So what are we saying?
Before we get into that, let me say what we are not saying, i.e., what is the purpose of this weblog?
Unfortunately, although this weblog has been getting a nice number of hits lately [thank you very much], the only comments I have received are from an atheist. Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure he’s a real nice kid. I’m sure he’s doing his best to cope with reality. BUT the purpose of this weblog is not to convert atheists. Sure, before I’m done I’ll point out that atheism [as well as agnostism, naturalism] have no logical foundation [although they did 50 years ago]; BUT I don’t expect the atheists to agree.
The purpose of this weblog is to get Christians to understand that only belief in God is logical; what do I mean by ‘logical’? Scientifically provable. Future posts will flesh this out.
What I’m concerned with is that, although I’m getting a nice number of hits, no Christian has commented.
Let’s talk a bit about comments. You don’t have to present an argument like I. Goat did to make a comment. I thought that when I said that Dr. Crain was wrong [about ab initio], I’d get a bunch of comments. That’s a foundational position of his. It has been a foundational position of Jewish-Christian theology for over 3,000 years. It’s wrong. Nothing comes from nothing; I explained how God made the universe [not from nothing; from his tremendous energy]. AND I’ve got no comments.
Are any Christians reading this weblog? Do you all agree that Dr. Crain is wrong and I am right???? Sure, I’d like that to be true, but I find it hard to believe that you can change horses in midstream without a comment.
Here’s some sample comments I’d like to hear from Christians:
How can you call Dr. Crain wrong? Who are you? Dr. Crain is a great man!
Gee, you might be right; tell me more.
Thank you for uniting e = mc^2, which the atomic bomb proves, with God.
You’re going to roast in hell.
Yes, I’ve always believed [reinforceded by my science classes] that 0 = 0.
You’re either crazy or brilliant — I’m waiting.
Our Bible group is going to discuss this with Dr. Crain; more later.
See? You don’t need a lot of words. I’d appreciate the feedback. The next few posts are fertile grounds for feedback. I never intended to lecture on reality. If I had, I wouldn’t have needed a weblog. I could have done a site and published my work and let it go.
But, I didn’t have enough time to do the research I would have liked to do. So I thought a weblog, which can be interactive, would be the way to go. I’d set forth my position and invite comments. So far, that hasn’t worked. You’ll notice I don’t site my sources. I hope to get you to look for what I found. Maybe you’ll find something better! Maybe we’ll come up with something we all could call the truth. Ain’t that what we all want? For that matter, isn’t that what God wants?
So much for the position portion of this post. Now on with it.
I repeat: So what are we saying?
First, we are saying that we agree with one thing the atheists and everyone else [Hawking, Guth, Lederman, Smith, etc.] agrees with:
At the beginning, at the first instance, at the time the Big Bang began, nobody knows what happened. That’s important! That puts us all on a level playing field. The basis of this weblog is what happened at the beginning.
Let me point out a few contradictions within the atheistic view. I’ve already pointed out Smith’s description of the singularity as a ‘caldron’. Ain’t no zero dimensional caldrons, are there? Hawking has a similar problem. First, he says that the singularity was a time when ‘all the laws of physics would have broken down’. Later, in the same lecture, he says ‘the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe’. Gee, Steve, you can’t have it both ways. The ‘laws of physics’ are the ‘dynamical laws’. All atheists have a problem in that they attempt to describe how things were when the Big Bang began.
Why is it that atheists have such a problem getting the Big Bang started? That’s easy. They’re trying to do the impossible. When does time begin?
Everyone sems to have forgotten about our friend Einstein. Remember spacetime? One word. Inseparable. Until space is created, time does not begin.
We all know this about creations. Take a well-known example. A creation we’re all familiar with. A car. Sure, we call this a mass-produced product. But it is still a creation. It is created. So when does a car become a car? The creation process begins, let’s say, when the frame goes on the assembly line. Is that a car? Obviously not. Then you have the body, [but not the doors] and, let’s say, the engine but not the transmission,, etc I ask again, is that a car? Nope. When does the car become a car? When it’s completely created and not a moment before.
But, you say, I can measure the time it takes to create that car. True enough. But that’s because, now, the universe is created [and has been for 13,708,010,000 years, right?] and spacetime is a reality. But, as I’ve noted before, before the universe was created, spacetime did not exist and time had not begun. That means that for the universe time does not begin until the creation process is complete.
That means it is nonsense to ask how ‘long’, that is, how much ‘time’, it took. There was no time. Did God convert the energy of 5 quintillion quintillion quintillion A-bombs into matter giving us the CMB in an instant? Oops! You see how easy it is to ask about time before time began. However God did it, it took no time, because time did not exist. How arrogant of man to believe he can understand the process by which God did it. We cannot.
That’s why the atheists have such a tough time explaining it. They cannot. Nor can anyone.
What’s important is that the Big Bang proves the existence of God.
That’s obvious, right? Well, we’ll talk some about it in the next posts.

14 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 24, 2007 at 11:44 am
Cole
Hey, Big Bang for God. I’m trying to find out what a causal geodesic is.
The Wikipedia- Gravitational singularity- says this about the Big Bang:
The simplest Big Bang cosmological model of the universe contains a causal singularity at the start of time (t=0) where all timelike geodesics have no extensions into the past. Extrapolating backward to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe of size 0 in all spatial dimensions…..
Also, in “The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology” Proceedings of Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970), pages 529-548. Hawking and Penrose say this:
We are now in a position to state the corollary to our position……The implication is, virtually, that a space-time satisfying (3.20)-(3.23) must contain a causal geodesic which possesses no pair of conjugate points…..Instead, we see that our theorem implies that some causal geodesic ‘enters a singularity’ (i.e. is compelled to be geodesically incomplete) before any repeated focusing has time to take place.
So it seems that a corollary to the space-time theorem is that there is a cause at t=0. What do you think?
May 24, 2007 at 4:08 pm
bigbang4god
How can you ask me what I think? Did you read the post you’re commenting on? How about the previous posts? To review, you know I don’t buy the singularity, right? That takes care of the causal geodesic. It’s just as imaginary as the singularity. You don’t buy that ‘theorem’ do you? [If you do, answer the question that many have asked: How come Hawking, perhaps the world's most famous scientist, has never won the Nobel prize?]
You know I disagree with anything Hawking and/or Penrose say about the Big Bang, right? They”re atheists: the singularity is their invention to be used to deny God”s involvement in the creation of the universe. A good lesson in semantics would sink Hawking’s writings. [Did you note how he has to contradict himself in the post you're commenting about? Contradictions are required because his semantics are abherrant {and abhorrant}. He'd flunk Semantics 101. ] Scuttle Hawking’s beginning: Go with God.
But, thanks for the comment. It reminds me of a point I was going to make about the evils of extrapolation. Next post was to cover it. But, you won’t mind reading it again, right?
Just because data can be extrapolated back to zero, doesn’t mean that that extrapolation is correct, does it? That same extrapolation goes back into negative time. It goes back indefinitely; 10 billion years, 20 billion years, 100 billion years; how far back do you want to go? Nobody suggests the universe was created during negative time. Why does Hawking stop at time zero? There’s no reason.
As an R&D lab manager, I found instances where interpolation [normally accepted] was, in fact, erroneous. Only data counts. How much? Can’t say, but even interpolation has to be reviewed according to engineering principals, physical reality, etc. Good grief, extrapolation was reserved for those using intoxicants. If you submitted a paper for publication based on ANY extrapolated data it would be summarily rejected. But now Hawking gets away with it. It pays to be famous.
And remember, it is so unnecessary. The actual creation process was completed by God 13,708,010,000 years ago. Hawking says his Godless creation began 13,708,020,000 years ago. I ask again: are you going to deny God’s involvement based on less than 1 part in a million? Remember, admitting God did it gets rid of the imaginary singularity and the preposterous ‘inflation’. Even Jon Voisey, when he summarized the cosmology [7/29/06 if memory serves me correctly] omitted reference to either the singularity or ‘inflation’. He could buy neither. And he’s an atheist. Like you, right? Don’t get the idea that I don’t like atheists. They’re just ignorant that the playing field has changed and they’re not even on it. See my later posts.
Thanks again for the comment.
May 24, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Cole
I’m just trying to figure out what a causal geodesic is. I’m not trying to argue with anybody. I was just asking for your help in understanding the corollary of the space-time theorem that has been confirmed beyond reasonable doubt.
May 24, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Cole
I believe God created the universe.
May 24, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Cole
I’m thinking the corollary to the theorem is that the causal geodesic states if the conditions are met at the area then there must be a singularity. I’m not sure.
May 24, 2007 at 7:29 pm
bigbang4god
You obviously disagree with me.
Remember data? [see my comment above] Please set forth the DATA upon which you base your statement that the imaginary singularity and the fallacious theorem have been proven ['confirmed'] to you ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. [I'm very familiar with the application of that test.]
May 24, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Cole
big bang,
I think I figured something out. You don’t have to agree with my conclusion. Just listen and tell me if this sounds correct.
The corollary of the space-time theorem is this.
A space-time M cannot satisfy causal geodesic completeness if, together with Einstein’s equations, the following four conditions hold……..We may interpret failure of the causal geodesic completeness condition in our corollary as virtually a statement that any space-time satisfying (3.20)-(3.23) ‘possesses a singularity’. …..The implication is, virtually, that a space-time satisfying (3.20)-(3.23) must contain a causal geodesic which possesses no pair of conjugate points……We see that our theorem implies that some causal geodesic ‘enters a singularity’ (i.e. is compelled to be geodesically incomplete) before any repeated focusing has time to take place.
O.K. I found this at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The simplest Big Bang cosmological model of the universe contains a causal singularity at the start of time (t=0), where all timelike geodesics have no extensions into the past. Extrapolating backward to this hypothetical time 0 results in a universe of size 0 in all spatial dimensions.
If this is correct we have a cause outside our universe. So, the corollary to the space-time theorem is that there is a cause outside our universe. Now, I know you don’t believe in the space-time theorem. But does this sound correct? I’m not playing games or anything. I just want to know if this is right.
May 24, 2007 at 10:08 pm
bigbang4god
As I thought: you have no DATA.
Of course it’s wrong [not correct]. Data makes things correct; not hypothesis. That’s the answer to why Hawking has not won a Nobel prize. The Nobel prize is awarded for discoveries [DATA] not unproven hypotheses. All of Hawking’s hypotheses are unproven. [All of them are also semantic nightmares.]
The last great cosmological discovery? The CMB. God leaves tracks. Hawking’s singularity, ‘inflation’, theorem? No reality; no tracks.
Finally, how can you believe God created the universe and believe in Hawking’s singularity which expressly denies God’s involvement?
May 24, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Cole
Well the theorem holds if general relativity accurately describes the dynamics of the universe. In 1994, a team led by radio astronomer Joseph Taylor used twenty-one years of measurements on the orbital periods of binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 to confirm general relativity’s reliability to 99.99999999999 percent. In the words of Roger Penrose this research data made Einstein’s relativity “the most accurately tested theory known to science.” Here’s nine more tests:
1. retardation of radar and laser signals bounced off various solar system bodies
2. dragging and twisting of the space-time fabric by rapidly rotating neutron stars and black holes
3. oscillation rates of X-ray radiation from disks of gas and dust orbiting black holes
4. population statistics of black holes at different masses
5. Infall velocities of accretion discs surrounding supermassive black holes
6. diameters and intensities of Einstein rings
7. Lens-Thirring effect
8. marginally stable orbits of matter being accreted onto neutron stars from normal stars that happen to be in close orbits about the neutron stars
9. hypernova gamma ray bursts generated by the simultaneous merger of several black holes.
Now that general relativity is established beyond reasonable doubt the space-time theorem and it’s corollary of a Causal Agent bringing the universe into existence beyond our universe can be trusted.
May 25, 2007 at 11:52 pm
bigbang4god
GTR was established beyond reasonable doubt in 1919.
Why don’t you answer my question? I repeat: HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND BELIEVE IN HAWKING’S SINGULARITY WHICH EXPRESSLY DENIES GOD’S INVOLVEMENT? Don’t tell me about GTR. I agree it’s the most accurately tested … That’s not my question. If you’re trying to say ‘Causal Agent’ = God, Hawking doesn’t buy it. He expressly states, as I said in my post, the singularity eliminates the possibility of God’s involvement in creating the Big Bang. Please answer the question.
May 28, 2007 at 11:54 am
Cole
Space-time theorem of general relativity.
A mathematical theorem proven by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose in 1970 that establishes that if the universe contains mass, and if it’s dynamics are governed by general relativity, then time itself must be finite and must have been created when the universe was created. Also, there must be a CAUSE responsible for bringing the universe into existence independent of space, time, matter and energy.
After establishing a first cause we then look at the fine- tuning of the big bang and the universe and discover that the creator is an intelligent being.
May 28, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Cole
Hawking has tried to get arround the singularity with imaginary time in a Brief History of Time to avoid the need for a Creator.
September 19, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Crist
interesting
October 6, 2007 at 8:09 pm
bigbang4god
Thanks