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

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:

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.

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.

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.

I'll bet you think your shiite don't stink, huh?

Your need, seems only to try and validate yourself!

I don't argue 'religion'... I discuss evidence of God! You, arguably, must not have much faith in any god, if you are unwilling to defend it.

I hope you enjoy a good life, because you must not believe in anything, to come after this one!

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.

All that statement shows is that Jesus the Christ was onto something when he said, "Wide is the road that leads to destruction; narrow is the way that leads to life."

To take your numbers at face value, the religions of the majority of billions have attempted to appease or make their way to acknowledge a god they envision to be based upon human wisdom. The God of the minority numbers never waited for man to find their way to Him; instead, He's the only One who became a man -- a God-man, and therefore Himself became The Way to our original Father.

In ya heart of hearts, ya gotta know that to be true. The true God of the universe can hide and never be found. Only He can reveal Himself.

Every tower of Babel, every bridge to the heavens, simply falters. The Judeo-Christian historical record is the only one whereby God descends -- the Supernature and nature merges in the person of a baby.

If you or your family have ever celebrated Christmas, it wasn't simply done just to appease the Western god of materialism.

The Dimocrats think they are a majority, as well...

Do you think that Star Trek is real? How about Star Wars? They have fabulous story lines, and visual effects. They are real entertainment, but most of them parallel, or try to DIRECTLY demean/belittle/diminish the Bible's themes. Hmmm...

Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don't know enough to say. Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.

Gallup

"The devil made me do it!"

Wow. You have serious anger issues.

LOL... I was just replying to that trite bit, of ego, you posted. So far, you have made it known that you don't believe in God, or possibly don't really believe your own god is worth defending. I don't care which, but have an obligation to tell you about mine. He is as real to me, as the keyboard on which I am typing.

I'm not angry, I'm just proclaiming my faith, in all of God's Creation... You prefer to think that everything is accidental, or man-made, or just don't think that it is part of a plan.. If you are going to post such a position, you should be willing to defend it, not try to obfuscate by pleading..."I have no interest in getting into an internet debate on my religious beliefs." You started this discussion, with your post.

You had no reasoned responses, so you attacked me with your trash. I understand, perfectly!

Have a good life!

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!

Uhhh.. can't get much plainer than "I don't know"..
The only thing it "implies" is that the answer is unknown..

In addition to being angry, you're also quite weird.

You've attributed all sorts of beliefs to me that I never posted or stated in any way.

My only contention was that religious beliefs should not be in competition with scientific studies. Neither brings much to the other's realm.

That has set you off on some furious righteous tirade where you make up beliefs for me and argue with yourself over them. I think you may need professional help.

I think you may need professional help.

That, my fellow FReeper, is your problem.

Science is in the business of explaining God's wonderful creation... You say neither trumps, but science hasn't been able to take a big jug of well water, and change it, into fine wine, instantaneously... There were plenty of witnesses, at the wedding feast, in Caana.

I'm not sure about you, but a virgin birth goes against my scientific education... but I believe it was part of God's plan to redeem man. He's God. He is able.

I am not making up beliefs for you. You apparently haven't any, just like to feel religious, or need to cast aspersions ...!

You posted your ambivalent statement, on a thread specifically endorsing Creation... You haven't said anything of merit, yet. I won't be waiting.

Have a good life! Your screen name says it all.

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.