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.”
I mostly agree with you. Theologians, however, also base their thoughts on empirical data, just much more indirectly. Aquinas once said something to the effect of “All that we know we know through our senses.” For both professions it boild down to having the humility to see what is there and not what you want to be there. Scientists have a tendency to want to see preditability and mathematical certainty with God, and theologians, as you said, want God to be essentially their conception of the ideal man.
Please see #29shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
You can also visit my web site
LOL...I think you can ask just about anyone that I've never been a proponent of banning evolution, or replacing it with ID; rather, my position has consistently been one of allowing scientists to investigate ID theory as well as evolution theory.
I've seen the THEORY of evolution as something to scientifically contemplate in certain regards, your reading comprehension disorder notwithstanding.
Is there a day you wake up when your purpose in this world is NOT disingenuine and pretentious?
What is the reason for you typing theory as THEORY?
“I will tell you why. Because you believe in a Bible interpretation...”
That statement reveals both your arrogance as well as your false assumptions. The Nicean Creed does not trump the Lord’s Word. According to the Bible, the Lord is Triune; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Triune Lord created all things.
To take your point to its logical conclusion, a “created” being created everything. As you said, Christ wasn’t “created”. He’s eternal, and yet, he lowered himself into human form in order to pay the penalty of sin, and was resurrected.
How many mere morals have you witnessed do such a thing? None. Just as you have not witnessed mere morals creating new galaxies or worlds. How aperpo that you should mention Global Warming. Given scientific achievement, one would think that we shouldn’t have to worry about Global Warming. All scientists need to do is create a new world to live on.
The Almighty, Triune God created, not mere man. Christ is not a mere man. He is Lord, second person of the trinity. To claim that just he, a “man”, created all things is about as preposterous as “Global Warming”.
That's the best comeback you have huh?
Color me all shocked and stuff.
I asked what you meant by that - are you going to explain what you meant or not?
And I told you that was a pitiful comeback...do you not understand it was a pitiful comeback, or what?
Please explain why you used the word theory the way you did and the significance of the caps.
> You are assuming that the scientific theory of the Big Bang is correct. It is only a theory.
It is a theory supported by long-range observations. Keep in mind that it takes time for light to travel so when you look at objects far away it is kind of like looking back in time.
> And since G-d, by definition and scriptural reputation, obeys physical laws.
I do not find anywhere in the Scriptures that G-d is bound by physical laws. Where did you get this information?
> Worlds without number have been created by G-d ...
Do you mean many planets/start systems or many Universes? Many planets yes, many stars obviously, but many Universes? How would you know this?
> Then explain the creation of stars in the W5 nebula
I don’t get your point. We can observe the creation of stars in W5 nebula. Once the Universe has been created there is material to create stars, so the starts get created. If you are into astronomy this must be very exciting, but I don’t get how it says anything about the Big Bang or the Creation?
P.S. I’ve edited your post to obscure the Name. If you read the Scriptures you should know that it is forbidden to deface the Name of G-d. By writing the Name (even into an electronic medium) you are giving someone an opportunity to print out the post and to damage the paper with the Name on it. Thereby you become partly responsible for a grave sin.
So that you would no doubt have a way to squirm out of your embarassments.
It isn’t embarrassing to try to expand what one knows.
It does make one wonder why you refuse to explain what you meant - why you result to insults instead.
Perhaps you are embarrassed yourself about your use of that word, yes?
No and being disingenuous, as you have been from day one, fools no one. You’re not out to expand what you know.
Too many people are on to you.
Please refresh my memory - who do you think I am today? It keeps changing - rather hard for me to keep track.
Forrest Gump's dummer brother?
“Yep, ignorance means you don’t know. I don’t know how God created the universe, but I believe he [sic] did it. Some scientist [sic] have come to the same conclusion.”
According to recent polls, about 30% of scientists believe in a god compared to about 84% of Americans in general. Kudos to the 70% of scientists who do not. Now, since you have no difficulty believing that God created the universe, I have no problem believing that there is no God and that existence has always existed. Like C. Hitchens once said, “A claim made without evidence can be denied without evidence.”
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.