Sunday, November 22, 2009

Implications Of The Big Bang

Earlier I said that atheists try to avoid the “Distasteful Implications” of the “Big Bang.” In a tone of what I perceive to be feigned wonderment, I’ve been asked, “Why, whatever could you mean by that?”

Well, that’s easy. If there were no “God As Cause” implications attached to a universe with a beginning, atheist scientists wouldn’t be straining themselves to get rid of the simplest solution to the origins of the universe, by inventing manifestly complicated hypotheses to its origin. Atheism’s hostility to religion has made the elimination of the Big Bang theory its top priority, causing it to posit more and more preposterous ideas as the years go by.

For example, atheists state just as though it’s been proven that there are:
. Multiple universes where everything that can happen, does happen.

Others have declared that our origins come from an:
. Oscillating universe,
. Or a parallel universe,
. Or maybe we came into existence via a black hole
. Or that all of this takes place in imaginary time which requires no past, present or future.
. Some propose that space aliens brought life to earth and someone reading this right now will be thinking, in all seriousness, Hey! Aliens? Maybe. I never thought of that.

Occam’s razor has absolutely no place in the repertoire of the atheist scientist when it comes to explaining how our universe came into being. As Stephen Barr says, “It seems that to abolish one unobservable God, it takes an infinite number of unobservable substitutes.” Beyond that, atheist scientist completely ignore the finding of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem which states that any model of an expanding universe, be it real, such as ours, or imaginary, such as those in the minds of atheist must have a definitive space-time boundary ie. a Big Bang type of singularity.

“It is said that an Argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a Proof is what it takes to convince an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of the cosmic beginning.” Alex Vilenkin, “Many Worlds In One - The Search for Other Universes,”

This beginning demands an answer to Why did this take place?

Not only is it logical to say that the universe had a beginning and a cause, not only is it reasonable to say that the universe had a moment of Creation (Big Bang), but the Bible presents that beginning exactly as science is now “discovering” that it happened.

Here is what we know scientifically:
. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
. The universe had a beginning.
. Therefore the beginning of the universe had a cause.

That takes care of the silly question, “Well, if God made the universe, who made God?” Remember, atheists have no problem with saying that something is infinite, or that it has always existed, or that it’s eternal, as long as that something isn’t Creator God. However, if God exists, then He exists outside of and prior to the universe. God is not material. He is Spirit. He does not need a cause. He has always been. He is infinite. He is eternal. Asking, “What caused an infinite or eternal Being to begin?” or, “When did an eternal being begin to exist?” is illogical and incoherent. Illogical statements are something that atheists usually take great pains to avoid, except when they’re confronted with the reality of Creator God. Then, it seems, all bets are off. The fact remains, and it remains a fact that is based on what science tells us is true, that everything that begins to exist, including the universe, had its cause from something outside of itself. There are no known exceptions to this observed and consistently verified rule.

We must choose between matter as infinite and Creator God who is Spirit, as infinite. Reason states that it must be One and not the other for matter cannot pre-exist itself either physically or chronologically, nor can matter bring itself into existence or create itself. Again, it is impossible for matter to be infinite or to exist from eternity past.

Now, Richard Dawkins says that a complicated God is very improbable. Maybe, but improbable is better than impossible. As well, whose to say that God is complicated? He may be capable of doing complicated things but that is another issue. Nevertheless, Richard Dawkins has absolutely no problem with highly improbable odds when they suit his cause.

The Creation Event is so serious a problem for those who have devolved into Scientism that they are now claiming, without any evidence whatsoever, that something can have a beginning without a cause. Here are some examples of what atheist scientists are saying.

Astronomer Arthur Eddington - “The concept of the Big Bang is preposterous, incredible, repugnant.”

Physicist Philip Morrison - “I find it hard to accept the Big Bang theory. I would like to reject it.”

Physicist Victor Stenger - “The universe may be uncaused and may have emerged from nothing.”

On the “bright” side David Hume stated, “I have never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without cause.”

Well, back in his day, when atheists were still hopeful that their faith system would prevail, that might have been possible for him to say. It is my belief that if Hume had known that Christianity would prove so resistant to destruction, he would have joined today’s atheist scientists in throwing off all restraints, put his integrity on the shelf, proposed ever more ridiculous scenarios and in that manner he would have increased his intellectual stature among the atheist crowd.

A universe with a beginning is disconcerting for atheist scientists because what existed before the Big Bang can’t be detected by observation or by the laws of physics. In fact the very concept of “before” is incoherent regarding the Big Bang because there wasn’t any such thing. Before the Big Bang, there wasn’t any time, or space, or matter or laws of physics to govern that matter. Whatever produced The Big Bang, produced those laws. If the universe came into being without using the laws of physics, more than that, before the laws of physics were even in place, then that is the working definition of a miracle. Miracles as we all know are not allowed into the vocabulary of an atheist.

Admittedly, some scientists feel compelled to tentatively acknowledge the obvious.

Arthur Eddington - “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural.”

Nobel prize winner Arno Penzias - “The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.”

Physicist Freeman Dyson - ‘The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”

Stephen Hawking - “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”

Anthony Flew - The fine tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance. Flew’s lifelong commitment “to go where the evidence leads” compelled him to become a believer in God.

It is the atheist’s determination to not follow any evidence that might point to God that keeps him from accepting the obvious.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

When there are several possible answers to the ideas that arise re: Beginnings, how does one keep internal bias from discarding opposing evidence or a conflicting hypothesis of equal validity? In this case, atheists don’t. They go with their bias.

Those then are the distasteful implications of the Big Bang.

11 comments:

Flute said...

Does this mean that you accept our universe is about 14.7 billion years old?

Gorth Satana said...

I think that question might be one Makarios doesn't want to answer but I'd like to be wrong.

Makarios said...

Where have I said anything different?

Chris Mackey said...

How about a straight answer?

Anyhoo, I'll just leave this Answers in Genesis here.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/does-the-big-bang-fit

Expansion is not compatible with the Bible (Earth created before the stars ,etc)

tinkbell13 said...

Nope, I am sure that he believes that the earth began some odd two thousand years ago. And, there is no straight answers to get.

Tristan Vick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tristan Vick said...

I had much more fun reading this. Thank you for taking the time to write something more in depth.

I must posit a small criticism.

You suggest the cause of the big bang was God.

I suggest the cause of the big bang was two interdimensional wafting space whales.

The theist claim is predicated on the *assumption that God willfully begat creation.

I am also under the illusion that wafting space whales have a creationist agenda at heart.

How are our competing theories different? Both, as far as I can tell, are in absolute want of support.

You might site your holy scriptures as evidence. But I might site some ancient Hinduism scriptures which support my whale hypothesis. So, that squares us and makes us even.

If I can match your claim with my own... then something is not quite correct with the theory.

Also, several of the cosmological theories you brazenly reject are testable. This is a big boon for theories which are falsifiable, and a bane to infinite digressions, let's call it I.D. theory for short, shall we?

How can you test God as the initial cause? You can't, without ending up stuck in perpetual digression. How can I test my whale hypothesis? I can't, without ending up stuck in digression also. This is what my computer calls a "cyclic error."

I must restart... from the beginning... and try something new, otherwise I will perpetually go around in circles with this train of thought. Everlasting tautologies a good argument does not make. You'd be wise to do the same.

God...error...God...error...God...error... ctrl*alt*delete--reboot!

tinkbell13 said...

@ Tristan- You are the master. I personally would believe your theory more readily about whales than some extended Santa Claus in the sky...

Besides, I have readily heard many scientists explicitly state (Dawkins included) that, although there are many theories to explain, noone knows for sure how the universe was created. They also state that they know, for sure, that it was no God.

Tristan Vick said...

@ Tink-

Stephen Hawking was the first to retract his statement that the 'big bang' was a singularity in the 70s. Many of the quote by Makarios are taken out of context. As the one in which Hawking says it must have been God, as the next sentence denies that by claiming there could be no such God since the big bang was not a one off event.

All modern cosmological models are supported by correct mathematical equations, and what we've been learning is that the big bang was more likely a reoccurring event, instead of a one time deal that marks the beginning of space time. It is actually just another moment in space time.

Most of the testable theories which take this view use the standard model framework, but expand upon it using up to date physics.

Makarios simply regurgitated the Kalam Cosmological Argument as first introduced by William Lane Craig in 1979. Needless to say, Craig's cosmological view hasn't changed with the times, and anyone who sides with it is in need of an education. It just doesn't hold water anymore knowing what we now know about the cosmos. It's not a sinking ship so much as it's been sunk.

I've given Makarios links to some highly engrossing material on the subject for him to read, but he seems to be quote mining from the Web at near light speed. But he recites the Kalam Cosmological argument near verbatim.

That's why I continue to challenge him to formulate arguments which use the material as support, instead of just sound bites as bluster and shine.

A nice sounding quote doesn't mean anything if you haven't understood it. But my whale analogy actually goes further than just debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I also incorporate Quantum mechanics and M-Cosmology into the anaology for those savvy in theoretical physics... and it really does some moving and shaking. I also offer ways in how to actually test it (as an in-joke between those of us who know it does not likely exist)... but the point is, you can't rule out that it doesn't exist.

Benevolent space whales? Yes, they're as real as God is. Amazing, I know.

Makarios said...

"Tristan- You are the master."

You are Tristan. You're going to go far in this life. Respect and everything.

tinkbell13 said...

@ Tristan

Yes, I know that much of the stuff is used out of context. I am not well versed in physics, but even I can pick out the amount of misinformation that is there. However, I have heard that there is a change to The Big Bang Theory in that it was a cumulative effect of small occurences. Which is interesting. Can you post a link?

My specialty is more from an evolutionary, literature, historical, and art history point of view.