You are currently browsing the monthly archive for May 2007.

Time to indulge in a little history lesson concerning how science came to be dominated by atheists. [Yes, not all branches of science, but most assuredly physics and astronomy.] Why do we care? To be able to prove that atheists no longer have a logical basis, we have to understand that when atheism became popular, they did.

At one time atheists, theists, agnostics, naturalists, all had a logical basis for their beliefs. Although that time began 250 -300 years ago, it persisted for a long time. Certainly it was viable as late as 1920. But that’s not when it started.

In the ‘dark ages’ [roughly 1000 to 1400], after Rome had converted to Christianity, the Roman Catholic church dominated everything.

Then came the Renaissance. The influence of the Roman Catholic church [of which I am a member] began to wane. But the Inquisition was still in progress. [Strangely, perhaps, the reformation, started by Luther in 1517, which diminished the control the the Roman Catholic church, fueled the most egregious witch hunts — which were not a part of the Roman Inquisition.]

The Roman Inquisition lasted, more or less, through 1750. [The Spanish, through 1834 in Euruope.] But, even though the influence of the Roman Catholic church was waning, everybody believed in God, in heaven and in hell. What happened?

The Renaissance awakened scientific thought free from outright control by the Roman Catholic church.

The first clash between science and religion happened. It was the argument about Heliocentricity. Heliocentricity [accepted centuries before in India etc] was cautiously lectured on before Copernicus. The Church, of course, believed the earth was the center of the universe [although their concept of the universe was very ill-defined].

Then came along Copernicus. He had data to prove the sun was the center of the solar system; the earth revolved around the sun as did the other planets. He was afraid to publish his theory and supporting data because of the church and the Inquisition. A student nagged him into doing so. Did that lead to an inquisition trial? Did the Church prosecute Copernicus for his beliefs? No; it wasn’t published until he was on his death bed in 1543; he was given a copy, appeared happy and died.

The Roman Catholic church did not accept his teaching, of course. In the early 1600’s, another heliocentrist was burned at the stake. But the idea wouldn’t did, Galileo picked up the torch and advocated heliocentricity. He was tried in 1633, convicted of heresy and sentenced to house arrest. He died under house arrest for the crime of heresy. [He was too famous to execute..]

Obviously, scientists [all of which were heliocentrists, of course] in the late 1600’s to mid-1700’s were not enamored with the Roman Catholic church. Not having Kierkegaard’s ‘Attack on Christendom’ [it was written about 100 years later] to help them distinguish from belief in God and belief in the church [‘Christendom’], they lashed out at God and widely rejected belief in God’s existence. They needed a theory to support such an outrageous [at that time] belief. [Outrageous then, reasonable 75 years ago; outrageous now.]

As the Scientific Revolution progressed, by the mid-1700s, the doctrine of materialism had gained much strength. It dates back, at least, to ancient Greeece. There the ‘Materialists‘ thought nothing mattered except matter. [The other major branch of philosophy then was the ‘idealists’. They believed matter didn’t exist; it was just an ‘idea’.] The materialists thought reality began and ended with matter. They thought matter was eternal, immutable and unchanging. It had existed eternally. Consequently, so had the universe. There was no Creation.

That was just what the atheist scientists needed. If there was no creation, there was no God. This was there foundational position! They adopted materialism, and the God-less universe, en masse. Hume writes of the ‘eternal universe’ in the 1750’s.

Perhaps Politzer stated it best circa 1840: “The universe was not a created object; if it were, it would have to have been created instantaneously by God and brought into existence from nothing. To admit creation, one has to admit, in the first place, the existence of a moment when the universe did not exist, and that something came out of nothingness. This is something to which science can not accede.”

He recognized the ‘something out of nothing’ fallacy; note that he makes it clear that if the universe was created, there must be a Creator. [He constrains the Creator to do it in a moment — he failed to recognize that before the creation of the universe, as we have discussed, there was no time; he also constrained the Creator to do it out of nothingness, but he didn’t know about e = mc^2, did he?]

The important thing is that he recognized the bet. He believed he had the ultimate hole card: Nothing comes from Nothing. But e = mc^2 shows us that the universe came, not from nothing, but from God’s incredible energy

The atheists made their point clear: The universe was eternal, immutable and unchanging; therefore, there was no creation; nothing comes from nothing; they said there was no Creator; there was no God.

That was the bet!!!

The agnostics, when agnosticism became the choice of the intellectual, more or less in the 1920’s, made it clear. They told the atheists: ‘You deny the creation of the universe and therefore of God’s existence, but you can’t prove that there was no creation. We won’t join you in your belief until you can prove it.’ On the other side of the coin, the told the thests: ‘You believe that the universe was created and you can’t prove that either. We won’t join you until you can prove the universe was created.

They recognized the bet. Everyone did.

Then came Einstein,, Eddington, Lemaitre, Hubble [aided by Leavitt and de Slipher], Gamow and Penzias & Wilson: By 1967, with the latter’s work published and accepted [they were to win the Nobel prize in 1978], it was clear that the theists had won the bet. Creation was proven. God, the Creator, existed!!!

End of bet. End of any logical basis for atheism [and, of course, for agnostism]. [Naturalism, herein defined as the belief that God is everywhere within the universe {in the stars, in the trees, in the birds, in the bees} also bit the dust. A word about that later.].

Next post we’ll talk about what happened to atheism and today’s atheists, i.e., the welchers.

Time to indulge in a little history lesson concerning how science came to be dominated by atheists.  [Yes, not all branches of science, but most assuredly physics and astronomy.]  Why do we care?  To be able to prove that atheists no longer have a logical basis, we have to understand that when atheism became popular, they did.  At one time atheists, theists, agnostics, naturalists, all had a logical basis for their beliefs.  Although that time began 250 -300 years ago, it persisted for a long time.  Certainly it was viable as late as 1920.  But that’s not when it started.

In the ‘dark ages’ [roughly 1000 to 1400], after Rome had converted to Christianity, the Roman Catholic church dominated everything.  Then came the Renaissance.  The influence of the Roman Catholic church [of which I am a member] began to wane.  But the Inquisition was still in progress.  [Strangely, perhaps, the reformation, started by Luther in 1517, which diminished the control the the Roman Catholic church, fueled the most egregious witch hunts — which were not a part of the Roman Inquisition.]  The Roman Inquisition lasted, more or less, through 1750.  [The Spanish, through 1834 in Euruope.]  But, even though the influence of the Roman Catholic church was waning, everybody believed in God, in heaven and in hell.  What happened?

The Renaissance awakened scientific thought free from outright control by the Roman Catholic church.

The first clash between science and religion happened.  It was the argument about heliocentricity.  Heliocentricity [accepted centuries before in India, etc.] was cautiously lectured on before Copernicus.    The Church, of course, believed the earth was the center of the universe [although their concept of the universe was very ill-defined].

Then along came Copernicus.  He had data to prove the sun was the center of the solar system; the earth revolved around the sun as did the other planets.  He was afraid to publish his theory and supporting data because of the church and the Inquisition.  A student nagged him into doing so.  Did that lead to an inquisition trial?  Did the Church prosecute Copernicus for his beliefs?  No; it wasn’t published until he was on his death bed in 1543; he was given a copy, appeared happy and died.

The Roman Catholic church did not accept his teaching, of course.  In the early 1600’s, another heliocentrist was burned at the stake.  But the idea wouldn’t die; Galileo picked up the torch and advocated heliocentricity.  He was tried in 1633, convicted and sentenced to house arrest for the crime of heresy.  He died under house arrest.  [He was too famous to execute.]

Obviously, scientists [all of which were heliocentrists, of course] in the late 1600’s to mid-1700’s were not enamored with the Roman Catholic church.  Not having Kierkegaard’s ‘Attack on Christendom’ [it was written about 100 years later] to help them distinguish from belief in God and belief in the church [‘Christendom’], they lashed out at God and widely rejected belief in God’s existence.  They needed a theory to support such an outrageous [at that time] belief.  [Outrageous then, reasonable 75 years ago; outrageous now.]

As the Scientific Revolution progressed, by the mid-1700s, the doctrine of Materialism had gained much strength.   It dates back, at least, to ancient Greece.  There the ‘materialists’ thought nothing mattered except matter.  [The other major branch of philosophy then was the ‘idealists’.  They believed matter didn’t exist; it was just an ‘idea’.]  The materialists thought reality began and ended with matter.  They thought matter was eternal, immutable and unchanging.  It had existed eternally.  Consequently, so had the universe.  There was NO creation.

That was just what the atheist scientists needed.  If there was no creation, there was no God.  This was their foundational position!  They adopted materialism, and the God-less universe, en masseHume writes of the ‘eternal universe’ in the 1750’s.

Perhaps Politzer stated it best circa 1840:  “The universe was not a created object; if it were, it would have to have been created instantaneously by God and brought into existence from nothing.  To admit creation, one has to admit, in the first place, the existence of a moment when the universe did not exist, and that something came out of nothingness. This is something to which science can not accede.”

He recognized the ‘something out of nothing’ fallacy;  note that he makes it clear that if the universe was created, there must be a Creator.  [He constrains the Creator to do it in a moment — he failed to recognize that before the creation of the universe, as we have discussed, there was no time; he also constrained the Creator to do it out of nothingness, but he didn’t know about e = mc^2, did he?]

The important thing is that he recognized the bet.  He believed he had the ultimate hole card:  Nothing comes from Nothing.  But e = mc^2 shows us that the universe came, not from nothing, but from God’s incredible energy.

The Atheists made their point clear:  The Universe was Eternal, Immutable and Unchanging. Therefore, there was no Creation; Nothing comes from Nothing; they said there was no Creator; ergo, there was no God.

That was the bet:  ‘Until you can show me that the universe is not eternal; until you can show me that the universe had a beginning; until you can show me the universe was created, I will tell you there is no God.’

The agnostics, when agnosticism became the choice of the intellectual more or less in the 1920’s, made it clear as well.  They told the atheists:  ‘You deny the creation of the universe and therefore the existence of a Creator, namely God, but you can’t prove the universe is eternal and that there was no creation.  Therefore, we decline to believe as you believe until you can prove what you believe.’    On the other side of the coin, they told the theists:  ‘You believe in the creation of the universe and therefore the existence of a Creator, namely God, but you can’t prove that any more than the atheists can prove the other.  Therefore, we decline to believe as you believe until you can prove what you believe.’ 

They recognized The Bet.  Everyone did.

Then came Einstein,, Eddington, Lemaitre, Hubble [aided by Leavitt and de Slipher], Gamow and Penzias & Wilson:  By 1967, with the latter’s work published and accepted [they were to win the Nobel prize in 1978], it was clear that the the theists had won the bet.  Creation was proven.  God, the Creator, existed!!!  End of bet!  End of any logical basis for atheism [and, of course, for agnostism].  [Naturalism, herein defined as the belief that God is everywhere within the universe {in the stars, in the trees, in the birds, in the bees} also bit the dust.  A word about that later.].

Next post we’ll talk about what happened to atheism and today’s atheists, ie, the welchers.

Reality conspired to shoot down the atheists. What happened? There was a fantastic interplay between theory and observation [data collection]. Let me give you my summary of the critical events. I do so in two fonts with a common time scale. The bold font sets forth the theoretical advances; the italic font sets forth the observations that confirmed/advanced the theoretical concepts. Together, this will give us the data to prove the existence of God. Here it is:

1905 Einstein publishes the Special theory: e=mc^2 is born.

1908 Ms. N. S. Leavitt discovers the relationship of period:luminosity for Cepheid stars and begins to study it.

1912 She publishes her results and the ‘standard candle’ is born.

1912 V. Slipher observes a “Milky Way nebula’s” ‘red shift’.

1915 Einstein publishes the General Theory of Relativity.

1919 Eddington, during a solar eclipse, confirms the GTR’s prediction of the amount of gravitational bending of light by the sun and publishes it. [This also acquaints the world with the GTR which, since it was published during WWI, was mostly unknown.]

1927 Lemaitre solves the GTR equations showing an expanding universe and realizes it means the universe had a beginning which he labels ‘the primary atom’ and promotes his findings.

1928 Hubble uses the Cepheid data to prove that the so-called Andromeda ‘nebula’ is in fact a galaxy beyond the Milky Way [UP TO THAT TIME, science believed the Milky Way galaxy was the whole universe]. He then uses de Slipher’s discovery of the red shift to confirm that the universe is expanding and defines the Hubble constant [the rate of expansion] and the world recognizes [Hubble never does] that the inverse of the Hubble constant is the age of the universe. This confirms Lemaitre’s prediction. The impact is lessened, however, because Hubble’s first estimate of the Hubble constant is 500 [6 to 7 times too large, right?] so it predicts an age of the universe of only 2 billion years; at that time the earth is known to be over 3 billion years old.

1935 Hubble’s proof that the Andromeda ‘nebula’ is in fact a galaxy is accepted by mainstream science, and, by that time, Hubble has found many more galaxies so that the universe is 1,000 [a million? a billion?] times bigger than ever imagined.

1937 through 1947: World War II virtually shuts down this area of scientific inquiry.

1948 Gamow improves Lemaitre’s criticized model; he predicts the CMB and the fusion of H:He nuclei.

1948 Hoyle advocates the ‘steady state’ model.

1948 On radio, Hoyle sarcastically dubs the Lemaitre/Gamow model the ‘Big Bang’.

1949 Hoyle again uses ‘big bang’; this radio station publishes transcripts.

1950 The phrase ‘big bang’ first appears in print.

1951 Pope Pius XII accepts the Big Bang theory on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church.

1965 Penzias & Wilson accidentally discover the CMB; mainstream science joins Pope Pius XII and accepts the Big Bang. [Today, of course, P&W’s work has been confirmed a billion fold, each, by COBE and WMAP.]

TODAY: The Big Bang is no longer a theory; it’s the truth.

That’s the data. Next time we’ll talk about how the bet came to be and how the data resolves the bet against atheists [and agnostics, naturalists, etc.].

Now we know the energy God used to create the universe [i.e., how, in a simple way, he did it, that is, he didn’t do it ex nihilo]; we know when He did it and we know the fossil that proves that he did it, right?

How does that fit into the purpose of this weblog? How does that help fulfill the purpose of this weblog? [Remember?: To make Christians aware that only belief in God {as the creator of the universe} is logical. Rational. A scientifically proven fact.]

Why do I care about that? Why should you? Because for more or less 250 years atheists [and agnostics and naturalists] have been calling Christians stupid. And we looked stupid [creation ex nihilo], right? By way of this weblog, we know better, right?

I want it to come to pass that the next time any Christian, anywhere in the world, is confronted with an atheist who says to get with science and become an atheist, that that Christian can say: ‘Whoa, mi amigo. It is exactly science that I am aligned with and science that now proves the existence of God.

I want to get Christians off the defensive and to be assertive as carriers of the torch of truth. Yes, God’s truth. What truth? That we can prove God exists because he created the universe! AND if you disagree, you are not scientific, not logical, and are so biased as to close your mind to the truth.

So, let’s flesh out the previous posts and get down to it. How did the atheists lose their bet?

What bet? They bet that the universe was eternal, immutable and unchanging. It could not possibly be a creation because is had never been created. No creation; no creator. Therefore, God, the creator, did not exist.

What were the stakes of that bet? They bet their right to be atheists, at least to do so logically. [If you’ve never read Will James’ essay, ‘The Will to Believe’, I suggest you do. It sets forth the atheist, agnostic and theist positions better than anything else I’ve ever read.]

We’ll talk more about the bet later, but before that we need a common field of data. Not a complete field, but one that covers the essentials required for our discussion. I’ll post that next time.

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.

As we said last post, the CMB is the fossil of the Big Bang. When the CMB was formed, God’s act of creation was over. All matter and all energy were present in the universe. How long ago was that? When we know that, we’ll know the age of the universe.

First, we’ll need to know, on the atheist cosmology, how old the universe was when the CMB was formed. The number will be small compared to the total age of the universe. Then, simply by subtraction, the age of the universe will be determined. I don’t like subtracting numbers with wildly different orders of magnitude.

I’ve said before I accept the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years [to 3 significant figures]. I still do, but it’s much more shaky than I thought when I wrote that. Before the 13.7 figure, the age was said to be 15 billion years. And the solar system was thought to be 5 billion years old. Then the estimates became 13.7 billion years for the universe and 4.567 billion years for the solar system. Notice that 13.7 divided by 15 = 5 divided by 4.567 [4.567 is really 4.56666]. I thought that indicated an agreement among authorities as to the value of the Hubble constant although I mentioned it didn’t seem perfect. I was wrong.

For this effort, I needed a value for the age of the universe to 7 significant figures [that takes it down to the 10’s of thousands of years column -you’ll see why I care in a moment]. I researched recent estimates of the Hubble constant. Harvard publishes them all. Rather than converging nicely in the recent past, the estimates varied a bunch. So much for a value accepted by science.

Data analysis is the next step. I wanted to see if any appeared fit to average. If your value is based on an average, more significant figures can be justified. If n = 10, 1 additional significant figure can be claimed; if n = 100, 2, etc.

I viewed all estimates from 2004 forward. 2005 has little data, so I compared 2005 & 2006 with 2004. [If they had been fit to average, I would have gone further back until data not fit to average was found.] The 2004 data was not fit to average with the 2005-2006 data. [Only one point from 2005 was included.]

Some of the 2006/5 data claimed significantly less variability of the result than others. That is, the accuracy claimed was significantly greater than the others. That indicates that the more recent data is more correct than 2004. The 2006/5 data could not be averaged [logically] with the other values. I averaged those with the 2006/5 data – those with the significantly greater accuracy [smaller +/- values].

The average value of the Hubble constant was 72.95, exactly, or 72.950000 [n = 40]. No, my data isn’t enough for 8 significant figures, but the statistical sins are small.

That gives an age of the universe of 13,708,019,191.91919 [the last two digits, of course, are a repeat pattern] years. That agreed nicely with the 13.7 figure and can be rounded off to 13,708,020,000 years. See hello to the first 7 significant figure estimate of the age of the universe! [Do we believe those 7 significant figures are accurate? Well, not necessarily, but do you have a better one? As I said, I need a 7 significant figure estimate to correct the atheist cosmology, so I’m going to use it to do so. You’ll see that to 3 significant figures, it still comes out to 13.7, but you’ll see the difference.]

Where were we? Oh, yes. When did the CMB form? Not when did it emerge. [Normally referred to as the ‘Epoch of Last Scattering’ and normally given an age the varies between 300,000 to 400,000 years after the big bang]. [As I’m sure you know, none of the opinions expressed here are original with me {With the exception of that 7 significant figure effort}. I read and report.]

Most discussions of the model don’t describe the nacent CMB. They go from a few minutes to the Epoch of Last Scattering in one step. One does. It focuses on the 10,000 year mark. At this time the creation of the H:He nuclei ratio has begun. Eventually, the energy density in the matter becomes larger than the energy density in radiation. Matter will then dominate in determining how the universe expands from this era on. The nacent CMB has been born — at 10,000 years.

At this time, the universe is a fog. The nacent CMB will take about 300,000 to 400,000 years to emerge from the fog. [The analogy is to clouds we see today. The light we see from clouds is from an epoch of last scattering, but the light isn’t born at that epoch. It came from the sun, right? The CMB is formed within the universe, at the 10,000 year mark, but still must leave the matter behind. The rate of movement of the CMB is the speed of light; the matter a bit slower.]

This cosmology state that the nacent CMB is the beginning of the universe. At 10,000 years. It’s the end of God’s creation process. How old is the universe?

13,708,020,000 years minus 10,000 years = 13,708,010,000 years.

Sure, that rounds off to 13.7 billion years, but we know the difference, right? In time, maybe we’ll have an estimate of the universe to 7 significant figures. Maybe not.

The point is, that this cosmology agrees with the atheist cosmology for more than 99.9999% of the atheist cosmology. That’s less than 1 part in 1 million. Surely, you’re not going to let a factor of 1 part in 1 million exclude God, are you?

Next time, we’ll discuss this result a bit.

We’ve learned that the singularity never happened. Like 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, that’s a good start! But it’s not enough. We’re not through.

After the singularity, the atheist LambdaCDM model next tells us that something called ‘inflation’ occurred. [Clever folk, those atheists. They know we all believe in economic inflation {but who really understands it’s cause?}, so why not ask us to believe in a cosmic kind of ‘inflation’?]

‘Inflation’ is just as impossible as was the singularity. ‘Inflation’ is supposed to be a time, after the singularity, in which the universe expanded at a speed greater than the speed of light! I hope that makes you LOL.

We know that that cannot happen, right? Didn’t some guy say that even if an object just reached the speed of light it would be infinitely heavy? Didn’t he say that the speed of light cannot be exceeded? Doesn’t most everybody believe this guy? I know his GTR is pretty well accepted. His special theory was well enough received to lead to the atomic bomb. I don’t think a process, i.e., ‘inflation’, that violates the GTR can be seriously considered.

Just like the singularity, ‘inflation’ is another figment of the atheist imagination. Again, we have to ask, as we did last post, why do the atheists love it?

That’s easy. It goes back to the discovery that confirmed the big bang as fact. The straw that broke the back of the big bang detractors, i.e., Hoyle and his ‘Steady State’ theory. A discovery that was predicted long before it was found. What am I referring to? The CMB [cosmic microwave background radiation — now it’s referred to, usually, as CMB rather than CMBR]. The existence of the CMB was predicted by Gamow way back in 1948. Originally visible light, now, over 13 billion years later, it would have red-shifted all the way to the microwave spectrum. And be really cold; almost absolute zero. And be visible no matter in what direction you looked.

In 1963, it was discovered, accidentally, by Penzias and Wilson. They got the nobel prize for its discovery in 1978. Subsequent data collected by COBE and WMAP have confirmed everything Gamow predicted.

The CMB is often referred to as the big bang fossil. Physical proof that the big bang occurred. It cannot be doubted by any reasonable, honest person; nor can the big bang be doubted.

That’s the problem the atheists faced. Theists know that God created the big bang. No singularity; no ‘inflation’; God. [Although it seems I’m the only theist who will integrate God into a big bang cosmology — see next post.] The atheists had to come up with a theory that avoided God. It takes two impossibilities to do it. The singularity wasn’t enough [it got rid of God, but didn’t give us the universe]. ‘Inflation’ gave us the CMB. The CMB gives us the universe. That’s why the atheists had to have it.

But two impossibilities don’t make a right, right? As Eddington said, “Accidental truth of a conclusion is no compensation for erroneous deduction.” Next post we’ll make it clear when God created the universe, that is, when ‘in the beginning’ began.

Sorry about the detour through Logic 101, but, as you’ll shortly see, it’s necessary now.

First, I want you to know one thing: There’s noting wrong with over 99% of LambdaCDM [the atheist cosmology, first clearly defined, I believe, courtesy of S. W. Hawking]. That’s why it’s so widely accepted. It covers 13.7 billion years. There’s no problem with the the last 13.69 billion years when you get God involved. That’s better than 99.9% agreement. Where’s the problem?

Let’s look at Hawking’s starting point: The ‘Singularity’. Hawking defines it as a point without dimension. No height, no width, no length. Sound familiar? If you took high school geometry, you’ll recognize that as the definition of a point in Euclidean geometry. Hawking doesn’t point that out. Why? Because we all know that a Euclidean point is IMAGINARY! It’s a concept. It is not reality. Neither is the ‘Singularity’. A point without dimension isn’t real. It’s nothing! This means the atheists are now arguing what the theists have argued for better than 2,000 years. Now, the atheists claim the universe was created out of nothing. Nothing from Nothing. But that’s the very argument that the atheists rejected, correctly, when the theists made it so very long ago. [We know the universe didn’t come from nothing, right? It came from God’s energy according to e = mc^2 as we’ve already discussed. God used the same amount of energy as contained in 5 quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion A-bombs to create the universe.]

The singularity is supposed to be the universe at time zero. It does not and can not exist. Why do the atheists’ love it? Because, it gives them freedom to deny God’s involvement in the creation. Hawking says that the singularity is beyond the laws of the universe and therefore whatever happened after it, no one can know — not even God! Therefore, the universe cannot be the rational product of a superior being. Therefore, he says, the WATCH proves that the WATCHMAKER doesn’t exist!!!

See? Watch out for that first premise. The existence of the singularity is the first premise of LambdaCDM. If you grant it, God’s out of the creation process. But we know there was no singularity. We know: First, nothing comes from nothing, second, a point without dimensions is imaginary — it doesn’t exist, and, third, therefore, God was certainly ‘involved’ in the creation of the universe.

Once you examine that first premise, LambdaCDM is in big trouble. Q. Smith discusses this objection, but dismisses it by saying that the theists don’t ‘understand’ the cosmology. The cosmology defines the singularity as real. Therefore, he says that we may not say it isn’t real. But, that’s exactly how you attack their argument, right? Q. Smith recognizes that the singularity has no dimensions. Then, he has to explain the lawlessness [the avoidance of natural law] of the singularity. So he then describes this [imaginary] point that has no dimensions as a ‘violent, terrifying caldron of lawlessness’. [That is supposed to explain why the universe cannot come from a rational God.] Come on now Quentin, old buddy, how many ‘caldrons’ have you seen that don’t have 3 dimensions? You bet. The same as me. Not one. That’s why there is no singularity, no lawlessness.

Are we making progress? The singularity must go. Does that allow God to enter the cosmology? Not quite. Next time we’ll tackle the final problem with LambdaCDM.

We’re about ready to set forth a God-based cosmology.  A cosmology is a presentation of facts leading to conclusions.  That’s called an argument.  We’re going to talk about the arguments that the morally bankrupt atheists have put forth.  [Why bankrupt?  They’ve welched on their bet; I’ll get to that in a later posting.]

Speaking of argumentation, my fellow theists score zero.  That’s why I think a little review of Logic 101 is in order.  The atheists aren’t stupid.  They’re not ignorant.  The atheist cosmology [LambdaCDM] is a kind of argument called a syllogism.  What’s a syllogism?  In symbolic logic it goes like this:  P implies Q.  P is true.  Therefore, Q is true.  A classic example is:  All state patrolmen [P] are over 6 feet tall [Q].  George is a state patrolman [P is true].  Therefore, George is over 6 feet tall [Q is true].  Why do we care?

The important thing about an argument by syllogism is that it is air tight.  Given the opening premise [P implies Q, that is, all state patrolmen are over 6 feet tall], then it cannot be disputed that if P is true [George is a state patrolman], then, without fail, Q is true [George is over 6 feet tall].

So what?  It means that if you claim a syllogism argument is wrong, then you HAVE TO PROVE that the opening premise is false.  For example, maybe the over 6 feet tall requirement has only been in place 10 years.  Maybe George is a 20 year veteran.  Then it isn’t a sure thing that he is over 6 feet tall.

My fellow theists don’t understand that.  They grant the atheist’s first premises [there’s actually two of them in the LambdaCDM model] and then try to dispute the atheists’ conclusions.  No way!   Remember, if you grant the atheist’s premises, You lose!

That’s why the atheist cosmology is able to prove, from the creation of the universe, that God doesn’t exist.  Yes, they use the watch to prove that the watchmaker does not exist!  Sounds impossible, right?  Have you ever seen a watch that didn’t have a watchmaker?  Me neither.  But that’s their argument.  So we must watch out for those first steps, right?

That’s what we’re about to do.