Proving Creation in 5 Minutes

 In Space
  1. The Big Bang Theory Actually Proves God

    The big bang theory is good news for God and the truth of the Bible. Until the mid-1960′s, the overwhelming opinion of the scientific community was that the universe was eternal, never had a creation. This is in direct contradiction to the opening sentence of the Bible, Genesis 1:1. Then two scientists at Bell Labs in New Jersey, USA, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, while scanning the heavens with a special antenna, detected a weak radiation filling all of space. Working with P.J.E. Peebles at Princeton University, this ubiquitous radiation was identified as the residual energy of the big bang creation. It is now known as the cosmic microwave radiation background. Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for their discovery, and rightly so. Their discovery changed humanity’s understanding of our universe. There was a creation, a beginning to our universe. The Bible got it right and 3000 years later science confirmed the fact. As we say, better late than never. The big bang theory does not specify what caused the creation. That is under intense scientific debate. The Bible of course gives answer as God.

Recent Posts
Showing 6 comments
  • Rabbi Joseph Kolakowski

    yanky isn’t saying that anything here isn’t true, all he is saying that it isn’t scientific proof, and that we people of religion do need to rely upon faith at some point.

    To tell you the truth, as I see it, even though I find these ideas convincing, if someone believes in religion only based on these things alone without a transcendent attitude, he risks losing his faith.

    I heard Rabbi Moshe Weinberger say it this way, if someone asks you “why do you love your wife?” and you give a list of reasons, your marriage is in serious trouble, because in the end you may find someone better. If you can’t give an answer, you simply say “I just do, I cannot express the reasons in words”, then your marriage has a solid foundation.

    I would add to that, that it isn’t to say that having a list of good traits for your wife hurts your relationship, just the opposite, it strengthens it, but such a list cannot be the foundation. So too, if the foundation of one’s faith is only proofs, it is easy to lose. If it transcends words, then these proofs can be chizzuk to make your faith stronger, as long as the foundation is beyond this.

  • Johnathan Dobkin

    It is not logical to say that because there was a beginning, there was a creation. Creation involves intent (or a necessary consequence of you use the word in a more relaxed way, such as “the tree created a leaf so big and beautiful”), and intent requires consciousness.

    However, all we can deduce from this theory is that there was a beginning. A time at which the universe came into existence. The question then becomes “what caused the universe to come into existence?” And not “who cause the universe to come into existence?” Or “who created the universe?” Or “how was the universe created?”

    All we know is the the universe came into existence. We don’t know how or why. And when you say you don’t know something, that is where the conversation should stop. We should collect more evidence and attempt to reach a conclusion that gives us logical answers to our question(s). There is no logical reason to jump to creation. That is why I choose to live my life as though God does not exist. I can not reach any logical conclusions showing me that such an entity is real.

    • Eugene Ge

      You are nitpicking on the words. Why do you assume God should be associated with the word who? Why not what? If you stop thinking of God as a person then this ideas will start making sense.

      Would it make you happier if i said in the begining energy combusted and caused the universe to be created? Maybe that energy is what we call God.

      Or can i say that the laws of nature are in charge of you right now? Or can i switch it and say that God is in charge of you right now?

      It just semantics.

      • Johnathan Dobkin

        I am not nitpicking on words because I am trying to find fault with your argument. I’m doing it because it’s a logical response.

        Words represent ideas, concepts. On their own, words have no meaning, they have to be associated with a concept or two before they have meaning.

        You say that because there was a beginning, there was a creation. To create something means to cause something to happen (sometimes to cause something to come into existence) as a result of ones actions.

        I agree that the universe had a beginning, but I don’t know the cause of that beginning. I don’t know what caused the universe to come into existence, it can be a method I’m familiar with, something similar that I’ve seen in the universe, or there can be a cause I am unfamiliar with and don’t yet know if the possible cause. We don’t know what we don’t know we don’t know.

        When you don’t know something, that is where the conversation ends, until you bring me evidence. An existence does not mean a creation. Think about God “existing” (assuming for a second God does exist), you would not question what caused it to happen, or even whether or not there was a cause, because you don’t know in what way God exists, or how his existence was facilitated. So you don’t try to think about it. You say he was an ultimate cause that was caused by nothing.

        We don’t know in what manner this universe exists (we would first have to understand the “space” within which the universe exists, needing to observe it from outside the universe). Nor do we know what caused you. Don’t attribute the concept of human creation (reorganizing nature or generating ideas) to that of the existence of the universe. Because there is no evidence that that is true or untrue. So be scientifically literate and search for evidence, if you really want an answer filled with confidence and certitude.

        On another note, don’t say nature is in charge of me. I am part of nature. The part of the fabric of space I occupy is what that part of the universe consists of. I am a piece of the universe. I was not placed in it. I am a small insignigant portion of it. I am the universe attempting to understand itself.

        Thanks for your reply.

  • Eugene Ge

    I want to point out that energy can’t be created or destroyed and it’s been scientifically proven in the realm of the universe we live in. So before the big bang there had to be some energy in existence. And some people refer to that energy as God.

    • yanky

      First of all the laws of physics within our universe need not be the same that govern its formation.

      Secondly, since matter is a form of positive energy and gravitational fields are a form of negative energy, to the best observational data we have today these exactly cancel out. Which means that our universe on the whole has zero meet energy, so your god as a source of energy is not needed. I’ll post a link at the bottom of you wanna follow up on this.

      Finally, god as a source of energy is a cheap god. I will assume you don’t worship batteries, or the sun, or nuclear power. I don’t see why an energy source of deserving of the title god, let alone why it would demand worship. In any case as I stated above, an energy source for the universe isn’t needed, do this is a moot point.

      Here is the link

Leave a Comment

Contact Us

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Start typing and press Enter to search