Regarding the Origin of the Universe - (excellent; reasoned; balanced; thoughtful; humbling)

THE RANT.US ^ | MAY 22, 2005 | ALAN BURKHART

[CHARLITE]

Am I the only one who marvels at the futility of Man as he tries to explain the origin of the universe? The time and effort expended upon this pursuit could be far better spent upon issues that actually lack an answer. Trying to find a new explanation for the cosmos via science is like trying to reinvent the wheel.

For the sake of argument let’s assume that the universe happened by accident just as many so-called scientists claim. With this as a starting point we can make the assumption that there was a source of crude matter from which all things, living and not living, evolved. There’s no point in bogging you down in physics. We’ve all read the theories in high school.

So… if we accept that there were building blocks from which the universe accidentally came into being over billions of years, we must also accept the premise that the building blocks originated from some other source. Perhaps they came from, um… I don’t know… how about a parallel dimension? A giant black hole? A can of Popeye’s spinach? There are others who argue that the universe has always existed in some form or another. My buddy Dave (my favorite atheist) e-mailed me on this subject and said the following:

"There is no reason why there cannot be an infinite series of contingent causes as long as each is explained by the one that precedes it. It violates no laws of logic or quantum mechanics."

Dave’s argument defeats itself. I don’t deny that random events can result in a rearrangement of matter. A giant asteroid can smash into a planet and convert both of them to cosmic dust and floating rubble. A gas cloud can fold in on itself over thousands of centuries and eventually become a star. But the events themselves do not explain the existence of the matter involved in those events.

If all matter originated from the explosion of a single unbelievably dense object (the Big Bang theory)… from where did that dense object originate? And if you explain the origin of that object, then one must also explain the origin of its origin!

Do you see the flaw in the circular reasoning of those who deny the existence of a Creator? There must have been a starting point. A First Cause. A Supreme Being. A Creator. Here lies the leap of logic that the guys in the white lab coats are afraid to make: The very first physical object, regardless of how small or great it may have been, had an origin. And the only possible explanation is that it was created by an entity that had no origin.

That which exists but has no origin is by definition an eternal entity. And, for that entity to have created the very first particle of matter, it must also be an intelligent entity. You can call Him God, Allah, Jehovah, or whatever you wish to call Him, but there is no escaping the fact of His existence.

Here are the two most well-known theories dreamed up by supposedly learned scientists over the years:

The Steady State

Proposed in 1948 by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Sir Fred Hoyle and loosely based on Einsteinian theory. The short version of the story is that the universe has pretty much always been as we see it, except for the occasional collapse of galaxies, creation of new galaxies, lots of heavy matter from supernovae, and something about the amount of helium and lithium in existence now as opposed to a gazillion years ago. What a boatload of gobbly-goop.

The Big Bang

In 1927, Georges Lemaitre proposed that the universe was expanding from a central point, as if from an explosion. In 1946, George Gamow coined the term "Big Bang". The Big Bang theory received further validation in 1964 when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. The existence of this radiation had been suspected for years but this was the first time it had been detected. This supposedly was evidence of the explosion several billion years before. No one to date has settled exactly what it was that exploded, or where that exploding object, gas cloud, or roiling ball of hot energy came from. Ahem… I could tell them, if they asked.

You can’t explain the Creation via the laws of physics or quantum mechanics. Try instead to wrap your mind around the fact that God is not subject to the laws of physics. God subjects us to the laws of physics. They’re as much a part of His Creation as are the stars in a clear Winter sky. They’re as much a part of God’s law as are the Ten Commandments. One set of laws governs Man. The other governs the universe.

It’s fine to study and seek a greater understanding of our world and the universe in which it resides. God gave us powerful minds and it’s a safe assumption that He intends for us to use them. I’m fascinated with space travel, genetics, nuclear energy and every other secret that Man has unlocked through the years.

The technological progress of Man is representative of impressive mathematical reasoning and untold hours of hard work. We get into trouble when we fail to realize that there is an ending point to the application of logic and reasoning. No amount of scientific research can yield any knowledge beyond the physical universe we occupy, therefore many people choose to believe that there is no other plane of existence beyond the physical.

That’s where faith comes into play. When with an open mind one considers that the tiniest and oldest particles comprising the physical universe must have had an origin, one can only come to the conclusion that we do indeed have a Creator. It’s so simple. Leave it to Man to make it complicated.

Rev 1:8: "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

***********

Author's Note: There is no conclusive proof that any modern scientist has ever believed that the moon is actually made from Swiss cheese. Rumors are that theory was set forth by a renegade laboratory rat after it had been injected with an experimental hallucinogenic drug. Still, the rat's idea isn't any worse than those of the scientists.

Comments: burkhartonline@yahoo.com

[RogueIsland]

There’s no point in bogging you down in physics. We’ve all read the theories in high school.

So, they are teaching String and Supersymmetry theory in high school now, eh? This article reads like the puerile rantings of a guy who can't understand a subject and therefore automatically considers it "stupid".

[MosesKnows]

where DNA is the biological singularity

I would think a realization of the enormous complexity of DNA language would cause even the most skeptical among us to pause.

Just recently, one of the world's most famous atheists, Professor Antony Flew, admitted he couldn't explain how DNA was created and developed through evolution. He now accepts the need for an intelligent source to have been involved in the making of the DNA code.

"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together," he said (quoted by Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God," Associated Press report, Dec. 9, 2004).

Consider! The precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it.

If you want to amuse God, tell him of your plans.

[Colofornian]

So if you're going to postulate that God created the universe, but that God himself is eternal, why not just skip the extra step and say that the universe is eternal? Logically it makes just as much sense and it is a much simpler argument.

We all see even in our own lives how creatures (the personal) can create the "its" (art, literature, structures, etc.). How many of your "its" do the reverse? How often has your painting given birth?

It's folks who keep wanting to put the "it" -- the impersonal -- as the original source -- who keep reversing what we observe all the time. The personal begets both the personal and the impersonal; I don't see my microwave doing spin-offs just because we alter one simple gene in its make-up.

But, I suppose, given enough time, my microwave will eventually begin to do cartwheels on its own. Keep the faith.

[sumocide]

Am I the only one who marvels at the futility of Man as he tries to explain the origin of lightning? The time and effort expended upon this pursuit could be far better spent upon issues that actually lack an answer. Trying to find a new explanation for lighning via science is like trying to reinvent the toga.

[Colofornian]

For the sake of argument let’s assume that the universe happened by accident just as many so-called scientists claim.

Hardly got into the article and this glaring inaccuracy slaps me in the face..I don't think I have ever heard a scientist say the universe just happened by accident..Most scientists simply say they "don't know"... and leave it at that..

The opposite of "accident" is intent or purpose. Are you saying such scientists on the whole readily concede specific intent and purpose to the universe? If there is a grand purpose, then that concedes a Grand Purposer or Designer. Even if many scientists don't come right out & postulate an accidental origin, it doesn't mean they don't downright imply it all the time!

It's not like the average scientist can point to the "evidence" of our creaturely origins coming from extraterrestial sources. And the bulk of scientists I've read would fit more neatly into the atheist camp vs. the agnostic camp.

Therefore, they embrace naturalism vs. a supernatural or extranatural source.

So do the math. Naturalism, as an explanation of the source of origins, = concluding or postulating that random, natural forces (which know no intent or purpose since nature is impersonal) are responsible for what has transpired.

I don't know about you. But I as a person am at least aware and conscious of the natural forces whereas these forces are not cognizant of me. So "it" is greater than "us?"

[elmer fudd]

So then who created God and what God is the correct one? Perhaps we should all agree that Shiva or Allah or Odin created the world? From a scientific perspective we have to proceed according to the evidence and if the evidence changes, well then so does our understanding of science. Would you be willing to throw out your religious views or alter them to fit the latest discoveries?

I have nothing against religion. It's just not scientific.

[pageonetoo]

So it’s absurd to believe that an infinitely dense lump of goo just materialized out of nowhere, but it’s nothing but logical to propose that an all-knowing, all-powerful, infinitely intelligent superbeing always existed because we say so.

Religion cannot trump science, and vice versa.

Your tagline is pretty descriptive of your heart.

Faith is an ephemeral trust in things unseen... Some people have it, others have it fleetingly, and others just see God, as a crutch.

Few people ae willing to stand in the face of persecution, but others die for what they believe, when it is clearly wrong.

If you're so right, tell me what/where/when is a starting point for everything, or did everything just evolve, from nothing? Chicken or egg?

God is a term, created by man. We don't know His name. Some of us know His Son, though...

[Colofornian]

Perhaps we should all agree that Shiva...created the world?

You make my point. Shiva, as all of the millions of Hindu gods, represents the world of Hinduism, which is pantheistic in nature. Pantheism adheres to a supposed reality that all is one; the impersonal "it" and the "personal" are all one.

Pantheism proclaims that we are all only one drop of the divine ocean; and one spark of the divine flame. That "it" --impersonal pantheistic oneness -- is somehow greater than us. I am aware of "it" but this impersonal, divine pantheistic oneness is not aware of you or me. And "it" is greater than us? Come on, now!

No, sorry. No matter how hard you try, all religions are not alike or are worthy of cosmetic embracement just because your multicultural teacher in school told you so.

Counterfeit $ may devalue the real thing in the broader marketplace, but it doesn't deface the value of the real dollar in your hand or in anothers. Counterfeits simply help prove that there is an original.

You like to point to all of the counterfeits and say, "Well, then which of these green bills is authentic? Perhaps we should all agree that Counterfeiter Jones or Smith created all of the bills in this country?" That's absurd.

So then who created God

As space travel confirms, time is a created reality. No sun, no night & day, no time. Space, also a created reality.

So just because material, space, and time have a design (created order) to them, why do you presume all spiritual entities likewise need a foregod?

The Mormons presume such a god. They believe Elohim was made by his father, who was made by his grandfather, etc. There is no ultimate god in Mormonism. Their god didn't even create anything out of nothing, only organized it...since it assigns eternality to the material. So why is your presumed "law of endless progression" (a never-ending series of creators with no ultimate creator) any more sensical to us than the stated belief that Yes, there's not only an Omega but an Alpha?

[dead]

I have no interest in getting into an internet debate on my religious beliefs. They are my own.

My only point was that it's as pointless to try to trump science with a religious argument as it is to knock down religion with science. They are separate realms.

Anybody who feels a need to validate his religious beliefs by imagining they prove some science wrong likely has a very weak grasp on both.

[Colofornian]

From a scientific perspective we have to proceed according to the evidence and if the evidence changes, well then so does our understanding of science. Would you be willing to throw out your religious views or alter them to fit the latest discoveries? I have nothing against religion. It's just not scientific.

From a knowledge perspective (science is just another word for knowledge), we have to proceed according to what both the world around us reveals (the theologians call this "natural revelation") as well as what special revelation tells us.

This scientific evidence you trump as the god to follow says nothing about such immaterial, uncreated realities such as "love." And yet our world wouldn't survive without it. When folks are ready to concede that naturalism only goes so far, and says very little about love, about trust, about faith, about a supernature that goes beyond the physical, then whatever "latest discoveries" come along will only pail in comparison to the likes of love and trust.

I have nothing against naturalistic science. It's just not supernatural love -- that which we all have an inner need for.

[frgoff]

The multiverse is an interesting model. When the Big Bang was first proposed, it was met with a great deal of resistance, precisely because it postulated a beginning. The Multiverse model is an attempt to get past the idea of a beginning and restate the Steady State theory, just on a larger scale. Instead of the universe remaining essentially unchanged with stars forming and dying, the Multiverse now remains essentially unchanged with universes forming and dying.

[newcats]

For the sake of argument let’s assume that the universe happened by accident just as many so-called scientists claim.

Stopped reading right there.

[newcats]

Ooops....forgot to add....
Balanced my a$$!

[pageonetoo]

I have nothing against religion. It's just not scientific.

I have nothing against science. It's just not built on fact. It is a built on a series of hypotheses and suppositions, supported by other hypotheses and suppositions.

Take carbon dating, of old documents, and pottery shards, to establish how old some things are. Can it be adjusted, by the tester, to give a pre-supposed reference?

Science is very interesting, and seems very real. Men took slide rules, punch-card computers, and flew a bird into the sky. It just left the area we call our Solar System. It was the focus of a Star Trek movie. Thye made contact with V-ger, and found it to be Voyager.

The Wright Brothers left the ground, literally by the seat-of-their-pants and their balls. They were the brunt of derision and wonder. We revere their achievenments, now.

I get on a plane, and trust it to go into the air, travel a long distance, and safely place me back on the ground. A 747, fully loaded weighs as much as 385 tons on take-off. Mulitply by 2205 lbs. and that is a lot of zeroes. It rarely doesn't finish its voyage to it's destination.

There are laws, that science has dubbed with names. Gravity, inertia, lift, force, and a myriad of others, with names, and terms, defined in physics tomes.

That's all good. Where did it start?

Which God is Supreme? I can tell you what Christians believe...

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven:

by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Amen

The Nicene Creed- was adopted at the Council of Nicea, to bring about some order, to the disparate views, about how to define Christianity. It is accepted in the Roman Church, and most Protestant Churches, as well. It's reference to catholic means 'universal'...

Nobody makes you believe in a god, but I believe that He made all the cards. He trumps it all!...

"In the beginning, God..."!

[elmer fudd]

"No, sorry. No matter how hard you try, all religions are not alike or are worthy of cosmetic embracement just because your multicultural teacher in school told you so.

Counterfeit $ may devalue the real thing in the broader marketplace, but it doesn't deface the value of the real dollar in your hand or in anothers. Counterfeits simply help prove that there is an original.

You like to point to all of the counterfeits and say, "Well, then which of these green bills is authentic? Perhaps we should all agree that Counterfeiter Jones or Smith created all of the bills in this country?" That's absurd"

There are about 6 billion people in the world and whatever your religion happens to be, about 5 billion of them believe that your religion is the counterfeit one.

[longshadow]

"For the sake of argument let’s assume that the universe happened by accident just as many so-called scientists claim. With this as a starting point we can make the assumption that there was a source of crude matter from which all things, living and not living, evolved. There’s no point in bogging you down in physics. We’ve all read the theories in high school."

One can only assume this is the author's subtle way of informing his readers that he never made it to college.

[snarks_when_bored]

Yep.

[Oberon]

There are about 6 billion people in the world and whatever your religion happens to be, about 5 billion of them believe that your religion is the counterfeit one.

Therefore...?

[sandydipper]

We may never know the truth - but for me and my family we believe we evolved and we believe that there are other inhabited planets in our galaxy and in the universe.

[elmer fudd]

Therefore you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that your religious views should carry much weight with the scientific community. There are all kinds of religions out there believing in all kinds of things, but unless you can back up your religious beliefs with hard evidence there is no room for them in science. Maybe you believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago or that it's carried on the back of six elephants riding on a sea turtle. That's fine, but from a scientific perspective it means you're a kook.