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. spamjoes

    These types of articles really irritate me. Science operates in a vacuum; it doesn't care about religion. Those who practice religion, however, are *obsessed* with scientific literature.

    Look, if you're religious– you have everything you need in the Bible or whatever other holy book you have. You really shouldn't need science to validate your beliefs.

    I stopped believing in religion when my son was born. Looking at him, I realized that the entire concept of a "hell" is ludicrous– any "father" could never to that to one of his children, especially one who purports to "love" us.

    March 21, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
    • wilburw7

      So would you die on a cross to stop your child from going to hell?

      March 21, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
      • G to the T

        That depends, do I know that I've always existed, will be ressurected after 3 days and then live forever at the right hand side of God (who I actually am)?

        March 24, 2014 at 10:53 am |
      • igaftr

        So would you threaten to send a child to hell for simply not being gullible enough to buy into ancient myths? (like your god does)

        March 24, 2014 at 10:57 am |
  2. jaydavid666

    No evidence or lack of evidence causes "God" to exist or to not exist.

    Personally, the existence of the death penalty, which is supported by most "godly" people leads me to believe that we humans are just one more animal species living in a godless jungle, although having ruled out the existence of God, I can't yet rule out the existence of Satan.

    March 21, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
  3. Vic

    ♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰

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

      of the Dance!

      March 21, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG


      March 21, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
    • doobzz

      of nothing.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Alastair Bruce is The Lord Aberdare

      March 21, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
  4. wilburw7

    -- Atheist Dies, Goes to Hell, comes back to life and describes what he saw:


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

      I can only imagine that Satan bought him that new suit...


      March 21, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      When your best argument is "fear"...you have lost the argument.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
      • wilburw7

        You have been warned. There comes a point when it is your responsibility understand and seek God.

        March 21, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Oh for f's sake Wilbur get over yourself and your belief in the boogey man in the sky. I have told you I wouldn't worship your asshat of a god if he did exist.

          March 21, 2014 at 5:47 pm |
    • distrbnce

      Leave it to christian's to put a con-artist on a pedestal. What a great idea.


      March 21, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
      • distrbnce

        ^ read about the life of the madman in the video. The con that somehow confirms Wilbur's belief for him. Grasping at straws, at any unlikely chance, is the sort of thing that betrays shaky faith.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
    • jameshunt81

      ...because the idea that this mans brains was going through the most incredibly, unbelievably, universe exploding DMT trip ever is less likely than his "soul" went to a bad fiery place with pitchforks and caves....people dream and people have crazy self-induced trips....

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

      Basically this means if you die an atheist, you go to heaven (and you might even get a chance to come back)

      March 21, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
    • igaftr

      The man did not die. If he is alive now, he was alive then.
      Near death is not death.
      This man only told a story of what his mind created for him.

      March 24, 2014 at 11:00 am |
  5. JohnRJohnson

    This Universe obviously had a beginning, but that beginning was probably an infinitesimal moment in an endless cycle of similar events. Suggesting that the so-called Big Bang was beginning of everything is akin to the early belief that the Earth was the center of the Universe.

    March 21, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
  6. wpacific

    "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." – Carl Sagan

    It is interesting that our desire to know things is so strong that we often make up myths in the form of creation stories to explain where we came from. There is nothing to suggest an omnipotent being who snapped his/her/its finger and created the universe.

    March 21, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
    • wilburw7

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

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

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

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

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

      March 21, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
      • dandintac

        What does this prove? I can post tons of anti-religion quotes up here all day long.

        Isaac Newton was a brilliant man, but he also believed in alchemy. Many of these people (and others theists like to quote) lived long ago, long before CERN, Hubble, or many of the scientific tools and knowledge we have today. Ignorance is fertile ground for religion. Probably if many of these people were around today, they would be atheists.

        We must also remember that at certain points, it was dangerous to be open about not believing. One had to make positive comments about religion to protect their reputations, and sometimes even their lives. Pro-religion comments are worthless if there is even a single drop of duress–whether it be bodily harm or social ostracization.

        March 21, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
  7. jonathanlk

    For one, a theory should never be construed as proof. The author stated that what can be interpreted as evidence of a big bang, "adds scientific support to the idea that the universe was caused – or created – by something or someone outside it and not dependent on it.". I suppose you can extrapolate this but, how does anyone know there aren't many, even an infinite number of, such Universes that explode into existence and then get sucked into lots of black holes just to explode again? Just laying out the possibility that the steady state theory may still hold but on a much grander scale than our small minded collective ego might not prefer. They still have not definitively proved the big bang theory and there are solid arguments that indicate we are misinterpreting data, mainly in terms of what we assign as the cause or causes of the red shift observed in stars. It could still be a steady state universe which actually doesn't explode out of nothing and then expand in an accelerated manner into an eternal cold and dark void. In fact, I studied Physics and I am inclined to think that we all want to believe in the big bang becasue it is simple and it conjures up all kinds of imaginary causes such as a creative old man with a long white beard floating out in vast void in need of excitement. However if you consider everything that casues light to have a red shift, and even consider we may not know everything that is causes a red shift, we have to conclude we don't really know for certain that we are not living in what for all intents and purposes is a steady state Universe.

    March 21, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
    • jameshunt81

      Your first statement proves that you are in fact, scientifically illiterate. Thanks though. Secondly, your idea sounds like many that I’ve had after smoking ounces upon ounces of weed. Thirdly, if you are so confident in the errors of those who research this area of science, then please come up with your own hypothesis, experiment and prove them wrong, publish your paper and get it peer reviewed, and then please collect your nobel prize, for you will have turned the entire cosmological perspective on its head. There are so many armchair theoretical physicists, it makes me sick.

      Oh and by the way, one physics class does not make you an expert. Oh and by the way one more time, we’ve known what causes redshift for a long, long time. It’s not magic.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
      • jonathanlk

        I would never be a weed smoker. That aside, the redshift of stars is positively correlated to their distance and we assume it is due to that they are moving away from us in an expanding universe whose expansion is accelerating the further away they are from from us. So there is 1. a Doppler effect depending on the objects velocity and direction. But 2. There is also the gravitational field effect on light, causing a redshift, and this could be significant considering light travels for millions and even billions of years through space which is not devoid of a gravitational field during that time 3. The expansion of space (dreamed up to explain the apparent acceleration) but I am not sure I buy into it yet. 4 And there is the relativistic motion of objects moving near the speed of light (wavelength shifts red as its, let's say rate of time, diminishes) and this is not dependent on direction as the Doppler effect is. Einstein's equation if you graph it shows there is a space time continuum, and if you assume space is expanding then what is happening to time? Is that expanding or shrinking? Are you saying space is independent of the objects within it? That 'expanding universe' assumption, used to explain a redshift, is really a paradigm, a theory. The effect could really be neutral. Time and space are related like water in one of those long balloons. If you squeeze one end, the 'water' just goes to the other end. If for some odd reason space is expanding, then don't we have to say something is also happening to time? Do we have to say 'time is accelerating too'? I think it would have to or things would all slow down in the same context. Things always exist simultaneously, and as far as we are concerned, relative to each other, our relative rates of change can differ etc., but by any measurement we still exist in the same moment/space. Time and space are directly related to each other, you might even say negatively correlated. Maybe the space time continuum is why a vacuum has physical attributes and changing things can exist in it. Is it just another field in itself subject to distortions? Like the validity we assign to our assumptions and paradigms? We have discovered at minimum 4 different causes of a redshift. Why is everybody so sure we won't discover another one? I am not sure even perfectly understand what light is much less all of its behaviors.

        March 21, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
  8. Jason McCann

    just wow @ delusion on a cosmic scale

    March 21, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
  9. jamesbrummel

    This is satire, right? I mean the big bang theory does not posit there was "nothing" before our present universe, just the same amount of matter in another form, possibly "plasma" ( I don't know enough details to use that word without quotes). Like water turns to steam or ice depending on environment matter also changes form when energy is added or subtracted.

    If the author is using this info to justify her belief in God, she must therefore believe the universe is +6000 years old, and all that implies for her religious beliefs.

    March 21, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
  10. propertyofthebroncos

    I believe the Big Bang Theory is actually the very opposite of proving there is a god. Nice try though.

    March 21, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
    • jameshunt81

      Actually they have nothing to do with each other. Its like comparing the theory of gravity with the idea that if you burp and fart at the same time, you will implode.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
  11. bostontola

    Dr. Wickman demonstrates the power of the scientific method with this article. A scientist that is so biased by her beliefs that she abandons all logic and method. In a religious community, this would be hailed. In the scientific community, her ideas would be tested independently by others, faults found, conclusions dismissed.

    March 21, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
    • Joeseph Eclaire

      The job of science is to prove other wise.
      And they 'create the test' to prove it.
      Of course fellow colleagues will always be under scrutiny.

      As Albert once made comment that he hoped his theory would be proven wrong.
      Of course he could have never realized that by 2014 science and be bought and sold to say anything.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
      • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

        The inherent flaw in science is humans...but the good news is the "mechanism" of science eventually overcomes that flaw.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          Only if the science is honest to begin with.
          And that really only happens if you are working independently and no reliant on some school or government grant.

          Good luck with that one however. An independent scientist is very rare and so easily dismissed by other scientist.

          March 21, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Bad science will always lose to the facts....eventually.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:08 pm |
      • steelontarget

        I see you're rolling with the "great science conspiracy against your god" theory.

        March 21, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      That is the beauty of religion, no work required.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
      • Joeseph Eclaire

        That's why they call it faith.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • cherryenema

          exactly! why spend the time and sweat looking for evidence and confirmation of a thought, when just saying it is so much easier? make up a loosely defined word like 'faith' to justify your leap to belief and get back to the communion wine!

          March 21, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          Problem is it requires just as much 'faith' not to believe.
          Interesting concept that faith is uh.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "Problem is it requires just as much 'faith' not to believe."

          No it doesn't...witholding belief requires no faith. That is a canard that is spread by the religious in an effort to distort the argument. One is either convinced or is not convinced...not being convinced is not the same as accepting a baseless belief.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
  12. radar8

    Smoke and mirrors. The Big Bang Theory no more proves the existence of a god than it does the existence of beings with 25 heads and 43 legs.

    Keep in mind.... this is a CNN OPINION, and we all know about opinions.

    March 21, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
    • Joeseph Eclaire

      The interesting thing is that this opinion is even on CNN. One would think it would be bettered played over at FOX.
      And why would CNN have a whole section devoted to religion ?

      Is CNN trying to promote a new brand of religion where anything goes.
      Me thinks the smoke and mirrors comes by way of a Pope Francis.

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

      It diefinitively proves that not only god was a white male with a long beard, but that he was an explosives expert and a magician and stood 700,000 thousand feet tall and could fly.

      March 21, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
  13. Kiwi

    "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."

    Then why do Christians keep trying to use it as such?

    March 21, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
    • faithfulwatcher

      We do not need to try to fit the BBT with Genesis chapters one and two in the Bible as both are conveying the truth and fit together. Starting out with the fact that particle means dust anyone who is interested in proving the truth to themselves can do some research as to exactly what the BBT is all about and then compare it to the word that God gave us on the matter. If you understand that God dictated his word to Moses for a very primitive people, and compare the words used then and what words are used in the BBT, using the dictionary, it is quite easy to see the correlation. The stubborn deniers will not even make this attempt.

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

        GMAFB, God did not "dictate to Moses!"

        March 21, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
      • joey3467

        Good luck proving that Moses even existed, much less the god who dictated something to him.

        March 21, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
  14. rickcor2014

    This article is such a lame attempt to reconcile science with fairy tales.

    Even if there was a agent that triggered the Big Bang, and I'm not saying there was, we have no idea if that agent is even aware of our existence, or even if it is a self-aware intelligent thing.

    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 something that caused the Big Bang."

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

    March 21, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
  15. lewcypher

    This is along the same lines as how Christians assert that a tree is evidence of the creative powers of their God.

    It's akin to saying 2+2=Fish

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

      Agreed. Everyone knows that 2 + 2 = Wednesday.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
      • lewcypher


        Gomez + Morticia = Wednesday

        March 21, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
  16. pauleky

    Uh, no.

    March 21, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
  17. steelontarget

    As the history of religion has proven, once confronted with an undeniable truth they must change their story again to try and continue to justify their beliefs.

    "If the universe did indeed have a beginning, by the simple logic of cause and effect, there had to be an agent"

    The continuing logical fallacy.

    March 21, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
    • radar8

      "There had to be and agent". OK. Using that circular logic, prior to the agent there had to be something to create the agent and on and on ad nauseum.

      Religious folk have nothing to hand their hat on. They can believe what they want, but there is zero tangible proof of the existence of god. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing, the big bagel.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
  18. douglasjohnson99

    The bible, the most moral, perfect book ever published...full of mu rder, ra pe, sla very, gen ocide, infant icide, mau lings, burnt offerings, sacr ificing of children, and ston ing people to de ath....contains the foundation of our objective morals and the key to eternal happiness for the soul that contains all of our thoughts and memories which can experience emotion and physical pain without any nerve endings that mysteriously detaches from the human body after death....is yours for the low low price of $11.99 at your neighborhood Wal-Mart.

    March 21, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
    • Joeseph Eclaire

      Lol !

      It sounds like the deviants manifesto.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
    • yousmellterrific

      To attempt to turn others away is the ultimate sin. The Bible is also full of Love, kindness, joy, miracles, forgiveness and grace to name a few. What you choose to highlight is what you become.
      The common trait I have found among most Atheists is a void of unhappiness expressed by witty sarcasm which they believe makes them appear right. They are very smart, but lack faith. Not only Faith in God, but faith in many aspects of their lives.

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

        "To attempt to turn others away is the ultimate sin."

        Translation: "there's a price to pay if you try to leave the club; Satan's nearby watchin; you know Satan, the one who performed plagiarism backward in time to discount those other stories that came before the Gospels......don't cross Satan"

        (eye roll)

        March 21, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
      • douglasjohnson99

        I just like to point out that people worship a god that condones this barbaric behavior. Also, there is no sarcasm here. What I said was absolutely 100% true (short of the price of the book, I made that up.) If you claim otherwise, please tell me what I wrote was false.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
      • douglasjohnson99

        Yes, atheist are very smart, and lack faith. Do you think faith is a virtue? It is not. Think of it this way... I make a claim that there exist an invisible clown that created the universe upon saying the words Hjiveb boolkediet fflaveotrrot (translation...I'm a perfect clown and you must now worship me). Johnny over here says, "I believe you, I have faith that we should worship this invisible clown. Do you think that Johnny's faith is virtuous? Yes or No?

        March 21, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • jameshunt81

          Faith was needed when people didn't know where the sun went at night, and wondered if it would come back. Then we invented the scientific method, and set childish things aside.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
  19. wpacific

    The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church. — Ferdinand Magellan

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

      You do realize I hope that the so called moon landing in 1969 was staged out in the dessert.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
      • radar8

        ROFLOL. I hope that you are kidding. If not, seek help immediately.

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

        And what dessert was served? Ice cream? Chocolate cake? Eclairs?

        March 21, 2014 at 12:29 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          Edit is unavailable.

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

          Is proofreading available?

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

          I would guess an Eclair, this guy isn't very subtle.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • doobzz

          Or skillful.

          March 21, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
      • entilzha

        So, it was done after dinner then? 'Cos that's when dessert is usually served...

        March 21, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • Joeseph Eclaire

          Is that the best you dope smokers have ?

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

          Wow, touchy, touchy.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
        • distrbnce

          lol, the only people I've ever known to think the moon landing was false were dope smokers. Where does this guy come from?

          March 21, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
  20. mythless

    This is one of the more egregious examples religious rationalizing. There is NOTHING in the discovery that indicates the presence of the mythical being you hope for. In fact, quite the opposite, it shows that natural forces coalesced to create the condition for the big bang and bolsters the theory of multiverses (multiple universes). String theory also points to this possibility.

    March 21, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
    • prettygirlssuck

      It's also interesting how "cause and effect" only applies to what she chooses. What a silly bit of evasion this is.

      March 21, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
    • radar8

      Humans are still very primitive. We invented god thousands of years ago to explain what we could not. For some reason, it's not OK to say "I don't know why this happens or exists"

      These religious geniuses attribute everyting that they can't explain to the Giant Head in the sky (William Shatner).

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

        The common trait I have found among most Atheists is a void of unhappiness expressed by witty sarcasm which they believe makes them appear right. They are very smart, but lack faith. Not only Faith in God, but faith in many aspects of their lives.

        March 21, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
        • Doris

          "They are very smart, but lack faith."

          Religious faith? Well then there should be no surprise there....

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

          "The common trait I have found among most Atheists is a void of unhappiness expressed by witty sarcasm which they believe makes them appear right."

          LOL. Is this what your preacher tells you every Sunday? That everyone has a god-shaped hole in their heart or some such greeting card nonsense?

          I doubt you know many atheists, let alone enough to come to such a ridiculous conclusion.

          March 21, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • jameshunt81

          Did you also know that we atheists also eat babies? The saddest people I meet are the ones that are desperately trying to hold on to their "faith"

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

          That is a very poor attempt at a Straw man fallacy. All of the atheists I know are very successful people in both lives, loves and careers whilst most of the deists I know are divorced, unhappy with their families and jobs. What does that prove? Nothing.

          July 12, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
    • MarylandBill

      This shows that theology should not be done by scientists, and also that you need to do a bit more research before you make pronouncements about it either. While I agree that it is folly looking for proof of God in physical evidence, it is also silly to say the same evidence disproves God. Scientists have lots of hypothesis about what might or might not have caused the Big Bang, but so far none of them have been tested.

      God is not ultimately the answer of how the Universe was created, but why the Universe at all.

      March 21, 2014 at 1:56 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
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.