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. Garet

    Good read, thanks for this article. I also feel strongly that the evidence of the big bang lines up very well with Biblical study. As said in Genesis and elsewhere, the universe is made from God's voice and spirit going forth. We also know that the universe is primarily made of light when you look at what EM radiation and any particle is made of, just as is said in the Bible.

    Science is now understanding that the 'holographic universe' is but a reverberation upon a firmament – yet believers in the one true God have known about this for quiet a while.

    Even when it comes to the long period of time given to account for the universe, I have often thought there's no real reason why such evidence or even that of evolution cause any real conflicts with the biblical account.

    If we think about the first day and the first time that the universe became transparent and visible separation of light and darkness were .. and consider the way the cosmos rotate about our sky; a day can mean a lot of things in the context of God. What's more important to me is that such a simple pattern as light is the eventual causality of life, and it essentially happened in the same order as the procession of life in the creation story.

    To say that's exactly what genesis means I'm just speculating; I neither believe nor 100% commit myself to that opinion; whatever really happened that's what God did in my view and since I wasn't there I'm not just not going to be sure. But I can be sure of the elegant relationships between all things and the beauty of super-symmetry and harmonics; these natural wonders leave me in awe and somewhat shocked when I meet the atheist scientist.

    Research studies have shown that many scientists are now trending towards believing in at least some form of divinity however; I think it's largely that we're only now letting science get the oppression it experienced over some of the religious wars fought over political reasons with little to do with actual beliefs or study. But at the heart of things, science will continue to prove God in many ways whether it intends to or not =)

    April 18, 2014 at 11:48 am |
    • Doris

      Research studies have shown that many scientists are now trending towards believing in at least some form of divinity"

      What studies, Garet?

      May 19, 2014 at 10:26 am |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        I wouldn't expect an answer that wasn't as stupid as his original post...

        LET's Religiosity Law #8 – If you routinely ignore physics, geology, astronomy, biology, etc., and are happy with “god did it” then you are mentally retarded.

        May 19, 2014 at 10:32 am |
      • igaftr

        Garet's scientific studies are in the same place his god is. In in his imagination...some people just can't handle reality, so choose to ignore it and find shelter in ther beliefs and imaginations.

        May 19, 2014 at 10:33 am |
      • Alias

        What he means is a christian college graduated someone with a degree in science.
        We now have 20% more christians scientists than before.

        May 19, 2014 at 10:37 am |
      • hotairace

        He might be referring to Neil deGrasse Tyson's comment that 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject god. That would leave some that do believe.

        May 19, 2014 at 10:39 am |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          and 15% without the cojones to admit that they also don't believe in religious superstitions

          May 19, 2014 at 11:24 am |
      • Garet

        Doris hi, these studies are from Pew Research. Incidentally they are one of the most well established and accepted sources of demographic research.


        There around the bottom of the article you'll find that while there is a greater disparity in belief than the general populace, just greater than 50% of scientists believe in some form of divine power.

        Especially if you take a look at the second infographic, http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy/528-57.gif ,
        you'll notice that in recent years this number has grown due to the newer breed of scientists coming in the most recent generation. Scientists age 18-34 are at two-thirds believing while the previous regime varies from 51%-40% believing.

        May 20, 2014 at 4:43 am |
  2. fozz47

    "(Imagine how confusing messages about gravity waves and dark matter might be to ancient Hebrew readers.)"

    If there was a God, it wouldn't be hard from him/her to create a message that was not confusing to ancient Hebrews (and not just those who read) about gravity waves and dark matter. If he/she was all powerful, this would be a simple thing.

    Man this article sucks. If the theory that the big bang was structured, why didn't it say so in the bible? And why doesn't it point to some sort of grand design that is not a Christian god? Maybe a diety we haven't discovered yet! It never fails to irk me how people can't imagine that we don't actually know enough to figure out things like if there is a reason to the universe, or an afterlife. That we just don't have the mental capability to process something like that in a rational manner.

    April 16, 2014 at 11:48 am |
    • Phil

      Just a word on Hell. It is the eternal loss of God. He doesn't condemn people to hell – it's a choice they make for themselves. If someone hates God He withdraws His grace in accordance with their free will. If someone enters eternity in that state it's too late to change and they obviously wouldn't want to. Their choice is made.

      April 16, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
    • drake1967

      It is interesting that the Bible's creation story provides a begging to the universe that fits in general terms the theory of the big bang. The Bible was written thousands of years ago. Science, which evolves in its understanding, at one time believed that was incorrect. Science is a belief system that is sometimes misinformed or fails to have all the facts. In fact history contains many cases of one generations scientific facts being proven not to be so.
      You cannot ignore the ideas generated by science, but don't be so arrogant as to believe that your facts could not be proven to be not quite100% factual someday. Point is there is so much more that we don't know then what we do know. All of you who want to sit here and say no your wrong about your version of what caused the universe to begin have no authority to do so....you just don't know.

      April 18, 2014 at 9:13 am |
    • Garet

      "If the theory that the big bang was structured, why didn't it say so in the bible?"

      It actually does say this, if you can read Hebrew. That's practically how it starts out.

      According to physics, all the normal matter and energy in the universe are reverberations on a much larger medium than spacetime itself. That much is proven empirically; the process often is assumed to be a result of the big bang

      According to the bible, this medium is dubbed the 'firmament' and a force bearing wave harmonics and everything (and the origin of said bang, it's structure, etc) is God's voice calling light into existence (just like the big bang does).

      May 14, 2014 at 9:38 pm |
  3. timelord7202

    Douglas Adams probably said it best, possibly:

    The Final Proof of the non-Existence of God was proved by a Babel Fish.

    Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

    "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

    "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED"

    "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

    "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

    April 12, 2014 at 3:57 pm |
    • Garet

      What is up with this quote? God never said that – except as a character in Douglas Adam's book.

      May 14, 2014 at 9:30 pm |
  4. s0litaire

    Game over. Science wins :


    Mathematical Proof That the Cosmos Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

    One of the great theories of modern cosmology is that the universe began in a Big Bang. It's backed up by numerous lines of evidence, such as the cosmic microwave background and so on. But what caused the Big Bang, itself? For many years, cosmologists have fallen back on the idea that the universe formed spontaneously; that the Big Bang was result of quantum fluctuations in which the universe came into existence from nothing. But is this compatible with what we know about the Big Bang itself and the theories that describe it? Now cosmologists have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously and produced the universe we see today. The proof is developed within a mathematical framework known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows a small region of empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to quantum fluctuations. Most of the time, such a bubble will collapse and disappear. The question these scientists address is whether a bubble could also expand exponentially to allow a universe to form in an irreversible way. Their proof (PDF) shows that this is indeed possible. There is an interesting corollary: the role of the cosmological constant is played by a property known as the quantum potential. This is a property introduced in the 20th century by the physicist David Bohm, which has the effect of making quantum mechanics deterministic while reproducing all of its predictions. It's an idea that has never caught on. Perhaps that will change now.


    April 11, 2014 at 10:03 am |
  5. shafiqifs

    Accepting Big Bang paradigm would mean that there is absolutely no possibility of existence of God because God had no space to exist in order to cause the Big Bang at the time of Big Bang & before. Big Bang Theory including Cosmic Inflation has been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally proved as baseless in the published paper "Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe" which is available at the journal site at http://indjst.org/index.php/indjst/issue/view/2885.
    Here is the beginning of revolution in physics. Physics, according to which God cannot exist, shall have to be soon discarded. Read http://www.express.co.uk/news/science-technology/455880/Stephen-Hawking-says-there-is-no-such-thing-as-black-holes-Einstein-spinning-in-his-grave
    Absence of Black Holes means Stephen Hawking has finally accepted that there are serious problems with both Newton's perspective of Gravity & Einstein's General Theory of Relativity because both require Black Holes at the center of the galaxies.
    This justifies standing open challenge to the adopted paradigm of physics which is at http://worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6476&tab=2
    Read also http://www.principia-scientific.org/hawking-s-latest-incantations-on-black-holes.html

    April 11, 2014 at 3:32 am |
    • drake1967

      Absence of space for god to exist? The whole idea of a creator or intelligent design is that the creator exists OUTSIDE of that which was created. There is some interesting logic written on this site but that isn't one of them. The premise of a creator means that what you see as creation did not exist and the creator made it. Just because you cant see outside of the creation does not mean that it does not exist. Just because you cannot see what is/was prior to the instant of the big bang does not mean what is/was is not or was not there.

      April 18, 2014 at 8:57 am |
  6. justpro86

    No, God has not left His name etched onto the surface of planets. However, there is abundant evidence that the universe was designed by super intelligent Agent, who purposed that the universe should exist and be capable of supporting advanced life. The design of the universe is just one line of evidence that tells us that God is real and created the universe. The design of the earth and solar system is also quite impressive. Likewise, chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that life evolved on earth. In addition, human beings are remarkably different from every other animal on earth, suggesting a departure from naturalistic processes.

    April 7, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
    • igaftr

      Too many lies...let's just say your entire post is incorrect. There is NOTHING indicating any gods, there is NO evidence of such a thing.
      you are simply deluding yourself.

      April 7, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
      • justpro86

        You contradicting my post does not make it a lie its all in science and physics that prove atheists wrong... Which is why most atheists in the laws of physics leave atheism.

        Atheists tend to fall into one of two camps. First, are the atheists who say that science cannot have anything to say about the existence of God. However, recently, the "new atheists" think that they can prove the non-existence of God through science. Although science cannot directly detect God, it can examine His creation. Consider the non-physical concept of love. We all accept that love exists, although it cannot be directly measured by science. However, if we observe those who love each other, we can indirectly measure the affect of love on these individuals' actions. For example, we might notice that they spend a lot of time together, they are constantly helping each other in various ways, and they come to each other's defense when the other is threatened in some way. Although we cannot measure love directly, we can measure the indirect effects of love. Likewise, although we cannot measure God directly, we can examine the universe to detect God's imprint on the physical world.

        April 7, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
        • igaftr

          maro baseless assertion. I work in physics, and the other 20 physisists i work with do not believe in your god as such. Most take up Einsteins position where what he referred to as "god" was not your definition. He saw it more as the undefined energies of the universe, than any ent!ty, so I have no idea where you are getting you assertions, but since there is nothing of substance to refute, well just leave it at this. your post is baseless assertion with no redeeming value, and in essense, does not even have the himts of a hypothesis.

          Please show the sources for your assertions.

          April 7, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
      • Garet

        Let's actually not just dismiss this.

        I also work in physics as well as computational geomerty and hold somewhat similar beliefs. I wouldn't say I've never seen such hand-wavey dismissive behavior in fellow scientists, but not often and not in any that I hold any respect for.

        Justpro does not need the amount of rigor we use in scientific study to assert his beliefs on a belief blog. You're just another wandering bully looking to get their rocks off this way. You have no evidence of a lack of god either therefor by your logic you've used only baseless refutation.

        Rather, there is great evidence and the entire universe is it. It's great beauty, which continually fascinates most of my fellow QCD researches and reportedly many other physicists, hold great amounts of information and relative showings of both intelligent and sentient behavior.
        While you may scoff at trying to form a personal relationship with any large cosmic force greater than yourself, thinking them innate stardust whose signals cannot even propagate fast enough for such communication, others marvel it's effectiveness and capable mechanisms which remain out of reach for human science at present.

        Likely I do not believe the exact same as Justpro about the nature of God, the bible, etc, but I enjoy paying attention to concepts from people outside of the field because they prompt investigation when you don't dismiss them. Investigation always yields something worth finding, whether or not it matches my notions ahead of time is no consequence.

        Demanding proof like that is uber lame, unproductive and ignores basic psychology.

        May 14, 2014 at 9:58 pm |
        • Torbjörn Larsson, OM

          Garet, igaftr is, as I exasperated by the lack of testable evidence for magic action and the obstinacy of magic believers to claim that there is. It can be a lie, or it is just ignorance about science. And a response is not trolling.

          You are not the only scientist in the thread. It is easy to see that "the entire universe" is not evidence for magic action. There is no mechanism, and the existence of magic action is both unevidenced and rejected by various physics, starting with thermodynamics in the 19th century.

          And since we have many pathways for its physical appearance (eternal, no boundary fluctuation, minisuperspace fluctuation, chaotic inflation initial fluctuation, et cetera), the constraints well test that the existence of the universe is supportive of that physics describes everything. (Which already cosmology does, in the same way that evolution describes all of life whether or not it covers emergence of life, by way of LCDM respectively UCA.)

          Finall, your science woo is abysmal.

          First, there are no references where researchers have published that physics outside of biology and AI research describes "showings of both intelligent and sentient behavior". Such pulications would be laughable, since biological behavior (and its AI mimicks) gives the very definition of "intelligent and sentient behavior".

          Second, you should know better than to insert an unobserved "cosmic force" under the label of science. See above for the lack of mechanism (outside of biology), so no testability. It is a deepity exchanging agency for physical forces, and the only agency we know of is us. As we all know, religious thinking confuses "what would I do" with "what would my magic agency do" as per brain scans of activity and where it is localized. (Published -09 IIRC, it's on Ed Young's blog.) That's possibly the main mechanism deepities, it helps trigger that confusion. But it looks completely ridiculous for those not afflicted with that confusion of their own brain workings.

          May 16, 2014 at 7:30 am |
        • Garet

          "It is easy to see that “the entire universe” is not evidence for magic action. There is no mechanism, and the existence of magic action is both unevidenced and rejected by various physics, starting with thermodynamics in the 19th century."

          Well that's an opinion, but it seems no more or less validated than mine by any particular measure. You're welcome to think it but I strongly disagree, as it holds to be great evidence. Perhaps there's a limit on the sort of perspectives able to process evidence on that magnitude, but I doubt this.

          Continuing to refer to it as magic action is simply your way of downplaying a valid observation. While on one side not all valid and potentially useful observations should be considered scientific per say, there are publications outside of AI and biology which present discourse on the biological analogs seen in cosmology.

          Sometimes such papers are indeed considered laughable . In recent decades these concepts have held up as valid and demonstrable facts. From simple things like the so-called 'earth heartbeat' predicted by multiple theories – some better than others, but most ridiculed as a bunch of hippies – to activity which is perfectly analogous to neuro-networks along cosmic filaments, and many others.

          Science simply seeks to provide descriptors of the processes in nature, there's not real conflict in actual science and theistic belief.

          You say, 'The Hot Big Bang has been accepted since 1964' – sure, by some people. Not all scientists accepted it today however, you do and others do.

          You also said, 'In the last part of you comment I think you confuse the evidence for HBB, which I noted is not is not “an unproven theory” but the only remaining.'

          I saw your note, you're just mistaken. There's no point in us arguing about it I think. There -are- other theories that are not disproven in inflationary Big Bang, other models for Big Bang and other models entirely. I'm not arguing the point that hot big bang may have occurred in just the way you think it did. It is simply not as conclusive as you assert and remains a correction to a theory which requires more corrections itself, even with the recent findings.

          May 16, 2014 at 9:03 am |
        • Torbjörn Larsson, OM

          "Well that’s an opinion,".

          It is _not_ an opinion that a scientific theory needs to have a mechanism, or it is not predictive. It is commonly accepted, reversely those who don't accept it is mostly pseudoscientists.

          "Continuing to refer to it as magic action is simply your way of downplaying a valid observation."

          No, it is because I can make a technical, observable definition (breaks thermodynamics), and it is equivalent with other magic agency claims (wizardry, witches, unicorns, ...) where it belongs.

          "‘The Hot Big Bang has been accepted since 1964′ – sure, by some people. Not all scientists accepted it today however, you do and others do."

          The Hot Big Bang is part of the consensus cosmology that has been ruling since 2004, if not before.

          " There -are- other theories that are not disproven in inflationary Big Bang, other models for Big Bang and other models entirely."

          Not according to Hotchkiss, who is an expert:

          "That curve is the unique prediction from analysing Planck's temperature data. There are no free parameters in defining those red lines. Once the temperature data is analysed, we can make an unchangeable prediction for what the polarisation should look like. The fact that the red line goes straight through the blue data points is absolutely remarkable. However, if one believes in the big bang and standard cosmological model, this is all that could have happened. If one doesn't believe in the big bang, then not only is there no reason to suspect that the CMB exists, or that it is polarised, but certainly not that the way the polarisation averages on particular angular scales should look like that."

          It is always revisable, and yes its details, but as general relativity the likelihood is rapidly going to zero. HBB was really solidified 2004, and now it has passed the constraint test of rejecting all other theory while surviving. To expect a reversal is possible but not useful scientifically.

          I don't think we will get further. You are either a religious apologist or trolling against inflation on science blogs. In neither case will you back down from arguing "gaps", even when the gap as here is now gone and most definitely is expected to stay gone. So it's useless for me to go over the science details yet again.

          May 19, 2014 at 9:14 am |
        • Garet

          Also, regarding where you switch topics to attempt defense another aspect of our conversation being 'not an opinion' than the original... among some other heated statements..

          Such transference usually implies this conversation is going outside the bounds of rationale and into flame war – it is time to walk away from it.

          You seem to have not been a part of the research process yourself, so I can only implore you to understand the process better if you are going to assert understanding based on scientific theories. This is not to say you don't have some good understanding of the theories themselves, but you need some context on their actual setting and application to debate these things properly.

          May 20, 2014 at 5:00 am |
        • Garet

          No, not an apologist and this is not a science blog. I do hold theological beliefs, scientific beliefs and am myself a computational physicist. I'm interested in data golfing with people.

          May 20, 2014 at 5:02 am |
        • Torbjörn Larsson, OM

          Ref to Hotchkiss: http://trenchesofdiscovery.blogspot.de/2013/04/the-universe-as-seen-by-planck-day-one.html

          May 19, 2014 at 9:15 am |
    • kudlak

      Perhaps the best argument against a super-intelligent agent creating the universe is that moderately-intelligent science fiction writers often dream up universes that are way cooler and often even "work" better than the reality we all experience.

      Ask medical doctors about the human body and you'll likely get a list of things that they would improve upon if they were the creator. The hallmark of intelligent design is most often simplicity of design. Instead, we have a convoluted body which is overly complicated in many areas, prone to damage, disease, and weird design flaws like blind spots. It is, however, exactly the kind of body we would expect to have as a product of evolution.

      If you ask an astrophysicist about the universe they might point out it's vastness as a sure marker that it wasn't designed just to give humans a habitat. It's packaging gone way beyond ridiculous levels. Like Costco wrapping a single flash drive in a galaxy-sized plastic envelop.

      April 8, 2014 at 11:52 am |
    • pandeist

      All of this simply demonstrates that the Deus of Pandeism is a superior Creator to the false gods of the ignorant theistic texts, which foist nonsense such as the Earth existing before the Sun, talking snakes, inhereted sinfulness, and resurrection of the dead. Pandeism fully accounts for, and so supersedes, all such myths through logic and reason. Blessings!!

      April 10, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
    • scarshapedstar1

      "No, God has not left His name etched onto the surface of planets. However, there is abundant evidence that the universe was designed by super intelligent Agent, who purposed that the universe should exist and be capable of supporting advanced life. The design of the universe is just one line of evidence that tells us that God is real and created the universe."

      Um... what is the design of the universe?

      "The design of the earth and solar system is also quite impressive."

      What are you talking about?

      "Likewise, chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that life evolved on earth."

      You're saying that evolution is impossible? Gee, okay, so what's up with antibiotic-resistant bacteria? Which rock did you crawl out from exactly?

      "In addition, human beings are remarkably different from every other animal on earth, suggesting a departure from naturalistic processes."

      Um, no. We're 99.6% identical to chimpanzees, for starters.

      It's quite impressive to have literally every part of a post be untrue.

      April 10, 2014 at 8:33 pm |
  7. jaareshiah

    How much thought does it require to recognize that the universe with its estimated 400 billion galaxies (Ethan Siegel, theoretical astrophysicist who specializes in cosmology said that he "wouldn't be surprised to find that there are maybe even close to a trillion galaxies in the observable universe.", Discover magazine, Oct 10, 2012), could not have come by accident ?

    When a person enters a housing development of say 20 homes, they never think that these houses arrived here accidentally, but clearly understand that they are the product of an architectural mind that brought them to reality. What of the universe with its unimaginable proportions and complexity that is mind-boggling, that stretches the mental capacity "to the limit" ?

    David in the Bible wrote some 3,000 years ago: "In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God.”(Ps 10:4) Many who exalt evolution and deride the Bible "makes no (serious) investigation." David further wrote that "the foolish one says in his heart: “There is no Jehovah.” (Ps 14:1)

    If the odds of a single protein that contains only 100 amino acids of coming into existence at random has been calculated as a million billion (see the online brochure The Origin of Life – Five Questions Worth Asking, pg 6, at JW.org), then what are to odds of a single cell in the human body that is made up of about 10,000,000,000 protein molecules of several hundred thousand different kinds of protein molecules to come into existence by chance ?

    Then calculate the odds of the universe with all life as coming into being at random. Where does this put us ? The number would be so huge that it would be impossible to find the end of it, thus passing the threshold of the impossible. So where does logic and reason take us ? That the universe and all life is not a product of a random accident, but is the intentional concept and creation of a Supreme Designer. The Bible provides his name as Jehovah.(Isa 42:5)

    April 5, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
    • s0litaire

      Ahh the "Reverse Probability" argument...
      Pitty you fail at the first step.
      You are looking at the result and seeing how improbably it would be for that result to happen...

      But guess what *IT DID HAPPEN* or you would not be here.
      The probability of life occurring in this universe is 100% (we are living proof)

      you say "... the odds of a single protein that contains only 100 amino acids of coming into existence at random has been calculated as a million billion..." yes a single protein suddenly popping into existence with 100 amino acids is probably a very large gigantic number. but that didn't happen. But how many random mutations would it need of a soup of Amino Acids to combine and recombine into a stable protein chain of 100? That's a slightly smaller number which over hundred of thousands of years is possible.

      Just because something has a probability of say "1 in a million" does not mean it will take till the 999,999'th failure for a positive result to happen! It can happen on the first try or the 50,000th try! it means statistically if you do the test a number of times you will on average hit the correct result once every million or so attempts (i.e. you do the test 10 million times and you only get 10 positives then that's on average a 1 in a million chance)

      April 5, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
      • drake1967

        You have to admit it is interesting that The Bible, written thousands of years ago, predicted a "begging" to the universe which many who think their science is the "gospel" would have disputed by that very same science is gospel logic not too long ago.
        There is NOT proof God does not exist. All of the rules of this universe began at the time the universe began. NOBODY knows what happen the instance just prior to that. Just because you don't believe that some intelligence didn't initiate the universe doesn't make it so and your science is based on rules that did not exist prior to the instant the universe started. Nothing that makes sense to you now scientifically mattered then.

        April 17, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
        • Torbjörn Larsson, OM

          "There is NOT proof God does not exist. All of the rules of this universe began at the time the universe began. NOBODY knows what happen the instance just prior to that."

          We do have evidence rejecting creationism now. Its claim is even more insanely erroneous than homeopathy in the light of inflation. (Inflation dilutes purported creationist "magic seed" volumes 150 orders of magnitude, water dilutes purported homeopath "magic seed" chemicals 30 orders of magnitude.)

          Time began before this universe resulted from the stop of Cold Inflation and its result in the Hot Big Bang. The universe volume, and later the structures inhabiting it, was all a result of quantum fluctuations in the inflation field (see eg Susskind's cosmological lectures on youtube). Since those are quantum, there were no hidden variables, it was all spontaneous.

          The current looking best inflation physics, Linde's chaotic inflation, starts spontaneously too. All you need is a quantum fluctuation in a "minisuperspace", which amounts to the largest set of physics there can be. (A wavefunction of the universe, where the small waves goes away by interference and what remains is stable physics.) Time and space emerged then, and the "rules" (physics laws of symmetries and symmetry breaking).

          If you ask for the primordial wavefunction,quantum mechanics is the unique minimal parameter, minimal variable likelihood statistics that describes states (physics). It is only an expression of existence, and the latter is what we have and must have. How do you describe 'nothing'? You can't.

          May 13, 2014 at 8:40 am |
        • Torbjörn Larsson, OM

          And no, a "beginning" of the universe isn't a unique idea. Conversely, if your magic myth described cycles like hinduism or mayan mythology, you would just say those are correct instead. It is pattern search, and posterior likelihood is at least 50 % on simple yes/no claims. There are many claims in each myth...

          May 13, 2014 at 8:44 am |
        • Torbjörn Larsson, OM

          Oops. I meant prior likelihood.

          May 13, 2014 at 8:44 am |
        • Garet

          I just had to come back to this blog due to the mentioning of infllation as a 'proof' of anything. Inflation is a highly speculative and unproven set of multiple competing concepts. Each of these concepts exist to correct problems noticed in the Big Bang theory which itself remains an unproven theory. Corrections do not prove the validity of the original and neither do gravity waves, there are numerous possible origins for the current state of the universe.

          A scientists comes with with equations describing a possible origin mechanic and then describes the flow of said mechanics along vectors which arrive at the current Standard Model. Following, if the theoretical equations account well for yet unobserved phenomenon and match up with all known phenomenon, perceived validity is increased. If you know anything about actual physics research, you realize there is little difference in this and describing how multiple shapes can morph into a particular end state in plain geometry, only with many rules.

          Because of this, there are many inflation theories and many origin theories within astronomy, astrophysics, quantum astrophysics, string theory and other research. Inflation is the hot topic in media but it is not even the most widely accepted theory among scientist, and certainly no particular inflation theory is accepted enough to promote the Big Bang to a principle, even with all the media attention it gets.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation#Fine-tuning_problem is a rough start to the subject of the issues with inflation theory.

          Now then, I do believe that inflation really is process which our current universe is capable of producing; however there are major implications to assuming the exact nature of a universe-wide inflationary period at the beginning.

          One major issue is that one may take virtually any inflation theory and skew the manifolds and vectors in either direction (while shortening or lengthening the timespan of inflation appropriately) and arrive at essentially the same exact result. Some have notices this can lead to taboo results wherein the galaxies, solar systems and planets are forced to coalesce quite quickly and get uncomfortably close to a much smaller time scale for the universe without really messing with the standard model.

          The shorter inflation is, the older the universe must be for light to travel to our present location once it has ended. Conversely the longer inflation is thought to last along a given vector, the younger the universe is while arriving at the same result. Problem being no inflation theory really limits this skewing in any way. Various theories merely initiate the process with particular constants assumed to line up kindly with the age and vectors being sought out retrospectively. Compared to the corrections which theories themselves are, modifications for quantum mechanical forms at arbitrary timespans for the inflationary period is actually very trivial.

          In any case, even with the cool gravity waves, none of these are proven. Inflation is not the first set of theories to predict gravity waves or an epicenter to the universe either, so not much has changed on that front except that we can now make models which reflect these waveforms and weed out disagreeing models.

          May 13, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
        • Torbjörn Larsson, OM

          That description seems erroneous.
          – The Hot Big Bang has been conclusively tested by the high-l mode cosmic microwave background polarization signals it has released in more or less raw form in seminars. "That curve is the unique prediction from analysing Planck's temperature data. There are no free parameters in defining those red lines. Once the temperature data is analysed, we can make an unchangeable prediction for what the polarisation should look like. The fact that the red line goes straight through the blue data points is absolutely remarkable. However, if one believes in the big bang and standard cosmological model, this is all that could have happened. If one doesn't believe in the big bang, then not only is there no reason to suspect that the CMB exists, or that it is polarised, but certainly not that the way the polarisation averages on particular angular scales should look like that."
          [ http://trenchesofdiscovery.blogspot.se/2013/04/the-universe-as-seen-by-planck-day-one.html ]
          – The recent BICEP2 results of seeing primordial gravity waves, who must be and is expected to be confirmed soon, is considered to provide the remaining, nearly unique, test for inflation.

          The spectral running of inflation is nearly unique in itself, but more theories can mimick the result than for PGW. The BICEP2 nearly excludes everything else but inflation on its lonseoms, and the confirmation with expected increased resolution may do so.

          – Length of inflation, eg parameter choice. I don't think that is a problem in CI, which has something like 10^22 efolds vs the necessary 60. =D

          I saw a paper earlier today in PRL that notes that BICEP2 promises that inflation will be pinned down (no parameter choice). In quite short time, it seems. "If the signal is confirmed, then two sets of experiments covering larger area will shed light
          on inflation. Low resolution measurements can pin down the tensor to scalar ratio at the percent
          level, thereby distinguishing models from one another. A high angular resolution experiment will
          be necessary to measure the tilt of the tensor spectrum, testing the consistency relation that relates
          the tilt to the amplitude." [ http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.6310v2.pdf ; the last is the outstanding sanity test on the smoking gun evidence.]

          May 14, 2014 at 8:55 am |
        • Garet

          well that's nice you have faith in BICEP2 and the processes used to interpret it's data. It's very popular in the media lately and has definitely gained some favor.

          I have believed in CMB for a long time before it was popular and long before caring whether or not big bang was true. the standard model can account for polarized CMB a number of ways. Further, I don't have any qualms about BICEP2's great resolution or it's readouts but there are numerous models which may be used to arrive at the same result.

          You can say that Hot Big Bang has been conclusively tested, but that's not what the physics community at large says from the results.

          Really it only says that the readings don't disagree with with certain configurations of hot big bang theory, so that form of inflation has held out in the running with a few others plus various non-inflation based theories.

          What it does do is give us a stronger test to say, a theory must include this polarization to be accurate.

          May 14, 2014 at 8:19 pm |
        • Torbjörn Larsson, OM

          "I have believed in CMB for a long time before it was popular and long before caring whether or not big bang was true."

          The CMB was predicted 1948. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background ] That doesn't tell me much. It didn't become essential until 2004, when WMAP made the first test of a complete consistent cosmology (LCDM).

          "the standard model can account for polarized CMB a number of ways."

          Well, yes, and the point is that the B mode at low l that BICEP2 utilizes is not connected to the other mechanisms. See the BICEP2 archive.

          "You can say that Hot Big Bang has been conclusively tested, but that’s not what the physics community at large says from the results."

          The Hot Big Bang has been accepted since 1964, with the discovery of the CMB making it the best theory. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#History ] WMAP 2004 made it part of the larger inflationary cosmology that was the first and only self consistent cosmology fitting observations. (Ekpyrotic cosmology is a mimic, it contains another type of inflation.) And as Hotchiss claims, young cosmologist as he is, nothing but the Hot Big Bang can produce the Planck data. Whether it is embedded in inflaton quantum field ("inflation") or ekpyrotic cosmology.

          In the last part of you comment I think you confuse the evidence for HBB, which I noted is not is not "an unproven theory" but the only remaining. Whether or not the preceding CI will stand is of course still open, but it has passed its first "smoking gun" test.

          May 16, 2014 at 7:47 am |
        • Torbjörn Larsson, OM

          But mostly I'm not counting the skins before the bear is shot. That inflation has now swayed the consensus before do not exclude that there is a high degree of dilution in LCDM, which is correct since 2004, whether or not you refer to ekpyrotic scenario (now in high stress) or chaotic/eternal inflation. That was the gist here, creationism is worse magic than homeopathy.

          I'm just using the recently PGW find and its verification of inflation to make the argument cleanly, it is easier to compare and no one (very few) any longer expects ekpyrotic scenarios to be correct.

          May 14, 2014 at 9:01 am |
    • s0litaire

      Douglas Addams quote to highlight my point:
      Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, may have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.

      April 5, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
    • igaftr

      "That the universe and all life is not a product of a random accident, but is the intentional concept and creation of a Supreme Designer"

      How exactly does your flawed math show any "designer"?
      You claim smething is impossible when it is improbable, and then claim it shows a "designer" when it does not suggest that at all.

      April 5, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
      • nepawoods

        jaareshiah just copies and pastes from Jehova witnesses literature with absolutely zero evidence of giving any thought to anything.

        April 7, 2014 at 8:31 am |
      • justpro86

        Before the 20th century, atheists assumed that the universe was eternal. However, beginning with Einstein's theory of general relativity,1 and early observational evidence,2 it became apparent that the universe was expanding. Extrapolating back in time revealed that the universe was merely billions of years old. The data eventually led to the "Big Bang" theory, which is virtually universally accepted by modern day cosmologist.3 Attempts to get around the idea4 that the universe had a beginning3 have all met with observational difficulties.5 The idea that the universe could have gone through an infinite number of births and deaths (the oscillating universe theory) was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to a "Big Crunch" instead of another Big Bang.6 So, we have come to realize that the universe first began to exist 13.8 billion years ago. Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct observational evidence for either belief. Those who are "strong atheists" (not working out in the gym, but having a belief that no god exists) have just violated one of the main rules of atheism – that all beliefs are based upon observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

        The problem actually gets worse for the atheist. The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting some level of design. If true, then the observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.

        April 7, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
        • s0litaire

          Here we go again with the Religo-logic...

          You think that because the universe has such a small margin for life that must mean life must have been artificially created to exsist within those tight limits! ?

          The only reason life exsists within that tight narrow margin is because that's the only margin life could exsist in! outside of that margin life can't survive

          In a terrible but apt example would be a barren field with no plantlife. 99% of that field is to salty or dry for plants to gorw. only a small 1% can support plant life. what happens? well spores and seeds float on the wind to the field, most land on the 99% that can't support it so they die, a few lucky seeds/spores land on that tiny 1% and grow and florrish.

          NO GOD REQUIRED!

          If the conditions can't support life then life can't grow! In the range that CAN SUPPORT LIFE, it tends to florish and grow.

          NO GOD REQUIRED!

          April 7, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • justpro86

          God is required for such complexity of life forms which is our body and its engines to run. Sorry your logic is flawed. The sun is not perfectly positioned upon the earth by accident it was placed there for a reason and purpose to support life which is God attended... We are not on this planet on accident we did not evolve from a single cell that theory has been debunked for many years...

          April 7, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
        • igaftr

          " The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting some level of design."
          False. That is simply a lie. You are attempting to jump to an unjustified conclusion, where no conclusion can be logically drawn.

          April 7, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • justpro86

          Sure there is and that this universe and our meaning to be alive has a purpose. It also draws a conclusion that Atheists refuse to accept that there is a god because nothing but a god can create something so complex that the most intelligent minds cannot comprehend. So really no lie in what I have posted

          April 7, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • spinzgirl

          So how did God randomly occur? Or was he created by some "higher higher power?" Logic does not apply when you are using an argument that negates your argument.

          April 8, 2014 at 11:25 am |
    • nepawoods

      jaareshiah, I agree that " the wicked man makes no investigation", and that would be you. You continue to willfully cling to your own ignorance about science. You ask stupid questions like "what are to odds of a single cell in the human body ... come into existence by chance?". It's a stupid question because nobody says it happened by chance. You've been told this before, many times, but you make no investigation regarding what science actually says. Instead, you cling to ignorance. Why make a fool of yourself by pretending to criticize science when you know nothing about it, and refuse to learn? It's called a "straw man". You can't find flaws in current scientific theories, so instead you prop up false ones of your own to attack, such as that a living cell came together by chance. It's dishonest, and it's sad that you think your god is served by your dishonesty.

      April 7, 2014 at 8:27 am |
      • justpro86

        The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model. The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics.

        April 7, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
    • spinzgirl

      Actually that would be architects, skilled workers, natural resources and man-made building tools. No architect that I'm aware of can snap his or her fingers and 20 houses just pop up. And no one assumes that one single architect existed alone in the universe devoid of light and structure.

      April 8, 2014 at 11:29 am |
    • scarshapedstar1

      What number of planets would convince you that it was an accident? What's so special about 400 billion?

      April 10, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
  8. Bob

    Salero21's posts are evidence that he is an idiot.

    April 3, 2014 at 9:19 pm |
    • justpro86

      His post is pretty accurate

      April 4, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
      • igaftr

        If by accurate you mean completely baseless with nothing to support it, then yes, it is accurate.
        Most of us call that wrong.

        April 7, 2014 at 8:49 am |
        • justpro86

          Sorry his posts are correct

          April 7, 2014 at 11:58 am |
        • igaftr

          If you claim his assertions are correct, by all means, show how.
          He claims that things existing are evidence of a creator, when that is simply false. It is a possibility, but by no means is there any evidence of a creator. That is akin to me saying that all of the wind is created by giant invisible dragons. The wind exists, so the dragons must exist. See the problem? ( I guess you don't)

          Then he claims god created light. There is nothing indicating that is true, other than an often wrong source called the bible ( which means book)

          Please, by all means, just resort to your usual "yes it is".
          In reality, there is nothing showing any creator, nothing showing any gods, there is nothing that leans toward or suggests a creator, since there are so many other possibilities. I know you don't even bother with those other possibilities, since you believe in your flawed book.

          April 7, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
  9. Salero21

    Creation is the Evidence of the Creator who is God!!!

    April 2, 2014 at 6:12 pm |
  10. Salero21

    Well more bad news for atheists evolutionists etc. God Created Light before HE Created the stars and all other commonly believe to be sources of light. Therefore is Totally useless to try to use the estimated speed of light a measure of the age of the Universe.

    April 2, 2014 at 6:09 pm |
  11. Tim Harris

    "We also need to remember that God reveals himself both through scripture and creation."

    –Truer words were never spoken.

    April 2, 2014 at 8:47 am |
    • Tim Harris

      In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

      April 2, 2014 at 8:49 am |
      • igaftr

        Before "in the beginning" , a bunch of men wrote down a story they made up, and started this story with "in the beginning"

        April 2, 2014 at 8:54 am |
        • justpro86

          Pretty hard for a bunch of "men" to have predict the return of the Nation of Israel... The rebirth of Israel is one of the most extraordinary and unlikely of all the prophecies in the Bible. In an earlier portion of this book we examined the marvelous precision of the prophecy in which Ezekiel predicted that Israel would be reborn in the spring of 1948.

          Jesus Christ foretold the rebirth of Israel in his famous prophecy of the "fig tree" budding that was recorded in Matthew's Gospel. Our Lord declared in Matthew 24:32-35: "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." No other ancient nation ever ceased to exist for a period of centuries and then returned to take its place on the stage of world history. "Who hath heard such a thing? Who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children" (Isaiah 66:8).

          Most nations evolved gradually over the centuries, such as Egypt or France. In the time of the ancient prophecies, no one had ever witnessed a nation being created "in one day." Yet, in his prediction, Isaiah prophesied that Israel would come into existence in "one day." The prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel were fulfilled precisely as predicted on May 15, 1948.

          April 4, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • igaftr

          Your assertion that the return of Isreal was foretold as if that was the case, is absurd.

          It was written into the bible, there were enough people who believed it, that they worked to make it happen. That is self fulfilling "prophecy". It is very likely that it would NOT have happend if it weren't written in the bible in the first place.

          If I predict that a castle will be built on a hill, and a hundred people believe it should happen, and then make it happen, that is an example of self-fulfilling prophecy, and so is the nation of Isreal.
          You have figured this one wrong.

          April 5, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • justpro86

          Are you that ignorant? Bible predicted the re rising of Israel and nobody really believed it to happen especially Pakistan who still today believes they should still occupy the country and keep it as their own... Creating a nation in one day especailly by a lot of misplaced Jews is impossible but like the Bible predicted those Jews that use to live all over the world just formed up and took over israel in ONE day is very impressive.... Sure your theory could work with the castle but a castle is completly different than rebuilding a nation.. So your post fails on many accounts...

          April 7, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
      • Tim Harris

        The clearest sensation that a human being has when he experiences the holy is an overpowering and overwhelming sense of creatureliness. That is, when we are in the presence of God, we are humbled and become most aware of ourselves as creatures. This is the opposite of Satan's original temptation, "You shall be as gods. R.C. Sproul

        April 2, 2014 at 9:07 am |
        • Tim Harris

          Psalm 19:1The heavens declare the glory of God;
          the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
          2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
          night after night they reveal knowledge.

          April 2, 2014 at 9:11 am |
        • Tim Harris


          April 2, 2014 at 9:12 am |
    • igaftr

      If by true you mean baseless, unverified, and unsubstantiated belief, then yes.

      April 2, 2014 at 8:50 am |
    • nepawoods

      "God reveals himself both through scripture"

      And men, and only men, decide what is scripture, and what isn't. God is whatever man makes him to be. Your scripture is not the next guys scripture, unless the two of you agreed.

      April 2, 2014 at 10:12 am |
  12. Reversatire

    That video might be the most unscientific representation of science news in history of news. "[the telescope] allows [physicists] to see to infinity and beyond"? And in what universe is "a trillionth of a second" is a measurement of rate?

    Also, this "Big Bang confirms Jewdeo-Christian genesis" claim has been made before... the first time by the Pope when Big Bang was first proposed by a Belgian physicist and a catholic priest named Georges Lemaître, who actually came up with the name Big Bang. Upon finding out that the Pope had attempted to use his theory to reaffirm the genesis account of creation, wrote the Pope a lengthy letter telling him why he does not appreciate the Pope twisting his discovery into something it isn't.

    CNN really outdone itself this time. I wish journalists would do at least some research before blurting out the first "theory" that pops into their heads.

    April 1, 2014 at 10:32 am |
    • Reversatire

      Correction: Lamaitre did not come up with the term Big Bang, but called it the "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or "the cosmic egg". Hoyle, who coined the term Big Bang, actually intended it to be derogatory and used it to make fun of the theory.

      April 1, 2014 at 10:39 am |
  13. Dayo Adewoye

    Reblogged this on The Christian Mind.

    April 1, 2014 at 9:34 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      A fallacious website set up for the gullible...way to lie to the masses...what a fool you are!

      April 1, 2014 at 9:51 am |
      • Dayo Adewoye

        What site are you referring to?

        April 1, 2014 at 10:23 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Your blog. Why a blog about one of the most vicious, lying belief systems ever? Why a blog portraying the christian god? Innocent children should not be exposed to such hate!

          April 1, 2014 at 10:28 am |
        • Dayo Adewoye

          You describe Christianity as a 'vicious, lying belief system'? Why do you think so?

          April 1, 2014 at 10:39 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Have you never read the bible? Condoning slavery; rape; oppression of women; child abuse...lying about the beginnings of our universe and species; lying about the flood; lying about a virgin birth; lying about a resurrection; demanding idolatry; condoning hatred of LGBT.
          Before telling me, like most christians do, that I don't know what I speak of, do note that as a Recovering christian I have a very good idea as to what I speak of and any rational minded person see's the belief for the true horror it is.

          April 1, 2014 at 11:11 am |
        • nepawoods

          6 billion people on the planet are confronted with a number of religions, each passed down in ancient texts from many centuries ago. If you don't choose the right ancient text to believe, you will suffer for eternity in a pit of fire. Most versions of Christianity teach that this is good and just. Who doesn't see the evil in that?

          April 1, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
        • truthfollower01


          On atheism, do you believe morality exists?

          April 1, 2014 at 10:19 pm |
        • truthfollower01


          Richard Dawkins has said, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

          Why, on atheism is he wrong?

          April 1, 2014 at 10:21 pm |
        • hotairace

          Ummm, Dawkins is not wrong. You are full of sh!it.

          April 1, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
        • truthfollower01


          I quoted Dawkins because Nepa was indicating something was evil.

          April 1, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
        • truthfollower01


          I want to tell you that God loves you.

          April 1, 2014 at 10:38 pm |
        • hotairace

          And I want to tell you and your god to fuck off but that wouldn't be nice.

          April 1, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • nepawoods

          truthfollower01, "I quoted Dawkins because Nepa was indicating something was evil"

          Are you saying you don't believe in the concepts of right and wrong, good and evil?

          If you do, do you believe what I described is good and just?

          (II'm not sure of the relevance of Dawkins – I'm not a fan – decent biologist, appalling amateur philosopher)

          April 2, 2014 at 10:20 am |
  14. Mona

    Reblogged this on Pen to Paper..Spirit to Soul...

    April 1, 2014 at 5:28 am |
  15. ongchowlek4411

    Gravity from space (Einstein’s relativity) operates on mass through space and matter interaction is a natural process like centrifugal force which made its appearance when a body is morning in circle Jean mass is the amount of matter that must be present before gravity becomes effective or felt, once this minimum amount of matter is reached or exceeded, gravity with mass interact with space-time to bring geodesics and gravity begin to control other bodies and then orbit around each other, another aspect of the twin effect of gravity and mass is the necessity to account for energy required to sustain gravitating mass and where does this energy originating from Einstein’s field equation says from space but never refer to the origin of gravitation . To explain ‘Big Bang’ merely by gravitational ware detection is in complete, the formula must be more illustrative than the equation of Relativity which indicated that it can be a point in space. Other aspect of matter, rest mass for example could be used to calculate “k” constant of Einstein’s field equation using ‘’space-potential’’ approach to support Big Bang which you shared so delightfully with you religious view.

    March 30, 2014 at 10:37 pm |
    • Reversatire

      There is no centrifugal force. It's an illusion effect.

      April 1, 2014 at 10:42 am |
  16. joeyy1


    March 30, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
  17. auntiekale

    Rather an insult to this massive discovery to attribute it to such a small idea as God. Gods don't explain anything, they never did, that's the point, to just stop trying to think and learn and grow, and salivate over not dying when you die. A sad joke.

    March 29, 2014 at 8:24 pm |
  18. joeyy1


    March 28, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
    • 734228a910p71hi085

      no there was not any big bang, 0+0=1 ? <–not so. 0+o=0 , the big bang is nothing creating nothing? Dream on. Yahveh created everything. for example how many of you are familiar with the first earth age? probably not very many. In the first earth age God Created all souls and angels and that is when dinosaurs were alive . years pass and in so many millions of years pass the bible does not say just how many years past but it was the first earth age when Lucifer rebelled against God and took 1/3 of the children of God with him. So God loving His Many other children destroyed the first earth age Instead of His children Its not Gods will that anyone perish but that all repent (return to Heavenly Father) and Live. Most will think i am speaking of noahs flood but i am not this was a ways before even Abraham let alone noah. The firmament crashed down giving us the oceans, the northern most point is kinda off,, and everything was made null and void . thanks to satans rebellion and katabole<- is rebellion. but God didnt create the earth null and void which is tohu bohu in Hebrew.

      So NO big Bang has ever occurred, not ever. God created everything, just think of the cell how detailed and wonderfully made, that could never have happened if there was NO THING. its just hard to understaand just why a certain area in science makes these things up. If it was True science it will prove God . and and God but Just only God. As many of you are not familiar with the 4 hidden dynasties either but is true there are four hidden dynasties. 1) politics, 2)economy, 3) ecology,and finally satan favorite to play with 4) religion.

      Christianity is not a religion – its a reality meaning that first you learn it in the proper way which is chapter by chapter and verse by verse. you need proper tools such as the companion bible and the stronge concordance with hebrew and greek dictionaries. Most dont know that, and then you study it to shew yourself approved to God and when you Please God he will show you more but you need to prove yourself. and finally you apply the lessons God let you know to your everyday life, and dont worry if you still transgress the law Christ Jesus made it so that all you need to do is sincerely ask for forgiveness and then those sins are GONE for good . thats why Jesus Died for you so you get the healing.

      March 29, 2014 at 6:05 am |
      • TruthPrevails1

        Nice child like rant, now if only you could provide verifiable evidence for your delusional spewing you might be taken seriously.

        March 29, 2014 at 6:24 am |
        • 734228a910p71hi085

          I have evidence but it wont post. I tried 4 times to post it. You know something ? you really need to partake in that special bread that God told Ezekiel to make in chapter 4 :9-14

          4 Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and pourtray upon it the city, even Jerusalem: 2 and lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it, and set battering rams against it round about. 3 Moreover take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall bea sign to the house of Israel. 4 Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it:according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. 5 For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. 6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year. 7 Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and thine arm shall be uncovered, and thou shalt prophesy against it. 8 And, behold, I will lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege.

          9 Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof. 10 And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it. 11 Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink. 12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. 13 And the Lord said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.

          14 Then said I, Ah Lord God! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. 15 Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.

          16 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment: 17 that they may want bread and water, and be astonied one with another, and consume away for their iniquity.

          i was not spewing but u were. http://www.biblestudysite.com/1stage.htm <- evidence

          here but i already know you will have something negative and rude to say or you will prolly wont check it out because you dont believe in God and prolly are some kind of communist. Who were Orginally Khazers, But knowing how you are you prolly dont think that they are a real people and they were . they where turk/mogogloids(*co*u*gh) people. everyone hated those people they always talk dung.

          March 29, 2014 at 7:04 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          So in other words all you have is the bible and nothing more because if have actual evidence, you'd be the first and you should be sharing it with the world, unless of course what you consider evidence is simply your own personal stories in which case it is only evidence to you and does not pertain outside of your small mind. Using the bible to evidence your god is circular evidence and fails. The bible is full of fallacies and immorality. You might actually try reading it with an open mind...it is the quickest path to disbelief.

          March 29, 2014 at 7:09 am |
        • ddeevviinn


          I'm guessing this one is actually on your side. Incognito.

          March 29, 2014 at 9:49 am |
        • Akira

          Devin: I think you're right...in calling Poe.
          What convinced me:
          "here but i already know you will have something negative and rude to say or you will prolly wont check it out because you dont believe in God and prolly are some kind of communist. Who were Orginally Khazers, But knowing how you are you prolly dont think that they are a real people and they were . they where turk/mogogloids(*co*u*gh) people. everyone hated those people they always talk dung."

          March 29, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • hotairace

          Not a Poe. Just a delusional believer whose first language is not English.

          March 29, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • Akira

          Think so? I think the gratuitous use of commie is pretty telling.
          That, and the way he structures his sentences in a nonsensical manner leads me to think he's having us on.

          March 29, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
      • nepawoods

        Science doesn't say that the big bang began with nothing, so your entire rant is pointless.

        March 29, 2014 at 9:30 am |
      • hotairace

        Is there any possibility that your alleged but never proven god does not exist?

        March 29, 2014 at 9:47 am |
      • Reversatire

        I can't answer to your latest comment, but I think you meant Khazars (not Khazers). Yes, of all the crap that came out of you, that's the one I'm choosing to correct.
        BTW, thank you. I was starting to think life is just too boring to keep living, but your rant gave me a new breath. I haven't had this good a laugh in a long time.

        April 1, 2014 at 10:55 am |
    • MidwestKen


      March 30, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
  19. observer


    "Just drop all the hatred in the posts"

    I don't hate anyone. Please give an example.

    March 28, 2014 at 5:09 pm |
  20. guidedans

    Atheists want to point out Christianity's perceived flaws in order to show how stupid Christians are for believing what they do.

    Christians want to point out Atheism's perceived flaws because Christians do not want to see their brethren parish.

    If an Atheist converts a Christian and the Atheist is correct, it is one more person in the ground when they die. If a Christian converts and Atheist and the Christian is right, it is one more person in Heaven when they die.

    Why are the Atheists on this board so hateful?

    March 28, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
    • hotairace

      Yet another rehash of the soundly debunked Pascal's Wager. . .

      Why is questioning religion hateful? Compare neutral questioning to a christian's heartfelt but evil damnation of atheists to (the christian's) hell?

      March 28, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
      • guidedans

        Questioning Christianity is not hateful. Saying things like, "PS: "♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰" is 100% Pure Bulls.hit!" is hateful. Calling God a "Sky-fairy" is hateful. There are many things the atheists on this board say that are hateful and go much farther than just "questioning".

        Christians don't damn atheists to Hell either. Christians, in fact, are only on these boards to try to convince you all that you don't have to be damned to Hell. The Bible details what happens to non-believers. We are trying to get you all to not have to have that experience.

        March 28, 2014 at 4:43 pm |
        • hotairace

          Neither of your examples are hateful. You just don't like what they say and think we hate you, your imaginary friends or your myths. You are merely feeling your own insecurities about your childish, bullsh!t beliefs.

          March 28, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
        • guidedans


          Do you really not see how, "You are merely feeling your own insecurities about your childish, bullsh!t beliefs" is just a mean, and hateful thing to say?

          You had a good idea earlier though. I will just ignore it going forward.

          Go to God, Hotairrace. This is the last time I will speak with you.

          March 28, 2014 at 5:25 pm |
        • hotairace

          Bye Bye! You're not the first and likely not the last believer that's running from the truth. Enjoy your delusions but please keep your craziness away from children.

          March 28, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
        • observer


          You have valid complaints, but there should be far more respect and less rudeness on BOTH sides.

          Certainly atheists can make degrading insults, but what can they say that tops the "elephant in the room" - the bottom line for Christians is the (sometimes subtle) message that "if you don't do exactly as I say, you are such lowlife that you deserve to spend eternity burning in hell".

          March 28, 2014 at 5:34 pm |
        • likklehero

          Words are not hateful – ideas are.

          Would you prefer a word such as childish or silly instead of BS? Is that somehow less hateful.

          I find many of ideas of christianity to be hateful – hateful to women, hateful to gays, and hateful to atheists. You seem to have pity for followers of other religions (they are just mistaken), but if you reject all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo, you deserve scorn and what you feel are my "just" rewards. I find this to be extremely hateful.

          I am not intolerant of other religious views – I actually belong to a Unitarian church where I am accepted as an atheist. I don't care if you believe that you will join your god in whatever version of the afterlife you want to imagine, but the idea that hell even exists is a hateful idea. The idea that anyone, anywhere deserves eternal torment is the most hateful idea I can think of. I could spout obscenities until I lose my voice and nothing could be as hateful as your need to "save" me.

          March 28, 2014 at 6:06 pm |
        • guidedans


          I totally agree with you, and both sides are guilty of the less-than-respectful speech sometimes.

          About that "elephant," you have to understand that Christians don't (or shouldn't) think that Atheists are any worse people in general than Christians. In Christianity, the belief is that all people are sinful and fall short of the glory of God. That doesn't mean you are not a good person, it just means you are not good enough to deserve an eternal connection with God.

          We believe that we were all headed to Hell before we gave our lives to Jesus. Anyhow, It is up to God what He does with everyone, not us. We just know what we have been commanded to do, and that is to preach the Gospel.

          No getting around that, but I think it can be communicated in a respectful way.

          March 28, 2014 at 6:09 pm |
        • likklehero


          I truly feel that your basic belief in the concept of hell is hateful. The fact that you feel that you, yourself deserve it is truly sad.

          Christianity is truly sad in their sh1tty self-image and perceived dominance over the planet/universe.

          March 28, 2014 at 6:19 pm |
        • observer


          The world would be a far better place if EVERYONE actually believed in the concept of the Golden Rule.

          "Christians don't (or shouldn't) think that Atheists are any worse people in general than Christians."

          While Christians SHOULDN'T think that atheists are worse, you have to be realistic and admit that VERY FEW Christians believe that. That is a factor in the negative feelings of many atheists toward Christians. It's a two-way street with spiraling anger for both sides.

          March 28, 2014 at 6:21 pm |
        • guidedans


          Christians believe that the risk of Hell is very real. It is not hateful to want to save you from it. Christians believe that Hell exists and is the just reward for a sinful life. God, through His mercy, gave us a way to avoid that just reward by sacrificing Himself in human form for us.

          You are going to die one day. If I could save you from that fate, I would try to. Telling you that you are going to die however, is not hateful. It is just telling you a fact of the world. Christians believe that Hell is a fact of the world.

          God is perfect. The soul is eternal. Heaven is perfect. To allow imperfection into Heaven or into God is to destroy that perfection entirely. If an eternal soul can't be perfected and enter into Heaven, then where else can it go? I believe Hell is a tormenting place because you are aware that you are not in Heaven. Maybe I am wrong about Hell though. I guess we will find out.

          March 28, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
        • hotairace

          My "Double Standard / Hypocrite / Do As I Say, Not As I Do" meter just pegged!

          If jesus is lord (and there is no actual evidence he exists or is), it would be so much nicer if he had better control of his cult members.

          March 28, 2014 at 7:48 pm |
        • nepawoods

          "Christians, in fact, are only on these boards to try to convince you all that you don't have to be damned to Hell. The Bible details what happens to non-believers. We are trying to get you all to not have to have that experience."

          I can say this with certainty and with no hate whatsoever: Only an idiot or someone brainwashed to the point of mental impairment can believe that a loving and just God would allow someone to suffer in Hell for eternity because, after honest consideration of the available evidence, they simply didn't believe this story someone told them about Jesus to be factual.

          I can also say with certainty and with no hate whatsoever that teaching such crap to others is pure evil.

          March 28, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
        • guidedans


          Believing in Jesus is how you submit to God's plan over your own. If you want to follow your own plan, God will let you and He will let you experience the consequences of that plan. He loves you enough however, to send people to try and get you to submit to His plan over yours. His plan takes you to Him. Your plan will take you somewhere else.

          March 28, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
        • nepawoods

          guidedans, Stop pretending your obnoxious talking down to people is any kinder than what you have called hatefulness in others. We've all heard that stuff before. Why not address what I actually said and try to communicate with people, instead of the pompous "I'm going to Heaven, you're not" routine? If there is a God that's good, just, loving, then he's so clearly the complete opposite of the thing you call God. Is your sense of good and evil the exact opposite of mine? Or are they the same, but you think our senses of good and evil don't matter, only God's does? If it's that, how do you know you're actually worshiping the good guy, and not being deceived into worshiping Satan? You see, you must use your own sense of good and evil, or you can't know which voice to listen to. They call Satan the "great deceiver", don't they? Well, you've been deceived. Use your brain for just a moment. I would think that you would believe God gave it to you for a reason.

          March 28, 2014 at 9:08 pm |
        • truthfollower01


          "I can say this with certainty and with no hate whatsoever: Only an idiot or someone brainwashed to the point of mental impairment can believe that a loving and just God would allow someone to suffer in Hell for eternity because, after honest consideration of the available evidence, they simply didn’t believe this story someone told them about Jesus to be factual."

          You have missed the reason for condemnation to Hell. Answer a few questions for me if you would.
          1. How many lies would you say you’ve told in your life?
          2. Have you ever stolen anything regardless of its value?
          3. Have you ever used God’s name as a curse word? (called blasphemy)
          4.have you ever looked at a woman/man lustfully?(if so, Jesus said you have committed adultery with that person in your heart.)
          If you’re like me, you are a self professed lying, stealing, blaspheming adulterer at heart or some form thereof. A holy God must punish wickedness, otherwise He wouldn’t be just. Given your confession, will you be guilty or innocent? If you’re like me and everyone else on this board, you are guilty. However, God provided a way for salvation through the blood of His innocent Son who took the punishment on the cross, that we might be declared innocent. Think of it like this. You’re in a court room. you’re guilty as you’ve professed. Someone walks in and pays your fine for you. Now the judge can legally dismiss your case and let you go. This is the gospel message. What you must do is repent (turn from your sins) and follow Jesus as Lord. This following is enabled by God when He gives you new desires and a heart that wants to please God instead of the flesh.

          March 30, 2014 at 11:21 pm |
        • hotairace

          Truthie, Jesus as Lord is Bullshit. You don't have a single bit of actual evidence for any god. You are pretending to know things you do not.

          March 30, 2014 at 11:39 pm |
      • 734228a910p71hi085

        hell does not even exist yet. that comes much later. but when it gets created it s like as fat hitting the hot pan.not even long enough to sizzle . you turn to ashes from within.* Poof * gone. Our Father is the consuming fire and this does not happen the way most modern churches today will have you believe. I personally am perturbed at how these modern churches teach people, is not chapter by chapter or verse by verse. They mostly teach traditions of man that make void the Word Of God. Talking about Aunt Sally's operation and other stuff. More churches turn people away from God because of the fact being alot of False Teaching. Many believe it was an apple that eve ate to be a sin. Show me where in Genesis it mentions an apple. It doesnt . and dont show me from one of those corrupt versions of the bible show me it in thee authorized version of good ole King James, the most accurate bible, ther are some mistranslations but its considered one of the accurate bible.

        Anyway before judgement as to who will be going to the lake of fire that will be after the 1000 years teaching and displine of Gods Word. Most the whole world will bow to the False Christ. the Anti(which is greek and means ,instead of) Christ so when the True Christ arrives at the 7th trump . the most farthest out one (the last trump) Everyone will be changed at a blink of an eye *blink*blink*to their spiritual bodies, the good , the bad, and the ugly. those that worship the false christ would have given him all the good works that you have ever done. those who stay faithful and true to Christ will be rewarded. but everyone is in spiritual bodies the only difference is whether you make the first resurrection of the millennium those who made it will be in their immortal spiritual bodies which the second death will not affect them. But those who worshipped satan will be in their mortal spiritual body where the second death can affect you, what is the first death well its when your flesh body passes away. the second death is the death of your soul. This is why teaching chapter by chapter and verse by verse is so very important. God s will is that you will learn now the truth and be sealed in your forehead(in your brain) so you will not be deceived when the false one comes and God will protect these with the truth sealed in their brains. IMPORTANT!!

        March 29, 2014 at 6:34 am |
        • TruthPrevails1

          No matter how many time you copy and paste this stuff, it doesn't make it any more realistic.

          March 29, 2014 at 6:41 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people!

      – House

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

      Why are Christian missionaries leading people away from the heavens of other faiths? Away from Nirvana? Away from clearing away all those nasty Thetans? Are they being "hateful" leading all these people away from their salvations?

      You, my friend, would appear to have a very limited view of the world.

      March 28, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
      • guidedans

        Christian missionaries lead people away from the Heavens of other faiths and TO the heaven of Christianity. If you assume that each Heaven is equally likely, then the net change in benefit is a wash.

        Atheists are leading people away from the heavens of other faiths TO nothing. If you assume that each option is equally likely, then the net change in converting from Christianity to Atheism is negative.

        March 28, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • sam stone

          no,guidedans....we are attemptig to lead people to reason

          March 28, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
        • tallulah131

          So if it's a wash, why do missionaries try to convert others? If it's a wash, you should leave people to freely worship the god of their culture. Since there is no evidence that any god exists, it's just as likely that you are leading people to damnation as you are to heaven.

          March 28, 2014 at 5:24 pm |
        • Akira

          I have never met one person who "converted" to atheism. Does one get a prize, like the Bible, or plague-ridden blankets?

          March 28, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Why are the Atheists on this board so hateful?"

      Because pompous people such as you read any disagreement as hate

      Did you ever consider the possibilty that both the atheist AND the christian could be wrong?

      March 28, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
      • guidedans

        I am not talking about the disagreements taking place. Those are fine. It is when folks say things like, "PS: "♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰" is 100% Pure Bulls.hit!" and when folks call God a "Sky-fairy", that I believe it crosses the line between disagreement, and vitriol.

        I of course have considered that both Atheism and Christianity could be wrong. But I am specifically looking at the gain of each option. Christians and Atheists can live equally fulfilling lives, but when they die, if the Christian is right, there is a huge benefit, if the Atheist is right, then there is no benefit at all.

        March 28, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
        • observer


          "if the Atheist is right, then there is no benefit at all."

          Wrong. Atheists obviously spend less time on something that may not exist. They also seem to have a better appreciation of the world which Christians think God created and is terrible and falling apart.

          March 28, 2014 at 5:02 pm |
        • hotairace

          "♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰" is 100% Pure Bulls.hit!" is equally as true as "♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰". It does not contain any hate, merely disagreement. If you don't like it, ignore it or prove me wrong.

          March 28, 2014 at 5:03 pm |
        • guidedans


          Christians believe fervently that they are not wasting their lives and they feel very fulfilled in their beliefs throughout their lives. There is no objective difference in the quality of life of an Atheist versus a Christian. The only difference is in potential afterlife. If the Atheist is correct, the Christian will never find out he is wrong. If the Christian is right, the Atheist will find out pretty quickly after he dies.

          March 28, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
        • guidedans


          True or not, it is a rude and hateful way to say it.

          March 28, 2014 at 5:11 pm |
        • observer


          I don't see atheists and agnostics on here saying that the world is going to pieces and the end is near. It's usually believers who insist how terrible the world is.

          March 28, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
        • hotairace

          How about you worry about what and how you write things and I'll worry about what I do. Don't hesitate to read between the lines.

          March 28, 2014 at 5:15 pm |
        • sam stone

          What if you lead people away from the correct belief system?

          March 28, 2014 at 5:23 pm |
        • sam stone

          "...if Atheist is right, then there is no benefit at all."

          not necessarily true.

          Atheism is not necessarily the affirmative statement that no god exists. it is merely saying the atheist has no reason to think one does

          what if "god" wants people to use reason,and will reward those that do, rather than following tradition?

          March 28, 2014 at 5:27 pm |
        • doobzz

          " if the Atheist is right, then there is no benefit at all."

          Yesterday you told me that I would receive the "truth" from god and become a better person "upon my conversion". Did you read my response?

          There is a lot of benefit to being atheistic or agnostic, not the least of which is not having the constant guilt of being told you are a depraved, sinful human being who needs to be "saved" from the eternal torment of your loving god, who used his "son" as a human sacrifice.

          March 28, 2014 at 5:43 pm |
        • guidedans

          Hi doobz,

          I did read your response, and I have to say, it made me sad to hear about your experience. No Christian should feel guilty for being human. That's why Jesus died, to free us from the guilt of sin. True, that when we err, we feel convicted to not err again, but that is a sign that God cares enough about you to not want you to behave in a way that is detrimental to living a good life.

          I hope one day, you come back to the Lord, Doobz. God Bless.

          March 28, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
        • Bob

          guidedans, you keep referencing the idiotic Jesus sacrifice story as something valid. It isn't. It is complete nonsense. How is it that your omnipotent being, this Christian "god" of yours, couldn't do his saving bit without the whole silly Jesus hoopla? And how was Jesus' death a "sacrifice", when an omnipotent being could just pop up a replacement son any time with less than a snap of his fingers? Pretty pathetic "god" that you've made for yourself there. The core foundation of your beliefs is utter nonsense.

          Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
          Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.

          March 28, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
        • doobzz

          Guidedans, that's a pretty arrogant response. You still seem to think you know what's best for me, and completely ignored the fact that I am a happier and better person without the Christian god of violence, bigotry and hate and the constant, unrelenting guilt trip imposed by Christianity.

          March 28, 2014 at 6:46 pm |
    • observer


      It seems to be Christians (certainly not all) who spearhead the efforts to deny equal rights to all people. Someone needs to show them how hypocritical and wrong they are.

      March 28, 2014 at 4:54 pm |
      • guidedans

        Then attack those folks for their beliefs. If someone is trying to deny your rights, attack them on that front. It is not OK to be hateful toward an entire group of people based on the actions of a subset of that group.

        I am sure that you would not be in favor of Christians attacking atheists for the weird stuff that Richard Dawkins says.

        Just drop all the hatred in the posts.

        March 28, 2014 at 5:05 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I do hate christianity, I think it is a scourge on this earth. It is the ultimate wolf in sheeps clothing. It lies to children and other innocent people, it uses its supposed "ultimate authority" to attempt to rule over others. I don't hate christians for being christian though...I just think they are wrong.

          March 28, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Very few atheist posters are as radical as your examples. I think you are trying to play victim by painting those who don't believe as you do with the same brush, no matter their behavior. Rather dishonest, don't you think?

      March 28, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
      • guidedans

        You are probably right that very few of the posters are as radical as my examples, but the posters I quoted tend to post quite a bit. I guess the loudest of any group gets the most attention, even if they are the minority.

        I will just ignore the hate and pray that they find love. I am not trying to be condescending with that tactic, I really just don't know how else to deal with it.

        March 28, 2014 at 6:15 pm |
        • Akira

          What on earth would make you think that the people you are talking about are unloved?

          What a strange assumption to make.

          March 28, 2014 at 11:27 pm |
    • nailnbail

      I am a atheist, but respect peoples belief's, and totally undertsand the need for the fundemental laws that christianty has built on. What makes me laugh is that Galileo & his fellow thinkers back in 1500's were accused of Heresy for daring to say the Earth orbits the Sun & now the same God squad dont like it when fact blows fiction out the water. Now tide has changed and its the same people clutching at straws to keep God on a level pegging with science. Its the relgious that have tried to surpress scientific knowledge, but over the last 50 years we have ventured more into the universe than ever & the church has had to adapt. Would any true believer in a God as we know it, be as devout if human beings knew then what we know now?

      March 28, 2014 at 5:43 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        I respect people, beliefs should not get automatic respect. Beliefs have stand or fall on their merits.

        March 28, 2014 at 6:02 pm |
      • Akira

        When human dignity takes a back seat to belief, it does not deserve my respect. Many forms of religion strips away that human dignity.

        Asking me to respect that is making a mockery of the very word 'respect'. I refuse to do it.

        March 28, 2014 at 7:25 pm |
    • hotairace

      And what's so radical about what I wrote? It's way more radical to say that an alleged but never proven god is "lord," as if it's absolutely true and dare I say, not to be questioned, than to clearly say "I don't think so!" regardless of my choice of words.

      March 28, 2014 at 5:47 pm |
    • nepawoods

      "If an Atheist converts a Christian and the Atheist is correct, it is one more person in the ground when they die. If a Christian converts and Atheist and the Christian is right, it is one more person in Heaven when they die."

      False dichotomy. Who says either are right? Perhaps there's a God and he rewards atheists for using their God-given brain and concluding that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE of a God. He exists, but left no evidence. Perhaps there's a God, but Christianity is the Devil's work, designed to deceive people to lure them into Hell..

      And if the atheist is correct, how is it one more person in the ground when they die if he converts a Christian? How does the number increase? If the atheist is correct, that's where everyone ends up.

      And what of Muslims? Buddhists? Hindus? Pastafarians?

      March 28, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
      • guidedans


        There is evidence of God, you just dismiss it.

        Think about the concept of a near-death experience for example. Do some research. You will find that a lot of people experience very similar things when their brain is effectively dead.

        Think about how this phenomenon would evolve. Ask yourself, if we are products of evolution, why would this phenomenon happen to so many people? What evolutionary purpose would these experiences have?

        That is just one example of evidence of God. You can choose to dismiss that as well, but you cannot claim that there is no evidence of God.

        March 28, 2014 at 8:15 pm |
        • hotairace

          There is no actual evidence for any god. None that meets the standards of the scientific method or the justice system's rules of evidence. Personal experiences, delusions, hallucinations and hearsay are not evidence, except perhaps as evidence of mental illness.

          March 28, 2014 at 8:22 pm |
        • nepawoods

          People have similar experiences under the influence of some hallucinogens. The brain is not functioning normally during a "near death experience". There are far simpler explanations than yours, and if we ignore them, I can invent fantasies too, completely different than yours. If there were a God, and he wanted there to be evidence of his existence, there would be evidence.

          Imagine you have children, and there's a bottomless pit in your back yard where they play. Do you think it would be right as a parent for you to tell the kids "watch out for the pit", and then wash your hands of it should any not believe your warning? But it's worse than that. Your God's pit is one of eternal suffering, and he doesn't warn his children directly. He passes word along, so that 2000 years later they have hearsay evidence, and lots of false message too, with no way to know the difference, and he KNOWS THIS. One person says the pit is over here, another says the pit is over there. False warnings of pits here, there, everywhere (all the different religions), and the kids ... well, their fault if they don't recognize the true one thousands of years later. Sorry, but again, mental impairment is required to believe that is "good".

          March 28, 2014 at 9:28 pm |
        • nepawoods

          "Think about the concept of a near-death experience for example. Do some research."

          I've never had one, and don't know anyone who has. I don't know anyone who knows anyone who has. You know darn well the world is full of people who make false claims. And you claim people will go to Hell, under a good, just, loving God, for not taking your word for it? You actually BELIEVE that??? Mind boggling.

          March 28, 2014 at 9:33 pm |
        • Akira

          One of my very good friends was dead for 7 minutes. She experienced nothing.
          My boss flatlined after having a heart attack and they brought him back. He experienced nothing like that.

          For every petson who has a NDE, there's one that doesn't.

          Do explain why some have these NDE and others don't.
          Ask yourself the same question you want everyone else to ask.

          March 28, 2014 at 11:38 pm |
        • Garet

          I had an experience of flat-lining during a time when I was having heart problems in the hospital and was resuscitated after about 2 1/2 minutes. While I did not see any white lights i did have an exceedingly strange dream with feelings I've never felt before and a variety of spiritual implications. during the main portion i was running through my high school with old friends and we had to move across this weird 2d space where i couldn't see anything or else the dream would have supposedly ended in everything stopping.

          I'm a christian and a lover of scientific research balled up in one. Looking back on that experience I honestly don't think it was a spiritual event any more than many other events are (though I believe all events have a spiritual counterpart just as there are different physical levels of the universe way can overlay on any given system)

          I'm -fairly- certain that it was simply caused by the state of my brain going brain dead and firing off some relative paths. At the same time I don't find it insignificant either, just not in a direct sort of way; more like we're pre-programmed to have these experiences sometimes. It also probably greatly depends on the state your body is in at the time of near death.

          ofc that's just my one singular experience and subjective opinion of it, but for what its worth there it is.

          btw, @nepawoods – its not so much that God is wanting those folks to go to hell, it's that He's trying to keep ya out of it. if you're referring to classical Christianity, God created man immune to such destruction yet man then invited entropy into the system; so then God went all out in order to provide a mechanism of forgiveness so that even as beings of discord we could be compatible with eternity and preserved. Fires of hell are simply the long and painful process of having to cut off those who stubbornly refuse to admit their destructive ways and turn from it. They've brought the hell onto their own soul despite the efforts of God.

          we could naturally avoid hell if we'd be perfect, but due to the metaphysics once we act in hatred we create a chain reaction of entropy in our own system; it makes sense that God would allow the discord of the many to persist but cut it off once it gets to some point where those that accepted forgiveness would otherwise be affected. that's just saving as many as possible instead of throwing out the whole; not trying to randomly get rid of the dissident.

          April 18, 2014 at 11:28 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
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.