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. loyengap

    there is a God, but he's definitely not the puppet gods we've created.

    March 21, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
    • Joeseph Eclaire

      You got that right.
      We now have a God to fit every life style choice and ideology.

      March 21, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
    • ramblingsofnihility

      Evidence of said god?

      March 21, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
    • iconoclast1

      God was created in man's image, not the other way around.

      March 21, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
      • Joeseph Eclaire

        If so I'm very disappointed.
        But perhaps it started out as a good idea. The some where along the way it got corrupted.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
      • alfonse2014

        What does it feel like to know EVERYTHING. You must have one of those big giant Star-Trek brains with all those big buldging veins all over it.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
        • iconoclast1

          I wouldn't know what it feels like to know "EVERYTHING." Your assertion that I do (or that I think I do) is just another one of your delusions.

          March 21, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "What does it feel like to know EVERYTHING. You must have one of those big giant Star-Trek brains with all those big buldging veins all over it."

          Where in iconoclast1's statement did he claim to know everything?

          And why do you keep ignoring my asking you to describe the properties of anything existing outside of our physical universe and how you verified it using philosophy.

          March 21, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
  2. theghostofjimjones

    Well look at that, the Greek gods really did creat the universe.

    March 21, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
  3. ausphor

    Big Bang, Duke upset by Mercer, madness.

    March 21, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
  4. nakedamerica

    Just a couple of minor points. Which god are you talking about? If whichever one you believe in is real, isn't that in and of itself 'proof' that the others are possible as well? If a magical being like the god you believe in can be real, can't Dracula? or Popeye?

    March 21, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
    • alfonse2014

      Philosophically speaking, anything can be POSSIBLE, but not necessarily PROBABLE. Both Science and Philosophy take that into primary consideration – e.g. that's basically the very heart of statistics. Metaphysically speaking it is MOST PROBABLE that there was a causative force associated with our physical universe and existance which would also logically speaking have to reside outside of the effect. That's pretty sound philosophical proof of the existance of a God.
      ..
      Now don't all of you atheist go and get your panties in a bunch because of the term 'god'. That's merely a reference to the conscience power- the extention of the above reasoning – that 'created' this physical universe. Some people see that conscience power as a God and believe that there may be a reason for all of this. To dismiss or ridicule that opinion is the height of academic hubris.

      March 21, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
      • ausphor

        Philosophy, the unending study of why Adam and Eve had navels, navel gazing at its finest.

        March 21, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
      • Doris

        "Metaphysically speaking it is MOST PROBABLE that there was a causative force associated with our physical universe and existance which would also logically speaking have to reside outside of the effect. That's pretty sound philosophical proof of the existance of a God."

        And I will comment on your use of "God" because everyone knows in the way you termed it you are implying the Abrahamic God. Along with that type of god concept comes a whole bunch of other silly notions. Why would a creative force have to be a singularity? Why would we have to be in its image? Why would it have to be intelligent? Why would it have to still be around? etc., etc.

        March 21, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
        • Doris

          (in response to alfie)

          March 21, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        "Metaphysically speaking it is MOST PROBABLE that there was a causative force associated with our physical universe and existance which would also logically speaking have to reside outside of the effect. That's pretty sound philosophical proof of the existance of a God.
        ..
        Now don't all of you atheist go and get your panties in a bunch because of the term 'god'. That's merely a reference to the conscience power- the extention of the above reasoning – that 'created' this physical universe. Some people see that conscience power as a God and believe that there may be a reason for all of this. To dismiss or ridicule that opinion is the height of academic hubris."

        You are putting the label God on to the cause, but then you give that cause a conscience power. How can you assert that attribute to the cause?

        March 21, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
      • G to the T

        "Metaphysically speaking it is MOST PROBABLE that there was a causative force associated with our physical universe and existance which would also logically speaking have to reside outside of the effect. That's pretty sound philosophical proof of the existance of a God."

        Then it sure if a good thing that your metaphysics have no influence on actual physics and the actual science being used to analyze this data. Your theory is deficient because it is not taking into account all the of the known facts about the universe that we have at hand. You are using metaphysics as a way to side-step scientific inquiry and that was never it's intended purpose.

        March 24, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
  5. postmodernhuman

    I think the author is being disengenous when quoting Fred Hoyle. Either she has no understanding of what he stood for or his priciples (I find this hard to believe for being so well educated and with a job of her caliber) or she is misleading uneducated readers be asserting the Hoyle was a sponsor of the big bang theory. He wasn't in the least, and coined that term to be sarcastic and undermining. He was a supporter of "Steady State!". She found the one person that was a quack related to the big bang theory and uses him as a confirmation of her insanity. Shame on you.

    She also says the prevailing theory before the big bang was "Steady State" and then says "this new evidence strongly suggests there was a beginning to our universe. While this is also true, it is disengenous because there has been evidence for many many years that the big bang happened (background microwave radiation, expanding universe, dark energy expansion, to name a few). To assert that this new evidence has anything to do with a creator is irrelevant. Its funny how religious people try to "save"religion by combining new science with their outdated and backward belief system.

    let me ask you this religious people, when was the last religious breakthrough? where is your messiah now?

    March 21, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
    • Vic

      I responded with this earlier to another poster:

      The significance of this discovery —existence of Gravitational Waves— in relation to God is that it confirms amongst other evidence that the universe had a "beginning" AND that "the universe expanded 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.

      March 21, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        "That implies that only a "Supernatural Power" can do that, hence the "Spoken Word," the "Breath" of God."

        And I replied to you earlier.

        To you it implies that.

        March 21, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
      • willthefree

        Vic – you are essentially saying that a property of physical behavior of early matter or energy that we don't yet understand is evidence of god. That's no different than when people thought things fell down because god wanted them not to float off into the heavens. No, it's called gravity, and there is no big person in the sky forcing everything to fall.

        March 21, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
      • postmodernhuman

        obvious troll is obvious.

        go read a book.

        March 21, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
        • joey3467

          Other than the Bible.

          March 21, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
  6. qsmurf

    "As Hoyle saw it, the Big Bang was not a chaotic explosion, but rather a very highly ordered event."

    Even brilliant minds still find ways to create the supernatural out of nothing but belief, conjecture and imagination.

    March 21, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
    • alfonse2014

      Hilarious, the tiny mind of Qsmurf ridiculing Great Minds.

      March 21, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
      • G to the T

        Intelligence is not a barrier to holding irrational beliefs. Indeed, smart people are usually better at rationalizing their irrational beliefs.

        March 24, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
  7. mike44337798

    It's funny how when evolution made Genesis look really, really wrong that many religious people said "oh, it's a metaphor." Now that they're suddenly saying it isn't a metaphor because the author of this article made a few giant leaps in logic when connecting recent scientific evidence to some cult that's been around for a few thousand years.

    But, evolution is still there. Is the moment of creation real and the rest a metaphor? Is the 6,000 year old planet of the bible really the same thing as the real planet in the bing bang universe that's billions of years old? One little fact sort of lines up and suddenly god is real? Really? Wow, I guess if you're willing to believe in religion you're willing to believe anything.

    March 21, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
  8. Bill Merklee

    Please stop. It's proof of the Big Bang. Nothing more.

    March 21, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
    • iconoclast1

      Amen. :o)

      March 21, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
    • ifhorseshadgods

      Re-interpreting their bible and adjusting their beliefs to match current scientific findings = relevance.

      Imagine if the religions of the world didn't change to meet the needs of modern society .. they'd go the way of Zeus, Thor, Ra, John Frum, Anahita, Ymir, Marduk, Ki, Eos, Ishtar, Iris, Mars, Osiris, etc.......

      March 21, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
      • iconoclast1

        Exactly. It's just a way of perpetuating religions. Hard to imagine one of the mainstream religions in the world saying, "Oh, well. I guess this latest scientific finding proves that we've been peddling nonsense all along. Time to shut down."

        March 21, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
    • rongoodman

      Actually, no, it's evidence of inflation.

      March 21, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
      • Bill Merklee

        I stand corrected.

        Please stop. It's proof of inflation. Nothing more.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
      • crazycrave

        Right!

        I've noticed that most of the posts on this blog betray a shallow or incomplete grasp of the concepts being discussed.

        To understand the implications of this scientific finding requires more study than I think that the majority of posters here have bothered to do

        Not to be simply disparaging to everyone, but it makes the discussion more interesting if the poters are more familiar with the topics being discussed, that's all.

        March 21, 2014 at 4:14 pm |
  9. qsmurf

    Somewhere, Bill Nye is reading this article and slapping his forehead!

    March 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
    • alfonse2014

      ROTFLMAO, Riiighttt, Bill Nye – the final authority on all things Scientific and Philosophical.

      March 21, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        ROTFLMAO, Riiighttt, alfonse2014 – the final authority on all things Scientific and Philosophical

        March 21, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
  10. frosty13148

    as it is I do not need to have someone show me scientifically that God exists. I have seen enough in my life to know. If you have to have proof other than what is here in front of us then your in for a letdown.

    March 21, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
    • ramblingsofnihility

      What have you seen?

      March 21, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
    • theghostofjimjones

      What god have you seen evidence for? There are thousands to choose from ?

      March 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
    • lewcypher

      If you had been born and raised in central America 1000 years ago you would be saying Quezacoatl exits or 5000 year ago in Egypt you'd been worshiping Ra.

      So saying you believe whatever god exists now is just your present day delusion.

      March 21, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
      • iconoclast1

        Exactly.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
      • kevin7harris

        Classic Genetic Fallacy you're committing there, Lewcypher!

        March 21, 2014 at 3:07 pm |
        • G to the T

          A fallacy of origins you mean?

          I don't believe so. It could be easily falsified, all you'd have to do is find any time in history when a statistically high number of people didn't believe the religion of the culture they were born to. I don't believe you will, so I think it's safe to assume that, for the majority, the "truth" they find will be integral to the culture they were born to. Which show the relativistic nature of these beliefs.

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

      I know, I recently dreamed that I was by this beautiful trickling brook – only God could have created such a vision! Then I awoke and sure enough, the cat box needed changing. Such prophesy! Praise the Lord and pass me a beer – TGIF!

      (eye roll ad nauseam)

      March 21, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
  11. sanjosemike

    As stated by a number of posters, this "new finding of gravity waves" also points to a strong possibility of the existence of multi-verse universes, in an infinite number. This suggests (as astrophysicist Sean Carroll reports), our universe is just one of that number. Our universe had a beginning, and it will likely have an end where everything disintegrates into nothingness or just quarks after 100s of billions of years.

    Biblical references are nothing but drivel. Had an ancient text discussed the Higg's field in mathematical detail, I might seriously consider going to church and taking up religion. THAT would have been a revelation.

    No such thing. God is most likely an invention of humans. However, it remains possible that the Universe itself might be a form of life that we just don't understand. A living universe does not suggest a god, but merely another life form.

    If the universe is actually alive, some aspects of consciousness and "weird action at a distance", including quantum ambiguities might be more easy to understand. A conscious universe might deliberately make it possible for biological beings existing that are capable of trying to communicate, understand and live within it. Given the enormous size and number of potential planets that could allow life, this suggests exactly that possibility.

    Again, this would not be a god, but simply another form of life that allows life to form within it. I realize that some people might want to worship this form of life, but that is absurd. It is equally possible that a life form such as our universe would not welcome or request adulation. However, it would probably welcome our attempts to understand it.

    sanjosemike

    March 21, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
  12. ifhorseshadgods

    These people find Jesus in their peanut butter sandwiches .. why are we surprised they see one of their gods hands in the big bang.

    March 21, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
    • alfonse2014

      Ah, and there we have it. This is the extent of a libs ability to deal with philosophical concepts that they don't like. Scarasm and ridicule: Alinsky's rule #1.

      March 21, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
      • ifhorseshadgods

        Lib? Quite a leap you made there, typical name calling.
        What I stated has happened, you can find occurrences of Jesus appearing pretty much anywhere. I understand that you don't like it, but it is a fact. Nothing I said was incorrect.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        Philosophy this, and philosophy that. Please describe the properties of anything existing outside of our physical universe and how you verified it using your philosophy.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
      • ifhorseshadgods

        Also Alfonse, gods are not found in philosophy gods are found in psychology.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
      • johnbiggscr

        ' Alinsky's rule #1.'

        As you are also using by trying to discredit someone by claiming they are using alinsky's rules.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
      • iconoclast1

        So, you're a rabid, brainwashed "conservative." I guess I could have predicted that. You people will believe ANYTHING.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
      • distrbnce

        Here's a Jesus that appeared in my facebook feed today... http://www.wwltv.com/news/Shadow-at-Ursuline-resembling-Jesus-has-touched-thousands-of-lives-251319011.html

        March 21, 2014 at 3:09 pm |
    • nakedamerica

      Excellent!!!

      March 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
  13. manhandler1

    Here we go again. Just because we don't know something for sure must mean there's a God. Really? Are these the same people who don't believe all the scientific proof of evolution or global warming or how old the earth is? And now they want to grab onto something scientific because it serves their purpose. Give me a break. There is no God. Just a whole lot of people who can't stand not having an explanation for everything.

    March 21, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
    • ifhorseshadgods

      "God did it" or it's "God's will"! That's always their answer to anything they don't know or can't understand or need an answer for ... But that also pretty much means that this all knowing all being God of theirs is simply the sum total of all human ignorance.

      March 21, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
    • eoyguy

      Perfectly stated.
      Whenever someone asks me "well how do you explain?" when referring to proof of good, I respond with 2 answers. First, thats the religion of ignorance, not far removed from early man relating every natural phenomenon to a god because they had no clue. Gods of wind, water, sun, you name it, as their explanation of anything they couldn't explain. Second, I have never claimed that as a human I will have the answer for everything, but the one answer I will never use is "if I can't understand it, it must the doing of a supernatural being". Honestly I'm not sure the big bang theory is the answer to how everything began, and I wonder about it all the time. But never have I said to myself "well, I can't figure it out, must have been god!"

      March 21, 2014 at 2:54 pm |
  14. ifhorseshadgods

    "..by the simple logic of cause and effect.."
    Pretty ridiculous to use "simple logic" to explain the start of the universe (never mind quantum mechanics, string theory or relativistic physics even) ... but at least these believer types are finally trying to use logic .. so I guess that's a good thing!

    March 21, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
    • iconoclast1

      What I find amazing is that they are able to rationalize their belief in myths and fables, as if those things are really true, by citing scientific findings, which are the exact opposite from faith-based beliefs.

      March 21, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
      • ifhorseshadgods

        They certainly amaze me, they also have me shocked, bewildered and continually face palming!

        March 21, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • iconoclast1

          I'll bet. I extend my sympathies. It helps me understand why we can't fix many of the more practical problems we have in the world today. Muddled thinking, shallow analysis, the madness of crowds, beliefs that are based on one's desires and biases, not evidence – these are some of the things that block progress on many fronts.

          March 21, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
    • David Cameron

      Nailed it. "Cause and Effect" hardly begins to explain the universe, and certainly doesn't apply when you look at things at a Quantum Scale, ie, the science used to discover this breakthrough.

      Does the Big Bang breakthrough offer proof of God? No. At best, it's evidence to support an unscientific religious belief/theory.

      March 21, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
    • Vic

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

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/comment-page-5/#comment-2969113

      March 21, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
  15. fr33d0mhawk

    The Big Bang does not indicate that the God in the bible exists. Religious people can't just take one tiny part of cosmology and point to that as definitive evidence of a Judeo-Christian biblical Genesis, and then ignore all of the other evidence disproving the biblical version of creation. Besides that, just because there was a Big Bang does not mean that it was something totally new never before created. The universe could be cyclical, Big Bang, expansion, then collapse of the cosmic event horizon due to Hawking radiation until the universe hits a minimum size, a black hole containing all of the information in the universe on its event horizon, and then rebounding to create a brand new Big Bang. I see most of science pretty much debunking the biblical story of creation, although our universe could have been created by a super-being, or maybe it was created by just some intelligent race as a super large quantum computer used to try to discover why anything exists, or maybe to solve a difficult equation, or maybe just to see if they could do it. Genesis has inconsistencies that make that kind of creation impossible using the physics that has been proven, like how God created the earth and then said let their be light, when our planet was created less than six billion years ago in a universe that is about 14 billion years old. First there was darkness and quark soup, then shortly after, pretty much only hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium. Then light was liberated, and then gravity created the first stars and galaxies, then billions of years later, a local star went supernova and seeded the local nebula with heavier elements, elements necessary for life, elements that were not created during the Big Bang, then the sun was born, then the planets coalesced, and billions of years later some primate wrote a story about how the Earth was created at the same time as the rest of the universe, getting it wrong because that primate did not have the science nor technology to really understand what happened, so he gave it his best guess, most likely an iteration of an older story told prior to the advent of the Judeo Christian religion.

    March 21, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
    • Vic

      The significance of this discovery —existence of Gravitational Waves— in relation to God is that it confirms amongst other evidence that the universe had a "beginning" AND that "the universe expanded 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.

      March 21, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
      • ramblingsofnihility

        "That implies that only a "Supernatural Power" can do that, hence the "Spoken Word," the "Breath" of God."

        To you it does.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
      • fr33d0mhawk

        Spring also has a beginning, today I think, but that doesn't mean its the first Spring or that it was created by God breath or word. The universe could be cyclical as well. My point is that the author is cherry-picking data from cosmology and Genesis in order to support his claim but does not discuss all of the disagreements between Genesis and cosmology. If physicists come up with a mathematically consistent explanation for God and the model works for everything in physics, then that might be the right answer, but that God won't be the God in any of mankind's religions because all of those God's have been as disproven as gravity is proven.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • Vic

          Well, today is the first full day of Spring, officially.

          Now, regarding cyclical, that's impossible because 'infinite regression' is impossible. There had to be a start/beginning to this finite existence.

          http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/20/does-the-big-bang-breakthrough-offer-proof-of-god/comment-page-5/#comment-2969113

          Furthermore, Empirical Science ONLY ventures into the physical world, it CANNOT venture into the Metaphysical which we believe is behind and is outside this realm of existence.

          March 21, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "Now, regarding cyclical, that's impossible because 'infinite regression' is impossible."

          Prove it.

          March 21, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • joey3467

          Well Vic I consider that to be a cop out that religious people use because they know they have no way of proving what they believe to be true.

          March 21, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
      • sam stone

        That sure is a logical leap, Vic

        March 21, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
  16. kevin7harris

    This is a major scientific inference to God! In brief:

    1). Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
    2). The universe began to exist.
    3). Therefore the universe has a cause.

    4). All time, space, matter/energy came into being at the Big Bang.
    5). Therefore, whatever caused the universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial (and very powerful).
    6). In the philosophical literature only two things are candidates for that: abstract objects (like numbers) and something like a mind.
    7). But abstract objects don't cause anything.
    8). Therefore, something like a mind is the best candidate.
    9). Minds are properties of persons.
    10). Therefore, something timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and personal is the most plausible candidate for the cause of the universe.
    11). Therefore, God exists.

    March 21, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Which God is that again?
      Every religion has a creation myth and one or more gods involved in said creation.

      How can you know it was Yahweh and not Angus, Belenos, Brigid, dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Thuno, Tir, Weyland, Woden, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Black Shuck, Herne, Jack in the Green, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fu.kurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac, Viracoc.ha, or Zaramama

      March 21, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
      • kevin7harris

        This argument merely leads to a generic or broad theism. To arrive at the God of Christian Theism, other evidences can be offered in addition to this more basic one (e.g. aspects of natural theology, historical arguments for the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, alleged special revelation, etc.).

        March 21, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          At the end of the day its just your set of myths against another set of myths.

          March 21, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          In other words, you would invoke supernatural sophistry to reassure yourself that your religion's god is The One True God.

          If the One True Deity, shaper of The Universe, wishes their words to be transmitted and adhered to, they should have been a bit less ambiguous. Expecting people to select The Truth out of limitless possibilities on faith alone seems a sloppy way to run things – especially if the punishment for a wrong choice is eternal torment.

          March 21, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • kevin7harris

          Doc, the argument addresses the existence of God. HOW God chooses to reveal himself is another question. If you want to discuss that then offer some suggestions as to how God should reveal himself.

          March 21, 2014 at 3:04 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          How should God reveal Himself?
          Unambiguously.

          March 21, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • kevin7harris

          First, what do you mean by "unambiguously"? Can you give some examples of how God should have done it?

          March 21, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
        • believerfred

          Doc
          "Expecting people to select The Truth out of limitless possibilities on faith alone seems a sloppy way to run things"
          =>How quick you forget basic. It begins with 0 or 1 and of course 1 is God as there can only be one God and 0 is the absence of God.
          =>You are the one who has added limitless possibilities for God so what we have is mans image of God as what man seeks rather than God who is. This happens when we cannot humble ourselves before the God who is. In the days of old men would fall down on their faces in fear (a worshipful fear) when presented with even the name of God. The Hebrew could not even say the name as they had reverence for the Holiness of God. This was God as seen by Isaiah where in the presence of the Glory of God even Seraphim covered their eyes and feet.
          There is no doubt when the presence of God has touched the essence of our soul. But, it is you who must possess the proper position of soul as God is not a respecter of man nor could it ever be such.

          March 21, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
    • MidwestKen

      What's your basis for your first premise?

      March 21, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
      • kevin7harris

        From nothing, nothing comes; one of the oldest axioms. Being cannot come from non-being uncaused. Non-being (nothing) is nothing! There is not even the potential for something in nothing!

        In addition, it's a metaphysical principle (not merely a physical principle). Things don't just pop into being uncaused from literally nothing! Any arguments to counter this are not as strong as the principle of causality itself. Therefore, it's the most plausible.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • rongoodman

          Actually, if you take the time to read up on some basic quantum mechanics, they do. Particles are continually popping into existence in empty space, and then disappearing, and their presence can be measured. Look up "virtual particles".

          March 21, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • crazycrave

          good point, people throw around terms like "nothing" pretty fast and loose, without much reflexion as to what those terms actually mean.

          That said, I think it's only fair to point out that "empty space" is not the same thing as "nothing". Personally, I have yet to have the term "nothing" adequately explained. Very difficult concept for me, I'm not able to understand what it means.

          Cheers

          March 21, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @kevin7harris,
          "From nothing nothing comes"

          You misunderstand, or at least misstate, the axiom, I think. It is not saying 'what begins to exist' must have cause, but 'what exists' must have a cause, or a reason at least according to Spinoza I think.

          Although, either way, I'm not sure that your premise is true. What proof do you have to support it?

          March 21, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • kevin7harris

          rongoodman But the particles are not coming from nothing. The quantum vacuum is not nothing! It has structure and obeys certain physical laws. You're right! It's a great study! But also keep in mind there are about 10 different interpretations of QM.

          March 21, 2014 at 3:28 pm |
      • Akira

        Right? If everything that exists has to have a cause, where did God come from?

        March 21, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • kevin7harris

          Please please please let this go away! Read the first premise again! Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause.

          March 21, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          'Please please please let this go away! Read the first premise again! Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause'

          sorry but dont give us that guff of god always existing as a get out of hard questions free card, ok?

          March 21, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • kevin7harris

          If it's "guff" then show it! I showed it in the premises. Which premise do you deny? And, perhaps you've studied the difference between necessary and contingent existence?

          March 21, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          'If it's "guff" then show it!'

          I'm not the one claiming a magical supreme being here. You are. You are the one making the claim of an eternally existing deity.

          March 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • kevin7harris

          johnbiggscr You CLAIMED it was guff. Back up your claim!

          March 21, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          The statement itself is guff. Its spouted with no evidence whatsoever to support it.
          Apparently 'he has always existed' is considered by some as all the argument required that god does not need a beginning.

          March 21, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • kevin7harris

          johnbiggscr Wrong again! The premises are the evidence and each can be fleshed out in the syllogism. If you dispute one or more of the premises, show which one and why. Right now, you're just saying "nuh-uh" without backing it up!

          March 21, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          ' If you dispute one or more of the premises, show which one and why. Right now, you're just saying "nuh-uh" without backing it up!'

          Sorry but that is also what you are doing by making the claim of an eternal god. you say 'he always existed' without backing it up.

          March 21, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • kevin7harris

          johnbiggscr Do I really need to hold your hand and show you how the premises lead to an eternal (timeless) being? I will if you really want to. But I know good and well you don't. You just want to deny and fight.

          March 21, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
        • johnbiggscr

          No, no, do go ahead and show it.
          I'd be interested in seeing how a timeless god apparently works with the idea of time being created during the big bang.

          March 21, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
        • MidwestKen

          @kevin7harris,
          Even if your premises are true, which is not a given, you logic only points to one posibility, i.e. not a proof.

          March 21, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      10). Therefore, something timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and personal is the most plausible candidate for the cause of the universe.
      11). Therefore, God exists.

      What was step 10 an 1/2?

      March 21, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
      • kevin7harris

        HA! Something "timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, and personal (as creator)" is what we call God!

        March 21, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • lunchbreaker

          But not just any God, YOUR God, right?

          March 21, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • kevin7harris

          lunchbreaker, yep! My God is identical to the one in this argument. As I said above, I can bring in Christian evidences in addition to this to arrive at Christian Theism.

          March 21, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
    • mk

      As someone stated a few pages back:

      "The believer says that the entire Universe exists as it does simply to have us in it because we are unique and the predilect object of Creation."

      March 21, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Post by 'kevin7harris' presents an instance of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

      http://fallacyfile.org/glossary.html

      March 21, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
      • kevin7harris

        On the contrary, the argument arrives via a conceptual analysis of what we most plausibly KNOW! It is not "God of the Gaps" or Argument from Ignorance.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • Georgia

          Baloney. Your comment was standard argument from ignorance.

          Next time kevin find the guts to admit it when you don't know. Inventing a deity doesn't follow from your so-called "argument", dummy; an elephant could fall through your gaps, or a universe, for that matter.

          March 21, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
    • ausphor

      k7h
      What caused god to exist? Answer, the mind of man.

      March 21, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
      • kevin7harris

        The existence of God is not determined via psychology.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
    • fr33d0mhawk

      1. Maybe the universe existed before and is cyclical, we just don't know.
      2. This unique universe began to exist, but the energy could have come from somewhere or something else.
      3. The universe does have a cause.
      4. The matter and energy of our universe could have existed prior to the Big Bang and our current universe is just a new cycle or child universe.
      5. Agree, except that powerful is completely relative. Powerful to us, yes, but powerful compared to a possible infinite multiverse, maybe not so much.
      6. Philosophical literature is not science base literature, philosophy is completely subjective.
      7. Abstract objects do cause things. Look up the double-slit experiment, wave functions, virtual particles.
      8. A mind is one candidate, the other is a not-mind
      9. Minds are not the exclusive property of persons, maybe not even life as we know it is required.
      10. Agree except the immaterial part, we can't be sure if there has always been "material" or not.
      11. Therefore, we just don't know for sure, so the only thing we can do is rule out certain types of gods, or theories, based on science and logic.

      March 21, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
      • kevin7harris

        Two things: positing a multiverse (which we have not good evidence for) merely puts the issue back a step.

        Secondly, waves and particles are not abstract they are concrete. Work on those premises.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
    • lewcypher

      There is no proof for #4

      Logic Fail

      March 21, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
      • lewcypher

        in response to kevin7harris

        March 21, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • kevin7harris

          The proof is in the standard model of Big Bang cosmology. There is no "time before time", "space before space" or "matter before matter". That's exactly what the prominent models say!

          March 21, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
    • ellieavionics

      When you look up the definition of "Non-sequitur" in the dictionary, it says "See last post from kevin7harris"

      March 21, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
      • kevin7harris

        Please explain.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
    • iconoclast1

      There are too many flaws in your "logic" to respond to. Suffice to say that if you would have presented your case in a Logic class, you would probably get a failing grade. The concept of God solves no practical problem. Nor does it solve any philosophical problem. If God can be self-created or created from nothing, then why couldn't the universe?

      March 21, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
      • kevin7harris

        iconclast, you are embarrassing yourself! Did you not read the first premise? "Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause". You fail by not reading the premise carefully, not following the premises (which lead to a necessary being, not a contingent one), and you offer mere utilitarianism to try to avoid God! That's for starters! If you disagree with a premise or premises, show why instead of wasting time!

        March 21, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
    • ifhorseshadgods

      1). Whatever begins to exist has a cause. -We don't know what the "cause" was.

      2). The universe began to exist. -As we know it, it's likely to have existed in another form.

      3). Therefore the universe has a cause. -OK

      4). All time, space, matter/energy came into being at the Big Bang. -OK

      5). Therefore, whatever caused the universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial (and very powerful). -No, Pure assumption.

      6). In the philosophical literature only two things are candidates for that: abstract objects (like numbers) and something like a mind. -philosophical literature is not fact.

      7). But abstract objects don't cause anything. -Depends on your definition of an abstract object.

      8). Therefore, something like a mind is the best candidate. -Again, assumption and not fact.

      9). Minds are properties of persons. -Assumption, so you gods don't have "minds"?

      10). Therefore, something timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and personal is the most plausible candidate for the cause of the universe. -NOT most plausible candidate, that's quite a leap.

      11). Therefore, God exists. -Therefor no one has an answer and your logic is flawed at best, at worst, your justifying your own beliefs and passing it off as logic.

      March 21, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
    • G to the T

      "1). Whatever begins to exist has a cause" – untrue. At the quantum level cause/effect break down. This is not a truism.

      "2). The universe began to exist:" – from our perspective, yes. But there is nothing to say that something didn't exist "before" the universe (but outside of our continuum).

      "3). Therefore the universe has a cause." – Possibly, but not certainly (see 1 and 2 above).

      "4). All time, space, matter/energy came into being at the Big Bang." – All the time/space/matter for our universe began at that time yes, not necessarily ALL time/space/matter/energy.

      "5). Therefore, whatever caused the universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial (and very powerful)." See 1-4 above – this is a supposition not supported by the earlier points.

      "6). In the philosophical literature only two things are candidates for that: abstract objects (like numbers) and something like a mind." The philosophy you are referring to relies on a concept called "dualism", I don't believe in dualism (as there's no proof for it). I don't believe the "mind" exists nor do I believe that abstract objects exist in some kind of platonic word of ideals that we access (again, there's no proof in favor of it).

      "7). But abstract objects don't cause anything.
      8). Therefore, something like a mind is the best candidate.
      9). Minds are properties of persons.
      10). Therefore, something timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and personal is the most plausible candidate for the cause of the universe.
      11). Therefore, God exists."

      Nope – see 1-6.

      Your problem is a classic issue of "garbage in, garbage out". Your primary inputs are faulty so no matter how logical/rational the suppositions you come up with, they will all be wrong because your starting point was flawed.

      March 24, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
  17. ifhorseshadgods

    Believing there must be a cause .. but not knowing what that cause is, in no way gives evidence of anything .. especially an anthropomorphized super being!

    Typical "I don't have an answer so ... a god did it" mentality.

    March 21, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
    • Vic

      So ironic.

      Since does not have a clue what Gravity is yet can measure and calculate its effect, isn't that ironic?!

      BTW, the earth's gravity is 9.81 m/s^2 or 32.2 ft/s^2

      March 21, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        "Gravity" is nothing more than a theory forced down the throats of innocent children by anti-god secularists.
        Science classrooms need to teach the controversy – that there are alternate explanations for why things fall the way they do.
        Intelligent Falling is a perfectly cromulent theory that must be taught alongside atheistic "gravity".
        We know what makes things fall and His name is Jesus.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
    • Vic

      So ironic.

      Science does not have a clue what Gravity is yet can measure and calculate its effect, isn't that ironic?!

      BTW, the earth's gravity is 9.81 m/s^2 or 32.2 ft/s^2

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

        I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to measure god .. even if they don't understand it.
        By someone I mean someone not in the field of psychology, which is the only science that gods can be found.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
      • distrbnce

        That's not ironic, regardless of how many times you use the word.

        Not that something being ironic is somehow bad or something. I don't even know what you're getting at.

        March 21, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
      • G to the T

        "Ironic"

        Ironically, I don't think that words means what you think it means...

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

      ...and, true blue scientists agree that matter cannot be created out of nothing. Thus, everything at the Big Bang had to come from somewhere...and science cannot prove where all that matter came from...

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

        At least they don't claim a god did it.
        No scientist I've ever heard or read believes that matter came from nothing .. but all believers think their god came from nothing or always existed and also assert matter cannot (but god can?) come from nothing.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • joey3467

          They also like to claim that complexity is a sign of a creator while ignoring that in order to create the universe god would have to be the most complex thing in existence.

          March 21, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
      • G to the T

        "and science cannot prove where all that matter came from"

        The matter didn't have to COME from anywhere. The Big Bang was the expansion of EVERYTHING from a singularity to the universe we see today. The some total of energy (thus matter) is unchanged.

        THERE NEVER WAS "NOTHING".

        March 24, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
  18. ugetthefacts

    if it were a god, as Einstein stated, no personal god exists. In other words the religious god could care less.

    However in all likelihood, things just happen given an infinite number of tries. After all, this universe is simply one of an infinite number. Makes sense we would evolve into existence.

    March 21, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
  19. iconoclast1

    "So this latest discovery is good news for us believers..."

    Um. Not really. Scientific findings have destroyed the myths contained in the Bible time and time again. This time is no different. No different at all.

    March 21, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
    • gmouser777

      In reality, this discovery calls into question the necessity of dark matter, for one. The rate of the expansion of the universe caused issues simply because of the assumption of being capped at the speed of light. Now that we know it was moving faster than light (which was actually obvious for awhile), expansion rate is less of an issue.

      The idea that the "myths contained in the Bible" are actually based on the text is inaccurate, btw. Isaiah describs the "circle of the earth" long before Copernicus. People in the middle ages were confused even outside of religious contexts.

      March 21, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
      • G to the T

        "circle of the earth"

        I would be a bit more careful before making statements like this. The word used for "circle" in this case would refer to something the shape of a coin, not a ball. Isiah believed the world was flat and round, not a truncated spheriod.

        March 24, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
    • alfonse2014

      Yes, bitter Iconoclast1 is right. Why don't we just go to the libraries and burn all the philosophy books. Socrates, Plato, Kant and Spinoza. Let's destroy all the metaphysics books and theological books. We have no use for the -.
      Iconoclast, with his 16 ounces of grey matter and relative nano-seconds of existence has it all figured out. Anything beyond what he can fathom can not possible exist.

      March 21, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
      • iconoclast1

        How embarrassing for you. Obviously, you are the bitter one. I did not say a single word about burning books. Perhaps this is the same kind of mental lapse that allows you to believe foolish things.

        March 21, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
        • alfonse2014

          You have dismissed and ridiculed an entire philoshophical branch of academics (most notably those philosophies that deal with what exists outside of our restricted physical universe) – demonstrating a very intellectually stunted view. "Burning books" was used as a metaphor, a literary tool that some atheists don't seem to understand – just like the metaphor of "six days of creation"

          March 21, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "most notably those philosophies that deal with what exists outside of our restricted physical universe"

          Using philosophy, please provide details of what exists beyond our physical universe.

          March 21, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • iconoclast1

          @alfonse2014. Scary stuff. No, I have not "dismissed and ridiculed an entire philosophical (sic) branch of academics..." That's all in your head. You seem to have a habit of seeing things that aren't really there.

          March 21, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
  20. alfonse2014

    I see so many posts posing the academically illogical question " Why don't you just prove the existance of a god"
    ...These people obviously are not very educated and do not understand the difference between science and philosophy.
    Science deals with our PHYSICAL universe, that which can be observed, weighted, and measured. We create Models from those observations and iterate towards the truth about the PHYSICAL universe
    Philosophy, like metaphysics and including religion, deals with the greater reality beyond the PHYSICAL universe. Science CAN NOT, and is not intended to deal with this reality.
    Science and Philosophy or only mutually exclusive to the ignorant on both sides of the discussion.

    March 21, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      It is the difference between proximate truth and ultimate "Truth".
      The former can be observed, chronicled and demonstrated. The latter cannot because there is no way to demonstrate that there is a "reality" beyong the PHYSICAL universe.
      Just because there is no way to qualitatively disprove the existence of Thetans, that doesn't mean I'm going to spend my time and money trying to become "Clear".

      March 21, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
      • alfonse2014

        Well then, go right ahead and continue living your life believing there is nothing greater than you: that your existence is nothing more than a meaningless nano-second fart. That's your perogative. Whatever floats your boat.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Well then, go on ahead living your life as if it only has meaning when considered a stepping stone to a magical afterlife of eternal bliss provided by and anthropocentric Creator.
          Whatever floats your boat....

          March 21, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
    • Doris

      "like metaphysics and including religion, deals with the greater reality "

      lol – funny that include any kind of religion as reality; with respect to metaphysics, I view religion as the hunchbacked assistant to the mad scientist..

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

      Can your god be proven verifiably using philosophy? Is so, please provide said proof.

      March 21, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
      • alfonse2014

        Logically and Philosophically speaking, it would actually be considered ABSURD to postulate that there is NOTHING beyond or outside of our physical universe.
        In addition, logic would dictate that we would NOT be able to use PHYSICAL tools of analysis to investigate what exists outside of our physical world.

        March 21, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • iconoclast1

          What is ABSURD is fervently believing things for which you have zero evidence.

          March 21, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
        • Doris

          al: "Logically and Philosophically speaking, it would actually be considered ABSURD to postulate that there is NOTHING beyond or outside of our physical universe.
          In addition, logic would dictate that we would NOT be able to use PHYSICAL tools of analysis to investigate what exists outside of our physical world."

          Don't you mean, presently, and as far as we can presently imagine, we do not see a capability for investigating what exists outside of our physical world? Exactly what logic are you referring to? If we are currently unable to "see" beyond the boundary, how can we be sure there is nothing that might warrant an expansion of our own terms, like "natural" for instance?

          March 21, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • ramblingsofnihility

          "Logically and Philosophically speaking, it would actually be considered ABSURD to postulate that there is NOTHING beyond or outside of our physical universe."

          I didn't claim that nothing exists beyond our physical world. I'm asking if you can describe what does exist beyond our physical world using philosophy.

          March 21, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • G to the T

          I see you responding, but I don't see you answering any questions.

          Philosophy is a wonderful thing and it forces us to question many of our assumptions. That being said, philosophy can only take us so far, and when it conflicts with what is known about the physical world (i.e. science) we should be re-examining our premises, not doubting the physical evidence provided.

          March 24, 2014 at 1:00 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.