Posted on 01/15/2009 6:04:24 PM PST by SeekAndFind
When I debated atheist Christopher Hitchens recently, one of the eight arguments I offered for God’s existence was the creation of this supremely fine-tuned universe out of nothing. I spoke of the five main lines of scientific evidence—denoted by the acronym SURGE—that point to the definite beginning of the space-time continuum. They are: The Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Expanding Universe, the Radiation Afterglow from the Big Bang Explosion, the Great galaxy seeds in the Radiation Afterglow, and Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity.
While I don’t have space to unpack this evidence here (see I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist), it all points to the fact that the universe began from literally nothing physical or temporal. Once there was no time, no space, and no matter and then it all banged into existence out of nothing with great precision.
The evidence led astronomer Dr. Robert Jastrow—who until his recent death was the director of the Mount Wilson observatory once led by Edwin Hubble—to author a book called God and the Astronomers. Despite revealing in the first line of chapter 1 that he was personally agnostic about ‘religious matters,” Jastrow reviewed some of the SURGE evidence and concluded, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”
In an interview, Jastrow went even further, admitting that “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
Jastrow was not alone in evoking the supernatural to explain the beginning. Athough he found it personally “repugnant,” General Relativity expert Arthur Eddington admitted the same when he said, “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.”
Now why would scientists such as Jastrow and Eddington admit, despite their personal misgivings, that there are “supernatural” forces at work? Why couldn’t natural forces have produced the universe? Because there was no nature and there were no natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang—nature itself was created at the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature—something we would call supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be:
· spaceless because it created space
· timeless because it created time
· immaterial because it created matter
· powerful because it created out of nothing
· intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed
· personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces don’t make choices).
Those are the same attributes of the God of the Bible (which is one reason I believe in a the God of the Bible and not a god of mythology like Zeus).
I mentioned in the debate that other scientists who made Big-Bang-related discoveries also conclude that the evidence is consistent with the Biblical account. Robert Wilson—co-discoverer of the Radiation Afterglow, which won him a Noble Prize in Physics— observed, “Certainly there was something that set it off. Certainly, if you’re religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.” George Smoot—co-discoverer of the Great Galaxy Seeds which won him a Nobel Prize as well—echoed Wilson’s assessment by saying, “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the Big Bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”
How did Hitchens respond to this evidence? Predictably, he said that I was “speculating”—that no one can get behind the Big Bang event. I say “predictably” because that’s exactly the response Dr. Jastrow said is common for atheists who have their own religion—the religion of science.
Jastrow wrote, “There is a kind of religion in science . . . every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause. . . . This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications—in science this is known as “refusing to speculate.”
Hitchens admits the evidence but ignores its implications in order to blindly maintain his own religious faith (watch the entire debate at CrossExamined.org here). How is it speculation to say that since all space, time, and matter were created that the cause must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial? That’s not speculation, but following the evidence where it leads.
Dr. Jastrow, despite his agnosticism, told us where the evidence leads. He ended his book this way: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
LOL
Well, I like both kinds of music, Country AND Western.
And considering you and your fellow retread pal DevNet just signed up, I don't for the life of me understand why you think your time here this go 'round will amount to very much.
It sure is interesting how this newb knows about alleged treatment of another newb when you consider the thousands of FReepers that use this site.
Oooops......
bump
When discussing someone isn’t it protocol to include them in the to line?
If you feel that I have violated any of the rules of this site please state which ones.
Why are you stalking me from thread to thread whining about my behavior?
Why are you making ASSumptions about what I may be thinking and then accusing me of them?
Did I mention your name?
Throw a rock over a fence and the dog that yelps is the one that got hit.
You implied it. Epistem brought up my name did he not?
And it appears that I posted in this thread before you so would not that imply that if stalking is going on - I don’t think it is - that you are doing the stalking?
It does amaze me somewhat that so many people who claim to be so religious have to result to insults, rumors and curse words to prove a point.
I haven't seen any rumors. And Metmom hasn't been banned on mulitple occasions either.
Your problem remains, same with epistaxis, that too many people are onto you.
Once again, it's just a matter of time before you're banned again.
Someone that's hypersensitive about other's following protocol is the same someone that's got a problem following them themselves.
How many times have you and your buddy been banned now anyway?
I believe you got upset when I didn’t follow that portion of protocol - perhaps it was my mistake in assuming that you believed in the conservative idea of all rules applying to everyone equally.
Nice quote mining! I’ll bet you use that same crude little trick while ranting against Darwin’s THEORY of evolution.
“I don’t for the life of me understand why you think your time here this go ‘round will amount to very much.”
It’s a matter of perspective, I suppose; I’ve rather enjoyed it. The only problem was trying to get you to answer a simple question. I felt like a dentist trying to pull a tooth while my patient was tap dancing.
To the small audience I seem to have attracted: Ok, ok, I’m getting my coat. I’ll just slouch on back to Pharyngula now.
LOL...”quote mining”?
Is it not what you just said?
Liberals are peculiar aren’t they Epi?
What’s a pharyngula? Is it a place where 15 year olds trade jokes like calling the 7 eleven and asking if they have prince albert in a can?
No your mistake was pretending to be a conservative in the first place.
This time anyway.
No your mistake was pretending to be a conservative in the first place.
This time anyway.
Conservatives believe in a high-tech defense - what you call science would leave us at the mercy of our enemies.
What do I call science?
Whatever supports your current world view is what you appear to consider science.
You’re projecting.
And even if this idea was accurate, my “worldview of science” is what gave this country the scientific advantage this country enjoys today.
It’s really not been that long ago, defensively speaking, that godless liberal NEA types demanded their godless version of science be enforced by the courts.
A strawman and a projection...still as pitiful as ever I see.
Those Christian and Jewish science you are referring to used the scientific method to make and verify their discoveries.
Again with the NEA - never said I have supported them - your attempts to time me to them are simply sad.
I expected better.
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.