![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/04\/EinsteinLemaitre.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker<\/a>,\u00a0who was\u00a0\u201craised Presbyterian\u201d<\/a>,\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He also made a general statement\u00a0on 6-22-17<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cChristians\u2019 arguments are easy to refute . . . I\u2019ve heard the good stuff, and it\u2019s not very good.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He added\u00a0in the combox<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I\u2019ve mischaracterized them.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Such confusion would indeed be\u00a0predictable<\/em>, seeing that Bob himself admitted\u00a0(2-13-16<\/a>):\u00a0\u201cMy study of the Bible has been haphazard, and I jump around based on whatever I\u2019m researching at the moment.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0I\u2019m always one to oblige people\u2019s wishes if I am able, so I decided to do a series of posts in reply.\u00a0It\u2019s also been said,\u00a0\u201cbe careful what you wish for.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0If Bob responds to this post, and makes me aware of it, his reply will be added to the end along with my counter-reply. If you don\u2019t see that, rest assured that he either\u00a0hasn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0replied, or didn\u2019t\u00a0inform<\/em>\u00a0me that he did.\u00a0But don\u2019t hold your breath.<\/p>\n Bob (for the record) virtually\u00a0begged<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0pleaded<\/em>\u00a0with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But by\u00a010-3-18<\/a>,\u00a0following\u00a0massive, childish name-calling attacks<\/a>\u00a0against me,\u00a0 encouraged by Bob on his blog (just prior to his\u00a0banning<\/em>\u00a0me from it), his opinion was as follows:\u00a0\u201cDave Armstrong . . . made it clear that a thoughtful intellectual conversation wasn\u2019t his goal. . . . [I] have no interest in what he\u2019s writing about.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n And on 10-25-18, utterly oblivious to the ludicrous irony of\u00a0his<\/em>\u00a0making the statement, Bob\u00a0wrote in a combox<\/a>\u00a0on his blog:\u00a0\u201cThe problem, it seems to me, is when someone gets these clues, like you, but ignores them. I suppose the act of ignoring could be deliberate or just out of apathy, but someone who\u2019s not a little bit driven to investigate cognitive dissonance will just stay a Christian, fat \u2018n sassy and ignorant.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Again,\u00a0Bob mocks some Christian in his combox on\u00a010-27-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cYou can\u2019t explain it to us, you can\u2019t defend it, you can\u2019t even defend it to yourself. Defend your position or shut up about it. It\u2019s clear you have nothing.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And again\u00a0on the same day<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf you can\u2019t answer the question, man up and say so.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>And on\u00a010-26-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cyou refuse to defend it, after being asked over and over again.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And\u00a0again<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cYou\u2019re<\/i>\u00a0the one playing games, equivocating, and being unable to answer the challenges.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Bob\u2019s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds. Again,\u00a0on 6-30-19<\/a>, he was chiding someone who (very much like he himself) was (to hear\u00a0him<\/em>\u00a0tell it) not backing up his position:\u00a0\u201cSpoken like a true weasel trying to run away from a previous argument. You know, you could just say, \u2018Let me retract my previous statement of X\u2019 or something like that.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>Yeah,\u00a0Bob<\/em>\u00a0could!\u00a0\u00a0He still hasn\u2019t yet uttered one peep in reply<\/a>\u00a0to \u2014 now \u2014 36 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.\u00a0As of 7-9-19<\/a>, this is how Bob absurdly rationalizes his non-response:\u00a0\u201cHe\u2019s written several blog posts titled, in effect, \u2018In Which Bob Seidensticker Was Mean to Me.\u2019 Normally, I\u2019d enjoy a semi-thoughtful debate, but I\u2019m sure they weren\u2019t.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Bible-Basher Bob\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0To find these posts, word-search \u201cSeidensticker\u201d on my\u00a0atheist page<\/a>\u00a0or search \u201cSeidensticker Folly #\u201d in my sidebar search (near the top).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Bob\u2019s article, \u201cBSR [Bite-Sized Reply] 4: Who Created God?\u201d<\/a> (3-25-20) is yet another display of Our Hero being out to sea without a life raft. Let\u2019s take a closer look at it, shall we?<\/p>\n Challenge to the Christian:<\/strong>\u00a0Who created God?<\/span><\/p>\n Christian response #1:<\/strong>\u00a0This question is nonsensical. God is uncreated\u00a0by definition<\/u>.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Give God whatever properties you want\u2014zero calories, organic, lemon scented, made of soap bubbles, whatever. You still must justify those claims. Some Bible verses suggest that God is eternal, but that\u2019s not evidence. You can start by showing that God\u00a0exists<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n Folks who study the issue at all know that there are many philosophically serious theistic proofs. I have collected a great deal of them in these papers:<\/p>\n The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion . . .<\/p>\n Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system . . .<\/p>\n All things of the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is\u00a0adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one author.\u00a0(Natural History of Religion<\/i>, 1757, edited by H. E. Root, London: 1956, 21, 26)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Notice how Bob offers us a nothing burger when he \u201cdiscusses\u201d (if we can even call it that) these very perplexing questions. He has no more basis for his position than the Christian does, yet he has to try to change the subject, according to time-honored polemical atheist methodological tradition, and mock Christianity (which is his purpose in virtually ever article he writes):<\/p>\n Christian response #2:\u00a0<\/strong>Everyone believes in\u00a0something<\/u>\u00a0eternal\u2014if not the universe, then what caused it. Christians just believe that cause was\u00a0personal<\/u>, which explains the personal attributes of existence.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Christians\u00a0believe<\/em>? \u201cI believe\u201d here is in the same category as \u201cI have faith,\u201d but it\u2019s better to let belief follow from sufficient evidence. Let\u2019s rely on evidence-driven science, the discipline that has taught us what we reliably know so far about reality.<\/span><\/p>\n Science doesn\u2019t call the universe eternal. Time in our universe had a beginning, though there\u2019s likely more to be discovered. Science has unanswered questions about the universe, but it has the track record of providing reliable answers. Religion also has answers, but each religion\u2019s origin story is incompatible with the next, making none worth believing in.<\/span><\/p>\n Pointing out the gaps in scientific knowledge does nothing to bolster religion\u2019s claims (for example, undercutting evolution does nothing to strengthen Creationism). If Christianity wants to provide answers to science\u2019s unanswered questions, it needs to do the heavy lifting itself. \u201cBut\u00a0science<\/em>\u00a0doesn\u2019t have an answer!\u201d is no argument.<\/span><\/p>\n Yeah, science has explained a lot of stuff. It\u2019s wonderful. Modern science developed in an overwhelmingly Christian milieu<\/a> during the late Renaissance, and was unquestionably dominated by Christian scientists<\/a> until the mid-19th century. But it has not and cannot explain everything<\/em>. It (like also mathematics and logic) starts with unfalsifiable axioms<\/a>, just as religion does. Any honest scientists will concede that point in a second. By definition, it can only explain matter and the laws that determine how it behaves. It has nothing to say about spirit. But philosophy and religion do.<\/p>\n Science is not the sum total of all knowledge (much as so many atheists would love that to be true, since it has become their religion. Materialism (i.e., matter being all there is) is itself a belief-system that has not been absolutely proven, either. To hold that there could not possibly be such a thing as spirit is every bit a proposition of unprovable faith as the converse view that there couldn\u2019t possibly not<\/em> be.<\/p>\n At the point of origins, atheism has no solid answers in explanation: even of the most self-understood speculative sense. It ends up actually looking quite absurd, if scrutinized closely enough. I did a scathing satire some years ago, of what belief in atheist materialism entails<\/a>. It was probably my most controversial online paper ever (out of now 2800+): certainly the most controversial according to atheists.<\/p>\n Almost to a person (perhaps literally every<\/em> atheist who objected), they couldn\u2019t even grasp the nature of the satire \/ parody, and the sarcasm employed. Targets of satire often do not comprehend it, because they are too blind to see what an outsider observes in them. So I wrote an explanatory post<\/a>, which accomplished exactly nothing. They still couldn\u2019t understand my entire point. But if you (reading this) are not an atheist, I think you will see what I was getting at. Here are some lengthy excerpts:<\/p>\n Matter essentially \u201cbecomes god\u201d in the atheist \/ materialist view; it has the inherent ability to do everything\u00a0by itself<\/i>: . . .<\/p>\n The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter \u2013 arguably\u00a0far<\/i>\u00a0more faith than we place in God, because it is much more difficult to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone. . . .<\/p>\n Indeed, this is a faith of the\u00a0utmost non-rational, childlike kind. . . .<\/p>\n Atheist\u00a0belief is a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, putting to shame the\u00a0colorful\u00a0worship of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish.<\/p>\n The polytheistic materialist, on the other hand, is\u00a0far<\/i>\u00a0more religious than\u00a0that<\/i>. He thinks that trillions of his atom-gods and their distant relatives, the cell-gods, can make absolutely\u00a0everything\u00a0<\/i>in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality.<\/p>\n One might call this (to coin a phrase)\u00a0Atomism\u00a0<\/i>(\u201cbelief that the atom is God\u201d). Trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason\u00a0that anyone\u00a0can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). . . .<\/p>\n Oh, and we mustn\u2019t forget the time-goddess. She is often invoked in worshipful, reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all, end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to shut up any silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather than trillions. . . .<\/p>\n Atomists may and do differ on secondary issues, just as the various ancient polytheistic cultures differed on quibbling details (which<\/em>\u00a0god could do\u00a0what<\/em>, which material made for a better idol, etc.), but despite all, they inevitably came out on the side of polytheistic idolatry, with crude material gods, and against spiritual monotheism. . . .<\/p>\n \u201cWhy\u201d questions in the context of Atomism are senseless, because they can\u2019t overcome the Impenetrable Fortress of blind faith that the Atomist possesses. The question, \u201cWhy do the atom-gods and cell-gods and the time-goddess exist and possess the extraordinary powers that they do?\u201d is meaningless and ought not be put forth. It\u2019s bad form, and impolite. We know how\u00a0sensitive<\/i>\u00a0overly religious folk are. . . .<\/p>\n Yet we can\u2019t help \u2014 almost despite ourselves \u2014 recalling with fondness the wonders and fancies and fairy-tales of childhood. Atomists seek very hard to maintain those marvels, and perhaps\u00a0that\u2019s not all bad. We must be tolerant and open-minded.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That is one way<\/em> to approach it, and if you wanna see atheists foaming at the mouth and utterly unable to rationally defend what they believe, show them this. Be sure to be adequately prepared for the firestorm and tremendous fuss. Atheists like ntng less than this sort of turning-the-tables on them.<\/p>\n As I have contended above: belief in an eternal Creator-God is perfectly compatible with the Big Bang model, though not itself a scientific proposition. We have centuries of theistic philosophy on our side, too. There are only so many alternatives. If the atheist wants to mock our view then they are duty-bound in intellectual honesty to choose the other two main options (that I can see): an eternal universe (which is precisely what the Big Bang and present science has disproven<\/em>) or the crazy notion that the universe created itself out of nothing.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s take a brief look at these two options and see how plausible they look. Bob throws out more \u201cnothing\u201d in his attempt to evade his intellectual responsibility:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [R]elying on common sense at the frontier of science is to bring a knife to a gunfight. The Big Bang, the event that brought the universe as we know it into existence 14 billion years ago, might\u2019ve been a quantum event, and quantum physics throws common sense out the window. It is completely counterintuitive\u2014events without causes, virtual particles popping into existence, quantum entanglement, quantum tunneling, quantum superposition, and so on.<\/span><\/p>\n Before you hypothesize a Being that is the source of existence, show that natural explanations are insufficient. That is, don\u2019t simply say that science has unanswered questions about the origin of the universe (yes, it does). You must show that no natural explanation is possible. Otherwise, the consistent record of failure of supernatural explanations means that we have no reason to expect such a thing.<\/span><\/p>\n Notice how he never for a second argues for a positive atheist viewpoint of how the universe got here. All he can do is endlessly throw it back to the Christians to explain. But we\u2019ve made our explanations a million times. Science supports our view of creatio ex nihilo<\/em> from God in a stronger way than it ever has before. It\u2019s the atheists who have never remotely explained the plausibility of either an eternal universe or a universe from nothing.<\/p>\n I fully understand their reluctance. I sure wouldn\u2019t want to have to explain and defend such scientifically, logically, and philosophically ridiculous things. Yet it seems clear and obvious that they must<\/em>, in order to set forth atheism once and for all as the superior worldview, over against the despised Christianity (which is their\u00a0raison d\u2019etre <\/em>[i.e., justification for their existence]).<\/em><\/p>\n Bob Seidensticker would never let Christians<\/em> off so easily: without answering<\/em> any challenge he outs out. Hence he wrote:<\/p>\n A word to the wise: whenever you read an apologetic article, make sure the Christian actually answers the question. Don\u2019t be swayed with bluster and confidence so that you overlook them running from the question. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0That the question might make them uncomfortable isn\u2019t the issue.\u00a0They want to get the challenge dismissed on a technicality\u00a0so they don\u2019t have to answer it. Don\u2019t let them.<\/span> (11-19-19<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The late famous atheist scientist Stephen Hawking asserted in his 2010 book, The Grand Design<\/em><\/a>: \u201cBecause there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing . . .\u00a0\u00a0Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.\u201d Scientist John Lennox responded to this claim<\/a>:<\/sup><\/p>\n [C]ontrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. . . .<\/p>\n [T]he laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.<\/p>\n To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton\u2019s laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.<\/p>\n Hawking\u2019s argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth? . . .<\/p>\n For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation.<\/p>\n The very reason science flourished so vigorously in the 16th and 17th centuries was precisely because of the belief that the laws of nature which were then being discovered and defined reflected the influence of a divine law-giver. . . .<\/p>\n Some years ago, the scientist Joseph Needham made an epic study of technological development in China. He wanted to find out why China, for all its early gifts of innovation, had fallen so far behind Europe in the advancement of science.<\/p>\n He reluctantly came to the conclusion that European science had been spurred on by the widespread belief in a rational creative force, known as God, which made all scientific laws comprehensible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here are several more<\/a> similar ludicrous utterances from atheists or agnostics:<\/p>\n It is now becoming clear that everything can\u2014and probably did\u2014come from nothing. (Robert A. J. Matthews, physicist, Ashton University, England)<\/p>\n Even if we don\u2019t have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. (Paul Davies, physicist, Arizona State University)<\/p>\n Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with . . . The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God. (Victor J. Stenger, Prof. of Physics, University of Hawaii; author of\u00a0God: The Failed Hypothesis<\/em>)<\/p>\n Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things\u2014perhaps even the entire universe\u2014can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes. (Mark I. Vuletic,\u00a0Creation Ex Nihilo\u2014Without God<\/em>)<\/p>\n It is rather fantastic to realize that the laws of physics can describe how everything was created in a random quantum fluctuation out of nothing . . . (Alan Harvey Guth, theoretical physicist and cosmologist,\u00a0Discover Magazine<\/em>)<\/p>\n The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice. (Richard Dawkins,\u00a0The Ancestor\u2019s Tale<\/em>)<\/p>\n [T]he most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing. (philosopher Quinton Smith)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The one thing that always seems to be missing from these bizarre statements, is how<\/em><\/strong> and why<\/em><\/strong> this supposed process ever happened. And why is that? Well, because no one has a clue. There is no scientific experiment that could even suggest<\/em>, let alone<\/em> prove such a thing. So at best it is implausible philosophy, and at worst, fideistic religion: believed in by blind faith. Have you observed the high irony yet?: isn\u2019t that<\/em> the very thing that Christians are blasted for believing (and made out to be unsophisticated, anti-science troglodytes): in a God Who created everything and set the universe in motion \u2014 without ironclad, indisputable proof<\/strong><\/em>?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n What is a big\u00a0deal\u2014the biggest deal of all\u2014is how you get something out of\u00a0nothing.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a\u00a0clue either\u2014despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of\u00a0convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. \u201cIn the\u00a0beginning,\u201d they will say, \u201cthere was nothing\u2014no time, space, matter or\u00a0energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which . . . \u201d Whoa! Stop right\u00a0there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And\u00a0the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of I don\u2019t have a problem with this scenario from the quantum fluctuation\u00a0onward. Why shouldn\u2019t human beings build a theory of how the Universe evolved\u00a0from a simple to a complex state. But there is a very real problem in explaining\u00a0how it got started in the first place. You cannot fudge this by appealing to\u00a0quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is\u00a0no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen,\u00a0no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness into somethingness;\u00a0or there is something, in which case that needs explaining. . . .<\/p>\n No, I\u2019m sorry, I may not have been born in Yorkshire but I\u2019m a firm believer\u00a0that you cannot get owt for nowt. Not a Universe from a nothing-verse, nor\u00a0consciousness from a thinking brain. I suspect that mainstream science may go on\u00a0for a few more years before it bumps so hard against these problems that it is\u00a0forced to recognise that something is wrong. And then? Let me guess: if you\u00a0cannot get something for nothing then that must mean there has always been\u00a0something. Hmmm.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Likewise,\u00a0philosopher of science and physicist David Albert, stated:<\/p>\n [I]f what we formerly took for nothing turns out, on closer examination, to have the makings of protons and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and galaxies and universes in it, then it wasn\u2019t nothing, and it couldn\u2019t have been nothing, in the first place. And the history of science \u2014 if we understand it correctly \u2014 gives us no hint of how it might be possible to imagine otherwise. (\u201cOn the Origin of Everything,\u201d<\/a>The New York Times<\/em>, 3-23-12)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The\u00a0agnostic Ron Rosenbaum wrote with remarkable candor and far-mindedness:<\/p>\n Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence\u2014the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)<\/p>\n Faced with the fundamental question: \u201cWhy is there something rather than nothing?\u201d atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing. (\u201cAn Agnostic Manifesto,\u201d<\/a>Slate<\/em>, 6-28-10)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The other alternative is an eternal universe (which, of course, flies directly in the face of much scientific evidence for the Big Bang and a finite universe with a starting-point; and all that<\/em> has to be overcome in order to believe it). Helge Kragh, in a paper on historic cosmology with regard to the universe\u2019s origins<\/a>, described Aristotle\u2019s view:<\/p>\n He argued that the universe as a whole, apart from\u00a0being unique (no other universes), was spatially finite but temporally infinite in both directions. In other words, it was eternal and hence uncreated as well as\u00a0indestructible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Albert Einstein, at the time of his theory of general relativity in 1917, following Newton, believed in an eternal, static universe. Helge Kragh describes his views:<\/p>\n The\u00a0model presupposed that the universe as a whole was uniform and spatially closed\u00a0corresponding to a positive curvature of space; it was finite yet with no boundary\u00a0and therefore contained but a finite number of stars. Importantly, it was also static in\u00a0the sense that the curvature of space and the mean density of matter remained\u00a0constant. To maintain a static universe in accordance with astronomical observations\u00a0Einstein had to introduce a new term in his cosmological field equations, the later so\u00a0famous cosmological constant. Being static his universe had no temporal dimension\u00a0but was eternal in both past and future time. For this reason alone the question of the\u00a0origin of the universe did not enter Einstein\u2019s mind. Nor did it enter the minds of the\u00a0few other physicists and astronomers occupying themselves with his mathematically\u00a0and conceptually abstruse theory.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Kragh chronicles the initial origin of the Big Bang Theory in 1931:<\/p>\n What became known as the big bang\u00a0universe in a realistic sense was first proposed on 9 May 1931 in a brief note in the\u00a0journal Nature<\/em>. The author was Georges Lema\u00eetre, a 36-year-old Belgian\u00a0astrophysicist and cosmologist who was also trained as a Catholic priest.\u00a0\u201cWe could conceive,\u201d Lema\u00eetre wrote in his 1931 paper, \u201cthe beginning of the\u00a0universe in the form of a unique atom, the atomic weight of which is the total mass of\u00a0the universe \u2026 [and which] would divide in smaller and smaller atoms by a kind of\u00a0super-radioactive process.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Einstein opposed his view at first (originally describing aspects of it as \u201cabominable\u201d), but was eventually won over in 1933<\/a> and stated: \u201cThis is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of the creation of the universe I\u2019ve heard. \u201cSee more about their scientific relationship<\/a>.<\/p>\n After the Big Bang Theory gained widespread and then nearly universal scientific acceptance from 1964, with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). But in 1948, there had been an attempt to go back to the antiquated aristotelian eternal \/ static universe, with the \u201csteady state\u201d theory<\/a>. Kragh provides a capsule history:<\/p>\n Finite-age models of the type proposed by Lema\u00eetre and Gamow were\u00a0challenged by the fundamentally different steady state theory of the universe\u00a0introduced by Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold in 1948. According to\u00a0this theory the universe had existed in an eternity of time and would continue\u00a0existing eternally. . . .<\/p>\n What matters is that by assuming an infinite age of the universe the steady\u00a0state theorists avoided the thorny question of a beginning. It was in this context that\u00a0Hoyle, on 28 March 1949, gave a BBC broadcast in which he coined the name \u201cbig\u00a0bang\u201d for the kind of cosmological theory which assumed an origin of the universe in\u00a0an explosive event. The following year he characterized \u201cthe big bang assumption\u00a0[as] an irrational process that cannot be described in scientific terms.\u201d What he had\u00a0in mind was the old objection that there can be no causal explanation, indeed no\u00a0explanation of any kind, for the beginning of the universe. At more than one occasion\u00a0he associated the big bang theory with theism, suggesting that a temporal beginning\u00a0of the universe implied divine creation and was therefore unscientific. For example:\u00a0\u201cThe passionate frenzy with which the big-bang cosmology is clutched to the\u00a0corporate scientific bosom evidently arises from a deep-rooted attachment to the first\u00a0page of Genesis, religious fundamentalism at its strongest.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Virtually no astronomer, physicist, or any kind of scientist continues to accept<\/a> the steady-state theory today.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\nCosmological Argument for God (Resources)<\/a>\u00a0[10-23-15]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nOntological Argument for God (Resources)\u00a0<\/a>[10-23-15]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nTeleological (Design) Argument for God (Resources)<\/a>\u00a0[10-27-15]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n15 Theistic Arguments (Copious Resources)<\/a>\u00a0[11-3-15]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nScience and Christianity (Copious Resources)<\/a>\u00a0[11-3-15]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWe\u2019ve seen this trick before, . . . where the apologist tries to disqualify an argument to avoid having to address it. \u201cWho created God?\u201d is a reasonable question that follows naturally from the apologist saying, \u201cEverything<\/em>\u00a0must have a creator, and in the case of the universe, God is that creator.\u201d Or if the argument is, \u201cEverything but God has a creator,\u201d then justify that.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\nWe\u2019re happy to justify our beliefs through reason and have been doing so for nearly 2000 years. The main point I\u2019d like to make in this treatment of mine is to emphasize that everyone is pretty much in the same \u201cepistemological boat\u201d. Whether atheist or Christian or whatever, every person has to explain how the universe got here<\/em>; and it seems (intuitively, at least) that something was eternal<\/em>: either matter or some sort of immaterial \u2014 and eternal \u2014 spirit that we call \u201cGod\u201d (with different definitions in different religions or philosophical systems: but generally a Spirit that created matter and what we see).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nAs anyone who has learned \/ followed science at all knows, the current accepted cosmological model is the Big Bang Theory<\/a>: whereby the universe began 13.8 billion years ago (according to the latest scientific reckoning). The universe is, therefore, not eternal; matter is not eternal. It had a beginning-point. Now how or what caused the big bang is the $64,000 question. Christians believe, as we always have, that God created the universe ex nihilo<\/em> (from nothing). This is perfectly consistent<\/em> with the Big Bang cosmology and (I submit) as good and rational and plausible an explanation as any other for the cause of the big bang. The alternative is the ludicrous notion that matter created itself out of nothing<\/strong><\/em>. Think about that<\/em> for a moment, if you are bored and have run out of things to do. Try to wrap your brain around it.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nBelief in an eternal God is a tenet of religious faith and\/or philosophical speculation. It can\u2019t be absolutely proven (in the way that atheists invariably demand), but then very little can be. It can be shown to be \u2014 in many different ways \u2014 rational and plausible. What has been demonstrated through science is the Big Bang Theory. As far as we can tell, it happened. The atheist is just as much in the realm of faith and speculation as the Christian, when he or she sets out to explain how this could happen apart from some non-material entity or force, if you will, that \u201cpreceded\u201d it. When Christians assert God\u2019s eternal existence, they stand on the shoulders of hundreds of eminent philosophers throughout history (i.e., the belief is not merely<\/em> one of religious faith): even some whom atheists erroneously pretend to be on their side, like David Hume, who wrote:<\/div>\n\n\n
\nAll of a sudden atheists find themselves having to explain origins just as they always challenge us<\/em> to do, and they offer either more nothing or else they have to admit they have no more (I would say, a lot less<\/em>) reason to believe as they do than we do (which is what I\u2019ve been maintaining now for forty years, in my philosophically and scientifically informed Christian apologetics).<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nIt\u2019s not just me saying this (although I think it is an utterly obvious conclusion).\u00a0David Darling\u00a0is an\u00a0English\u00a0astronomer who has written many books about science, and\u00a0\u00a0maintains the online\u00a0Internet Encyclopedia of Science<\/i>. He wrote in NewScientist<\/em> magazine on 9-14-96<\/a>:<\/div>\n\n
\nuncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it,\u00a0they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats.<\/p>\n