“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” unabled Einstein Albert
“irritating” facts
The year was 1916, and Albert Einstein didn’t like where his calculations lead him. If his theory of general relativity was true, it meant that the universe was not eternal, but had its beginning. Indeed, Einstein’s calculations revealed the definitive beginning of all time, all matter and all space. This was contrary to his belief that the universe was static and eternal.
Einstein later called his discovery ‘irritating’. He wanted the universe to exist by itself – regardless of any external cause, but the universe appeared as one huge effect.
In fact, Einstein hated the consequences of general relativity—a theory that is now proven to be accurate to five decimal places—that he introduced a cosmological constant into his equations to show that the universe is static and avoid the absolute beginning.
However, Einstein’s constant (Fudge Factor) did not last long. In 1919, British cosmologist Arthur Eddington conducted an experiment during a solar eclipse that confirmed that general relativity is indeed true— universe was not static but Had its beginning. Like Einstein, Eddington was not satisfied with the consequences of this theory. Later he wrote: ‘From a philosophical point of view, the idea of the beginning of the current arrangement of nature is repulsive to me…. I would like to find an unadulterated loophole.’1
In 1922, the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann officially revealed Einstein’s fudge factor as an algebrian error. (It’s unbelievable that, in an effort to avoid the beginning, the great Einstein divided the zero – something that even schoolchildren know is not being done!) Meanwhile, Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter discovered that general relativity requires the universe to expand. And in 1927, the expansion of the universe was actually observed by astronomer Edwin Hubble (after whom they named a space telescope). Looking over a 100-inch telescope at the Mount Wilson Observatory in California, Hubble discovered ‘redshift’ in the light of every observable galaxy, which meant that These galaxies distance from us. In other words, the general theory of relativity has been confirmed again— The universe seems to be expanding from a single point in the distant past.the 2
In 1929, Einstein went to Mount Wilson to look through the Hubble telescope himself. What he saw was irreversible. Evidence from observations showed that the universe is indeed expanding, as predicted by the general theory of relativity. The cosmological constant was now completely devastated by the weight of the evidence against it, Einstein could no longer support his wishes for the eternal universe. subsequently described the cosmological constant as “the biggest mistake of my life” And he redirected his efforts to find a solution to the puzzle of life. Einstein said he wanted to “know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts, the rest is the details.’3
Although Einstein claimed to believe in a pantheistic god (the god who is the universe), his comments admitting creation and divine ideas better describe the theistic god. and as much as it may be “irritating‘, his theory of general relativity is today one of the strongest evidences of the existence of the theistic god.
Indeed, general relativity supports one of the oldest formal arguments for the existence of the theistic god – cosmological argument.
cosmological argument – the beginning of the end of atheism
‘Cosmological’ comes from the Greek word cosmos, meaning ‘world’ or ‘space’. This means that the cosmological argument is Argument about the beginning of the universe. If the universe had a beginning, then the universe had a cause.
In logical form, the argument is as follows:
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
Everything that had a beginning had a cause – it is the law of causality, which is the basic principle of science. Without the law of causality, science would not be possible. Francis Bacon (father of modern science) even said: ‘True knowledge is knowledge according to causes.’4 In other words, Science is the search for causes. This is what scientists do – they try to discover what caused what.
If we found out about the universe, it is that Nothing happens without a cause. When a person is driving on the road, a car without a driver or without any reason will never appear in front of their car out of nowhere. Many would like to impose this opinion on the police, but it is not true. 😁
Definition: The law of causality is the basic scientific and philosophical principle according to which every event, phenomenon or change in the world has its cause that precedes it. causality defines a relationship cause-effect.
Not even the great skeptic David Hume could deny the law of causality/causality. Wrote: ‘I have never claimed such absurd claims that something could arise without a cause.’5
In fact to deny the law of causation is to deny rationality. The process of rational thinking itself requires us to combine ideas (causes) that lead to conclusions (consequence). So if someone ever tells you that they don’t believe in the law of causation, simply ask them: ‘What led you to this conclusion?’ 😁
Since the law of causality is well established and undeniable, assumption number 1 is true. 1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
What about assumption number 2? he had space some beginning? If not, then no cause was needed. If yes, Then the universe came into being for a cause.
Until the time of Einstein, atheists could console themselves by believing that the universe was eternal and therefore did not need a cause. Since then, however, it has been discovered Five scientific evidence that proves without a doubt that the universe really had its origin.
And today scientists call this beginning ‘The Big Bang’. These five evidence of the big bang can be easily remembered using the abbreviation T.Ř.E.S.K.
In the beginning there was a big “T.Ř.E.S.K.”
Approximately every few years, the main news media is brought in- Time, Newsweek And similar – on the front page an article about the origin and fate of the universe. ‘When did the universe come to be?’ and ‘when will it end?’ There are two of the questions these articles deal with. The fact that the universe had its beginning and will eventually disappear is not even a matter of discussion in these reports. Why? Because Modern scientists know that The beginning and the end are the essence of one of the most proven laws in the whole of nature – the second law of thermodynamics.
T- the second law of thermodynamics
Thermodynamics is a science dealing with the study of matter and energy and The second law of thermodynamics, among other things, says that The universe is running out of usable energy. With each moment, the amount of usable energy in the universe decreases, which leads scientists to the obvious conclusion that one day all the energy will disappear and the universe will disappear. As with a moving car, space will eventually run out of fuel.
You say to yourself, ‘So what? How does it prove that the universe had a beginning?’ Look at it like this: The first law of thermodynamics says that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. In other words, The universe has only a limited amount of energy (Just as your car only has a limited amount of fuel). If your car only has a limited amount of fuel (first law) and is constantly consuming fuel while driving (second law), if you started it an infinite amount of time ago, would your car still be in motion now? No, of course not. He would have run out of gas a long time ago. Likewise, the universe would have been without energy for a long time if it worked from eternity.
But we are here – the lights are still shining, so the universe had to come into existence sometimes In the final past. This means that The universe is not eternal – it had its beginning.
Another way to think about space is a flashlight. If you leave the flashlight on overnight, what will the light intensity be in the morning? it will be weak because the batteries have consumed most of their energy. The universe is like a discharged flashlight. It has only a limited amount of energy it can consume. But since the universe still has some battery life (it’s not yet completely discharged), it can’t be eternal – it must have had a beginning – because if it was eternal, the battery would already be dead.
The second law is also known as The law of entropy, which is an elegant way of saying that Nature tends to get things messed up. that is, that s Over time, things naturally fall apart. Your car, your house, and your body are falling apart. But if the universe becomes less ordered, then did the original order come from? Astronomer Robert Jastrow compares the universe to a winding clock.7 If the winding clock is running, then someone had to stretch it.
This aspect of the Second Law also tells us that the universe had its beginning. Since we still have a certain order left – just as we still have a certain amount of usable energy left – the universe cannot be eternal, because if it were, we would already achieve complete chaos (entropy).
A few years ago (norm) I was invited by a student from a Christian organization on the campus of one of the best universities in the USA (Ivy League) to give a lecture on this topic.
During the lecture, I basically told the students what we wrote here, but in much more detail. After the lecture, the student who invited me asked me to have lunch with him and his physics professor.
As we sat down to eat, the professor made it clear that he was skeptical of my claim that the Second Law required the beginning of the universe. In fact, he said that he is a materialist who believes that only matter exists and that it exists from eternity. ‘If matter is eternal, what will you do with the second law?’ I asked him. He replied, ‘Every law has an exception. This is my exception.’
I could oppose him by asking whether it is really scientifically correct to assume that every law has an exception. This does not seem very scientific to me and may even be counterproductive. So I moved away from the topic of the second law and decided to ask it about materialism.
‘If everything is material,’ I asked, ‘then what is scientific theory? After all, The theory that everything is material is not material; It is not made up of molecules.’ Without hesitation, he replied, ‘Theory is magic.’ 😁
‘Magic?’ I repeated, not believing what I hear.
‘What do you base your claim on?’
‘Faith,’ he replied quickly.
‘Belief in magic?’ I thought. “I can’t believe what I hear!
If faith in magic is the best materialists have to offer, Then I don’t have to get the faith to be a materialist!’
In retrospect, it seemed to me that this professor knew he could not answer the convincing evidence supporting the Second Law, so he admitted that his attitude had no basis in the evidence or good reasons. thereby provided Another example of a will that refuses to believe what the mind knows is true, and How the view of atheists is based on pure faith. In fact, he needed a leap of faith to willingly ignore the most recognized law in all of nature.
This is how Arthur Eddington’s Second Law characterized more than eighty years ago: If your theory turns out to be against the other law of thermodynamics, I can’t give you any hope; There is nothing left but to collapse in the deepest humiliation.8
As I realized that this professor was not really interested in accepting the truth, I did not ask him any other potentially humiliating questions. But because we couldn’t ignore the power of the second law on our own bodies, we both ordered dessert. Neither of us was willing to deny that we needed to replace the energy we had just consumed!
ø – the universe expands – expands
Good scientific theories are those that can predict phenomena that have not yet been observed. As we have seen, general relativity predicted the expanding universe. But only when the legendary astronomer Edwin Hubble looked into his telescope more than ten years later, scientists finally confirmed that the universe was expanding and that it was expanding from a single point. (Astronomer Vesto Melvin Slipher was on the trail of this expanding universe as early as 1913, but it was the Hubble who put all the information together in the late 1920s.)
The expanding universe is the second scientific proof that the universe had its origins.
How does the expanding universe prove its beginning? Think about it like this: If we could watch a video of the history of the universe backwards, we would see all the matter in the universe collapse back to one point that is not the size of a basketball, a golf ball, or a pin headers, but mathematically and logically To a point that is really nothing (ie no space, no time and no matter).
In other words, Once upon a time there was nothing and then a bang, something was created – The whole universe exploded into existence! This is, of course, what is commonly called ‘The Big Bang’.
It is important to understand that the universe is not expanding into empty space, but that space itself is expanding – There was no space before the big bang. It is also important to understand that the universe did not arise from existing matter, but naughty tho There was no matter before the big bang.
In fact, there was no ‘before’ the big bang chronologically, because without time there is no ‘before’ and there was no time before the big bang.9 –
‘Time, space and mass were created during the Big Bang.‘
These facts cause great difficulty for atheists. And that’s exactly how it was in the rainy night in Georgia in April 1998. That night I (Frank) took part in a debate in Atlanta on the topic ‘Is there a god?’ William Lane Craig took a positive attitude and Peter Atkins negative. The debate was very lively and even funny at times, partly thanks to the moderator William F. Buckley Jr. Buckley did not hide his favor to Craig’s for-god attitude. After the introduction of Craig and his impressive titles and references, Buckley began to introduce Atkins with a funny remark: ‘And on the side of the devil is Dr. Peter Atkins!’
One of Craig’s five arguments for the existence of God was the cosmological argument backed by the evidence of the Big Bang, which we discussed here. He pointed out that the universe— All time, all matter and all space—exploded from nothing, which Atkins admitted in his book and later confirmed again in the debate that evening.
As Craig was the first to speak, he informed listeners about how Atkins was trying to explain the universe from an atheist point of view:
‘In his book The Creation Revisited, Dr. Atkins tries very hard to explain how the universe could have arisen without a cause, out of nothing. But in the end it finds itself at odds with itself. It writes: ‘Now we go back in time to the moment of creation, to the time when there was no time and space.’ swirling mathematical points dust, which are combined again and again and eventually create our space-time universe by trial and error.”10
Craig further pointed out that Atkins’ attitude is not a scientific theory, but is actually a contradictory popular metaphysics because it is a fictional explanation— There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support it. And it’s contradictory because It assumes time and space before time and space existed. Since Craig didn’t have the opportunity to discuss this point directly with Atkins, so we turned to Atkins after the debate behind the scenes.
‘Doctor Atkins, you admit that the universe was created by an explosion from nothing, but your explanation of the beginning is ambiguous when it comes to what is ‘nothing’. Whirling math points are nothing. They too are something. How do you explain it?’
Instead of dealing with this question, Atkins verbally surrendered to the second law of thermodynamics. He said, ‘Look, gentlemen, I’m very tired. Now I can’t answer any more questions.’ In other words, his drop in energy proved that the second law works. Atkins literally had nothing to say!
According to modern cosmological evidence, the universe did not literally nothing, what it could arise from. However, when it came to the provision of an atheistic explanation for this phenomenon, Atkins did not really start with anything, but with mathematical points and time. Of course, it is impossible to imagine how mere mathematical points and time could actually cause the universe to come into existence. Nevertheless, we wanted to emphasize the fact that Atheists like Atkins must be able to explain how the universe came from absolute nothing.
Editor: String theory is a similar opinion. Definition: String theory is a physical model. unabled Instead of point (mathematical) particles considers the basic building blocks of matter and one-dimensional energy, vibrating strings. Due to the lack of experimental data, it is sometimes criticized as a purely mathematical construct.
What is nothing? Aristotle had a good definition: He said that Nothing is what stones dream about! Nothing the universe came from is ‘math points‘, as suggested by Atkins, (neither’vibrating strings‘), nor ‘Positive and negative energies‘, as Isaac Asimov, who is also an atheist, once wrote.11
Nothing is literally nothing – What stones dream about.
British author Anthony Kenny sincerely described his own situation, as an atheist, in light of the evidence of the big bang: “According to the Big Bang theory the whole matter of the universe began to exist at a certain moment in the ancient past. a supporter of such a theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that The matter of the universe has risen out of nothing and nothing.“12
E – Einstein’s General Reality Theory
Einstein’s general theory of relativity is another scientific proof that the universe had its beginning, and her discovery marked the end of the original theory that the universe is eternal.
The theory of relativity, which has been verified to five decimal places, requires the absolute beginning of time, space and matter. It shows that time, space and matter are interconnected. This means that they are dependent on each other – one cannot exist without the other.
Based on the general theory of relativity, scientists predicted and then discovered the expanding universe, and large galaxial germs (seeds), which were precisely modified so that the universe could evolve into its current state.
with -seeds (germs) of the galaxy
Scientists believed that if the big bang actually happened, we should see slight deviations (or waves) in the temperature of the cosmic background. These temperature waves allowed matter to cluster into galaxies by gravitational attraction. If found, they would represent the fourth line of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning.
In 1989, the search for these waves was intensified when NASA launched a $200 million satellite aptly named Cobe. Thanks to extremely sensitive instruments, COBE was able to determine whether these waves in reality there are in the background of radiation and how are they accurate.
When the project leader, astronomer George Smoot, announced the results of COBE in 1992, his shocking characteristics were quoted in newspapers around the world. He said, “If you are a believer, it’s like looking at God.’ Astrophysicist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago was no less enthusiastic and declared: “The meaning of this[objevu]cannot be overestimated. They found the holy grail of cosmology.’
Astronomer Stephen Hawking of Cambridge agreed with him and called this discovery ‘The most important discovery of the century, if not of all time’. 14
What did Cobe discover that he deserves such significant descriptions? Cobe not only discovered waves, but scientists were amazed by his accuracy. waves show that The explosions and expansions of the universe were precisely tuned So that just enough matter to gather to create a galaxy, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse. any slight deviation in one direction or the other and none of us would be here. In fact, the waves are so accurate (with an accuracy of one hundredth of a thousandth) that Smoot called them ‘traces of the creation of the universe” A “Creator’s fingerprints‘.15 Smoot called this mass ‘seeds” of galaxies.
K- cosmic microwave radiation (cosmic background)
the last series of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning, was discovered by chance in 1965. That’s when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson noticed strange radiation on their antenna in Bell Labs, Holmdel, New Jersey. No matter where they directed their antenna, this mysterious radiation persisted. This radiation not only persisted, but constantly came from all directions.
What Penzias and Wilson discovered turned out to be one of the most incredible discoveries of the last century – Discovery that earned them a Nobel Prize. These two scientists they discovered flash After the explosion of the big bang fireball! technically known as the cosmic background, this reverberation is in fact light and heat from the initial explosion. This light is no longer visible because its wavelength has been stretched by the expanding universe to wavelengths slightly shorter than those produced by the microwave. But Heat can still find out and detect.
As early as 1948, three scientists predicted that this radiation would have existed if the big bang actually happened. However, for some reason, no one tried to find him before Penzias and Wilson stumbled upon him almost twenty years later. When this discovery was confirmed, he disproved all lingering assumptions that the universe was in an eternal state.
Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow put it as follows: No other explanation was found for the radiation of the fireball than the Big Bang. The decisive argument that has convinced almost even the last non-believing Thomas is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the same pattern of wavelengths as expected in the light and heat generated during the Big Bang. Supporters of the theory of constant state desperately tried to find an alternative explanation, but failed. Currently, The Big Bang Theory has no competition.13
The discovery of the radiation of the fireball essentially destroyed all hopes for the theory of constant state.
Definition: term ‘cosmic background’ (more precisely cosmic microwave background radiation or relic) refers to electromagnetic radiation that evenly fills the entire observable universe. It is about ‘echo’ or ‘adhide’ big bang and represents the oldest light that can be observed in the universe.
the theory of relativity, the expanding universe, cosmic microwave radiation, the large seeds of the galaxy, and add these discoveries to the second law of thermodynamics, and you have Five strong scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning – The beginning, which came in the form of a big bang.
Summary – 5 scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning
T – the second law of thermodynamics. – If the universe had existed since eternity, it would have been without energy for a long time. However, since we are still here, the universe had to come into being sometime in the past which It had a beginning.
ř – the universe expands – expands – from a certain the beginning.
E – Einstein’s general theory of relativity requires absolute beginning time, space and matter. It shows that time, space and matter are interconnected. that is, they are dependent on each other – one cannot exist without the other.
S – ‘seeds’ of the galaxy – waves in the temperature of the cosmic background shows, that the explosion and expansion of the universe were precisely tuned (per hundredth of a thousandth of a thousandth) that just as much had gathered matter in order to create a galaxy, but not so much that the universe collapses.
to – ToOsmic microwave radiation – cosmic background – A flash of a big bang fireball burst, for which there is no other explanation than the Big Bang — beginning the universe.
Excerpts from the book ‘I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist’ by Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. Frank Turk
1. Quoted in Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Colorado Springs:Navpress, 1995), 57.
2. All the galaxies are moving away from us, but that does not mean that weare at the center of the universe. To Visualize How This Can Be, Picture a Balloon With Black Dots On It. When You Blow Up The Balloon, All Of The Dotsseparate From One Another Where They Are Near The Center Or Not. The Dotson Opposite Sides of the Balloon (those farthest away from one another) separate more quickly thane to one more. In Fact, Hubble Discovered a Linear Relationship Between Distance and Speed, Which Showed That Agalaxy Twice As Far From Us Moves Away at Twice The Speed. This becameknown as Hubble’s Law.
3. Quoted in Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Wheeling, Ill.: Daystar, 2000), 135.
4. Francis Bacon, The New Organon (1620; Reprint, Indianapolis: Bobbsmerrill, 1960), 121.
5. David Hume, in J. Y. T. Greig, ed., The Letters of David Hume, 2 Vols. (NewYork: Garland, 1983), 1:187.
6. You May Have Heard The First Law of Thermodynamics Stated Like This: “Energy Can Neither Be Created Nor Destroyed.” That is a philosophical assertion, not an empiricn observation. How Could We Know That Energy Was Notcreated? There were no observers to Verify it. A More Accurate Definition of TheFirst Law, As Far As Observations Go, Is That “The Total Amount Of Energy in TheUniverse (I.E., Usable and Unusable Energy) Remains Constant.” So As UsableEnergy Is Consumed, It Is Converted into Unusable Energy, But The Sum Of Thetwo Remains The Same. Only the Proportion of Usable to Unusable Changes.
7. Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: Norton, 1978), 48.
8. Quoted in Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint (New York: Simon & Shuster, 1988), 20, Emphasis Added.
9. Words Like “Precede” and “Before” Usually Imply Time. We Don’t Mean Itthat Way, because there was no time ‘before’ the big bang. For There Can Beno Time Before Time Began. What Then Could Exist Before Time? The Answeris, Very Simply, The Eternal! That is, the eternal cause that Brought time,space, and matter into existence.
10. The Entire Debate is Available on Video atwww.rzim.com.
11. Isaac Asimov, Beginning and End (New York: Doubleday, 1977), 148.
12. Anthony Kenny, The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of God’sexistence (New York: Schocken, 1969), 66.
13. Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16.
