into existence without the need of magic.

          "A creator is a very reasonable explanation for what we have observed."

          Apparently seems reasonable to you, but not to me. I'll wait for more evidence.

          "God created everything by number, weight and measure." – Issac Newton

          Unless Issac Newton provided some kind of evidence for this, the statement is meaningless.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
        • wilburw7

          observer, Whoever designed life is God no matter what name you give the creator.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          wilbur, Evolution created life as we see it. There are several plausible natural explanations of where the building blocks came from and supported experimentally.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
        • igaftr

          "Whoever designed life is God no matter what name you give the creator."

          First, there is nothing indicating any design ( that indicates a sentience that also cannot be shown)
          Abiogenesis is one theory that requires NO creator at all, and it cannot be discounted, but also cannot be verified. It requires atoms of certain types, and energy ( that we haven't quite been able to define). No gods needed.

          It is very possible that what you claim is god, is simply an energy that we have not yet been able to identify, and has no sentience at all.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • observer

          wilburw7

          "Whoever designed life is God no matter what name you give the creator."

          So if it turned out that a committee of zombies created the world, we can call them God and realize it doesn't have a thing in the world to do with the God in the Bible. We might as well call this committee of zombies Wilbur.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
    • In Santa We Trust

      There's no evidence of a god, yet you believe.

      March 20, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
      • wilburw7

        Prove that I have not seen and heard God. How do you know there is no proof of God. Your statement is illogical. It assumes you have all information. How is that possible?

        March 20, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          What evidence is there of a god? The bible is the only evidence and we know it is severely flawed in all the foundational stuff such as the universe and species.
          You're the one making the claim of a god, so you are the one that needs to provide the evidence. I never said there is not a god – just that no objective evidence has been presented and that the circular reasoning of the bible and this article. You're the one claiming to have all the information but never present it.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • Alias

          People in all religions think they has seen or heard their gods.
          How do you discredit all the others?

          March 20, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
        • snuffleupagus

          Willburrr, stop talking to that horse. You said, "Prove that I have not seen and heard God". I can't prove that, I'm not in your head(don't want to be either),. But, prove to me that you HAVE Seen and Heard god. Did he whinnie?

          March 20, 2014 at 3:20 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "Prove that I have not seen and heard God."

          Can't. Can't prove that you haven't seen aliens, unicorns, bigfoot, etc., either.

          If you're going to tell me you know inside your head or in your heart that God exists, sorry, there is no way to validate that. If I told you that unicorns are real, are you going to believe me cause you can't prove I have not seen or heard them?

          "How do you know there is no proof of God. Your statement is illogical. It assumes you have all information. How is that possible?"

          In Santa We Trust didn't say he/she had all the information, just a lack of evidence. If you have credible evidence that can absolutely be verified, please, do share.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
        • igaftr

          wilbur
          "Prove that I have not seen and heard God"
          I cannot, but I can question the alleged logic that brought you to that conclusion.
          How do you know what you experienced was a god?
          How do you know i was YOUR god?
          How did you exclude all other possibilities?

          You have reached a conclusion without enough information to make a conclusion.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
  14. bostontola

    1. Dr. Wickman has a doctoral degree in human factors and biomechanics. She must not be even a fan of cosmology given the conclusions she draws:

    "However, this new evidence strongly suggests that there was a beginning to our universe."

    This of course is absurd. This adds no evidence to the start of the universe, it is crucial evidence to the theories of what happened after it started.

    The entire premise of this article is absurd. There was already a lot of confirmed and inter-related objective evidence for the Big Bang. Every conclusion she made, has already been made on the basis of that evidence. Basing her claims on this evidence for Inflation and Gravity Waves, only shows that she doesn't understand cosmology and how the pieces fit together. Having a PhD in Biomechanics means she is a very smart person, not that she should speak about cosmology.

    2. "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."

    This is also poor analysis and logic on multiple levels. First, even if there is a cause, that doesn't mean the cause was an agent. When a star explodes, there is a cause but no agent, just physical events. Secondly, what we call time in our observable universe, started at the instant this observable universe started. Cause and effect are time based. If time didn't exist prior to that, cause and effect becomes undefined. We take time for granted, but it is much more subtle than that. "Obvious" things like cause and effect and the universe's origin, much like other "obvious" things like position/momentum at subatomic levels are not obvious at all.

    Dr. Wickman should know better than to make unsubstantiated assumptions, exercise poor logic, and worst of all, make statements about scientific fields she is not educated in. It reflects poorly on the others in her profession.

    March 20, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      From apu.edu

      About APU

      Azusa Pacific University is a leading Christian college ranked as one of the nation’s best colleges by U.S. News & World Report and The Princeton Review. Located near Los Angeles in Southern California, APU is a Christian university offering associate’s, bachelor’s, master's, doctoral, and degree completion programs, both on campus and online.

      The schools and colleges at Azusa Pacific University are well-known for excellence in higher education among top Christian colleges and universities. APU offers a wide variety of academic programs, comparable to the best colleges and universities in the nation, yet provides low student-to-faculty ratios.

      If you are researching Bible colleges, bachelor’s degrees, graduate programs, or seeking to complete your degree, we invite you to learn more about Azusa Pacific.

      March 20, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      We've heard similar "steady state" based arguments just like the one laid out by Leslie Wickman over and over again here.

      This doesn't make them any more accurate.

      March 20, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      Well said.

      March 20, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
    • colin31714

      Yes, it really is a garbage article. A terrible, terrible article.

      March 20, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      "Bible colleges" is that like Hogwarts?

      March 20, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
  15. wilburw7

    Here is you future:
    “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
    25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
    27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ 30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

    March 20, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
    • ramblingsofnihility

      Ron redeems himself a few weeks later by coming back and saving Harry’s life in the nick of time. They manage to destroy another Horcrux with Gryffindor’s sword, and they become excited again as they begin to learn about a mysterious trio of magical objects called the Deathly Hallows. Whomever possesses the three objects will be a master of death, and to Harry, it’s his one chance to beat Voldemort and live to tell the tale.

      March 20, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
      • wilburw7

        One is fiction and one are the words of Jesus Christ.

        Hebrews 9:27 "And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment," Even if you don't believe it.

        March 20, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • observer

          wilburw7,

          Is that fiction like the Noah's Ark nonsense?

          March 20, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • Rynomite

          The Philospher's Stone proves the wizardliness of Harry Potter. How dare you imply that our world's savior is "fiction"! Bow on your knees Muggle!

          March 20, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • igaftr

          wilbur
          "the alleged words of Jesus Christ."
          Since much of the bible is clearly fiction, likely the stories of what Jesus allegedly did are fictional or at least embellished.
          No one know if he actually spoke any of the words that are attributed to him.

          March 20, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • igaftr

          Wilbur

          Are you saying that Jesus Christ wrote the Harry Potter books?

          March 20, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "One is fiction and one are the words of Jesus Christ."

          So you are saying that J. K. Rowling plagiarized Jesus?

          March 20, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
  16. revrickm

    Of course there are several "theories" that the present universe is just one in a series of universes caused by oscillations of cosmic material. There have been other universes before, and there will be others in the future – just a series of big bangs and big collapses that will continue until entropy overcomes the bouncing oscillations. Or....until God loses interest and finds something else to distract Himself.

    March 20, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      But that still begs the question of how you can explain the existence of an infinite causal chain. I hate harping on this, but it's infinite regress which is impossible.

      March 20, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        Do you believe God is infinite?

        March 20, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
      • revrickm

        That there is an infinite causal chain has not been proven. See my comment above regarding entropy....

        March 20, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
      • ausphor

        Theo
        You love harping on the topic, admit it. If god can do anything he damn well pleases, why not an infinite casual chain, He is such a kidder. You don't know do you, attempting to apply human logic to an illogical god, carry on.

        March 20, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
      • Rynomite

        Why is it impossible? Could god cause an infinite causal regress? Cause if not, ya know what that means... he's not omnipotent!

        March 20, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
      • observer

        Theo Phileo

        "infinite regress which is impossible." so your answer is a TWO-STEP regression. That's not much of an answer.

        March 20, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
    • wilburw7

      Why isn't the universe in chaos? What gives it order?

      March 20, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
      • observer

        Survival of the fittest and the intelligence of the creatures in the universe.

        March 20, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • wilburw7

          Without order, there are no creatures or intelligence.

          March 20, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • observer

          wilburw7

          Please look up the definition of the word "random".

          March 20, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
      • revrickm

        Being "ordered", and being "planned" are two different things. There are many things about the universe that are pretty chaotic, or at least random.

        March 20, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        "Why isn't the universe in chaos? What gives it order?"

        What, you don't know? Please don't tell me you don't know about the magical unicorns that gathered matter into all the forms we bear witness too, cause then I would just have to laugh and make fun of you.

        March 20, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
      • igaftr

        Why isn't the universe in chaos? What gives it order?

        The energies that influence matter and energy.

        March 20, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
  17. ausphor

    Science will continue to make new discoveries and will still use the "we don't know" it all, while Christian apologist with each new discovery will say, see we told you so "God did it" and this is just more proof. The Christian God could so easily prove itself, how about a facebook page and a twitter account. He/She can't seem to figure out new technology but was the creator of a grand design, not bloody likely

    March 20, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      After the book of Malachi, there is a 400 year silence until John the Baptist begins his ministry.

      After the administration of the New Covenant with Jesus' death, resurrection, and pentacost, there is no new revelation. Revelation and prophecy are closed until the end of the church age when God will call two witnesses to speak for Him at the end of days. At this point in history, God has no reason to speak – either personally, or through a chosen prophet.

      March 20, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
      • revrickm

        Actually there have been others after that. There was Mohammed and the Quran. Then there was Joseph Smith and the book of Mormon, David Koresh and the Branch Davidians (sp?), etc., etc.

        March 20, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
      • ausphor

        Theo
        That certainly is what the apologists say. I think all gods are just inept, have low self esteem or more than likely were made up by men and only exist in the tomes and stories man made up about them. Why hide and let his creations make such a mess of his creations, directed at Pan Gu, not your guy.

        March 20, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        " At this point in history, God has no reason to speak – either personally, or through a chosen prophet."

        So at this point, we should just believe what was said by people thousands of years ago to be true?

        March 20, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
    • Rynomite

      God has a facebook page and it's freaking HILARIOUS!

      March 20, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
      • joey3467

        God is also pretty good on Twitter.

        March 20, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
      • ausphor

        Which god, been trying to get in touch with Dionysus to see if he would endorse my homemade plonk?

        March 20, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • Rynomite

          https://www.facebook.com/TheGoodLordAbove

          This is facebook Yahweh!

          March 20, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
  18. Theo Phileo

    Do infinite causal chains exist?

    An infinite series of causes with no beginning is a contradiction because it cannot explain how the causal chain exists in the first place...

    March 20, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      that was meant as a reply... sorry about that.

      March 20, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
    • Doris

      Isn't it a contradiction no matter how you look at it?

      Chicken and egg – and time for lunch!

      March 20, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        "Chicken and egg – and time for lunch!"
        -------–
        I call those "Before and After" Sandwiches.

        March 20, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
    • Alias

      No matter jhow many times you post this it is still wrong.
      BYW- who created your god? Or is it possible for something to exist without a beginning?

      March 20, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
  19. colin31714

    "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."

    THEN HUGE, HUGE LEAP OF LOGIC

    Therefore, the Judeo-Christian god did it.

    Then the usual apologetics start:

    "Genesis was not meant to be a science book." As if the Bronze Age Jewish goat herders who wrote it somehow knew what REALLY happened but just came up with the Adam and Eve story because their colleagues were to silly to understand. What utter garbage.

    And then of course, we have some flaws in this logic. First, the big bang DOES NOT necessarily mean the Universe had a beginning. It just indicates as far back as we can take things given our current state of knowledge. It is entirely possible that this is just the latest in an infinite series of big bangs and "big crunches" where the Universe ultimately collapses back in on itself, only to "Big Bang"again; our Universe may be one of an infinite number in a multiverse; or time itself may have been created in the Big Bang.

    Second, if we then have to rush to a creator God, what "caused" God. If the answer is "God was always there", why not just assume the Universe was "always there," without the unnecessary add on.

    By the way, the Big Bang itself has been generally accepted for decades. This latest discovery is just further evidence.

    Who, other than a person with a vested theological or psychological desire to believe in the Judeo-Christian god could believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful, immortal being created the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies 13,720,000,000 years ago (the approximate age of the current iteration of the Universe) sat back and waited 10,000,000,000 years for the Earth to form, then waited another 3,720,000,000 years for human beings to gradually evolve, then, at some point in our evolution from Hom.o Erectus, gave us eternal life and a soul, and about 180,000 years later, sent its son to Earth to talk about sheep and goats in the Middle East.

    While here, this divine visitor exhibits no knowledge of ANYTHING outside of the Greco-Roman Middle East, including the origins of the Universe, any stars other than those immediately visible to the naked eye, Australia, North and South America, Europe, Asia, and 99% of the human race. One would have thought that a visitor from the creator of the Universe would visit (or at least mention) the millions upon millions of Chinese and other Asians, all the people spread throughout North, Central and South America, the Australian Aboriginals, the ancient Europeans or the Sub-Saharan Africans. Instead, his entire visit and his entire Holy Book, the Bible, is 100% concentrated on the Jews.

    It seems obvious to any thinking person that the Jews made God in their image and not vice-versa.

    March 20, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
    • Rynomite

      To add to your nice summary.

      If there was a first cause, would it have to be a god?
      Could the universe be a powerful computer simulation?
      Could an advanced race of aliens have done something to create the universe?

      Use your imagination... sticking in "a god" is merely one choice.

      And even if it was "a god", why couldn't have been multiple gods working together in a godly science laboratory? Was it Thor? Was it Odin? Was it a god we have never heard of?

      Regardless if a god exists or not, the Christian testaments have been proven to be illogical and incorrect many times over. With a high degree of confidence we can state that if there is a god at play, it most certainly is NOT Yahweh.

      March 20, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
    • MadeFromDirt

      The idea that the universe is an eternal cycle of big bangs and big crunches has been discredited for many years now, (much to the chagrin of rejectors of God). The universe is actually expanding at an accelerating rate, pushed by dark energy and dark matter (which was described in the Bible in the book of Job). Astronomers know now that the universe will continue to expand and separate until it eventually loses its ability to regenerate stars, thus extinguishing all light, heat, and physical life. It truly had one beginning, caused by a force outside of the universe's limits.

      The passage of billions of years of "earth time" is nothing compared to eternity. And the time spent by God to precisely prepare earth for man is proof of how important we are to Him. Not only was earth provided with the exact mix of elements for us to develop our civilization, God also positioned earth in a unique spot in the universe that allows us to view the cosmos without interference of nearby stars and galaxies and to actually see the instant following the big bang creation event.

      God did not choose to appear Himself to all cultures. Instead He chose to instruct His People to spread the Gospel "to the ends of the earth." What a privilege it is for us to have that responsibility!

      March 20, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
      • colin31714

        You said, "The universe is actually expanding at an accelerating rate, pushed by dark energy and dark matter (which was described in the Bible in the book of Job)."

        Where?

        March 20, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          Ha. Somehow I missed it this claim. This is bolder than the claim I once saw here that some apostle (I forget who) should be credited with the idea of uniformitarianism.

          March 20, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
      • Sungrazer

        Your first paragraph is mostly true. One correction – dark energy does propel expansion but dark matter does not. One comment – it is unwarranted to say that the universe was "caused by a force outside of the universe's limits"; moreover, if this force existed, there is nothing that would link it to the Christian god or any other god.

        March 20, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        There are many laughable premises in your post so i'll only poke fun at a few.

        I've read the book of Job several times, I have yet to see anything about dark matter or dark energy, you are a moron for even posulating this.

        "And the time spent by God to precisely prepare earth for man is proof of how important we are to Him."

        This is the one that got me really laughing. So just how long ago did God start preparing an earth for mankind and how long did he wait to start this all important project? Oh, wait, he is eternal, so he waited an eternity before starting on this really important project, right? My goodness people are stupid.

        March 20, 2014 at 2:56 pm |
        • MadeFromDirt

          It's Job 38, verses 19-20, when God is asking Job why he thinks he has a right to question God:
          19 “What is the way to the abode of light?
          And where does darkness reside?
          20 Can you take them to their places?
          Do you know the paths to their dwellings?"

          The oldest book in the Bible described darkness as a thing, with a place assigned by God. Only in recent years have scientists discovered that darkness is a thing, not merely the absence of things.

          I'm glad I could brighten your day. Read Job again and be brightened further, you need it.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
        • colin31714

          Oh my god, I just laughed out loud that you put this garbage forward as evidence that the author of the Book of Job knew about dark energy and dark matter about 3,000 years before the best cosmologists in the World found out about it. The lengths to which Christian apologists will go is nothing short of amazing.

          The Book of Jonah mentions a man living in a whale's belly for a few days. Is that evidence that the author knew the secrets of suspended animation?

          March 20, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
        • joey3467

          Why would god ruining the life of someone over a bet with the devil brighten anyone's day? Job is one of the more disgusting books in the bible as far as I'm concerned.

          March 20, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • MadeFromDirt

          Joey, c'mon now. Job is disgusting? Did you read Job through the end, when God restores Job's blessings in multiples because of his faith in times of trouble? And the lessons of Job have provided comfort to God's people through all the generations since then. God has purposes that are often unseen in the short run, but perfectly obvious in the long run. If you don't like to think about that principle in a sense that involves God, then think about the movie "It's a Wonderful Life." If you walked out after three-quarters of that movie you would think it was depressing, miserable, mis-named, and disgusting, but that's not how it ends. It's the same way with the history of makind; we're just three-quarters of the way through right now.

          March 20, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
        • observer

          MadeFromDirt,

          Job is one of the most disgusting examples of what a monster God can be. It also shows what a self-centered idiot Job was. No winners here, just two huge losers.

          To WIN A BET, God and Job allowed:
          DEATH of most of his Job's servants;
          DEATH of Job’s 7,000 sheep”
          DEATH of ALL of Job's children

          All of that so God could tell his enemy "I told you so". What a heartless MONSTER.

          March 20, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
        • MadeFromDirt

          Observer, there is hope for you. Admitting that you know God exists but that you hate Him (instead of cowardly denying He exists) is a baby step forward toward regeneration. Perhaps God is preparing to open your eyes.

          Colin, enjoy your laugh while you can; God's providence is still all around you. If that passage from Job had said "Who cleared all substance from the dark sky?" (which is what would normally be expected from "primitive goat herders"), you would have pointed to it and said "Look, your God didn't know about dark matter."

          Suspended animation for humans is science fiction. Just because some dead people have been frozen does not mean they can be brought back to life by men. They won't. Whatever exactly happened to Jonah is a delightful mystery, but that Book has many instructive lessons for us today as well.

          March 20, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
        • observer

          MadeFromDirt

          "Observer, there is hope for you. Admitting that you know God exists but that you hate Him (instead of cowardly denying He exists) is a baby step forward toward regeneration'

          You are TOTALLY DELUSIONAL. I neither SAID nor BELIEVE either of your lies.

          March 20, 2014 at 8:08 pm |
        • observer

          MadeFromDirt,

          It would be a waste of time for me to start nearly every sentence with "IF God existed".

          March 20, 2014 at 8:10 pm |
      • Alias

        On esmall error in your post that I think needs to be noted –
        You are confusing the 'known universe' with 'the universe'.
        There could be things we simply have not seen yet.

        March 20, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
  20. timetravelerfrom2121

    Anyone else puzzled as to why the author sees "brights stars"and is completely dazzled by a clear night's sky, describing it as immense complexity of the physical world that all fits together like a "synergistic puzzle"....oh gosh. Cause God just made it that way. Except for blind people or those without color vision.
    I'm assuming the takeaway from this article is if the "beauty" of the world is just too complex for self-important scientists to understand it origins, that LITERALLY must mean a "god" of some sort did it?

    March 20, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
    • Alias

      I was so dazzled by the article by the time I got to that part, I kind of let it slip by.

      March 20, 2014 at 3:38 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.