How did the Universe begin?
Andrew Lerch, James Silva, Soroush Vosoughi
To All those who have not Accepted Gods Word,
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". There is a lot of beauty in this world how could it all happen as a matter of chance as Big Bang theory suggest. All this beauty has to be the work of a perfect being; not even the greatest artist of all time could create anything as complex as the world is. The universe is vast and unique if one was to paint the universe an infinite amount of detail would be required. This is part of the beliefs of a creationist but the beliefs of those labeled as creationist are diverse from strict creationism to Intelligent Design theory to in general they all involve the role of god in the universe. Strict creationism is the belief that everything takes place exactly as it is in the bible from Adam and Eve to Noah’s flood. Intelligent Design is the theory that some perfect being must have created this universe but does not involve the belief of the events of the bible.
God has existed since the beginning of time as described in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." this constant presence by god is much like the constant nature of steady state theory and that is why both theories do not conflict and scientist such as Einstein could rationalize god’s existence and their scientific beliefs. If god did create everything then there isn't much left unanswered it all is part of god's work all part of his plan. Creationism is what a majority of the world believes in, Science may say otherwise, but to those with faith what science says is unimportant, it is the lies of heathens. In the USA there is a significant percentage of citizens who do not believe in evolution; some studies estimate almost half of all Americans do not believe in evolution. Our world exist due to the grace of our lord and savior. However even creationism is a broad term that covers many different beliefs such as creation science. It is all part of one’s personal beliefs.
To whom it may concern,
In the debate of how the universe was created, there are many different opinions about how everything started. The most valid is the Big Band theory. This theory states that the universe was created about 10-20 billion years ago from an explosion that hurled matter in all directions. It was proposed because an observance of a red shift in distant galaxies. This shift from is similar to the Doppler Effect, where as a body is moving away from a point, the sound, or in this case, light waves appear to be spaced further apart. Similar to the effect when an ambulance drives past you, the sound changes to be lower pitched. This red shift implies that the galaxies are moving apart.
The only way to explain the galaxies moving apart is that some force was applied to them. The Big Bang is able to explain this by an explosion when the universe was in an infinitely dense state because that is one reasonable explanation how there was enough repulsive force to make the universe expand at such a fast rate. The laws of physics and time did not apply before the Big Bang, which makes the instant of the Big Bang the beginning of everything from a scientific standpoint. The Big Bang can be supported by experimental evidence that has been gathered by the Hubble Space Telescope, which has observed that galaxies are moving apart at a speed proportional to their distance from earth.
As opposed to other theories, such as creationism or steady state, this theory is supported by observational evidence. The Big Bang Theory has enough evidence for it to disprove the other ideas. From the observational evidence as well as models that have been set up, the facts show that the Big Bang theory is indeed the best at explaining the origin of the universe.
The belief in Creationism would lead you to believe that God created the Universe, but in a world where we use facts as a base for assumptions, I ask where is the proof. Having faith in something does not make it true. The Big Bang theory can be supported by observational evidence and has physical data gathered from our universe that supports it. It is fact and fact cannot be argued with.
Dear Andrew and James,
In response to your recent letter about the creation of the universe, I would like to look at this issue from a philosophical point of view. To do so, I will start my argument with a quote from the 17th century mathematician and philosopher, G.W.F Leibniz, "The first question which should rightly be asked is, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” This question does seem to possess a profound existential force, which has been felt by some of humankind’s greatest thinkers. Why does something exist instead of nothing? Leibniz answered this question by arguing that something exists rather than nothing because a necessary being exists which carries within itself its reason for existence and is the sufficient reason for the existence of all contingent being.
Although Leibniz (followed by certain contemporary philosophers) regarded the non-existence of a necessary being as logically impossible, a more modest explication of necessity of existence has been given by John Hick, a current Philosopher of religion. He says, “A necessary being is an eternal, uncaused, indestructible, and incorruptible being.” Leibniz, of course, identified the necessary being as God. His critics, however, disputed this identification, contending that the material universe could itself be assigned the status of a necessary being. David Hume, a well-known philosopher of the 18th century known for his atheistic views is one of Leibniz’s critics. Opposing the idea that the necessary being is God he asks, “… may not the material universe be the necessary existent Being, according to this pretended explanation of necessity?". Typically, this has been precisely the position of the entire atheist. Atheists have not felt compelled to embrace the view that the universe came into being out of nothing for any reason at all; rather they regard the universe itself as a somewhat factually necessary being: the universe is eternal, uncaused, indestructible, and incorruptible. As Bertrand Russell, a modern analytic philosopher and an atheist put it, “. . . The universe is just there, and that's all."
Unlike any other theories, this theory at the same time proves and disproves the creation of the universe by God depending how it is look at and interpreted. This theory therefore leaves us in a rational impasse, suggesting that the origin of universe is an issue that is far beyond the comprehension and understanding of humankind.
Dear Andrew and Soroush,
One may ask, “what about evolution, steady state theory, big bang theory how do these fit into the idea of creationism”, I say the fit in just right. The big bang theory proposes everything was initiated by a primordial explosion of matter, a seemingly random event in the eyes of those without faith but to those with faith it is an act of god who acts as a catalyst to this explosion. The big bang theory is not much different from religion it makes too many assumptions such as the perfect timing needed for the big bang to create anything. Even evolution could it not be the work of god, who else could create a system in such perfect harmony , a system meant to eliminate mistakes and promote it's own successes, a perfect system which could only be the work of a perfect being. In the eyes of those who believe in god most theories such as big bang, steady state, and evolution. Intelligent Design can all be rationalized as being different takes on the work of god after all “god works in mysterious ways”. In any case, one thing we can all agree upon is uncertainty and in this uncertainty is where God must exist for us all.
Dear James and Soroush,
In order to describe how the world is, people must look to science. Science shows that the Big Bang Theory is based on fact. There is observational evidence that shows that the universe is acting similar to the way that the Big Bang Theory described it. Other theories such as the solid-state theory and creationism have no basis in fact and are poor attempts at describing the universe. The physical way to describe the expanding universe is there was some type of beginning where the universe began to expand. If we trace the universe backwards, physical laws dictated that there would be a point where the universe will have no volume and infinite density, proving the Big Bang theory true. When explaining how the universe came to be, science is the only viable way to ensure that what one has found is fact.
Dear Andrew and James,
When searching for the origin of universe, most people always think that there are only two sides to this issue, the creationists versus the scientists. Not many people know that philosophers have been trying to explain the existence of the universe well before any creationists or scientists even existed. Some philosophers state that the belief that God created the universe is unsatisfactory. They refer to the "Cosmological Argument," a three-step process verifying a cause to the existence of the universe. Everything that begins to exist, according to them, has a cause, and since the universe began to exist, there must be a cause to its existence. They claim the cause to the universe is just the universe itself. They agree that every thing has a cause, however they argue that the universe is not a thing and that it's a conjunction of things that come together to form the existing universe. Other philosophers however, attack the other group’s interpretation of the Cosmological Argument. They claim that the universe is indeed a thing, stating its expanding properties, elements, and matter as examples. They say the universe is not self-explained, but call it a physical being that comes into being at the Big Bang. Even the philosophers do not agree on this issue leaving one to wonder that maybe the origin of the universe is something that humankind was never meant to know.
Copleston, F.C. and Russell, Bertrand. "The Existence of God," in The Existence of God, ed. with an Introduction by John Hick, Problems of Philosophy Series. New York: Macmillan & Co., 1964), p. 175.
Forrest, Barbara and Gross, Paul R. Creationism's Trojan horse : the wedge of intelligent design. Penguin Books: New York, 1995.
Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books: New York, 1996.
Hick, John. "God as Necessary Being," Journal of Philosophy 57 (1960): 733-4.
Hume, David. Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, ed. with an Introduction by Norman Kemp Smith, Library of the Liberal Arts. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. 1947, p. 190.
Leibniz, G.W. "The Principles of Nature and of Grace, Based on Reason," in Leibniz Selections, ed. Philip P. Wiener, The Modern Student's Library. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951, p. 527.
Leibniz, G.W. Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man, and the Origin of Evil, trans. E.M. Huggard. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951, p. 127; cf. idem, "Principles," p. 528.
National Aeronautic and Space Administration. The Big Bang Theory. 11/21/04.
All works contained herein are copyright their respective owners.