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.”
so what was your name before you got the boot Epistem?
You still haven’t explained why the cancers cells found in Egyptian mummies aren’t really cancer.
The Lord commands us to bring the one who sins before his brother, such that he (the sinner), will be turned away from sin. If that doesn't work, bring him before an elder, if that doesn't work, bring him before the priest or rabbi. If that doesn't work, you are absolved from your responsibility.
Here's where I have trouble. I could care less what atheists think, say or do. They will meet their maker, and go to Gehenna. And I, like Abraham and Lazarus, will watch from the other side. Unable to give water to their soul.
I tried Lord, this post is evidence...may I be judged with mercy.
5.56mm
Simply asking a question isn’t demanding anything.
You really need to read this - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2165967/posts?page=23#23 post.
You’re exposed...too many people are on to you.
YOU should consider leaving, preferably permanently or at the very least change your name (again); although most folks know this won’t work, because you, like so many liberals, are your very own worst enemy...which is how you got outted in first place, confucius.
Liberal? Isn’t the main debating tactic of a liberal to insult others when they are unable to factually respond to points the opposing party makes?
You appears to not be used to those who simply ignore you after your nth attack - that won’t work on me. I will be nice and polite to you until you get blue in the face with rage.
Do tell.....
I have faith with hope and I am pleased with that.
How about we end it like this. Let's make a bet. If you are right, I will pay any price you ask. If I am right, you will hear me pray to God for our forgiveness.
May God bless you and yours.
Sorry to burst your bubble but you’re incapable of setting off the slightest anger in me, let alone rage, because I see right through you, and did virtually from the start, (as did others).
There was nothing to “factually respond to” but in your own imagination.
And you SHOULD be nice and polite...perhaps you’ve learned your lesson?
We’ll see how long you last this time.
I assume you know the difference between asking a question and demanding. If you do not please explicitly say so and I will explain it to you.
So can I assume that you are unwilling to explain why you wrote theory as THEORY?
I am interested and will visit your Web page. Go ahead and freepmail me your information at your convenience. I have struggled with this concept both spiritually and intellectually and have come to the conclusion that of course God could have created the universe by the Big Bang, but this is speculation as we could not know the mind of God, but we will one day when we are united with Him in Heaven.
My Bible only says that God created the heavens and the earth and when He did “the earth was a formless wasteland and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters” and then he created vegetation, animals, humans, etc....over six days....”and it was very good”.
Of course it’s a false assumption. I do not base my view on the Nicean Creed. I base my understanding on scripture. Therefore, your assumption that my “interpretation” is drawn from the Nicean Creed is a false assumption.
Scripture interprets scripture.
“...much of Christendom interprets the Bible.” Hogwash. Much of Christendom doesn’t even know about the Nicean Creed. Who’s being dogmatic and presumptious?
“Freed from the Nicean lens...”
How interesting. It seems to me that you are the one who is looking through the “Nicean lens” because you measure believers faith by it, and most judgmentally, I might add. You’re so riveted with opposing the Nicean Creed that it’s the only lens in which you appear to be looking out from. So much so that you’ll insist on its influence even when you’ve been refuted.
In returning to the original response, our Triune God created the universe, not mere man. Christ BECAME flesh (”And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...” Jn. 1:14a). When God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit created the universe and all living things, Christ was not a man of flesh yet. If Jesus was of flesh why would he need to be born of a woman?
> My point is obvioius. If the stars in W5 were indeed created 7-8000 years ago by the process evident today, and our own planet earth were created about that many years ago, how can you believe that our system was created out of nothing while all other systems are being created by natural processes, obviously (to me at least) under the hand of an all powerful and knowledgeable, kind and loving, and living, Father in Heaven who continues to direct the design of stellar and galactic systems.
There appears to be some confusion, Creation normally refers to the Universe, not to a single planet.
Happy to send you what I can...soon to follow.
You’re pretty slow aren’t you DevNet?
Asking questions to determine you meaning isn’t a sign of slowness. Now post 3 or 4 times about my post with out bothering to answer the question would be considered a sign that you are hiding something - by some.
The theory that God created the Big Bang, and 3.5 bajillion years later we have earth, is a joke.
IF you believe in God, in an all-powerful, all-knowing, Creator, then the Big-Bang-Evolution Theory is completely incompatible with what we see and observe now.
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.