home
RSS
March 20th, 2014
11:14 AM ET

Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God?

Opinion by Leslie A. Wickman, special to CNN

(CNN) The remarkable discovery, announced this week, of ripples in the space-time fabric of the universe rocked the world of science - and the world of religion.

Touted as evidence for inflation (a faster-than-the-speed-of-light expansion of our universe), the new discovery of traces of gravity waves affirms scientific concepts in the fields of cosmology, general relativity, and particle physics.

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

Here's how.

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

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

If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent – separate and apart from the effect – that caused it.

That sounds a lot like Genesis 1:1 to me: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.”

So this latest discovery is good news for us believers, as it adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused – or created – by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.

MORE ON CNN: Big Bang breakthrough announced; gravitational waves detected

Atheist-turned-agnostic astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the term “Big Bang,” famously stated, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics."

As Hoyle saw it, the Big Bang was not a chaotic explosion, but rather a very highly ordered event – one that could not have occurred by random chance.

We also need to remember that God reveals himself both through scripture and creation. The challenge is in seeing how they fit together. A better understanding of each can inform our understanding of the other.

It’s not just about cracking open the Bible and reading whatever we find there from a 21st-century American perspective. We have to study the context, the culture, the genre, the authorship and the original audience to understand the intent.

The creation message in Genesis tells us that God created a special place for humans to live and thrive and be in communion with him; that God wants a relationship with us, and makes provisions for us to have fellowship with him, even after we turn away from him.

So, we know that Genesis was never intended to be a detailed scientific handbook, describing how God created the universe. It imparts a theological, not a scientific, message.

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

As a modern believer and a scientist, when I look up at the sky on a clear starry night, I am reminded that “the heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1). I am in awe of the complexity of the physical world, and how all of its pieces fit together so perfectly and synergistically.

In the Old Testament book of Jeremiah, the writer tells us that God “established (his) covenant with day and night, and with the fixed laws of heaven and earth.”

These physical laws established by God to govern interactions between matter and energy result in a finely tuned universe that provides the ideal conditions for life on our planet.

As we observe the complexity of the cosmos, from subatomic particles to dark matter and dark energy, we quickly conclude that there must be a more satisfying explanation than random chance. Properly practiced, science can be an act of worship in looking at God’s revelation of himself in nature.

If God is truly the creator, then he will reveal himself through what he’s created, and science is a tool we can use to uncover those wonders.

Leslie Wickman is director of the Center for Research in Science at Azusa Pacific University. Wickman has also been an engineer for Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, where she worked on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and International Space Station programs. The views expressed in this column belong to Wickman. 

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Culture & Science • Faith • Opinion • Science

« Previous entry
soundoff (4,918 Responses)
  1. dynamicmenace

    All I need to use are four words to explain why this is utter nonsense (though I will go into more):

    Occam's Razor.
    Infinite regression.

    If you don't know what those are, look them up. This is just yet more religions trying to shoehorn new science fact into their existing creation stories. Since you can no longer kill and silence those who oppose your childish ideas of the universe, you now have to try and meld them into "see, we knew it all along!" When the true evidence does nothing of the sort for your cause. If you want to believe you're obviously wrong ideas about the universe, then fine. But don't try and co-opt the other side to support things it obviously does not; you're just throwing good money after bad when trying to use science to defend your primitive beliefs.

    March 21, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
    • Joeseph Eclaire

      Those who feel the need to prove their is a God are as jaded as those who feel the need to prove there is no God.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
      • bostontola

        I don't know any atheist that tries to prove there is no God. Although it is pretty easy to prove that the bibles are false.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
      • jameshunt81

        Nobody is trying to prove their is no god. It just so happens that every time we learn something new about the universe, it also just so happens to never be some magic guy behind a curtain pulling strings.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
        • jameshunt81

          dammit, nothing like making a good point and then getting the "there, their, they're" mistake to discredit it

          March 21, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
      • nepawoods

        Very few try to prove there is no God. But it is clear there is no evidence that there is. By the evidence, God is on equal footing with countless other mythical beings.

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

      The Occam's razor has been used by all parties to defend their arguments.

      Having said that, the God Hypothesis has less assumptions than any other, hence more plausible.

      'Infinite Regression' is impossible because of "change." Regression is going from one state to the previous one, that is definite "change."

      "Change" implies "beginning," hence "finiteness." Anything that changes has a "beginning," hence could have never been out there for all eternity to be infinite, hence finite, hence not eternal.

      Therefore, it is a "logical must" that there is a "First Cause" for everything, that has no "change," hence, it is infinite—eternal, outside of the caused and its "beginning," and therefore, "UNCAUSED."

      March 21, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
      • joey3467

        If god is unchanging then is it still o.k. to stone gay people to death? It would have to be right? I mean he ordered it to be done in the past so I'm sure he is still cool with it.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
      • ausphor

        Vic
        No. Stick to lying about science, reading your circular logic is just painful to read.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
      • jameshunt81

        Vic, you just broke the universe

        March 21, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
      • nepawoods

        "the God Hypothesis has less assumptions than any other"

        No, it has more. One more, to be exact: God. And it's a permanent assumption, as it's inherently unfalsifiable.

        If science ever assumes, it is a temporary thing, until the thing assumed is demonstrated with evidence, or falsified by observations inconsistent with the assumption.

        March 21, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
      • enderspeakerforthedead

        The god hypothesis has 3,633 PAGES of assumptions. What are you on about here?

        July 12, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
  2. jameshunt81

    "Every great scientific truth goes through three phases: first, people deny it. Second, they say it conflicts with the Bible. Third, they say they’ve known it all along." – Neil Degrasse Tyson

    First, people deny the big bang, saying it conflicts with the bible. Now, they're saying its "proof of god!!!" A better understanding of inflationary theory has NOTHING to do with supernatural nonsense. How dare you, CNN. I'm done with you. Congratulations on being the new foxnews.

    March 21, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      "The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos." -Stephen Jay Gould

      Yet even the author of this article is concluding the opposite.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
    • bostontola

      Great observation. Dr. Wickman has added a step to NdT's process:

      First, people deny it. Second, they say it conflicts with the Bible. Third, they say they’ve known it all along. Fourth, they say it proves God.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
      • jameshunt81

        Touche. So predictable....

        March 21, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
  3. ecom advisor

    OK, I got to the following and couldn't continue:

    "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."

    The correct logic is: If the universe did indeed have a beginning, that beginning is also the beginning of space and... TIME! "Cause and effect" requires time to exist for the "cause" to lead to the "effect". Without time, you CANNOT declare and rely on "cause and effect", which true INSIDE our universe but not necessarily outside our universe.

    The correct and so far enduring answer is... "WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IF ANYTHING CAME BEFORE OUR UNIVERSE".

    March 21, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
    • bostontola

      And, what does before even mean if time didn't exist yet? We take time as a given, but it's not. Its not even fixed in our universe now, the theory of relativity dispensed with that a century ago.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
    • jameshunt81

      "There's no shame in admitting what you don't know. The only shame is pretending you know all the answers." -@neiltyson

      March 21, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
  4. Vic

    ♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰

    Do you know what's faster than the speed of light, or anything for that matter?

    The Spoken Word, The Breath of God Almighty, The Father, Son (Lord Jesus Christ) And Holy Spirit.

    That's how this creation came to pass.

    Early on:
    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/comment-page-2/#comment-2968150

    March 21, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I'm pretty sure that light is faster than sound.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
    • jameshunt81

      When's the spaceship going to get here, vic?

      March 21, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Asserting opinion as fact is essentually the same as lying....

      March 21, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
    • enderspeakerforthedead

      Do you know what is slower than a turtles pace? Your grasp on logic and reality.

      July 12, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
  5. blakenaustin

    Wow, hell must have frozen over last night. A faith friendly article on CNN.

    March 21, 2014 at 11:59 am |
    • Joeseph Eclaire

      To bad a God has to be lumped in with religion.
      That's why some have to look for their own reason for existence there notion of a God is as skewed as the atheist idea of a God.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
      • jameshunt81

        Wow, there are so many things wrong with this post, I don't even know where to start....

        March 21, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
  6. skyguynick

    Leave scientists and the scientific method to work out how the natural world works in all its manifestations.

    Theologians are free to argue about the existence or nonexistence of any deity since in the end, their claims cannot be confirmed or refuted and their arguments do not give us any specific details about the nature of the universe.

    March 21, 2014 at 11:56 am |
  7. cherryenema

    "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."

    why? why do we quickly conclude that? complexity suggests no guarantee of satisfaction. if you're practicing science, then no, you're not concluding that, as there is no evidence leading you to conclude that. would you like to hypothesize that? ok, now go find some evidence to support your hypothesis.

    we'll wait here. probably for a very long time.

    March 21, 2014 at 11:55 am |
    • jameshunt81

      Agree. The person that wrote this article should be removed from the ranks of scientists. Obviously she doesn't know how to use the scientific method.

      “This adventure is made possible by generations of searchers strictly adherent to a simple set of rules. Test ideas by experiments and observations. Build on those ideas that pass the test. Reject the ones that fail. Follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything. Accept these terms, and the cosmos is yours.” – NeilTyson

      March 21, 2014 at 12:17 pm |
    • joey3467

      And if complex things require a creator then god can't be very complex .

      March 21, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
      • jameshunt81

        Swing and a miss. Nice try though

        March 21, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • cherryenema

          swing and a miss? actually it was a rather elegant combination of thoughts. the author postulates that 1-great complexity forces a conclusion towards creationism. 2-cause and effect requirements exclude the causality of said creator.
          result: only simple constructs can exist without a creator. ergo god is simple or needed his own preexisting creator.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:12 pm |
        • joey3467

          Exactly.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
  8. rickcor2014

    "God created a special place for humans to live and thrive and be in communion with him; that God wants a relationship with us"

    Well that God has a weird way to show that interest in having a relationship. Imagine if that was a human relationship, "hey dude, I'm your dad, and I love you so much, but you will never see me growing up, and I will never talk to you. In fact, I have not said these words, but John here writing them is pretty sure that I meant to say so."

    Man, some people are so scared of our mortality and insignificance in the universe, that they will cling to anything to try to prove that their "God" exists, even if it makes no sense at all. It's really sad, honestly.

    March 21, 2014 at 11:55 am |
    • lewcypher

      additionally, most things on this planet will kill you and 99% of the species that ever lived are extinct.

      Yeah, earth is a special place

      March 21, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
  9. lewcypher

    Christians latching onto scientific discoveries to validate their long debunked creation model seems awfully desperate.

    March 21, 2014 at 11:53 am |
    • jameshunt81

      Interesting how they always say they're the ones being persecuted when they try and impose their beliefs on everyone else. They always play the "poor little me" card, and use their "beliefs" as a smokescreen to hide their hate and ignorance.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
  10. elohist2009

    Even if God appears in this age and testifies to Himself with all signs and wonders, people will not believe it, or their own senses; you will always conclude that you are dreaming, or that "we" are. Those who don't believe in God (and even most that do) have a natural aversion to authority. You hate the idea of being watched constantly and despise the notion that someone more powerful, more intelligent, and more wise is in control of everything. So instead, you just say "oh, look those crazy Christians are worshiping their invisible sky god again," thinking it will bring you a measure of comfortable ignorance. Please wake up to the news: it is not the "crazy religious people" who are proclaiming the discovery of the Universe's origins, it's the scientists, whom you put your trust into. But no matter how much evidence there is, it will never be enough. This planet is absolutely nothing compared to the Universe, yet people act as though if they only sneeze hard enough, they can make even one tongue of the sun flicker. Even turtles and trees live longer than humans. Do you seriously think that you possess the wisdom to deem someone as non-existent, just because you cannot see Him? A ninja kills from the shadows, a SEAL attacks from the sea, but you cannot belive that a being powerful enough to start an entire universe is not real, just because He chooses to render Himself "invisible"? The proof that God exists is in the Bible; the proof that God does not exist is in your mind.

    March 21, 2014 at 11:51 am |
    • Doris

      "Those who don't believe in God (and even most that do) have a natural aversion to authority."

      LOL. Are you saying people who don't believe in God don't serve their country?

      Are you saying that people who do believe in God are honest to society and common law and don't sometimes just hide their wrongdoings via confession or similar mechanism?

      Seems like a silly generalization to me.

      March 21, 2014 at 11:55 am |
      • Doris

        religious confession

        March 21, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
    • doobzz

      How ridiculous. Your god can't even figure out how to make itself known to its "creation" in a way that is clear and irrefutable? I guess your god isn't so omnipotent after all.

      March 21, 2014 at 11:56 am |
      • elohist2009

        If I make a joke and everyone else in the room laughs but you don't, does that mean that I lack the intellect or the capability of letting you understand it?

        March 21, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • doobzz

          It could be that everyone else is laughing because they don't want you to be embarrassed about your crappy joke telling skills.

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

          If I am a teacher instructing children about how to read, and every child in the room has learned to read but one, should I just say "tough toenails, kid" or should I try different ways of instructing the child (that doesn't include punishing or killing them) so that the child understands?

          I have been in that situation, and yes, I did take responsibility for changing my approach to ensure that the child was able to learn to read like the other students. I didn't put the blame on the child – since I was the adult and the teacher.

          March 21, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
      • elohist2009

        First of all, you give me too much credit; no one likes my jokes, or me that much; and secondly, do not presume to know what has been proven to me.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • doobzz

          I don't presume anything has been PROVED to you, other than in your own mind.

          March 21, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      By what process did you eliminate the possibility of any of the countless other gods dreamed up by man as existing?

      March 21, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
      • elohist2009

        None of those "gods" ever proved to me that the Bible is true.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Any by what process did you determine that the Tanakh, Talmud, Midrash, Quran, Sunnah, Nahjul Balagha, Avesta, Vedas, Upanisahds, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, Tantras, Sutras, Vachanas, Adi Granth, Purvas, Samayasara, Niyamasara, Pravacanasara, and Pancastikaya; Anupreksa; Samadhishataka of Pujyapada; Tattvarthasutra of Umasvati, Tattvarthasutra, Pali Tripitaka, Jataka,, Visuddimagga, Tripitaka, Lotus Sutra, Garland Sutra, Analects; the Great Learning; the Doctrine of the Mean; the Mencius, Tao Te Ching, Chuang-tzu, Kojiki, Nihon Shoki, K-oki, Ofudesaki, Mikagura-uta, Michi-no-Shiori, Johrei, Goseigen, Netarean Shower of Holy Doctrines, Chun Boo Kyung, Kitab-i-Iqan, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, Book of Mormon, Dianetics, or Revelation X are invalid as Holy Books since they all claim to be The Truth?

          March 21, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
        • jameshunt81

          Boom!

          March 21, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • doobzz

          Neither has your god, but you choose to ignore that.

          March 21, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
      • elohist2009

        None of those "gods" gave any proof of their knowledge of the universe as genuine or original. They just try to make themselves sound awesome and wise. But most only have a human sense of understanding because they were created by humans.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
        • doobzz

          "None of those "gods" gave any proof of their knowledge of the universe as genuine or original. They just try to make themselves sound awesome and wise. But most only have a human sense of understanding because they were created by humans."

          Just like your god. Too bad you're so invested in it that you can't see that.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
    • ramblingsofnihility

      "Even if God appears in this age and testifies to Himself with all signs and wonders, people will not believe it, or their own senses; you will always conclude that you are dreaming, or that "we" are."

      If you God is omnipotent, then he knows exactly what it would take for me to believe. Doesn't mean I would choose to worship him though.

      "So instead, you just say "oh, look those crazy Christians are worshiping their invisible sky god again," thinking it will bring you a measure of comfortable ignorance"

      I'm just asking for credible, convincing, verifiable evidence of a god. That's all.

      "yet people act as though if they only sneeze hard enough, they can make even one tongue of the sun flicker."

      I don't know any of these people.

      "Do you seriously think that you possess the wisdom to deem someone as non-existent, just because you cannot see Him?"

      I cannot prove that he doesn't exist. The question then is, can you prove that he does?

      "The proof that God exists is in the Bible"

      That proof is where? The Bible says it true, therefor it's true?

      March 21, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
      • elohist2009

        Your first line of comment made my point perfectly.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          Your statement was that we would not believe it. My point was while I may be made to believe it, doesn't mean I would worship said god. Or did you forget what you said?

          March 21, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
      • joey3467

        The bible is the claim that god exists, so you can't then also say it is the proof that god exists. If you want to prove the Christian god exists you will have to do it without using the bible.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
      • elohist2009

        Do you continue to work at a job that you do not believe will pay your bills or help you earn a proper living? Neither would any sane person worship a God they do not truly believe in.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:45 pm |
        • joey3467

          I would expect some people do because some money is better than no money at all.

          March 21, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
    • Sungrazer

      "Those who don't believe in God (and even most that do) have a natural aversion to authority. You hate the idea of being watched constantly and despise the notion that someone more powerful, more intelligent, and more wise is in control of everything."

      This is an ad hominem argument. It also smacks of projection.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
      • elohist2009

        A projection only projects, but a reflection reflects.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?

          What is a rhetorical statement?

          March 21, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          I'm not sure what point you think you are making. If I said "A reflection only reflects but a projection projects", would that sound profound to you?

          March 21, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
      • elohist2009

        You simply reversed the words, but the meaning doesn't change; what you respond from my output comes from you, not me.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          "what you respond from my output comes from you, not me"

          Clearly. But what is the point?

          To say that atheists are atheists because of an aversion to authority is an ad hominem – it has no bearing on the matter whether it is true or not (which it is not). It also comes across as something that YOU believe ("I, elohist2009, have an aversion to authority) but want to project onto atheists.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
      • elohist2009

        the irony of projection Theory is that those who conclude this are the ones who do the projecting. it's very easy to see that those who don't believe in God don't want to believe in God for a particular reason when you get down to it the reason is that they do not want to be under someone else's control.

        March 21, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
        • joey3467

          In most cases the "particular reason" is they see no evidence that said god exists.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          "the irony of projection Theory is that those who conclude this are the ones who do the projecting."

          What am I projecting? What statement did I make? None. You are the one who made the statement about authority. I simply responded that it sounded as if you were projecting.

          "it's very easy to see that those who don't believe in God don't want to believe in God for a particular reason when you get down to it the reason is that they do not want to be under someone else's control."

          I will try again to explain what an ad hominem argument is and why it is fallacious. Let's assume it true that I don't believe in god because I don't like the idea of being under someone else's control. It still would have no bearing whatsoever on whether god does or does not exist. I could disbelieve in god for a childish reason and I could still be right that he does not exist.

          The fact is that I, and most atheists, have carefully considered the question, and have concluded for rational reasons that god does not exist.

          Now imagine me saying: "It's obvious that people believe in god only because they are afraid to die." Would you object that you had other, better reasons? So maybe now you can see why there is no merit in saying that "you don't believe in god because you don't want to be under his control?"

          March 21, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
      • elohist2009

        Actually, that is one of the reasons that I believe in God. By the way, when did I ever specifically direct my initial statement towards atheists? You are not the only ones who choose not believe.

        March 21, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
        • Sungrazer

          My points still stand. A reasonable person would say "I don't want anyone telling me why I do or do not believe in something, so I will not tell anyone else why they do or do not believe in something."

          March 21, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
    • rickcor2014

      I disagree. I think that if God reveled itself in a massage worldwide, that can be heard by anyone in any language, and even by the deaf, with and image in the sky that can be seen even by the blind, then everyone would believe in the same God.

      Imagine how much violence and hate would stop just by that act alone. It could say which god it is, whether it is a he or a she, and what set of commandments we should follow. Then he/she/it could could say, "see you in heaven," and go silent for another 50 years.

      One could argue that the fact that a God could do that – stop the religiously motivate hate and fighting – but it chooses not to, means that if it exists, then it is kind of an evil god (a psychopath).

      March 21, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
      • joey3467

        If aliens from another universe come to Earth and try to convert me to Christianity that would be some evidence that maybe the god described in the Bible is real.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:45 pm |
      • jameshunt81

        How incredible would that be if a god revealed itself in a worldwide MASSAGE

        March 21, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
    • mythless

      Seriously? You think that because people don't believe in a non-existent being that they hate authority? How about they find religion to be seriously flawed in logic and totally lacking in evidence. Santa Claus has the same level of evidence. Even the book you claim provides evidence is full of contradictions and is interpreted differently by every person reads it.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:40 pm |
      • elohist2009

        your off-handed acknowledgment of God as non existent already shows your bias; however it is those many conflicting interpretations that cause the contradictions. This is a human flaw, not a biblical one.

        March 21, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • jameshunt81

          There is nothing off-handed about a non-belief in a deity, just as there is nothing off-handed about not believing that giant invisible dragons live amongst us that eat our poop after we flush it down the toilet. They're both just ridiculous ideas which have no evidence to support their existence, whatsoever.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
  11. karali1975

    I have always believed there was a pro-creative agent behind the big bang. Even as a Kid I always thought "fine, the big bang theory crated the universe, but it does not explain what caused the BBT itself, or what caused the agent that in turn caused the BBT" I am so glad this being discussed.

    March 21, 2014 at 11:50 am |
    • rickcor2014

      Yeah, the thing about that is that even if there was a agent, and I'm not saying there was, we have no idea if that agent is even aware of our existence.

      It's a big leap to go from, "something must have caused the Big Bang," to, "Thus, the god some guys wrote about in a book thousands of years ago is that thing that caused the Big Bang."

      That is kind of like saying, "Hey, an airplane disappeared, thus we are know sure that little green man flying saucers eixst, and they are trying to take over our planet."

      March 21, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
      • rickcor2014

        * we are now sure...

        March 21, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
  12. nowitspringsforth

    Reblogged this on For the Worshipper and commented:
    "Properly practiced, science can be an act of worship in looking at God's revelation of himself in nature."
    Amen!

    March 21, 2014 at 11:44 am |
    • nepawoods

      "Properly practiced" meaning with the mind closed to anything that will make you question your faith.

      March 21, 2014 at 11:48 am |
      • nowitspringsforth

        I find that when your mind is truly open, faith becomes stronger as it transforms from mindless adherence to thoughtful relationship. Be blessed!

        March 21, 2014 at 11:51 am |
    • ramblingsofnihility

      Please explain what you mean by "Properly practiced"

      March 21, 2014 at 11:51 am |
      • doobzz

        I believe that means "as long as it supports the bible".

        March 21, 2014 at 11:58 am |
  13. joey3467

    So this lady essentially works for the Creation Museum, just with a different name, and she expects to be taken seriously?

    March 21, 2014 at 11:41 am |
    • doobzz

      A lot of people see "Ph.D." after someone's name and think that makes everything they say true.

      March 21, 2014 at 11:59 am |
      • cherryenema

        PhD = Piled higher and Deeper

        March 21, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
        • doobzz

          LOL.

          March 21, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
  14. nonyabizz

    I don't see where this would change anyone's opinions....

    March 21, 2014 at 11:39 am |
    • Joeseph Eclaire

      What caused God ?
      How about perhaps God just exist. The problem is you are always looking for some explanation, some beginning some reason, 'some creation'.

      Well, you may have to just accept the premise you will never reach that understanding. You must think in the grand scheme of things mankind is important.
      The News Flash is that mankind is but a cocckroach under foot.

      And to be honest with you, if indeed mankind was created in the image of God I'm very disappointed. However one must remember that 'free will' idea, so that I can accept perhaps it was a good idea at the time.

      March 21, 2014 at 11:41 am |
      • entilzha

        Correct. If the author's assertion is that "by the laws of cause and effect" something had to "cause" the universe to be created, then it implies a requirement for a "cause" for everything.

        So the big question then becomes "what caused God?" And that's something that makes believers very, very uncomfortable.

        March 21, 2014 at 11:49 am |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          Doesn't make me uncomfortable.
          I can accept the notion that a God just exist, and if those want to play on that concept we can take it even further and say why could God not have come out of a Big Bang as well.

          Yo see, ain't this fun..

          March 21, 2014 at 11:57 am |
        • entilzha

          I think you're missing the point. If the author's argument is that all "effects" [such as the birth of the universe] must have a "cause" [i.e. 'God'], then by that "logic" God must also have a cause. One of the big arguments fundamentalists make about the BB is that it had to be "caused" by something. The concept that time didn't exist, or worked differently prior to [if you can even make such a statement...] the BB is unacceptable to them, so they postulate that God caused the BB.

          If that's the case, then something had to "cause" God. Because if they just say that "God always existed," they're violating their own claim that everything requires a cause. Logically speaking, it's a form of special pleading and therefore a total fallacy.

          Mind, I'm not debating whether God does or does not exist. I'm just pointing out the rabid lack of logic in the initial article.

          March 21, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
      • Doris

        "How about perhaps God just exist."

        oops – there goes that cause and efffect rule out the window again... oops just got run over by a semi

        March 21, 2014 at 11:50 am |
        • nepawoods

          I love how they do that. A beginning? Oh, we must have something right before that. But nothing before that something!

          March 21, 2014 at 11:52 am |
      • Akira

        Wow. God made you think very little of people if you think we're a bunch of cocckroaches. That's not a very loving way to feel about your fellow man.

        March 21, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          I'm being polite.
          Mankind is probably no more then a pile of s–t on a log.

          March 21, 2014 at 11:59 am |
      • jameshunt81

        People who dumb as rocks created their gods. People who could barely figure out shoes, people who didn't know where the sun went at night, and if it would come back or not...People who thought that bad weather was punishment. Well, some people still think that last one.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
  15. danab1234

    Keep trying to find evidence of your imaginary friend. Good luck with that. LOL

    March 21, 2014 at 11:38 am |
    • jameshunt81

      They try so desperately

      March 21, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
  16. nepawoods

    The article fails on numerous counts.

    First, Wickman claims that this discovery "has significant implications for the Judeo-Christian worldview, offering strong support for biblical beliefs" because "this new evidence strongly suggests that there was a beginning to our universe", and according to Wickman, any such beginning "sounds a lot like" Genesis 1:1's claim that God did it.

    He mentions that in comparison to the Steady State theory. But we've had evidence of expansion since observing red shift correlates with distance, and further when the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered by those two guys from Bell Labs with the horn antennae in Holmdel, NJ. Why should the religious get excited because what science found evidence for decades ago, it now found more evidence for?

    Furthermore, rather deceptively, he crafts his explanation of the Steady State theory as that it "argued that the universe has always existed, without a beginning that necessitated a cause". The Steady State theory argued that the universe has always existed, without a beginning. Period. That a beginning would necessitate a cause is Wickman's assertion, which he slyly attempts to piggyback onto a scientific theory.

    He appeals to "the simple logic of cause and effect", as if such a thing exists, to claim a beginning implies an "agent ... that caused it". I'm pretty sure our everyday experience (which is the only possible basis for the "simple logic of cause and effect") is that everything is an effect that has a cause, and by that, the "agent" would have had to have been caused.

    March 21, 2014 at 11:33 am |
    • Doris

      Good points. Also, I don't understand why people get the Abrahamic God involved whenever someone throws support to the idea of a beginning to this universe. Theists sure twisted the words (and left a bunch out) of the authors of the BVG theorem to make the same ridiculous claims.

      March 21, 2014 at 11:49 am |
    • Vic

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/comment-page-2/#comment-2968150

      March 21, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
      • nepawoods

        "no other explanation" means "no other explanation that you know of". It's just god-of-the-gaps. You assert a god is the most logical explanation, but you do not defend the assertion at all. Why must a first cause, if it exists, be sentient, or omnipotent, or omniscient, or good and just? ... all things posited as attributes of God.

        March 21, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
  17. mike44337798

    What utter nonsense. If a creator was needed to create the universe, why assume it was god? Also, if god was already around, who created him? If the law of cause and effect means that something needs to have caused the big bang, then something needed to cause god too.

    Religion really is a long, long way from logic and truth.

    March 21, 2014 at 11:32 am |
  18. Dyslexic doG

    In ancient times, primitive man asked himself does that flash of light followed by a loud rumbling noise in the sky offer proof of god.

    People wondered where the sun went each night and how it reappeared each morning and felt sure that was proof of a god.

    People saw their families all get sick and die and just knew that was proof of god.

    So why am I not surprised that christians now claim ongoing scientific discovery of something they have for so long vehemently denied, the big bang, and say it proves their god exists.

    Comedy gold!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOL:

    March 21, 2014 at 11:29 am |
  19. mickmastergeneral

    "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."

    What? Then we don't need physicists...we can figure this all out by "the simple logic of cause and effect"? Good, that makes it easy. So tell me again: What caused God?

    March 21, 2014 at 11:27 am |
    • nepawoods

      "the simple logic of cause and effect" ... I wonder how many people never saw the wool being pulled over their eyes when they read that one.

      March 21, 2014 at 11:50 am |
  20. islamistheanswer

    Are a strong believer in Evolution? Watch this! So much for a "belief".
    http://youtu.be/XI_vtPRckks

    March 21, 2014 at 11:22 am |
    • Doris

      Hey I watched that one video you kept pestering me about last night. You owe me some free incense or something...

      March 21, 2014 at 11:52 am |
    • new-man

      iita:
      thanks for posting this. It was almost painful to watch those who profess themselves to be wise, shown to be nothing more than mere *unwise men* faithfully holding onto the ideas of a godless man.

      This doctrine of demons and seducing spirit (evolution) masquerading as science has already deceived many and will continue to deceive the masses who would rather exchange the words of their Creator for co.njecture, all the while arrogantly professing to be the most logical and reasoned of men.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
      • islamistheanswer

        Thank you new-man.. I couldn't agree more with what you said! What's more interesting is that this is a common theme among atheists and evolution "believers." As you can see, no one dares to followup on this video given it shows the ignorance of such "belief"

        March 21, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
    • jameshunt81

      Oh gosh, even christians think muslims are crazy. I don't think you're gonna find any friends here

      March 21, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
      • islamistheanswer

        Was this the best you could do address the content of the video? Well, try again to say something beneficial that people could learn from. As for what other "think" of Muslims, it doesn't matter! What matters is what people KNOW about Islam, not Muslims who could be adherents or not. By the way, throughout history the way certain groups "thought" of others might not have turned out to be true (i.e. Jesus (Peace and Blessings upon him was "thought" to be a liar by the elites of the time and Mohammed (Peace and Blessings be upon him) was "thought" to be a magician and a liar too – none of that mattered. Today Christianity and Islam together make up more than 2 thirds of the population of this universe, go figure).

        March 21, 2014 at 4:35 pm |
        • Reality

          Quick starting the educational process for islamtheanswer: (he or she has yet to refute any of this)

          from the studies of Armstrong, Rushdie, Hirsi Ali, Richardson and Bayhaqi–

          The Five Steps To Deprogram 1400 Years of Islamic Myths:

          ( –The Steps take less than two minutes to finish- simply amazing, two minutes to bring peace and rationality to over one billion lost souls- Priceless!!!)

          Are you ready?

          Using "The 77 Branches of Islamic "faith" a collection compiled by Imam Bayhaqi as a starting point. In it, he explains the essential virtues that reflect true "faith" (iman) through related Qur’anic verses and Prophetic sayings." i.e. a nice summary of the Koran and Islamic beliefs.

          The First Five of the 77 Branches:

          "1. Belief in Allah"

          aka as God, Yahweh, Zeus, Jehovah, Mother Nature, etc. should be added to your self-cleansing neurons.

          "2. To believe that everything other than Allah was non-existent. Thereafter, Allah Most High created these things and subsequently they came into existence."

          Evolution and the Big Bang or the "Gi-b G-nab" (when the universe starts to recycle) are more plausible and the "akas" for Allah should be included if you continue to be a "crea-tionist".

          "3. To believe in the existence of angels."

          A major item for neuron cleansing. Angels/de-vils are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hitt-ites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ug-ly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as f–airies and "tin–ker be-lls". Modern de-vils are classified as the de-mons of the de-mented.

          "4. To believe that all the heavenly books that were sent to the different prophets are true. However, apart from the Quran, all other books are not valid anymore."

          Another major item to delete. There are no books written in the spirit state of Heaven (if there is one) just as there are no angels to write/publish/distribute them. The Koran, OT, NT etc. are simply books written by humans for humans.

          Prophets were invented by ancient scribes typically to keep the un-educated masses in line. Today we call them for-tune tellers.

          Prophecies are also invali-dated by the natural/God/Allah gifts of Free Will and Future.

          "5. To believe that all the prophets are true. However, we are commanded to follow the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) alone."

          Mohammed spent thirty days "fasting" (the Ramadan legend) in a hot cave before his first contact with Allah aka God etc. via a "pretty wingy thingy". Common sense demands a neuron deletion of #5. #5 is also the major source of Islamic vi-olence i.e. turning Mohammed's "fast, hunger-driven" hallu-cinations into horrible reality for unbelievers.

          Walk these Five Steps and we guarantee a complete recovery from your Islamic ways!!!!

          Unfortunately, there are not many Muslim commentators/readers on this blog so the "two-minute" cure is not getting to those who need it. If you have a Muslim friend, send him a copy and help save the world.

          Analogous steps are available at your request for deprogramming the myths of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Paganism..

          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
          ===================================================================================

          March 21, 2014 at 6:23 pm |
      • islamistheanswer

        And since the merits through which you based your opinion of Muslims not welcomed and are crazy. I invite you to get educated about what being a Muslim means from an Islamic Perspective (not through the acts of few Muslims). A quick Poem that summarizes how Muslims should be according to the faith.

        http://youtu.be/Ad1XQL7zAqI

        March 21, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
        • Georgia

          These days Islam is just mainly for ignorant people living in backward countries. It gets pretty funny when you try to spam us with it here. You just look very stupid.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:49 pm |
        • islamistheanswer

          What is your faith? Do you believe in anything whatsoever (at least your own existence and being)? Reason I ask is just to show you that irrespective of which background you come, your faith at some point "looked" to be just mainly for ignorant people living in backward countries or non-existing countries for that matter. Did that make that creed or "faith" stupid. My dear, read for your self and before you throw such statements, attempt to tackle the points I made throughout this form on merit basis, not whims and desires (or ignorance as is the case in your comment). Judge Islam if you know anything about Islam through the teachings of Islam and the Quran, not through Muslims who might not be practicing or through the media! Enough said.

          March 21, 2014 at 4:56 pm |
        • islamistheanswer

          Georgia, I forgot to mention that Islam is the fastest growing religion in The United States of America and Europe – so much for the backward countries! Check out why western Women especially convert to Islam. Spirit of Islam regarding Domestic Violence and women abuse.

          http://youtu.be/jTRUt-WrOLs

          March 21, 2014 at 6:58 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
« Previous entry
Advertisement
About this blog

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