Proof that God exists, or Science and the Bible

God is real. He’s the same God that the Bible describes, and naturally we can find and see Him in his creation, the Universe, the World, everything around us shouts out to His existence. How can I make those statements logically, without requiring a leap of faith into the unknown? Well the God that I’m talking about also created logic, the step upon step process by which we’re able to perceive and know anything, including the world around us. Therefore it only makes sense that we should be able to use that same tool to establish the truth about His substance and being.

Nothing Plus Nothing Equals Nothing

This would seem to be an obvious assertion of fact, but you’d be surprised at how many seemingly intelligent people trip themselves up on this one. This principle underlies all rational thought and is undisputed by every scientist – in Mathematics, it’s 0 + 0 = 0. So when we look at the creation of the universe, any theory attempting to explain its origin must be based on, or at least include, this basic concept. Let’s examine the current and most popular contender, the Big Bang Theory. Unfortunately most people have the idea that this concept is a compete explanation of how the universe and the planet we live on came into existence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here’s how a Wikipedia entry on the subject covers the issue;

“There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.” (1)

The reason why scientists shy away from attempting to explain the “absolute earliest instant” is that they know, all too well, that Nothing plus Nothing equals Nothing. The Big Bang assumes that the primary elements that were involved were all in existence prior to the initial explosion. Obviously they had to be – you can’t have an interaction between elements if they weren’t there in the first place.

Consequently, even if one accepts the Big Bang Theory as fact, we are still left to ponder the following; what force was around prior to the Bang to create those vital first components? There had to be one, and of logical consequence that force needed to be greater in power and outside of the universe which it created. Just as you and I are greater than anything we build and cause to come into being, such as shoes, or windscreen wipers, and such, that same principle applies to the creator of the elements required for the Big Bang. It must have been greater than the matter it brought into being.

In fact, it’s logical to assume a whole boatload of facts about this creator, one of which is that there’s absolutely no reason to expect that this entity isn’t still in existence. And wouldn’t it have had a purpose in initiating this whole chain of events that wound up in our presence here on earth? Wouldn’t it also make sense for that originator of everything we see and know to have made itself known to its creation, to you and me? It has, you know, and that legacy and history of how and why we were brought into being is contained in a book still in existence – it’s called The Bible.

It tells a remarkable story of how we were made after the image of the Creator Himself, how we made a fateful decision to rebel against His initial instructions, and how we have as a result subsequently suffered illness, sorrow and ultimately Death itself. But there is some good news and a potential for a joyful ending to this woeful story of disobedience; the Creator foresaw all these events and their consequences and decided to send His one and only son to pay a ransom for our failings. His son’s name was Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, and the Bible tells us that we can return into fellowship with our Creator by opening our heart to His son;

“If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.” (2)

I did this over 32 years ago and it has been a never-ending source of joy and happiness to me ever since. I can only hope and pray that you do too.

In Jesus’ name,

Dave

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

(2) Romans 10:9-10 http://biblehub.com/niv/romans/10.htm

Advertisements

About doctordave777

I'm a regular guy whose life was changed forever when I met Yeshua The Messiah, aka Jesus. I just happened to be on a Zen-Buddhist retreat in Manhattan, New York when this event occurred, a little over 30 years ago now. In His grace, He reached down and spoke to me. I've never been the same since. If you would be interested in emailing me personally, I can be contacted at djrandmpr@yahoo.com. Dave
This entry was posted in The Big Bang, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Proof that God exists, or Science and the Bible

  1. Hi. I am of the opinion that nothing can come from nothing. Therefore, our error is the assumption that infinity was ever actually empty to begin with. There has always (eternally) been stuff. And stuff has eternally been in states of motion and transformation. Nothing ever really disappears for good. The super massive black hole that held a universe of stuff in a condensed natural state was one form. When it reached a tipping point and exploded into the Big Bang, it simply transformed into a different, natural state. It is reasonable to assume that, given eternity, the process of condensing and expanding has repeated continuously. And it is reasonable to assume that, given infinity, these events are happening all over the place, like popping corn.

    So, there was never a “first” cause. All of the causes have always been in play and are inherent in the nature of stuff-in-motion.

    Like

    • Marvin, thank you for your thought provoking comment. My blog entry is written from the perspective of those who believe in a single Big Bang, rather than your suggestion of an “Endless Universe”. I found the following criticism of that concept;

      ============================================
      “Of the eternal inflation model, the cosmologist Vilenkin says that, “You can’t construct a space-time with this property”—the equations simply don’t work. “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past. There must be some kind of boundary.”1

      And Vilenkin said that while cyclic universes have an “irresistible poetic charm and bring to mind the Phoenix” (quoting the late Belgian astronomer and priest Georges Lemaître), the model was hopelessly wrong in its predictions of the universe’s level of order today. If there had indeed already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe today should be in a state of maximum disorder. As the New Scientist article pointed out:

      “Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.”1

      The attempted rescue suggestion, viz. that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle, therefore isn’t yet at maximum disorder, also fails on the same point as the eternal inflation model. I.e., “if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.”1

      And as for a third idea that the cosmos previously “existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg”, which later ‘cracked’ to create the big bang, Vilenkin and research associates have ‘cracked’ that notion, too. Their work showed that quantum instabilities would force such an ‘egg’ to collapse after a finite amount of time. And even if it cracked beforehand, leading to the supposed big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed, and therefore also within a finite amount of time. “This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe”, says Vilenkin. “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”1

      And so in that light, as the editorial of that issue of New Scientist muses, physicists must answer the problem: “How do you get a universe, complete with the laws of physics, out of nothing?”2″

      Even if I agreed to the notion of an endless universe, one still needs to believe in a Big Bang that supposedly occurred almost 14 billion years ago. Given that, how would you explain the existence of DNA in all its complexity? From a mathematical viewpoint, there isn’t enough time for DNA to have randomly created itself, even in 14 billion years. You’d need far, far longer – trillions upon trillions of years. Please look at the following brief explanation of how it is impossible that DNA occurred by chance;

      http://www.drreeves.com/Faith-Encouragement/DNA-Impossible-By-Chance

      The above is why a fair number of secular cosmologists have signed onto the “panspermia” concept – they realize the impossibility of a random creation of DNA and so they reach to the stars for an answer.

      Sincerely … Dave

      1. Grossman, L., Death of the eternal cosmos, New Scientist 213(2847):6–7, 14 January 2012.
      2. Editorial: In the beginning … , New Scientist 213(2847):3, 14 January 2012.

      Like

      • Very interesting. But since we all seem to agree that something cannot come from actual nothingness, our initial presumption, that there ever was an actual state of nothingness, must be incorrect. That means we must presume that some generic stuff, out of which everything now exists, must have always existed.

        The laws of physics would come with that generic stuff, of course. But which laws are in play appear to vary with the current state of the stuff. Scientists, for example, attempt to describe how things operate differently in the initial fractions of a second of the big bang.

        We know that our current universe contains many example of black holes of different sizes. We know that the nature of a black hole is a highly condensed state of matter, such that the volume of a teaspoon would hold the mass of thousands of pounds.

        And the current theory of the Big Bang is that it was a super-massive black hole which reached a tipping point and exploded outward, creating the current visible universe as it is today.

        But no one can claim that the current visible universe fills infinity. So that leaves us the question as to what does fill infinity. Well, we’ve seen one universe. So it is no great leap of logic that there should be others.

        And if there are others, then it is no longer required that any one universe must condense solely upon itself. It may be that, out at the farthest edges, two or more universes may exchange some material, and contribute to black holes located in other universes. But this is just a reasonable guess on my part. We are unlikely to ever be able to confirm this hypothesis as true or false.

        You raise the separate issue of the probability that our universe could produce life within the time since the big bang. Since we observe that a wide variety of life is in fact all over our planet, even in the most inhabitable places, we can only logically conclude that the probability is 100%. And any “calculations” showing a different result must be flawed, perhaps by the bias of the authors.

        Like

  2. Taggard says:

    How do you know that something can’t come out of “nothing”? Maybe that is what “nothing” does; it creates “something”. Since no one has ever seen “nothing” (the vacuum of space isn’t “nothing”), how can we know what it does? Your assumption of “God” is as based on as little evidence as my “something coming from nothing”, so both have equal standing…which is absolutely none.

    In the end, there is no evidence for God…just a god of the gaps.

    (For more on Something from Nothing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo)

    Like

    • Taggard, instead of giving me a youtube to listen to, why don’t you just explain to me in English, using logic, how something comes from nothing. It doesn’t do any good to rely on people who have degrees and letters after their name to explain something that you yourself know full well is impossible. We were given brains to think, not to blindly follow others who tell us “this is the truth”. You might as well join the Roman Catholic Church and follow the Pope. They make all the decision for their followers – how are you doing anything different but blindly following what you have been told to believe?

      Dave

      Like

      • And the challenge to you, Doctor Dave, is to explain how God came out of nothing. Hint: (1) There was always stuff-in-motion. (2) Life, including us, are a naturally occurring product of stuff-in-motion. (3) We created God to make Good sacred.

        Like

        • Marvin, I would still like to hear an explanation of how over 4 BILLION bits of human DNA somehow randomly arranged themselves into a perfectly functioning sequence and order without a greater outside power directing them. We’ve already established that it’s statistically impossible according to the laws of chance, given the mere 13.77 billion years that science tells us have passed since the Universe was created. So please, even ignoring the statistical impossibility, have a go and please explain to me how such a tremendously complex system could have evolved by chance. And, of course, remember while you are constructing your hypothesis that even the most “simple” examples of DNA that we are aware of would have no purpose unless they were complete. In other words, it couldn’t have developed step by step – it’s a complete entity or it’s worthless. By the way, each person’s has to somehow be unique, like snowflakes.

          The interrelation and interdependence of those 4.1 billion pieces is simply amazing. Human DNA isn’t an abstract concept to me, I have some personal experience with it. I can testify to this because my wife has an illness called CML. Up until 2001, having CML was an 18 month long death sentence, if you were lucky. Marvin, I think that you would be interested in reading about the man who developed the class of drugs that reversed it’s progress http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/science/03conv.html?pagewanted=all. I hope that the link in the last sentence worked and you were able to read the article because it’s important to what I am going to say!

          Dr. Druker, along with another researcher, discovered that the Philadelphia chromosome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_chromosome (hope that link worked too!) was causing certain enzymes to be released in CML sufferers. As a result of his perseverance and determination, he developed a drug called Gleevec that saved not only the life of my wife, but another 50,000 other precious people who would have died EACH YEAR since. Maureen, my wife of 39 years now, became ill with CML in 2007 and she is alive today because of his work on that drug.

          Why am I telling you all this Marvin? Because our lives, yours and mine, hang on a knife edge, although we go through each day as if it mattered almost nothing. We act as if we have a thousand years to live and our lives will never come to an end. But, of course, they will. And both of us must and should be prepared for that day when we take our last breath on earth. Can you really explain to yourself, not to me or anyone else, how the miracle that is our DNA came into existence? I would like to meet you personally and talk with you face to face about all this, about why we are here on earth at this time and in this setting. You seem like a rational and logical man, a man after my own heart! Unfortunately, that will probably never happen. So this format will have to suffice.

          I personally wouldn’t put my faith in anyone’s research or science – those letters that they earn after their names are too much of a temptation to go along with the crowd and the money. Remember the tale of the Emperor with no clothes? There’s a totally logical argument that says that most of their theories of how we all came into being are completely incorrect. That theory would say that the inner part of our being, our spirit, lives forever, even after our bodies die and decay.

          Wishing you the best and hoping that I will meet you in God’s presence in eternity …. Dave

          Like

          • I’m neither a scientist nor a statistician. All I can offer is the simple fact that we are here. Therefore it cannot be a “statistical” impossibility or any other kind of impossibility. Here we are. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that, given the right circumstances, it is inherent in the inorganic to produce the organic.

            In fact, we must conclude that it was inevitable that life should be here, on this planet. Whether it originated here, or originated somewhere else and rode here on a meteor, I could not say. All I can say with any certainty is that this is how things worked out, for this specific place, for this specific time.

            I cannot say that a supernatural personality just willed it into being from nothingness. To do that, I would not merely need to prove that life evolved from natural forces which this being put in play, but I would also have to explain where this being came from and why she created everything just as it is.

            It is simpler to presume that what we see, hear, feel, smell, and experience through observation is what we get. And, like Adam and Eve after the Garden, we are on our own to make the best of it. We study and research, to understand how it all works. That is science. And, like any other institution that must be manned by imperfect humans, it will be, as you suggest, imperfect.

            But those who pursue Good for everyone above self-interest will likely find it. And God was created to help make Good sacred.

            As to why anything is the way it is, we can never know for certain. All we can know is what we observe and how we observe that it works. The why is pure speculation.

            Like

    • What you are saying is that what we call “nothing” isn’t actual nothingness. The supposed “vacuum” of space is not as empty as it appears, due, for example to “dark matter”, and, of course, black “holes” which are not actual holes at all, but rather highly condensed matter with a gravity force so great that even light cannot escape.

      Like

Please feel free to leave a comment - I will usually respond (eventually!).

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