Posted on 05/31/2005 11:07:29 PM PDT by 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
Tomorrow
save
Read for later
I found it circular and trite.
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.
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.
There must have been a starting point. A First Cause. A Supreme Being. A Creator.
To almost quote Roseanne Roseanna-Danna, "There's always something...if it's not one thing, it's another."
What seems to be the likeliest story is that, to the extent that it's meaningful to speak of a universal time in the multiverse, there was never a time when there was nothing, a complete absence of physical being of one sort or another. And, from this perspective, if one waits long enough, pretty astonishing things can (and will) happen. It's likely that there was never a time when this wasn't true nor will there ever be a time when this won't be true.
Not that we'll be around to judge the matter.
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.
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..
In much the same vein, the screenwriter Akiva Goldsman summed up the life lessons of Dr. John Nash, the genius mathematician, economist, and schizophrenic in the movie "A Beautiful Mind." This quote was compellingly delivered by the actor Russell Crowe, portraying Dr. Nash delivering his Nobel Prize acceptance speech:
I've always believed in numbers, in the equations and logics that lead to reason; but after a lifetime of such pursuits I ask, what truly is logic? Who decides reason?My quest has taken me through the physical, the metaphysical, the delusional, and back; and I have made the most important discovery of my career, the most important discovery of my life: It is only in the mysterious equations of love that any logical reasons can be found.
let us not try to understand the block we live on, eh?
"The time and effort expended upon this pursuit could be far better spent upon issues that actually lack an answer. "
Convinced me to stop reading right there.
The problem with his argument is if God created it we can stop right there. I believe God created everything, but as a scientist I would like to know more. He has given us a great puzzle which we only have found some of the pieces (mostly the easy ones around the border). He wants us to fill it in.
Is dissatisfaction with inevitable mortality driving ersatz secularists and religious heretics to seek connection with something Eternal through a Universal Truth by constructing an idol out of their own vanity or conceit they label as morality? Is this a self-deceptive replacement of avoiding sin with a synthetic secular morality?
Is dissatisfaction with inevitable mortality driving ersatz secularists and religious heretics to seek connection with something Eternal through a Universal Truth by constructing an idol out of their own vanity or conceit in persuit of knowing the origins of life?
Is the paganist "Big Bang" theory admission the Universe is an Immaculate Conception?
The entire foundation of evolutionary theory rests upon the so-called "Big Bang," where DNA is the biological singularity - - is this another human and Aerial counterfeit for Creation and Immaculate Conception as just another fanciful idolatry?
We do we bother to learn to read and write? Why don't we let all the priests, clerics, and politicians think for us so we can be free to spend 16 hours a day working in the fields?
Scientists may not have communicated with God, but I have. There is the rub. It is not that Christians are guessing about what Science cannot see. Miracles happen, there is plenty of evidence that there is more than what can be seen.
Some just choose to have faith, some choose to have no faith.
Freedom of choice. Kind of like some choose to not put their hands in the fire, some choose to believe that fire does not exist because they cannot weigh it.
>>Some just choose to have faith, some choose to have no faith.
science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
i, for one, do not believe god has anything to hide. had he, he would not have made us in the first place.
It all boils down to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" That's a really hard question we may never know. However, we study the early Universe because it's so easy to do so with our current technology (perhaps God wants it that way). It would actually require more effort to restrain people, especially the smart and curious from studying the Universe.
Yes and when some things are mocked one feels a reluctance to cast pearls before swine.
By Jove, I believe you've got it. Between the article and the many responses I find this simple statement the most meaningful.
What is lost by having faith that we are here by God's plan and not by accident? The scientist serves to discover the details of God's plan. I've seen enormous complicated engineering plans for the creation of a Boeing 747 aircraft but I've never seen the plans for creating a fish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.