atheism · Bible · Christianity · creationism · God · religion · science

proof of God’s existence in the cosmos, pt. 1

The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. [Proverbs 3:19]

Does God really exist?  Is it even possible to know God exists?  Is it really important to know if he exists, and, if so, why?  These are questions that have been debated through the ages.  And because we as humans have inquiring minds, there have been some who have walked this earth in the fields of science who have helped us come to an understanding of what is going on in our universe.

If God exists, then that means what has happened and still is happening in the universe has importance and purpose, including our lives.  It would also mean that it is highly likely that there are consequences beyond this life for what we do while in this life.  On the other hand if God doesn’t exist, we are just here to make it through the best we can and there is probably no ultimate purpose to life, then we just end up dead and cease to exist after death.

Thanks to people like John Ankerberg and Frank Turek in partnership with Christian television stations, scientific proof is now being broadcast over the airwaves showing us how God’s existence is real and what the Bible says is very reasonable and accurate.

One scientific argument in favor of God’s existence is the Cosmological Argument.  It states that the universe has a beginning, and since it has a beginning someone began it.  This argument accepts the Big Bang Theory, or at least the part of the theory that says the universe and time exploded (or suddenly appeared) into existence out of nothing.  The majority of unbelieving scientists hold to this theory, like Stephen Hawking who said, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.”  Another scientist, Russian cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin said, “With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe.  There is now no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”  And, of course, a cosmic beginning is only a problem because many scientists know that this idea leads them right to a supernatural Supreme Being who began the beginning.

Frank Turek points out that the simplest way to remember these proofs is to keep in mind the acronym SURGE which stands for:

  • Second law of thermodynamics
  • Universe is expanding
  • Radiation afterglow
  • Great galaxy seeds
  • Einstein’s theory of general relativity

Second law of thermodynamics

This law says that the universe is running down and everything in the universe has a tendency to decay.  Science has shown that the universe has only a finite amount of usable energy available to keep it going since it is not drawing energy from outside of it.  The universe is like a battery-powered flashlight, according to Frank Turek.  If you put fresh batteries in it to get it to work and leave it on all day, at the end of the day the light will not be as bright as it was and may even have dimmed completely because the usable energy in the batteries runs out.  Since the usable energy in the universe is running out, but has not completely run out yet, we can deduce that the universe had a beginning because the sun and other stars are still operating.  If the universe had eternal existence, the finite, usable energy in the universe would no longer be operational.  

 

Universe is expanding

Edwin Hubble, the American astronomer, discovered in 1929 that the universe was expanding when he peered through the telescope at the Mount Wilson Observatory near Pasadena, CA.  He noticed that all of the galaxies were moving away from us because there was a red shift in the lights of the other galaxies, which was a sign that the universe was moving outward.

Because those lights were moving outward from our galaxy, he came to the logical scientific conclusion that if we could see the reverse of the outward motions of the universe, the universe would eventually move back to the point of being nothing.  And if the universe was at one time nothing and had no motion, then there had to be a supernatural someone putting it into motion.

I will continue the remaining points in future posts.  But if Christians are ever challenged by atheists or agnostics to prove God’s existence without using the Bible, this is an excellent way to scientifically prove how unscientific such people really are.  If God shows us through reliable and reasonable science which backs up the Bible and they still don’t believe, this reveals the true nature of unbelievers in that they really don’t care about science as they claim.  They are just interested in promoting their faulty philosophy and false religion.

Source: Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, NRB Broadcast, Monday, March 1, 2010, 8:00-9:00 pm, Eastern Standard Time.

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “proof of God’s existence in the cosmos, pt. 1

  1. Soon after astronomer Edwin Hubble proved the universe was expanding, it became evident that the universe was once very much smaller. The theory that the universe started from a single point (or very small area) is known as the big bang theory. The big bang theory has caused scientists to suggest that this universe would keep on expanding and creating by itself.

    The reason why astronomer Edwin Hubble claimed that he discovered the universe was expanding was merely due to he discovered that the galaxies were moving further away from this earth at higher speeds, proportional to their distance and from then, he jumped into the conclusion that the universe was expanding.

    However, there are a few reasons that are listed out below to show that it is irrational to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding by seeing the galaxies were moving with higher speeds far away from the earth:

    a) Let’s visualize that you are standing at a point where the earth rotates around the sun. As the earth makes a half round turn towards the point that is opposite to you, certainly you would express that the earth is moving far away from you. Let’s assume that you do not know that the earth simply rotates around the sun in a complete turn and what you have seen initially was simply its moving away from you right to the point that is opposite than you. Could you jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply due to you see the earth moving far away from you? Surely you cannot jump into this conclusion since the earth would spend about 182 days to rotate from the point that is opposite than you to the ultimate place where you stand to visualize and focus on its movement.

    The same thing happened to the astronomer Edwin Hubble. He could not jump into the conclusion that the universe was expanding by seeing that galaxies were moving further away from this earth at higher speed since they could be a possibility that the galaxies would make a round turn after numerous days or months or years later. Thus, the assumption that the earth could be expanding by seeing galaxies were moving further away from this earth was simply some kind of speculation.

    By the way the earth rotates around the sun by 365 days, how do you know the galaxies might rotate themselves around with years due to vast space of this universe? Edwin Hubble jumped into the conclusion that the galaxies would be expanding by observing and comparing the galaxies within a few days in his span of life is insufficient or rather speculative. This is due to how we would know that some galaxies might take more than a hundred years to make a full turn since this universe is in a vast space.

    b) The earth is just small as comparative as the whole universe. To visualize from a small end, the earth, to the whole universe so as to jump into the conclusion is rather full of speculation. This is due to Edwin Hubble does not know how the universe looks like whether it looks like a sphere with boundary beyond. He also could not even be able to visualize what goes beyond the boundary. If there is a boundary that is beyond this universe, what substances that would be formed to restrict the space of universe? Could this boundary be stretchable or expandable? What if the boundary of this universe is not stretchable, the whole universe would be kept within it? If the boundary of this universe is not stretchable, how could the universe be expanding? Are there matters that go beyond the boundary of this universe? As Edwin Hubble saw the movement of the galaxies from the small little earth without the overview of the universe, his conclusion is full of speculation. Thus, it is irrational to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply by seeing that the galaxies were moving away from his sight while staring at the galaxies on earth.
    .
    c) There could be a possibility that this whole universe could be as a sphere and that all planets, moon and etc. could be rotating round and round within the sphere. It could be that the galaxies that Edwin Hubble was observing were moving faster speed than our galaxies. As the moving speed of another group of galaxies was faster than us, it seems to be that its moving away from our earth with fast speed. However, indeed that galaxies might perform its routine movement to turn round and round just that its speed is faster than the speed of our galaxies. Despite that galaxies might have moved faster than our galaxies, it still moves round and round within the big boundary of galaxies. If that is so, it is irrational to use it to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply by seeing that the galaxies were moving away from his sight while staring at and comparing it while he was on earth.

    Thus, using the evidence from Edwin Hubble to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding is rather speculation. As it is speculation, it is irrational to use it to support that Big Bang theory.

    Like

    1. The expansion of the universe is scientific fact. All you do is speculate in your theories which fail to disprove the facts. You start with an assumption and then use your assumptions to come up with unfounded speculations of how this galaxy or that galaxy is moving and then use your speculation to draw an unfounded conclusion. Hubble’s findings were peer reviewed and shown to be very rational. You claim he “merely” discovered galaxies moving away from the earth at higher speeds. His findings were a bit more technical than that. There’s this thing called the light spectrum that can be used to measure distances. When a light source is moving away from an observer, it gives off red light (this is known as redshift) and red light has the longest wavelength in the light spectrum. When a light source is moving toward an observer, it gives off light from the blue end of the spectrum. This is established scientific fact.

      Hubble and his colleague Milton Humason observed that dimmer light sources in the universe were farther from the Earth and gave off a larger redshift than objects closer to Earth. They discovered that “redshifts increase in direct proportion to their distance from us.” The Hubble Telescope gives us a great deal of information about the distance of objects from Earth and displays redshifts for faraway galaxies. The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field discovered by this telescope has revealed galaxies with even higher redshifts than previously found for galaxies further out.

      So your speculation that Hubble was only making speculations is false speculation on your part.

      Like

  2. Big Bang timeline contradicts Genesis 1.

    In accordance to the Big Bang timeline, stars and galaxies were formed approximately 12 to 15 billion years before the present and yet the sun was formed 4.6 billion years ago. The earth was subsequently formed approximately 4.54 billion years.

    The following is the sequence that has been laid out by the scripture:

    a)The heaven and earth were created prior to any substances:

    Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The word, earth, in Genesis 1:1 gives the implication the earth was created the earliest as the same as heaven. Yet stars were formed prior to the earth’s formation in accordance to the Big Bang timeline.

    b)The creation of sun:

    According to the scripture, the sun was created after the creation of the earth:

    Genesis 1:3-4, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” Even if one would consider the creation of sun on day four, it would still fall after Genesis 1:1, the creation of the earth.

    As the creation of sun, Genesis 1:3-4 was placed after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:1, it implies that the sun was created after the creation of the earth. Yet in the Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse and that is the sun was formed 4.6 billion years before the earth, 4.54 billion years.

    c)The creation of stars:

    Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.”

    The phrase, [he made] the stars also, in Genesis 1:16 implies the creation of stars.

    As the creation of stars in Genesis 1:16 was placed after the creation of the earth (Genesis 1:1) and the sun (Genesis 1:3-4), it implies that stars were created prior to the creation of the earth and sun. Yet in Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse since stars were formed in approximately 12 to 15 billion years ago before the formation of the earth, 4.54 billion years, and the sun, 4.6 billion years.

    The discrepancies as mentioned above between the Big Bang and the scripture have placed the reliability of Big Bang theory into question.

    How could Christians engross in Big Bang theory then?

    Like

    1. zuma,

      You’re right about the Big Bang timeline. I pointed these things out in my post “Contradicting the Bible reveals astronomers’ weaknesses.” The basic foundation of the Big Bang is that the universe had a beginning, which is correct. Then scientists added all the other bad assumptions to it in order to try to get around accepting what the Bible says. This is why I made the statement in my post that “This argument accepts the Big Bang Theory, or at least the part of the theory that says the universe and time exploded (or suddenly appeared) into existence out of nothing.” That’s probably the only facet of the theory I agree with. There are Christians who embrace all of it and ignore the contradictions, but they’ll have to rethink their stance eventually since the science is proving more and more of the stuff added on to the basic premise as incorrect.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s