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. therealpeace2all

    Reblogged this on peace2alldotme and commented:
    An example of the power of 'self-sealing' belief systems.

    March 24, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
  2. bostontola

    If you believe in a God that:

    1. Created the universe less than 15,000 years ago in a way where it exhibits all the hallmarks of billions of years of age.

    2. Created humans with a wide range of characteristics, some that include intense curiosity of how the universe works.

    3. Is omniscient. So this God knows that these feeble minded humans with intense curiosity will discover the indelible age signatures and the biblical factual inconsistencies with scientific examination of the universe, and will conclude that the bible must be wrong.

    4. Sends people that don't accept this God to eternal pain.

    Then you believe in an immoral God.

    March 24, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
    • guidedans

      God doesn't send you to Hell for not believing the Bible. He lets you go to Hell because you choose it. You have sinned in your life. You cannot undo those sins. You are imperfect. You cannot be accepted into a perfect place in your current state. You need something you make you perfect. Jesus died on the cross to take on your sins and offer himself as the perfect sacrifice. If you accept this, repent of your sins, and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you don't have to get the punishment you deserve.

      March 24, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
      • igaftr

        says one of many, many baseless belief stories.

        March 24, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
        • guidedans

          God loves you, igaftr. I hope you see that one day.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
        • igaftr

          guide
          or god does not exist, or is imaginary. And which of the thousands do you mean. Not the "one true" god, since there are over 400 of those.
          You believe god loves me, but have nothing indicating there is a god or gods, nor what that "god" feels if anything.
          I hope you join us in reality some day.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Allah loves you more, don't listen to that guy^

          March 24, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • nepawoods

          If God loves someone, he won't let their eternal fate rest on their choice of ancient religion (or on their choice to use their capacity for reason, and choose no religion at all).

          March 24, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
      • nepawoods

        Still immoral. How is someone to know what you allege is true? Because you say so? Because an old book says so? Other people, and other books, say something different. It would be immoral to let someone's eternal fate rest on a choice like that.

        March 24, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
        • ausphor

          Yes, with the large number of wrongful convictions being overturned in this country because of science, there were probably all sorts of Christians willing to let someone else do the punishment they rightly deserved while still on this earth, why not dump it all on jesus when you die as well. Silly stuff.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Stalin does not send anyone to the Gulag.
        It is those who have hardened their hearts against him who send themselves to the Gulag through their bourgoise atti/tudes and counter-revolutionary actions.
        This was not Stalin's plan at all.
        He truly wants everyone to go to the Worker's Paradise and it grieves him that so many harden their hearts against him.
        But he will not force anyone into the Worker's Paradise against their wishes.
        He respects their free will.
        If you don't want to go to the Gulag, just open your heart to the love of Stalin.

        Sound familiar at all?

        March 24, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
      • therealpeace2all

        @guidedans

        You Said: "God doesn't send you to Hell for not believing the Bible. He lets you go to Hell because you choose it. You have sinned in your life. You cannot undo those sins. You are imperfect. You cannot be accepted into a perfect place in your current state. You need something you make you perfect. Jesus died on the cross to take on your sins and offer himself as the perfect sacrifice. If you accept this, repent of your sins, and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you don't have to get the punishment you deserve."

        In the world of 'belief systems' this is known as a *self-sealing* belief. The Christians aren't the only ones that are quite good at it. No, I can't 'prove' that you're incorrect. And yes, I'm quite aware that according to your narrative, someone like me will "get the punishment I deserve."

        It's o.k... I'm fine with that.

        Peace...

        March 24, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Nothing better than when they let their torture fantasies slip...

          March 24, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        There is no such thing as objective sin of which we have missed the mark. For this to be the case we would have to have been pre-made perfection that we are now moving farther from when in reality it is exactly the reverse. Our average life spans have increased over the last 50,000 years as our ancestors only enjoyed an average life of around 45 to 50 years of age if their risky environment didn't kill them first. We have been evoloving both physically and socially for hundreds of thousands of years, adapting to our environment and passing on learned information from one generation to the next for us to build upon pulling ourselves out of the muck through thousands of generations of hard working humans to get to where we are today. There is zero evidence of the reverse being true which is what you would see if we were once perfect and are now devolving from that perfection.

        March 24, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
      • kudlak

        And yet a serial killer could find Jesus in prison and find himself in heaven, where a guy whose greatest "sin" was not picking up his dog's poo one time when he happened not to have a baggie on him and finds himself in hell for not accepting what really does sound like mythology?

        Sorry, but I would expect a "perfect" being to have a better sense of Justice than that.

        March 24, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
        • nepawoods

          Forget the dog poo. Remember, these folks believe we're all born guilty of Eve's sin.

          March 24, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
        • distrbnce

          But... the book says he's perfect... ?!

          March 24, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • Akira

          Now, correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am, but didn't Jesus's death wipe out Eve's sin? Then how can we be born guilty of it?

          No baby is born sinful. This is one part of the Christian doctrine that makes the least sense to me.

          March 24, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          can't poo without having eaten something... apple was it? Or pomegranate? If it was a pomegranate then I bet it was one seedy poop...

          March 24, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • kudlak

          Akira
          Naa! Jesus's death didn't wipe out Eve's sin. According to Christian theology, every human being, including all the great heroic figures of the OT, ended up in hell because of their imperfection, but this wasn't the Jewish understanding at all.

          March 24, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        As has been posted here several times before – substitute Stalin for god and Gulag for hell and see how that sounds.

        March 24, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          I didn't see that earlier.

          March 24, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
      • joey3467

        I choose to not go to hell and not believe in the bible, is god going not send me to hell then?

        March 24, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
      • bostontola

        guidedans,
        Please re-read number 4 for the reason to get sent to hell, it's for not accepting that God, it isn't for not believing the bible. The intensely curious who accept the signature in the natural world, left that way deceptively (read number 1 again), would naturally not accept the God defined in the bible.

        March 24, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
      • guidedans

        Just a note: to my two responses regarding my belief as a Christian, I received 18 responses to why I am wrong. I find it very strange that, while I know that Christians are the majority in this country, that the Atheists would be so much more vocal regarding their choice in beliefs.

        It amazes me at how much you all have to say about your belief in nothing.

        Here's why I am better off every time, regardless of how many people disagree with me (also why you guys offer no incentive to switch beliefs):

        I have a 1/(infinite) chance at heaven where the benefit is infinite. i.e., infinity/infinity, which is an undefined positive number.
        You have a 1/(infinite) chance at being correct where the benefit is 0. i.e., 0/(infinity), which is 0.

        My faith offers me a positive return, while yours offers you nothing.

        If I am going to invest my entire life in a belief, I would want that belief to have some positive outcome.

        And to anyone says that the positive outcome is achieved in this life, I expect you to prove that an Atheist's life is objectively better/more fulfilling/creates more enjoyment than a believer's life.

        Godspeed

        March 24, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Pascal's wager. Adorbs.

          March 24, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • observer

          guidedans

          "My faith offers me a positive return, while yours offers you nothing."

          As an agnostic, rather than atheist, I still have a response.

          Non-believers often have a much more positive view of the world we live in and appreciation for it. It is more often the believers who insist how miserable the world is that God created. "The world is going to hell and the end is coming. We will go to a much better place".

          It is also believers who may use the Bible as an excuse to make others lives worse by hypocritically picking on gays or pro-choice advocates.

          You need a more realistic view of life. It's not the black and white you fantasize.

          March 24, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Pascal's wager is not for the critical mind. Kudos!

          March 24, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • guidedans

          observer, those are just feelings and opinions. I could say just the opposite, that believers often have a much greater respect for the world because God made it for us and commanded us to be good shepherds over it.

          I wont say that because I know that there are bad Christians who don't care and there are bad Atheists who don't care.

          Also, if you think that Christians think the world is going to Hell, read up on where science tells you the world is heading. i.e., into the sun when it goes red giant.

          As an Agnostic, you might have something to say because you are not stating that there is no God, but I really think you should settle on one instead of just going with the flow. Take a stand and choose with your heart. Not choosing is sometimes just as bad as choosing not to do something.

          And to Disturbance, If Pascals Wager does not demonstrate why Atheism is an inferior position to a belief, then please, by all means, prove me wrong.

          Again, Godspeed.

          March 24, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
        • joey3467

          I'm agnostic when it comes to the concept of god, but atheist when it comes to the Christian god because the bible gives god characteristics that make it impossible for said god to exist.

          March 24, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • joey3467

          It is a bad bet because there are more than one god that could be real. If I worship no god, and you worship the wrong god then we end up in the same place. The only way to be safe is to worship every single god that has ever been worshiped by humans just in case they exist.

          March 24, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
      • doobzz

        You've previously stated that you became a Christian to get your wife off your back and because you don't want this life to end, so you can ditch all the crap about sin and god "letting" you go to hell because you don't believe in human sacrifice.

        March 24, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
    • jknbt

      hey Boston, I believe in God Father Son Holy Ghost....and I believe in the "Long Day" creation. yes, the universe is 14 billion years old, yes, the earth is 4 billion years old, and yes, God will judge the wicked. He is patiently waiting for you to repent. But his patience is not indefinite. Repent while you still can!

      March 24, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
      • Fallacy Spotting 101

        Post by 'jknbt' contains a veiled form of the flawed argument known as Pascal's Wager.

        http://fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html

        March 24, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
      • bostontola

        jknbt,
        You are fully enti.tled to your beliefs. I must say, they look more like messianic Jewish beliefs than standard christian, but that is your right. Enjoy.

        March 24, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
  3. bostontola

    While the Big Bang and the rest of science is compatible with a Creator, it is not compatible with the biblical characters Yahweh or Jesus.

    Even if the faulty first cause logic leads you to erroneously conclude that a Creator must exist, it's not the one in the bibles, koran, etc.

    March 24, 2014 at 11:55 am |
  4. Doc Vestibule

    1) The Universe has a cause
    2) This cause must come from outside of the Universe
    3) The Universe has intelligent life
    4) Only superior intelligence can create intelligence.

    Therefore the Universe was created during the Unaging Time when Chronus and Adrasteia joined together to form energy and matter.

    March 24, 2014 at 11:50 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      But you're willing to admit that there must have been some supernatural force at work in Creation. That's the first step to theism!

      March 24, 2014 at 11:52 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Of course anything that doesn't have an immediately apparent natural explanation is logically and necessarily magical.
        After all, every phenomenon that was once considered magical or supernatural has remained that way.
        Thor makes lightning, right?

        March 24, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
        • distrbnce

          And the stars are distant campfires of ancestors... and planets (wanderers, or stars that move) are angels.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Oh, and a supernovae that appears suddenly in the sky, and remains for several months, is a sign from God!

          March 24, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
      • igaftr

        no theo, nothing supernatural. Everything that exists, naturally exists. There is nothing indicating anything "supernatural" at all.

        March 24, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The Big Bang is just science's way of describing what happened when Pan Gu split apart the Universal Egg (singularity) with his boradaxe.

      March 24, 2014 at 11:53 am |
      • distrbnce

        I think you might be on to something here... how can I learn more?

        March 24, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Well, In the beginning, Pan Gu escaped from the great universal egg by cracking it open with a broadaxe. The light part of the yolk floated up and became the heavens while the cold, hard part stayed below to form earth with Pan Gu standing between them like a pillar to keep the separated. When He died, His breath became the wind and clouds, His voice thunder, His eyes the sun and the moon, his beard and hair turned to the stars in the sky, His blood the water. His veins became roads and his muscles fertile land.

          And that's where everything came from.

          Unless you're a Shintoist, in which case at the beginning of time, the heavens and the earths were mixed together in a great cloud. Slowly, the clearer, lighter parts of the cloud rose up and became heaven. The heavier parts of the cloud descended and became an ocean of muddy water. Between the heavens and the earth, a pale green sprout began to grow. It grew swiftly and was extremely strong. When the plant’s flower burst open, the First God emerged. This First God then created Izanagi, is the god of all that is light and heavenly. Izanagi, whose name means "the male who invites", and his wife and sister Izanami, whose name means "the female who invites". The First God gave Izanagi the task of finishing the creation of the world.

          But then again, the Inuit say that Raven made the world. He is a man with a raven's beak. When the waters forced the ground up from the deep Raven stabbed it with his beak and fixed it into place.
          Raven created night and day by accidentally puncturing a magical bladder with his beak while playing.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Okay, this is getting a little far-fetched...

          Is this accounted for in a centuries-old book?

          March 24, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
    • kudlak

      I wonder if the intelligent design folks would fight for all creation stories to be taught alongside the biblical one? Somehow, I doubt it?

      March 24, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        Ironically, the biggest supporters Creationists have in the "teach the controversy" argument are the Raelians who say that the Earth was seeded with life by extra-terrestrials.

        March 24, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • kudlak

          I wonder where the Scientologists fall in this?

          March 24, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Steven Hawking is a Raelian?

          March 24, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Sorta like the satanists begging for there to be prayer in school

          March 24, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Theo shares his extraordinary skill at jumping to baseless conclusions.

          March 24, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Theo
          Are you implying that Stephen Hawking is a supporter of Creationism being taught in Biology classrooms?
          Can you cite a source?

          March 24, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • ausphor

          Theo
          Are you getting all giddy with anticipation with the release of the movie Noah on Friday, March 28? They may even have a cartoon based on the Tower of Babel, nonsense. You never did answer how old you thought your supernatural universe is, Vic answered.

          March 24, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • distrbnce

          ausphor
          Many Christians are upset with that movie because apparently he reflects on environmentalism and overpopulation. Things god will never allow to happen, of course.

          March 24, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • ausphor

          dstrbnce
          I also heard that the young earth crowd were also upset because Noah was having visions of what happened, not that it actually did happen, sacrilege to the creationists.

          March 24, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • kudlak

          Any final word on whether Noah will be shown getting drunk and cursing his boy for seeing him naked?

          March 24, 2014 at 6:52 pm |
        • kudlak

          That's in Gen. 19:18-27

          Thus it was made justified to enslave and massacre the Canaanites.

          March 24, 2014 at 6:58 pm |
  5. lunchbreaker

    "Out of this whole universe God is the only thing that is important."

    Importance can only be bestowed by a conscience being, i.e. humans.

    March 24, 2014 at 11:47 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      Prove that.

      March 24, 2014 at 11:53 am |
      • distrbnce

        Are you suggesting it would open your mind a little if he did?

        March 24, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
      • lunchbreaker

        Are you stating that inanimate objects can bestow importance upon something?

        March 24, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
      • kudlak

        Maybe it proves that, if God did indeed create the universe as us to worship him, then he only did it to make himself feel important and to give his existence meaning?

        Think about it: What meaning would God have had to his existence prior to creating? Without people to worship him, he wouldn't even be a god, right?

        March 24, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
        • kudlak

          "the universe and us to worship him,"

          March 24, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
        • distrbnce

          When I was a wee one, I would imagine that there was a bigger group of gods somewhere, and our god was sent here just to create our universe.

          I got in trouble for that sort of thinking.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
        • distrbnce

          ^Which, by the way, is a lovely and poetical thought... one quite obviously generated by a human mind.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • kudlak

          distrbnce
          Our universe could just be the artwork of one juvenile god, and is currently hanging on her parent's refrigerator.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
  6. moiraesfate

    To religious people... proof does not matter. If an atheist says the sky is blue, the religious will say it's green just because the atheist said it.

    March 24, 2014 at 11:17 am |
    • kudlak

      Probably not, but if the Bible said that the sky was green you can bet that there would be plenty of people who would argue that it was green back then.

      March 24, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        Or that our translation of the word "green" from the ancient text is flawed and it really meant blue...

        March 24, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • distrbnce

          Christians don't like anything green, because God will protect the earth.

          March 24, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
        • kudlak

          Possibly even a turquoise sky, but I know what you mean. I've seen lots of "correct translations" glossing over certain problematic things in the Bible that simply don't have any basis in fact. Maybe the biggest load has to be the reimagining of biblical slavery as some kind of benign indentured servitude, and nothing like the brutal slavery of our past. A lot of people I know have swallowed that lie hook, line, and sinker.

          March 24, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
  7. ausphor

    Wickman "we quickly conclude that there must be a more satisfying explanation than random chance." By, we, I assume she is talking about believers in a religion or in one of the many gods. Of course she should recall that man has been making up gods since his brain began to wonder about his surroundings and has been changing the characteristics of the god figure, adding and or discarding according to the times and knowledge available. The gods have evolved right along with mankind.

    March 24, 2014 at 11:07 am |
    • kudlak

      Yup! It really is too bad that the truth is not always "satisfying" to everyone.

      March 24, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
  8. christophoros67

    "That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.”"
    Since the Big Bang pre-dates the formation of our solar system by nearly 10 billion years, it actually doesn't sound very much alike...

    March 24, 2014 at 10:15 am |
    • Vic

      I believe in instantaneous senescence by the Supernatural at the point of creation.

      March 24, 2014 at 11:23 am |
      • distrbnce

        Why?

        March 24, 2014 at 11:27 am |
      • ausphor

        Vic
        So how old is our universe, according to our obrervations? How old is your supernatural universe?

        March 24, 2014 at 11:27 am |
      • Theo Phileo

        I actually had to look up "senescence." That is certainly implicit in the Genesis account.

        March 24, 2014 at 11:30 am |
        • distrbnce

          Share that word around, you can pull it out like "infinite regress" and "first cause" to awkwardly try to conflate the real world with the magical world.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:42 am |
      • Akira

        That's certainly not implied by what we know of the universe so far, Vic.

        March 24, 2014 at 11:41 am |
      • In Santa We Trust

        What would be the point? Deception? Why would a omnipotent creature need to do that – couldn't it create what it wanted without creating something else then modifying?
        The mental twists and turns it takes to attempt this reconciliation with the imaginings of ancients is really a waste of time.

        March 24, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
      • kudlak

        Vic
        So, God created the universe to look older than it actually is? Kinda like decorators making a new table and then whipping and staining it to make it appear antique?

        Why would he do something like that if not to fool people into believing that his universe wasn't some cheap knockoff of a majestic ancient natural cosmos?

        March 24, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
        • joey3467

          Why would anyone want to worship a god that lies to them, and if he would lie about the age of the universe then whose to say that everything else in the Bible isn't god lying as well. Maybe god actually hates everyone and wrote the bible to trick them so that they end up in some other god's version of hell.

          March 24, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • kudlak

          Yup! God is supposedly so far more advanced and totally alien from us to even begin to comprehend, yet believers just take him at his word that he's good, just and loving, the way we understand those concepts. For something that impossible to comprehend most believers sure do think that their comprehension of him is spot on. Funny how that works, eh?

          March 24, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
      • Vic

        Here is an illustrative example:

        God created Adam —and Eve— an adult, he was a fully grown man at one-day-old, and gave him the human nature (passed on to us) of growing fully over nine months in the womb and 18-21 years or so after birth. The same goes for all other creatures.

        March 24, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • kudlak

          Actually, Adam appears to be very child-like in the Garden, doesn't he? Depending on which version of the Genesis creation myth you go with, they were either created together, or Adam was around for a while before God made Eve to keep him company. In the later story, he could have been created much younger, correct?

          March 24, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • ausphor

          Why would A&E be portrayed of having a belly button, because god had one? Why would god have a belly button? The belly button conundrum, a real poser, much like soft dinosaur tissue. So confusing, so ridiculous.

          March 24, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • Akira

          So God predetermined what our human nature to be? Ok. So he wanted us "flawed" and "imperfect".

          March 24, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
        • Vic

          Well, why didn't 'Natural Selection' rid of male's nipples?!

          Imperfection is a consequence of mortality.

          March 24, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • kudlak

          Vic
          "Imperfection is a consequence of mortality."
          Were A & E created with separate windpipes so that they wouldn't choke? Could they produce their own vitamin C? If they didn't have these, and all our other faults, then they wouldn't really be the same species that we are, now would they? That would pretty much mess up the implication that they were the first humans. From all our experience, humans have these faults.

          March 24, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
        • kudlak

          Vic
          Males and females don't form different species.

          Best to think of all nip.ples as like the stereo sl.ot in a make of car, where only some models get the deluxe stereo with the satellite radio and full blue-tooth. It's more biologically economical for everyone to have the same "dashboard" with half getting the extra glands and stuff that eventually develop into working bre.asts.

          March 24, 2014 at 6:23 pm |
        • kudlak

          Akira
          Supposedly, God created us with intelligence and free will. The only "flaw" is that using our intelligence and free will often lead people away from believing in God.

          That's kinda like saying that a quarter is "flawed" because it has two sides, making it possible for a flip to go against you.

          March 24, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
    • Vic

      God gives us our mortal life. Note that God created Adam & Eve immortals, then He made mortals after the fall.

      God gives 'life' to every living being:

      Genesis 2:7
      "7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (NASB)

      Job 31:15
      "15 Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb?" (NASB)

      Job 33:4
      "4 The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life." (NASB)

      1 Timothy 6:13
      "13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate," (NASB)

      March 24, 2014 at 11:43 am |
      • Vic

        Oops..wrong spot, sorry.

        March 24, 2014 at 11:44 am |
      • kudlak

        Were they created immortal, or were they simply kicked out of the Garden before they could eat of the Tree of Life, which would have granted them immortality?

        March 24, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
        • Akira

          Would like to know why there was a Tree of Knowledge, also, because God knew everything, so why the tree? Especially since it was expressly forbidden for A&E to eat from that tree...why create it in the first place?

          March 24, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • kudlak

          Seems like those trees were what God was using to gain his own immortality and moral sense. Stealing knowledge from the gods really is a common theme in myth, though. Just compare A & E with the myths of Prometheus and Pandora. Heroic men steal knowledge from the gods, but the origin of all the world's problems is always the fault of women.

          March 24, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
  9. ausphor

    Of course Wickman could have written the article and come to the conclusion that Pangu did it, instead of her favorite god myth, but they probably would kick her out of Azusa Pacific University for being a heretic.

    March 24, 2014 at 9:28 am |
    • Theo Phileo

      The research points out that the existence of the universe as a causal chain requires a creator that was itself un-created.

      To posit that the Creator was the God of the Bible takes another systemmatic approach that the article never dips into.

      March 24, 2014 at 9:34 am |
      • midwest rail

        "...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. "

        "adds support to the idea" is significantly different than what you are suggesting.

        March 24, 2014 at 9:55 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          There's symmantic difference between "points out" and "adds scientific support?"

          March 24, 2014 at 10:23 am |
        • midwest rail

          There is significant difference between "adds supports to the idea" and "requires".

          March 24, 2014 at 10:26 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          The "requires" portion of my statement is the logical necessity due to the impossibility of infinite regression. Avoiding infinite regression, this physical universe could not have had an infinite series of causes because an infinite series of causes with no beginning is a contradiction.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:18 am |
        • distrbnce

          "If not God, then what?" is a sad way to spend a short life.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:28 am |
        • distrbnce

          lol, and there are better commenting systems out there...

          March 24, 2014 at 11:29 am |
      • lunchbreaker

        The bigger leap is assuming that whatever caused the universe to be was a sentient creator.

        March 24, 2014 at 10:07 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          It's just taking the information to a logical conclusion.

          If the physical universe had a beginning – that which caused the beginning could not itself be physical. What is there other than the physical but the non-physical or supernatural?

          March 24, 2014 at 10:21 am |
        • igaftr

          "logical conclusion"
          No Theo, that is not a logical conclusion, since NO conclusion is justified. This information does nothing to show the existance of or non-xistance of any such "creator". It simply means we are closer to the truth, but NO conclusion is the only conclusion one can reach logically.
          There are still far too many possibilities to conclude anything.

          March 24, 2014 at 10:26 am |
        • ausphor

          Theo is so consumed by his casual causal chain hypothesis that no amount of reasoning will dissuade him. He has been using the same tired argument over and over again.

          March 24, 2014 at 10:32 am |
        • igaftr

          ausphor
          That is true about Theo, and he cannot understand why it doesn't make sense. Appli the causal chain to his god, and it clearly fails, but he keeps hammering away as if his god is "outside" of all logic. ( in a way he is right, there is no logic in belief in deities) If the causal chain argument can be used on the universe, then it must be applied to "god".
          Theo doesn't get that.

          March 24, 2014 at 10:48 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Then please explain to me (avoiding infinite regress) how the cause of the physical universe could be itself physical.

          If that were the case, then physical reality would have to exist before it existed in order to create itself...

          March 24, 2014 at 11:01 am |
        • ausphor

          Theo so you say and that is what you believe, you just want to rehash the same old argument, believe what you want, carry on.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:10 am |
        • distrbnce

          "Then please explain to me (avoiding infinite regress) how the cause of the physical universe could be itself physical.

          If that were the case, then physical reality would have to exist before it existed in order to create itself..."

          You've got this exactly backwards.

          Since the big bang was the creation of the physical universe, it is not bound by the physical universe's laws.

          We curiously see that as more to learn.

          You arrogantly see that as "must be god!"

          March 24, 2014 at 11:11 am |
        • Vic

          I notice many people projecting that Christians "leap" to the existence of God.

          You need to understand that to us Christian believers, God is explained to us Theologically, Metaphysically, and Naturally; therefore, it is not a leap to conclude that God dd it. When we study our existence, we use Special Revelation—Scriptures, Natural Revelation—this existence, Theology, Metaphysics, and Empirical Science.

          Whatever scientific discovery pointing to God is but part of the "Natural Revelation."

          March 24, 2014 at 11:13 am |
        • lunchbreaker

          Theo, I'm only questioning your lack of explanation of how something non-physical(not made of space, matter or time) = sentient creator. Obvisously some "thing", caused (key word: caused) the universe to be. But what is your reasoning as to why said "thing" is a sentient creator? I'm not saying that it is not, but you should defend why it has to be.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:16 am |
        • Vic

          The answer is simple. Life comes from life, and sentience comes from sentience.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • distrbnce

          Sorry, Vic, lemme edit. Is this any better in your perspective? It's the same sentiment to me.

          We curiously see that as more to learn.

          You see it as God, based on Special Revelation—Scriptures, Natural Revelation—this existence, Theology, Metaphysics, and Empirical Science.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:23 am |
        • distrbnce

          Vic, that's poetry, not science.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:24 am |
        • midwest rail

          "...therefore, it is not a leap to conclude that God dd it."

          It certainly is when you misrepresent science and scientific opinion to make said leap.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:24 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          Theo, I'm only questioning your lack of explanation of how something non-physical(not made of space, matter or time) = sentient creator. Obvisously some "thing", caused (key word: caused) the universe to be. But what is your reasoning as to why said "thing" is a sentient creator? I'm not saying that it is not, but you should defend why it has to be.
          ----------–
          The physical universe had a beginning, and something doesn't come from nothing, so a creative force is necessary.

          Whatever created the physical universe couldn't be physical, or the physical would have to exist before it existed to create itself – but nothing can create itself.

          If it wasn't physical, it had to be non-physical, or, supernatural.

          Avoiding infinite regress, there couldn't be an infinite series of causes for our physical universe, so whatever this cause was, it was eternal and un-caused.

          Therefore the creator of the physical universe was:
          1) Necessary
          2) Supernatural
          3) Eternal in existence

          If not God, then what?
          If no answer exists, then "God" is a perfectly logical hypothesis.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:26 am |
        • distrbnce

          Sorry, but a giant ghost thing that's sorta like us is a terrible, very human-centric hypothesis.

          Like, absolutely terrible. Oh, of course, out of the whole universe, we're all that's important, and god made us like him.

          You're saying that's logical.

          It's actually insane. I'll just wait to see what we actually discover, and hope that a loving god doesn't punish me for eternity for that.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:32 am |
        • lunchbreaker

          Vic, I thought life originated from the supernatural (not life). That kind of ruins your analogy.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:35 am |
        • Theo Phileo

          out of the whole universe, we're all that's important, and god made us like him.
          ---------–
          Out of this whole universe God is the only thing that is important. The universe is not anthropocentric, but rather is theocentric.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Theo. Pre Big Bang we don't know but that doesn't mean a god did it; a god must be a possibility as we don't know, but one of a vast array of possibilities. You exclude your god from your logic – why can't the pre-Big Bang state just exist as you claim can only apply to your god?

          March 24, 2014 at 11:39 am |
        • ausphor

          Theo
          Same question for you that I asked Vic. How old is our universe, according to our observations? How old is your supernatural universe?

          March 24, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • lunchbreaker

          Theo, I think you missed my point. You keep repeating arguments I'm not disagreeing with, not even yuor final bit that God is a valid hypothesis. I'm merely saying it is not the only one.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:42 am |
        • Vic

          God gives us our mortal life. Note that God created Adam & Eve immortals, then He made mortals after the fall.

          God gives 'life' to every living being:

          Genesis 2:7
          "7 Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (NASB)

          Job 31:15
          "15 Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb?" (NASB)

          Job 33:4
          "4 The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life." (NASB)

          1 Timothy 6:13
          "13 I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate," (NASB)

          March 24, 2014 at 11:47 am |
        • distrbnce

          Cool, quotes from Dianetics.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • Vic

          I believe the age of the universe is somewhere between 6000 and 10000 Gregorian calendar years.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:53 am |
        • distrbnce

          Vic, how do you explain that we can observe light that has been traveling for longer than that? Magic, right?

          March 24, 2014 at 11:57 am |
        • igaftr

          theo
          you make the false assumption that our universe sprang from "nothing" but since you do not know what was before our universe, you have no reason to say if not god, what. First off, if nothing existed, neither did your god. Our universe could have sprung up from a previous universe, and matter has always existed.

          You keep trying to force YOUR god into the equation, when no gods continue to be shown. Your god hypothesis is but one of an infinite number of other possibilities, including that the universe may have sprung from "nothing" since there never really is nothing.

          One thing is certain, if you try to find the truths of this universe, looking for "god" is simply a bias that will run you into false information. It may be that we find "god", but not if we go looking for it. We look for the truth, whatever it may be...keep you baseless gods off of science.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • distrbnce

          Vic, how do you explain that there are cave paintings old than that?

          March 24, 2014 at 11:59 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Oh my – Young Earth Creationism, Vic?
          In order for that to be true, we'd have to believe that the global flood was true and happened around 4,000 years ago.
          That would mean, amongst other things, that there were no ice caps or salt water, that plate tectonics were incredibly rapid in the recent past and this didn't cause the Earth's surface to shatter etc.

          How do you explain how we see light from distant stars that is vastly older than what you posit as the age of the Universe?

          March 24, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
        • ausphor

          Vic
          Well if you believe the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old then don't bother going to a reputable science site stick with apologetic sites, they will bolster your vast knowledge of well, nothing.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
        • Vic

          It's all about scale and ratio in relation to each other, regarding space and time. Think of a fast forwarded video of a sunrise, for illustration.

          Regarding relics, we have been endlessly talking about that, in practice, there isn't a single reliable Radioactive Isotopic Dating Method.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • ausphor

          Vic
          Don't forget the soft dinosaur tissue and that picture of Moses and his pet wooly Mammoth, proof positive.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • distrbnce

          "It's all about scale and ratio in relation to each other, regarding space and time. Think of a fast forwarded video of a sunrise, for illustration."

          Oh boy, science lessons with Vic! Could you share the research on this?

          "Regarding relics, we have been endlessly talking about that, in practice, there isn't a single reliable Radioactive Isotopic Dating Method."

          So because there isn't a single reliable Radioactive Isotopic Dating Method (and dismissing that using many methods together is what we do), you have determined that the earth is 10,000 years old or less.

          That's brilliant.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
        • Vic

          The discovery of soft dinosaur tissue unraveled and rendered Evolutionists speechless.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
        • Vic

          The age of this creation is not detrimental to my Faith in God nor is it detrimental to the Existence of God.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
        • ausphor

          Vic
          Except the scientist that made the discovery (soft dinosaur tissue) clearly that young earth apologists hi-jacked her information and twisted it to suit there own purposes. Lying about science is something you are quite comfortable with. You bad christian, sp-ank yourself.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • ausphor

          clearly stated

          March 24, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
        • igaftr

          Vic
          "The discovery of soft dinosaur tissue unraveled and rendered Evolutionists speechless."

          False. It simply showed an easliy overcome problem. It was a minor ripple, nothing more.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
        • igaftr

          Vic
          " there isn't a single reliable Radioactive Isotopic Dating Method."

          False. Also, since we use many, we can be very accurate by getting multiple inputs. We do not use any one exclusively.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Vic
          After hundreds of hours of examination under an electron microscope, the much lauded Dino soft tissue turned out to be nothing more than 10,000 year old pond sc.um.
          You can find the scientific literature on http://www.plosone.org

          And Vic, there are many dating methods other than C14 decay.
          Some of the methods used to determine the age of the planet include:
          Stratigraphy, Dendrochronology,Obsidian Hydration Dating, Paleomagnetic/Archaeomagnetic , Luminescence Dating, Amino Acid Racemization, Fission-track Dating, Ice Cores, Cation Ratio, Fluorine Dating, Patination, oxidizable Carbon Ratio, Electron Spin Resonance , and Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating.

          March 24, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "The answer is simple. Life comes from life, and sentience comes from sentience."

          So apparently Vic's God is neither alive nor sentient. If it was then it would have to have come from some other life and some other sentience.

          March 24, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • kudlak

          Theo Phileo
          Why do you assume that what caused the beginning could not itself be physical? Who says that there was ever a time when nothing "physical" existed?

          It also fails to answer how something that isn't physical possibly could "create" matter and energy. Wouldn't creating energy be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics?

          March 24, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
      • distrbnce

        "The research points out that the existence of the universe as a causal chain requires a creator that was itself un-created."

        Uh, that's a pretty bold claim. Could you kindly share the research?

        March 24, 2014 at 11:09 am |
        • ausphor

          distrbnce
          Asking Theo for research is pointless, he has none. He will keep posting the same drivel (see his post @ 11:26 AM) over and over again with zero proof.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:34 am |
        • distrbnce

          Well what a surprise, and here I thought we would change the world...

          March 24, 2014 at 11:36 am |
        • ausphor

          distrbnce
          Changing the world is far simpler, like making the oceans more acidic, than changing the minds on the likes of Vic and Theo.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:51 am |
      • kudlak

        Do the folks who write intelligent design school textbooks ever ask students to work out which of the creator gods/beings might be the most likely candidate? Do they even mention any other creation story?

        March 24, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
  10. lunchbreaker

    I think that some people confuse the beginning of our observable universe with the beginning of everything. There is very little debate now as to whether what we can observe had a beginning. So our observable universe is part of some "thing" bigger. The question is what is that "thing"?

    March 24, 2014 at 9:12 am |
  11. Archibald Smythe-Pennington, III

    A blue hypergiant star (sometimes 72,000 degrees F) would cool down to a Y dwarf (sometimes around 80 degrees F) if it had to live very long in International Falls, MN, where it's currently -8 F this fourth day of spring.

    March 24, 2014 at 8:27 am |
    • Akira

      I feel your pain.

      March 24, 2014 at 10:57 am |
    • distrbnce

      Can't believe it's still so cold... must be one of god's plans or something.

      March 24, 2014 at 11:14 am |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        It's a bad plan

        March 24, 2014 at 11:45 am |
      • Akira

        I can't see that the Midwest is such a hotbed of __________ (insert 'sin' here) that we should be punished thusly....

        March 24, 2014 at 11:53 am |
        • distrbnce

          It's all your doubters peppered around, no doubt.

          Ol' god and his focus on american behavior and american weather

          March 24, 2014 at 11:54 am |
        • distrbnce

          Corn. Your sin is corn.

          After all, humans made it, eschewing god.

          March 24, 2014 at 11:55 am |
  12. photog58

    "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 this is where people like Ms. Wickman, make their mistake. They presume that any "cause" has to be prompted by a sentient creator. They consider these types of discoveries as "proof" of god. WHY? It may serve to them as "evidence" but evidence is not proof... it is evidence! Scientists who believe in cyclical universes or spontaneous expansion see it as evidence of how the expansion happened. They postulate that there was a cause, but do not presume to claim what that cause was. It proves nothing about what caused the "Big Bang." Jumping to the conclusion that "ripples in space time" are proof of god as creator of the universe reveals Ms Wickman's true bias. She may be a scientist, but she is first and foremost a "believer" who gravitates to the crutch of the supernatural to explain away unexplained observations as "the hand of god."

    March 24, 2014 at 7:07 am |
  13. Vic

    Brainstorming:

    Maybe the universe was spiraled into existence at creation and inflated in a spiraling fashion rather than linear. That would make it the Big Spiral Theory.

    March 24, 2014 at 4:00 am |
    • midwest rail

      Trollin, trollin, trollin...

      March 24, 2014 at 4:19 am |
    • saggyroy

      Maybe they got the math backwards and it deflated.

      March 24, 2014 at 5:41 am |
    • ausphor

      The problem with Vic is that he gets all his scientific information from religious/apologists websites. It has never occurred to him to do to NASA, CERN, or reputable scientific journals for information which is why he is often wrong.

      March 24, 2014 at 7:27 am |
      • ausphor

        to go to....

        March 24, 2014 at 7:28 am |
  14. cytanium

    "Leslie Wickman is director of the Center for Research in Science at Azusa Pacific University". Translation: Director of intentionally confusing information on the internet to preserve the creationist ideas of a private evangelical christian university with the motto "God First".

    March 24, 2014 at 2:47 am |
    • saggyroy

      I looked up her chops and they are impressive, but didn't see anything that obvious when I visited the website of her alma mater. I know they don't like to put that upfront.

      March 24, 2014 at 5:45 am |
  15. asimkahn

    Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (30) Al Quran, Al-Anbiya (21-30)

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

      Most religions have a creation story.

      March 24, 2014 at 10:45 am |
  16. mayabangthinks

    What is also the objective of searching for the origin of everything -universe, is it to understand only or to prove/disprove something else, or in hope of finding something?
    Those who would only believe should there be evidence, would there be any that will be satisfying/convincing (like doubting Thomas, which has stated his specific criteria, before believing)?

    March 23, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Well the evidence that Thomas was claimed to have personally received would be at least a start.

      March 24, 2014 at 1:13 am |
    • redzoa

      I could be mistaken, but didn't Stephen J. Gould once (perhaps tongue in cheek) nominate Thomas as the patron saint of science?

      March 24, 2014 at 2:01 am |
    • mayabangthinks

      Believers (most if not all) believe that universe's existence itself is already an evidence. End.
      Non believers on the other hand, are still searching for the reason or origin of the universe, and should they found the origin , will again continue searching for the origin of the origin. Endless. But what do they actually expect to see as the origin and will there be any satiating evidence for non believers?

      March 24, 2014 at 2:34 am |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        Everyone thinks existence is evidence of their personel perception of god...ok.

        They can't all be right....but they can all be wrong.

        March 24, 2014 at 9:38 am |
        • mayabangthinks

          So what then is the absolute basis of right and wrong?
          Believers used a book (i.e. holy scriptures) as the basis and not personal perception i guess, though it becomes personal perception when perceive and accept it to be true and right basis. So, just the same with non believers who refer to evidence/observation or others' established observations/theories , perceive (and accept) it to be true – still boils down to personal perception (on what to accept/believe) of a person. Only that, believers believe they have answers, while non believers still searching for it (i.e origin of the origin or if there is origin)

          March 25, 2014 at 11:23 pm |
  17. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    The wheels on the bus go round and round... round and round... round and round...

    March 23, 2014 at 11:25 pm |
  18. Vic

    Brainstorming:

    Maybe the universe was spun into existence at creation and inflated in a spinning fashion rather than linear. That would make it the the Big Spin Theory.

    March 23, 2014 at 8:40 pm |
    • seedenbetter

      That's what you call "brainstorming"?...lol

      March 23, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
    • nepawoods

      Spinning would require a center. The universe has no center.

      March 23, 2014 at 9:27 pm |
      • Doris

        I was going to say. We'll be able to identify Vic the next time he's at the beach. Just look for the person holding a big lopsided bunch of cotton candy.

        March 23, 2014 at 10:10 pm |
      • alwaysamuzed

        Prove it!

        March 24, 2014 at 10:13 am |
    • distrbnce

      Brainstorming:

      Maybe one of the other gods is real

      March 24, 2014 at 11:35 am |
  19. trueflyingsheep

    fact: there was a beginning.

    conclusion:
    that beginning must have been caused by something.
    and it must have been intentionally caused by an intelligent being.
    and that intelligent being must be exactly like the god that’s being described in the bible (and not, for example, be a flying spaghetti monster or a hyperintelligent shadow of blue color)

    i’m not impressed by your reasoning skills.

    March 23, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
    • whippstippler7

      Unless it was the mice. Who aren't really mice at all, but pan-dimensional intrusions into our time space, or something like that.

      March 23, 2014 at 6:25 pm |
      • Akira

        What about Southern's gnomes?

        March 23, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          Oh, dear God!!!!! You mentioned the gnomes! The Holy Gnomes! You must pay for your blasphemy with your life!

          Ahhh, Crap! I realized I mentioned them as well. Add my name to the fatwa as well.

          March 23, 2014 at 7:45 pm |
    • fyngyrz

      That is way, way more sophisticated than what she's actually saying.

      She says, the universe appears to have had a specific startup process, I don't know what caused that, ergo, it must be my imaginary friend.

      The reasoning isn't just unimpressive, it's wholly empty of value.

      March 23, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
    • nepawoods

      Why?

      March 23, 2014 at 9:23 pm |
  20. whippstippler7

    A question for Timelesswheelman: Why is it that, unlike other religious believers who are faced with images of their prophets, gods, etc, Muslims appear to be the only religious group that goes absolutely bat-shaft crazy and murderous when someone, for example, publishes a cartoon of the prophet? Why?

    I've done lots of criticizing of Christians, and some – certainly not the majority – can say hurtful things, and occasionally there are Christian nut bars who are violent, but give me a fundamentalist Christian over a fundamentalist Muslim any day of the week.

    What is is about Islam, for example, that makes it acceptable to issue a death warrant against an author – Rusdie – simply because he wrote a book?

    March 23, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
    • timelesswheelman

      You are assuming that there is one person of Islam that all Muslims follow. There isn't. There is plenty of ignorance to go around, not just in Islam. Don't believe everything you see on tv or read in the paper...

      That's like saying the pope is followed by all Christians, not just Catholics. He isn't, the Protestants, Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, Jehovah Witness, Mormons, and others do not follow the pope's decrees.

      March 23, 2014 at 6:16 pm |
      • whippstippler7

        That wasn't an answer to the question. What is it about the Muslim faith that makes people go so murderously crazy when someone post a silly cartoon? I could post a picture of Jesus doing horrible things to a goat – Christians wouldn't be marching in the streets, attacking embassies, murdering the artist who drew the picture.

        Why Muslims?

        March 23, 2014 at 6:23 pm |
        • timelesswheelman

          Which of my replies did you not read or understand? The one in which I explained all groups have misguided followers or the one in which I explained indirectly but now I will directly say that a "fatwa" is as valid as people give it credence. There is no one Muslim leader so your"fatwa" is a joke. If Muslims wanted Rushdie dead he would be.

          March 23, 2014 at 8:52 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          Timeless – you're ignoring the question. Other religions have nut bars, but what is it about followers of the Muslim faith that make them go squirrelly with violence if someone shows a picture of their precious Prophet. Did you look at the Onion link I posted??

          Again – why Muslims?

          March 23, 2014 at 9:08 pm |
      • whippstippler7

        @ timeless: for example, check out this Onion Article and pic:

        http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/

        March 23, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
        • Akira

          Lol. I love The Onion.

          March 23, 2014 at 7:48 pm |
      • Akira

        "You are assuming that there is one person of Islam that all Muslims follow. There isn’t."

        Mohammed wasn't a person?

        March 23, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
        • timelesswheelman

          You have to follow the conversation more closely. That statement refers to the present day situation in which there is no one ruler of the Muslims ALIVE on earth right now.

          Of course Mohammed is the Prophet of ALlah and is the example we will always follow and The Holy Quran was revealed to him and remains the pure unchanged word of Allah(God) in its revealed language of Arabic.

          March 23, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
        • Akira

          I'm following this thread. I replied to what you wrote. If that isn't what you meant, then please write in a clearer manner rather than chastising me because you cannot express yourself.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:08 pm |
        • Akira

          Oh, and I follow the conversation just fine. The question was asked why Muslims seem to react violently at to any criticism/portrayal of Mohammed.
          If there is anyone not following the conversation...it would be you.

          March 23, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
        • ridgewoodfeats

          I think the problem is that stipples thinks Muslims are a single orthodoxy, and that is just not true. Timeless, you made sense to me.

          March 23, 2014 at 11:27 pm |
    • s0litaire

      Probably because Christianity already has it's bat-s#@t crazy period.
      Crusades / inquisition? Remember them?

      March 24, 2014 at 7:17 am |
    • Alias

      Part of the issue is that most of the crazy stuff comes from countries that are 100% muslim. They are very sensitive to criticism because it is a personal affront as well as an insult to their 'savior'.
      The next thing to remember is that christians are just as bad if you hit them in a culturally sensitive spot. "Was jesus white?" caused more of a stir than it should have, and that wasn't in any way an insult to jesus. What would the reaction be if a non-christian made a movie that showed jesus to be just plain old human?

      March 24, 2014 at 10:36 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
« Previous entry
Advertisement
About this blog

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