 |
|
|
|
|
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. |
  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.  |
|
|
|
Funny to me how people who believe in god or not believe try to put down eachothers views. Believe in what you want to believe and what makes you happy and helps you live your life to the best of your ability. Its called respect for one another , even though their belifes may be different from yours you should still have the decency to respect that person and their views. I believe in God but im not going to put someone down or call them names because they have a different point of view then me. It should be common respect,
I have no respect for Christian evangelists that travel to Africa to incite violence and promote the killing of other people there.
Do you think any of them are on this blog right now?
hard to say, but based on my experience here (and in consideration of what I wrote below), yes.
Christianity has a history of it – what do you think led to Hawaii becoming a US state.
Another cause for concern is the way the christian agenda is pushed right here: christian religious beliefs to be taught as science, christian religious texts on public buildings, christian prayers at public meetings, christian beliefs as law, etc.
Kind of in the way that I didn't respect Fred Phelps;
kind of in the way that I don't respect people who let their kids die because they avoid medical care;
kind of in the way that I don't respect people who kill their children claiming them to be antichrists;
kind of in the way that I don't respect people who promote the spreading of disease in other countries because of an unrealistic stance on contraception....
Thank you for taking the most extreme examples to describe your hate of everyone in that particular group. It really helps to nail down the whole by looking around the fringe.
actor: which examples would you have us choose?
when theists criticize atheists, they bring up pol pot, or mao, or stalin
You are free to believe anything you want. But, if you are going to try and control the government using your religious beliefs and book, you best be ready to be called out on those beliefs.
and if you want to me life by those rules then you need to prove what you believe is 100% true, and not just your feelings
"and if you want to me life by those rules then you need to prove what you believe is 100% true, and not just your feelings"
I'm not asking anyone to live life by my rules. As humans, we need to collectively agree on a set of rules that is fair to everyone. They shouldn't be based on what some men thousands of years ago decided to be true.
It's not the belief in a deity that's usually the problem, it's the following the dogma of the Abrahamic religions and those followers who persecute those not like them.
Good point. But like the 2 others that commented before me.....
Most of the time, those of us that don't believe usually get lambasted by the believers first.
And like they also pointed out, a lot of the righteous right are always trying to control other sand the world too for that matter.
And that's what gets under the athiest and agnostic skin. Stop preaching to us! Stop trying to control others! And stop trying to make the world the way you think it should be or believe what you believe!
rjf
Respect each other, sounds fine if the christians that do not respect the rights of LBGT people, that don't respect a woman's right to chose, that do not allow contraception, want their idols placed in the public domain, etc. Respect of those like a Fred Phelps would be totally misplaced. You want respect butt out of other peoples lives.
@rjf20144,
The dissemination of false information should not be respected. If you want to believe in a god or gods that's your perogative, claiming a scientific basis for that belief enters one into the area of testability. Enter at your own risk.
The author of this makes some ridiculous leaps of logic.
Just because the Universe began, doesn't mean something had to start it. We simply don't understand why it began. Even if we accept that something had to have started it, it doesn't have to be an "agent." Our Universe could exist inside a higher dimension or reality where countless other Universes begin and end over eternity. Even if we accept that an "agent" started it, it doesn't have to be a deity, it could be some sort of very advanced alien. Even if we accept that a deity started it, it doesn't have to be the god of Abraham, it could be a group of gods, or any of the tens of thousands of MAN MADE gods humans have thought up over the millennia.
If every time we didn't understand something we stopped at "goddidit" we would still be sitting caves waiting for the next thunderstorm to create a fire so we could cook some food.
Damn straight!
WOW! Just keep trying to shove that square peg into the round hole! How far back are you going to push your god? Now your god did something 13 or so billion years ago and has not done a thing since? Last week there was no such thing as the big bang because Jehovah created the Universe 6,000 years ago.. This week we've come closer than ever to proving that a big band happened so that's proof that some god did that. Even were you to give that a god might have created the Big Bang, it's as likely that Odin did it as it is that Jehovah did.
See that's what wrong with all of you. Jesus appeared 2000 years ago and did his thing. Now you self centered individuals think he has to come again for you to believe. That's what faith and religion is all about. Why should HE have to prove himself to YOU again. You either believe or don't and accept the consequences in the end. Period that's it..... SO if you don't believe and he exists I guess you'll beg for mercy at that time AND if you do believe and he doesn't exist nothing lost ....
Pascals wager fails! You have no way of verifying outside of the bible anything that you have spewed and until you have that evidence, your book is just as valid for evidence of jesus/god/heaven/hell as Harry Potter is for witches.
Wrong, many ancient scrolls attest to the live of Jesus so I say either believe or not and live your life here to the fullest in the end it will be as it is supposed to be and you will not change that.
So Joe, who do you have as evidence that Jesus was not just an ordinary man? You know, besides motor-mouth Saul of Tarsus and his best bud Luke?
"Wrong, many ancient scrolls attest to the live of Jesus so I say either believe or not and live your life here to the fullest in the end it will be as it is supposed to be and you will not change that."
There are countless ancient writings about many gods, what makes the Bible so credible to you?
(not that Saul or Luke were evidence at all... but who else can verify Paul's claims?)
It still doesn't mean jesus was anything special. Your live and let live thing fails the second you added in something about consequences. I choose not to worry about the vindictive god of the bible, there is zero evidence for it and until there is, there is no reason to worry about consequences...your religion instills unnecessary fear.
Archaeologists have unearthed the Kingdom of Uruk, just as described in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which pre-dates the New Testament by hundreds and hundreds of years.
There are other docu/ments that attest to the fact that King Gilgamesh was a real person.
Does that mean he was a demi-god who ruled for 125 years and took a trip to the Underworld?
Nothing lost? Nothing except for years, and years of miss opportunities to better your life.
You put your life on hold to act good to have an extremely slim chance of getting into "heaven" if it exists anyway. Might as well enjoy the time that life has given you now while you are alive.
wow are you way off base. You should live life to the fullest with no regrets.
"wow are you way off base. You should live life to the fullest with no regrets."
What makes you think you have to be a Christian to achieve that?
Wow...I'm not sure I've seen Pascal's Wager in reverse before.
... Except a lifetime of worship wasted AND if it's another god them you might need to beg...
What you describe as a "Lifetime of worship" is confusing I'm a Christian who believes and lives in respect of everyone and yes does some praying but to say it your way distorts it and makes it sound arduous. You don't have time to say a prayer, you must be real busy....
@joedriver1001,
I fail to see how the degree of difficulty is relevant.
Do you acknowledge Osiris simply because it's easy?
Worshipping a false belief for lifetime, whethereasy or difficult, is a lifetime of worship wasted, is it not?
In addition, even if a life without worship of false god(s) is more difficult, e.g. persecution, it is not wasted on false beleif
Wow…just wow. Talk about the mentality of the American Taliban….
"Why should HE have to prove himself to YOU again."
He hasn't proved anything to me. There is a book that claims Jesus appeared 2000 years ago and did his thing, but why should I blindly accept that to be true? Cause it's says in the book it's true?
See that's faith what you just described, because it happened before your time you want more proof for your eyes... He Einstein didn't really have any proof now science is confirming him so maybe after death you get the proof... Live life joyously without regrets you may get no other.
"See that's faith what you just described"
What is so special about faith? It's just a belief in something without evidence.
There is a book that says George Washington cut down a cherry tree, did you see it is there a photo of the event? Do you believe it happened just because someone said it was so a hundred years ago? Why do you believe that?
"Do you believe it happened just because someone said it was so a hundred years ago? "
A perfect example! It never happened, it was an invented story by one of Washington's biographers (a priest no less) and yet, many people still tell the story as if it was historically factual. Not unlike some other writings I've heard of...
For the record, I would like to clarify that I was not actually present for the big bang. I didn't get here until a little later.
Couldn't find a cab?
I don't know enough about physics to have a firm opinion about whether this provides evidence for some superior being (I doubt it), but I'm quite confident that, even if there is some superior being, it's probably nothing like the biblical god.
I tend to agree.
And when they go if there is some sort of superior being that started it all and they meet "it" in the "afterlife" and it's not Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah/etc/etc, boy will they be SURPRISED!
Well at least you have some faith to question it and then you use the Probable word...
"Probable" is a great word. It means I find the possibility is high enough to give it conditional confidence. But I wouldn't read more into it than that.
LOL When they can twist science to try and justify religious fairy tales science is "logical" and "proof of god".
When it disagrees with those fairy tails such as proving the planet and universe is billions of years old instead of the few thousand years the bible claims, science is "flawed" and "wrong".
Where does the Bible claim that the earth and universe is 6 thousand years old. It, in fact, does not. Do not confuse a text with someones misinterpretation of a text.
And please don't come back with, "well, the bible says the earth was created in six days". Do you have any understanding of metaphor and allegory?
so how do Christians know what is the word of god and what is metaphor and allegory?
either all the bible is the word of god or it's not. If not, how can you say which parts must be obeyed? Is the part about gay se.x an allegory? How about the 10 commandments?
"Where does the Bible claim that the earth and universe is 6 thousand years old. It, in fact, does not. Do not confuse a text with someones misinterpretation of a text.
And please don't come back with, "well, the bible says the earth was created in six days". Do you have any understanding of metaphor and allegory?"
So your stance is, "Don't believe THOSE Christians, they're not interpreting it right, I'M the one who is interpreting it correctly".
So the part of the Bible that counts the generations from Jesus back to Adam as a way to prove he is the Messiah is wrong, or a lie, or what?
"..one day is with Almighty God as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." 2nd Peter 3:8, in the Bible.
Indeed – by the time of the writing of Peter (very, very little chance it was actully written by Peter by the way), christians were faced with the fact that the end of the world and the advent of the kingdom of god on earth was not coming "to this generation" as they originally believed. So they came up with the neat solution of stating that god's time is somehow different than ours and that "today", "day" and "this generation" don't really mean what the usually do.
How about the idiocy of soft dinosaur tissue confirming the earth is only 6000 years old, comedy gold from the apologists.
Is CNN turning conservative these days?
All of these articles I'm seeing...... The Marijauna Experiment in Colorado. Are we doing the right thing with medical marijuana and now this "Does the Big Bang offer proof of God".
What's going on with them lately?
Relax, you can only hide behind the b.s. for so long. After 30 you'll start to lose your pie in the sky idealism.
I got news for you. I'm 47.
I'm 47 bud. And have always been a liberal leaning moderate.
That doesn't take away from the fact that it seemed like a lot of the CNN articles at the time were turning conservative in their view.
I thank you Mr.Wickman , for your excellent article. "There is One (Almighty God) who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens (expanse of the universe) just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell." Isaiah 40:22. "This is what the True God has said, the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching them out; the One laying out the earth and its produce..." Isaiah 42:5. These words were written as dictated by God approximately 1200 years ago. The BBT, soon to be proven as fact, is proving the word of God and all we have to do is to pay attention.
Sorry, I that's actually almost 3000 (approx. 2700) years ago, the Scriptures were written.
The King James version of the new testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the church of England. There were (and still are) NO original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down 100's of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts with no two alike. The king james translators used none of these anyway. Instead they edited previous translations to create a version their king and parliament would approve. So.... 21st century christians believe the "word of god" is a book edited in the 17th century from the 16th century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century.
You are absolutely incorrect and you should do some serious research before you spout off false information. The first five books of the Bible were written by Moses and are found in the Jewish Torah, completed approximately 1473 BC.. Isaiah's writings were completed in approximately 732 B.C. and were preserved in caves when Jerusalem was over taken in 70AD. Isaiah's writings are part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that were found in 1948, the same year that God fulfilled His promise to the Jews that their homeland, Israel, would be restored.
Why should I take your interpretation of the Bible seriously when you can't discern that this article was written by a woman?
There is no reason to believe that Moses even existed much less the god he supposedly wrote about.
The Big Bang Theory does not suggest the existence of a god of any sort. It's just more "god of the gaps". You don't know what came before, so claim a god.
If you actually read the article, and more importantly, if you actually knew what the BBT is proving,(visiting the NASA website) you would know that their findings are proving that there is supremely superior intelligence that designed and set into an extremely complicated order per explicit planning, the entire universe. We are each individually responsible for proving what is fact and what is fiction to ourselves. It is foolish to be satisfied with the notion that all of this "just happened."
It doesn't prove that at all. Believers just want that to be true – even though the story in the religious texts is very different.
Quoting the bible to prove your point is like singing christmas songs to prove that santa claus is real.....any intelligent adults in the room just tune you out....
what was that you said I wasn't listening?
@faithfulwatcher,
Fyi,
The earth is not a circle and the universe did not spread like gauze or a tent.
"The universe was expanding, and as it expanded, it got cooler and less dense," David Spergel, a theoretical astrophysicist at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J. EXPAND: To spread or stretch out. In the Bible, at Isaiah 34:4 God says that the heavens "must be rolled up like a book scroll...." which implies the that the universe is flat. Per the NASA Hubble studies," A universe as flat as we see it today would require an extreme fine-tuning of conditions in the past, which would be an unbelievable coincidence.” They have proven that geometrically speaking, the universe is flat (like a scroll).
You do know that space/time is curved right? So a "flat scroll" makes no sense as an analogy. A better one might be a donut. The universe if finite but boundless.
@faithfulwatcher,
You are equivocating on the definition of expand. The reason that the universe could have expanded faster than the speed of light is that space itself expanded, unlike gauze or a tent.
Isa34:4... how can you claim consistency with a statement the would have us think that the universe can be rolled up? You seem to ignore what states but tout intead what you want it to imply.
A flat universe is a descrition of its geometry not its physical dimensions.
All I can say is God revealed Himself to me and changed my life. I believe in the Son, Jesus and that he became the sacrificial lamb for us to pay the penalty for our transgressions. I am sure that if any man humbles himself and seeks the Lord with an open heart, God will reveal Himself. That is the beginning of wisdom. Until you are in that place, you are simply wandering around in darkness, guessing at clues, having opinions and even some knowledge but never truly knowing anything. I know this because I was there.
Please drink the kool-aid already...
how did he reveal himself to you?
He dew near to me, I felt His presence, and he also downloaded all kinds of information into my brain, is the best way I can explain it. Inside you just know...beyond the shadow of a doubt that He is the Lord, and he has confirmed Himself with his Word. Don't be fooled by those that don't understand His Word. Ask HIm to reveal Himself to you. Seek him with a true heart. Get a Bible, ask Him to reveal His Word to you so you may understand it. Start reading the new testament. This is the basic path. It's all up to you.
In other words, not testable or verifiable, just an I feel it's true, therefor I know it's true claim.
I will accept your personal experience as evidence that god exists when you accept my personal experiences as evidence that god doesn't exist. Deal?
so he didn't reveal himself to you at all. You just had a thought or a number of thoughts.
"He dew near to me"
I suggest you take that to Oprah – this is not the place for that.
You do not accept someone else's experience, faith does not come from that. It will only come from your own experience. I was simply answering the question as to how He revealed Himself to me. You will find millions of people all over the world, from every walk of life that will tell you the same thing.
Anyway, I'm out. I don't waste time with those that don't want to know the truth. But for those that do...just seek Him and you will know for yourself.
I partly agree with the author. This newest scientific discovery does, indeed, serve as evidence of supernatural intervention. The correct supernatural creation story that is supported, though, is the Norse creation mythology:
"The first world to exist was Muspell, a place of light and heat whose flames are so hot that those who are not native to that land cannot endure it."
See!? If you just decide ahead of time what you think is true, it's a perfect fit! Hail Thor! (according to the author's logic)
Too boring... too much unnecessary capitalization... too much BS
What is it with the capitalization? It drives me nuts
why does your god need us to love him and worship him?
religion exists for two reasons; to ease the fear of death, and to control behavior.
Exactly!
He created you so you could experience life and wants you to have the best.
OK ... but why does your god need us to love him and worship him?
God does not need us, but rather we need Him. The things you take for granted, like the very air (oxygen) you breathe and the food you eat, the warmth and water that you need to stay alive, is all provided by Him in His infinite wisdom and compassion for His creations. All we have to do is to acknowledge Him, in truth, and He will also reveal His wisdom and genuine love (not mans idea of so-called love) so that we can live in exquisite and perpetual peace and joy of life. It is ours for the taking, freely, if we want it.
His parents created him. Not a god.
Parents don't create. They simply follow the instructions given to us by God so the process he created can take place.
ahhh the workings of a cult addled mind ...
LOL, you think people need instructions from a god to procreate?
Most of what we think we know came from those before us, and they learned from those before them. Today you look at craters on the earth with no hesitation in the belief they are in fact, craters caused by meteors. But, not that long ago, the scientific community thought they were ancient volcanos.
This guy reminds me of that episode of Family Guy where Meg meets that girl who is part of the cult.
Cause it's God ?
OK ... but why does god need us to love him and worship him?
I just answered this question lol
no you didn't answer it. Why does your god need us to love him and worship him? What would he need with our love and worship?
He created you to experience life and He wants you to have the best. To have the best, you need to seek Him and he will share with you the wonders of the universe. It's just like with us. If our kids listen to us, we can save them from harm and help them in life.
That's not an answer. That sounds like some brainwashed cult speak.
Why won't your god just show himself and then we will all believe he is real. Why the childish games?
Why, you sound like you would still not believe it or in typical greedy self centrism ask for a million dollars.
religious answers Rule #1: if faced by a question you can't answer, insult them to try and change the subject.
if your god showed himself, everyone would believe.
Yeah but then you would want this God smoking dope and turning Gay.
response to this idiot.
"Yeah but then you would want this God smoking dope and turning Gay."
Oh Please! You think because someone who doesn't believe in mythology that if a "God" showed up and proved he exists that the they would try to make him do drugs and change his orientation?
I've got news for you. There are a lot of people that believe in your "God" that are gay. And some of them smoke marijuana too!
BTW dummy. People that have those lifestyles don't want you to be like that, they just want to live their life as they want and be treated like an equal human being!
Hey I hear the Catholics are welcoming all the various deviant behaviors. Why not give it try. You might just fit right in with them
Creating some God in your own 'likeness', what fun uh.
The eclair has a sudden obsession with dope smoking and being gay. Too bad it's not as obsessed with logic, or even decent spelling.
Joeseph? Is that one of those new fangled kid's names?
Well there's apparently no arguing with you is there, Eclaire?
Since obviously any other religion except your own is completely and utterly wrong and they will burn in Hell, right?
The day is coming that God will reveal himself to all, and those who didn't believe will be in for quite a shock – at that moment and for eternity.
This world would be a lot better off if we eradicated all religion from the face of the earth and got rid of those defective genes that believe in fairy tales.
Out of the "Gene Pool"!!.
Now you kids!
Don't make me come out there!
Re: lamsmith41
What's wrong with "God" showing himself?
He's supposed to be a "loving god" isn't he?
Most of us logical people are from Kansas....... "Show Me"
@lunaeros
There's nothing wrong with God showing himself. For those of us who believe, there is visible evidence of God and His work all around us. But if you're looking for the "big sign", that will only happen as a part of God's timetable.
He already showed himself through his son (Jesus Christ) and many including you still do not beleive. The next showing of himself will be too late for this many who have eyes and yet do not see. My only prayer for alot of you is that he gives you a personal experience like he did to Paul.
Many of you beleive in the devil and even worship him but find it hard to beleive God lives. I am glad i did not need any proof before my heart believed and accepted him.
He does "show" Himself to those that seek Him. You might want him to reveal Himself to you on your terms, but He knows much more than you. For example, he revealed Himself to the Jews day and night when they were traveling through the desert. And later, when Moses was on the mountain, they went astray, made false idols, and worshipped them. The point is, seeing as you say, is not believing. Real faith, knowing for sure beyond the shadow of a doubt, comes from discerning with your spirit.
you have listed stories from your story book. There is no more proof that any of that ever happened than that Hogwarts is a real school and Harry Potter plays quiddich.
In the days of photography and or video, why can't god reveal himself so we would all know for sure?
Exactly. A story book.
Which he apparently fails to remember was written by man! And his "book" that he puts SO much faith in isn't even all of the original texts and gospels written. Just the ones that were deemed acceptable by the Council of Nicea.
I believe the word is "faith". You've written many comments on this article's site – I'm wondering why you're here if you're so adamantly a non-believer. But more importantly, why are you afraid to believe? Personally, I'd be a lot more afraid to NOT believe, because of the eternal repercussions. If you're a non-believer, I guess you go through life not worrying about your eternity, but what if you're wrong?
If you only believe do to the possible repercussions then you might as well believe in every god ever invented just in case you care currently worshiping the wrong one.
@ joey3467
Joey, I believe because I've had my own personal experiences that have revealed enough for me to say unequivocally that there exists a Creator – and only one. I'm sure you'll agree that there can only be one truth – either God exists or He doesn't. If you open your heart to Him, He'll reveal himself to you or to Dyslexic doG, or to anyone who asks – but you can't expect for it to be in a way that's determined by you.
If a giant pillar of fire guided me around the desert I would more strongly consider God, or atleast get a drug tested for halucinagens.
And why did he have to appear like that?
Supposedly man was made "in his own image", right?
Why not appear as he/she really looks?
"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."
Simple logic defeats this argument. Space, and even time itself, were created in the big bang. Before that, there was no space and there was no time. There was no "before". Therefore, there could NOT be an agent. There was no where for the agent to exist, and there was no "before" for the agent to exist in. With no space, and no time, there can be no agent. There can't "be" anything.
what you just described does in fact support what Dr. Leslie Wickman speaks of as the "outside of this universe" Agent, hence "First Cause" as a Logical Must.
Sorry, but logic doesn't allow you to guess "Musts"
you're not good with logic, are you Vic?
"what you just described does in fact support what Dr. Leslie Wickman speaks of as the "outside of this universe" Agent, hence "First Cause" as a Logical Must."
How do you get from a cause, to the cause being an "agent"?
The Agent of concern is the "First Cause."
"The Agent of concern"
Please provide the properties of this "agent of concern" and how it's properties was able to produce the event in reference.
Metaphysical, Eternal in Generation, Self-Existent, UNCAUSED, and outside the beginning, time and realm of this existence and not subject to it.
Oh..regarding the how, that's of the Divine Realm. We are not made to know nor understand such Supernatural Powers.
Vic
Are you posting from "The Twilight Zone".
Vic, so this "agent" that "caused" the big bang existed when? Before? There was no before. There was no time, so there was no before. Therefore there was no agent. And there was no cause.
You cannot define a system from within a system. The beginning of the universe is the vertical asymptote of logic and knowledge.
Believers will claim that their god exists outside of space and time, so no problem there. They can't provide any verifiable evidence for that, but will definitely make that assertion.
holy moly, you just broke the universe!!!!
Actually no. Cause and effect only exist inside the universe. There has to be a universe for the rule to apply. They existed only after the big bang. Since there was no time "before" the big bang, there was no "before". With no before, there was no cause. With no cause, there is no reason. There just is. That's all there is. The universe just exists.
If the universe had a beginning, then it had to have no cause for it to begin. Because there was nothing to cause it. There was no existence. Even "was" didn't exist.
Headline: God's Gap Gets Smaller
Reading these comments underscores how intellectually stunted the average atheist is: incapable of comprehending anything outside of what they can see, feel, touch, or taste. Denying the existence of things beyond our physical world is a demonstration of philosophical ignorance of the highest order.
do you believe in Santa and the easter bunny and the tooth fairy then?
Thanks for demonstrating exactly what i was talking about: The average atheist's complete inability to have even the simpliest of philosophical discussions without resorting to junvenile retorts
"Thanks for demonstrating exactly what i was talking about: The average atheist's complete inability to have even the simpliest of philosophical discussions without resorting to junvenile retorts"
All you have to do is provide credible, convincing, verifiable evidence for a god and then there wouldn't be any argument over the existence of a god. So please, do provide and let's end this debate.
@alfonse2014
You said, "The average atheist's complete inability to have even the simpliest of philosophical discussions without resorting to junvenile retorts"
Please provide some evidence that shows that your god is any different from the Tooth Fairy. Without that supporting evidence it isn't. Believing there are gods is just as infantile as believing Superman, or any other fictional character, is real.
Yea, sure because they don't believe in your little make believe god. That's what it is.
I think it is actually very simple. You are obviously wrong and we know it.
You are right. So, I now believe in Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, Krishna and Lord Brahma.
"Denying the existence of things beyond our physical world is a demonstration of philosophical ignorance of the highest order."
Please provide the credible, convincing, verifiable evidence of anything existing beyond our physical world.
"Love" exists beyond our physical world (setting aside references to the biological specifics re endorphins, etc.). So do all of our other"feelings:" (anger, fear, etc.). There is no "empirical evidence" for their existence – you could not "prove" they exist by attempting to explain it to someone else – yet they exist.
asinine analogy
Read: A Natural History of Human Emotions by Stuart Walton
"Love" exists beyond our physical world (setting aside references to the biological specifics re endorphins, etc.). So do all of our other"feelings:" (anger, fear, etc.). There is no "empirical evidence" for their existence – you could not "prove" they exist by attempting to explain it to someone else – yet they exist.
Love, anger, fear, etc., are just descriptive words to label what has been defined as feelings that takes place in a physical being in a physical world. They are not enti-ties that exist on their own in some supernatural dimension.
"There is no "empirical evidence" for their existence "
OF COURSE THERE IS – there's an entire field of biological study – it's called neuroscience. They can isolate which parts of the brain generate these ideas/emotions and how.
To assume they have some kind of aristotilian existence outside of the objective universe is unfounded.
Denying existence is not the same as just not being convinced by every creation story you've read.
Being super-ultra-gullible does not magically make you philosophically intelligent. Neither does using 2 spaces in every instance.
Being a critical thinker, does however, make you philosophically intelligent. Cheers!
I don't deny it exists but I am certainly not going to believe it does until someone proves it.
That an ad hominem arguement if I ever heard one, alfonse. Can't win a discussion, so resort to degrading the opponents intelligence.
@alfonse2014
You said, "Denying the existence of things beyond our physical world is a demonstration of philosophical ignorance of the highest order."
Accepting things for which there is not a single shred of evidence is a hallmark of gullibility. Not being able to see through the nonsense being fed to you in the form of ancient fairy tales clearly shows the limited mental abilities of believers.
There is no reason to believe that the ignorant sheep herders of the Bronze Age had figured out much of anything, let alone how the universe works. Putting stock into their ramblings shows delusion, not enlightenment.
Believing there are gods is no more rational than believing the Easter Bunny is real. Even Santa Claus and the Loch Ness monster are far more likely to exist than any god ever worshiped.
"Accepting things for which there is not a single shred of evidence is a hallmark of gullibility." Okay. Let's take a hypothetical person, born blind. During their life, they can learn much about the world, including hot, cold, liquid, solid, hard, soft, even shapes (which are part of the "sighted" world). But how would you explain "color" to them? How do you "explain" "red?" "Blue?" "Magenta?" The question is rhetorical. Thus, if that blind person chose not to believe in "color" – since you could never provide empirical evidence for its existence – they would have every right to do so, since they have only your word (and, yes, the word of others), but no "proof," as you are using that word. Similarly, the only evidence you have for the existence of God is the "word" of those who believe (who make up more than half the population of the planet). So you have a right to choose not to believe in Him. But that doesn't make you right.
I double check everything any Christian tells me because by admitting they are Christian they have already proven they will believe just about anything.
But you can explain color to a blind person. You can explain how light works, how it interacts with the human eye, and how the brain processes it. They won't be able to experience color, but there's no reason they can't understand it as a concept.
Studies show that religious people generally have lower IQ's and tend to believe in conspiracy theories more often. Just sayin
@maanirantel
How many people do you know that disagree about the color red?
You said, "The question is rhetorical. Thus, if that blind person chose not to believe in "color" – since you could never provide empirical evidence for its existence – they would have every right to do so, since they have only your word (and, yes, the word of others), but no "proof," as you are using that word."
You may want to reread my comment. I don't use the word "proof" unless I'm talking alcohol or mathematics.
This hypothetical person is free to use a spectrograph and analyze the spectrum emitted or reflected by a particular object. He is also free to consult others. I have no vested interest in convincing him of my perception of color, nor do I think that it is sinful for not believing it or that his eternal life hinges on it.
Very few people are hurt because of color.
You said, "Similarly, the only evidence you have for the existence of God is the "word" of those who believe (who make up more than half the population of the planet)."
Most people aren't a whole lot smarter than those that concocted the stories in the first place, and indoctrination is pretty powerful in shaping people's beliefs. Religion relies on both. Children learn from their parents (or their agents), who in turn learned it from theirs. This process can be traced back all the way to antiquity.
It is unsurprising to find that most people believe some form of it, but that doesn't make it true. The mechanism by with religious beliefs spread also explains why it is so strongly regional, and why geographical isolation tends to lead to diverging beliefs.
That most people believe in gods is no more evidence for the existence of gods than the belief that the earth was flat is evidence for its shape.
You said, "So you have a right to choose not to believe in Him."
I could choose to believe the Easter Bunny is real, but that would make me just as wrong as believers.
You said, "But that doesn't make you right."
True, it's not the fact that I don't believe in imaginary creatures that makes me right, although I don't consider it a choice. It's the logical conclusion of the evaluation of the available evidence.
All available evidence leads to the inevitable conclusion that gods are highly unlikely to exist.
It's so sad and disheartening to see idiots like Ms. Wickman getting paid to spout such drivel. And she claims to be a scientist? What rubbish!!
You know who else "claimed" to be scientists? Copernicus, Bacon (who developed the scientific method), Kepler, Galilei, Newton, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Pasteur, Leeuwenhoek, Carver – all of whom were devout believers of one faith or another. Does that make them any less scientists? You need to think about what you say before you say it.
How do you know any of those folks actually believed and were not just saying they believed to avoid being executed by the loving Christians of the time?
The difference between them and Wickman is that they didn't just ignore the evidence that went against the Bible. Wickman works for an organization that claims that if science and the Bible disagree then the science is wrong. Copernicus on the other hand found evidence that the Sun was the center of the universe, and despite the fact that the Church taught otherwise at the time he pushed his theory anyway. Do you see the difference in the two approaches?
universe should have been galaxy.
You can't claim to be a doing science and hold the following position at the same time:
We are certain that there can be no conflict between true science and true theology since God is the source of all truth; conflicts only arise from discrepancies in human knowledge, understanding, and interpretation."
– author's center (http://apu.edu/cris/)
An actual scientist will go where the evidence leads, and if it proves the Bible wrong about something then the Bible is wrong.
Why? You obviously didn't think before you started talking. You cannot possibly compare today's scientists to those that lived centuries ago to the ones that live today simply because science was in it's infancy. The observable world was much smaller, and the penalty for not kowtowing to the church was much, much higher.
I have been visiting this forum for over a year now. Millions of lines have been read and written in that time.
All you christian regulars who have vehemently denied the big bang and called it a lie or a plot by atheists to persecute christians or an absolute impossibility ... need to slap yourselves forcefully in the face if you are now trying to say that the big bang is a proof of your god's existence.
Slap! And slap again!
It's just like everything else. They deny it until it becomes reality, then take credit for it.
Fifty years from now, they will claim that they were the ones who first proposed equal rights for gay people.
She entirely forgot the COBS factor and failed to exclude it in this article.
That is the highly ignored but real Coefficient of BullSh&t,
I burned my toast this morning and the scorch marks looked like jesus. Does that offer a proof of god or is that just the naturally existing reaction of the bread to the heat?
Just proves you shouldn't get drunk the night before you have to go to work again.
Although some say burnt toast is good for a hang-over if you can get it down.
I find burnt toast to be great for a hangover, which is obviously proof that the judeo-christian god does indeed exist and created everything in the universe thousands of years ago in perfect order, even though there are trees older than the universe....
That is clearly a sign from god. He wants 10%, along with your confession.
BTW – How do you know what jesus looked like?
Couldn't it have been Mohamad or Cunfucius?
it looked like the guy in that "Hot Jesus" article here on CNN a week ago.
So are you saying that if God where gay you would believe ?
if god were anything I would believe!
Na,
you seem to caught up with yourself.
"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."
One person's logic doesn't mean reality has to agree. Relativity and QM defy simple logic. She should know this. It might be logically sound all effects need a cause but reality doesn't need to agree. I can easily posit a universe that caused itself. Or I can posit a reality of turtles all the way down, there's an infinite regress of causes. I have to accept my human brain, evolved to deal with running away from tigers and not stepping on snakes, can't accommodate that reality.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/comment-page-5/#comment-2969113
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/comment-page-2/#comment-2968150
The significance of this discovery —existence of Gravitational Waves— in relation to God is the "expansion of the universe at a rate faster than the speed of light, right at the Big Bang."
That implies that only a "Supernatural Power" can do that, hence the "Spoken Word," the "Breath" of God.
In this context Vic, what is the difference between unknown and supernatural?
or for that matter, yet unexplainable...
asinine logic
"That implies that only a "Supernatural Power" can do that"
How does it do that? I can't think of any other reason, therefor God?
By the Spoken Word, the Breath of the Metaphysical Supernatural God.
Don't make us gag
"By the Spoken Word, the Breath of the Metaphysical Supernatural God."
Is there a scientific journal I can reference that details the mechanisms of this?
Vic
Just replicate one supernatural event in front of a panel that consists of both believers and nonbelievers. You would probably cheat if it was just in front of apologists, oh wait, they do cheat now about science, like you tried to do yesterday.
Oh..besides that the universe had a beginning.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/comment-page-2/#comment-2968150
Vic, the speed of light limitation does not apply to space-time itself, it applies only to objects that move within space-time. You seem to think that "faster than the speed of light" is something outside of known physics that needs a supernatural explanation. This is not true.
Catch 22
Did you know that there was no space before the existence of the universe?!
There is no catch-22. Space can expand faster than the speed of light; this does not violate any known laws of physics. Objects within space cannot move faster than the speed of light.
Vic, you're displaying your ignorance in a loud way and it's embarrassing for me to read it.
The big bang, the expansion of space itself, is not bound by the speed of light, and no shet space didn't exist before the universe... they are the same thing.
Alright, stop trolling Vic.
what does your god breathe in space?
doG
When I was a kid the god guy dressed in black with a funny collar and his breath smelled like Gin.
God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance
– deGràsse Tyson
Me thinks you may be reading things backwards.
fooW
Also known as god of the gaps. God lives in the gaps of our knowledge. This god keeps shrinking as the gaps shrink.