You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Big Bang’ category.

Yes, I’m running for President. If you are as tired as I am of the children running for president, I offer you a reasonable choice. Me. A traditional American. Well aware of “traditional American notions of fair play and substantial justice”. [USSupCt, ‘International Shoe’.] Doesn’t that describe who we want for President? You know who I am [cf “Who Am I”], so let’s get to it.

HERE’S MY PLATFORM:

I

Plank #1: To win a war, you must wage it correctly.

This country is at WAR. Right? Well, WE’RE DOING IT WRONG! I know how to fight a war. I lived thru the last war that we won [WWII]. I’ve been Army educated. [ROTC, U of W; final {& current} rank: 1st Lieut., DOR 5/58, active duty, 11/56 – 11/58, USAR since then.] I still remember, vividly, the radio [no TV then] broadcast announcing the frightening Jap attack on Pearl Harbor. I lived on the West coast then [Mt Vernon, Wash.] and we were scared! BUT, since that scary day, I’ve learned how to fight a war. LET ME TELL YOU HOW TO FIGHT A WAR:

YOU MOBILIZE. What does that mean? It means that you commit the entire productive capacity of our nation to winning the war.

Forget your TV; your new car; ANY consumer product. You don’t win a war with consumer products. You convert to military products. Detroit shuts down its car assembly lines and builds tanks, etc. [Imports of cars will be forbidden. Tanks? yes. Cars? no] GE makes no appliances. ALL available productive capacity goes to making the TOOLS OF WAR. [What’s ‘available’? What’s not necessary to feed, cloth and house {on a minimum maintenance basis} us.] Embrace rationing of scarce products.

You want to win a war? You don’t do it in first gear. Shift to overdrive. Get it done! THAT’S HOW WE DID IT THE LAST TIME WE WON A WAR!

Yes, the last war we won was WWII. I remember the effort real well.

Then came Korea. Poor Harry. He had just put his balls on the table and dropped the bombs on Japan that won WWII. When Korea came up just a few years later, he didn’t have the balls to put us back at war. He called it a ‘police action’.

[I remember an interview-on-the-street during the Korean effort. A woman was asked if it was a war. She said ‘no’. But the media person said, why isn’t this a war? Our troops are deployed. They’re getting killed; they’re killing the enemy. Why isn’t this a war? She replied {TOTALLY ACCURATELY, having just lived thru WWII}: A war is when you can’t buy butter. A war is when gasoline is rationed. A war is when you live on ration coupons. A war is when you don’t buy a new car; there are no new cars; you repair the one you have.]

So we fought what I would call a ‘vest pocket war’. And what happened?

For the first time in our history, the US failed to win a war. We killed a lot of kids and, for all practical purposes, ended up right where we started. Disgraceful!

Yes, it gets worse; we LOST the Vietnam war.

My philosophy about being at war:

IT IS IMMORAL TO SEND YOUNG FOLK TO FOREIGN LANDS AS MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES, TO FIGHT AND DIE, WITHOUT THIS COUNTRY’S FULL PRODUCTIVE SUPPORT. This country should either be at war or not. No ‘vest pocket’ approach.

Either do it right or don’t do it.

What do I think? Should we fight the war or quit?

I support the war.

We done good when we captured and executed Saddam. [It is clear he wanted to start WWIII. We are to be congratulated that we recognized the parallel to the 1930’s and didn’t placate the warrior dictator. We attacked.] We cut off the head of the snake. But this snake has many heads.

Now those multiple heads lead the terrorists. The terrorists are out to kill everybody they consider a Christian. It is a holy war. [We use their term, jihad, I think, but we don’t really understand that it is a holy war; Muslim against Christian.] It is a kill or be killed reality. We must defeat them unconditionally if we are to have peace. Period.

Did you see the Pakistanis when 9/11 [and the deaths of 3,500 Americans] was announced? They laffed and cheered! They considered it an Islamic victory [which it was]. [When I say ‘they’, I don’t just mean the adults; I saw kids, perhaps 5-10 and over, cheering those deaths. They are taught to kill us from the time they can talk.]

Do we have to annihilate all Muslims? No. There are some who have abandoned the teachings of their warrior founder and believe in peace. How do we find them? I’ll save that for a later post.

For now, let’s just remember: We must fight the war correctly.

That’s Plank # 1 of my platform.

II

 

Plank #2: Reconstitute our armed forces so that we are capable of fighting, and winning, a war.

[Yes, I know. This is really included in the first plank, but it’s been a long time since we fought, and won, WWII. The numbers have changed, so, to be clear, I make this a separate plank.]

The steps we need to follow to win this war? Here they are:

First: Restart the draft. I read recently that our Army strength in Iraq was 160,000 folk. Can this be true? How in hell can you win a war with 160,000 troops in the battle zone?

A general stated that his target was, over the next few years, to build it up to half a million. For pity sake, even in 1952 [Korea] we had 2.5 million in the army. In WWII, we lost [killed or incapacitated], more or less, a half million lives! How many troops did we have in the combined forces?

In May of 1945, we had 8 million soldiers in the army. Our population then was about 134 million. Today, our population is about 300 million [in round numbers]. Today, we have more than twice the population as in 1945. How big of an Army should we have today if we want to win the wars [yes, two of them] in Iraq and Afganistan?

I’m tired of watching America be held at bay by third world countries that we outnumber what?, about 10 to 1? [Iraq numbers about 26 million folk. So does California, more or less.] To win this war, we need a standing armed forces [Army, Navy {including Marines} and Air Force] of at least 10,000,000 folk [men and women]. That’s less than 5% of our population. To have as big an Army as in 1945, pro rata, today, we’d have more than 16,000,000 men and women in the Army [and Air Force — they were one in 1945].

Then we won’t be sending, immorally, a few, poor kids out to man a lonely outpost with less than 50 troops [read that as 10-20 or less] and getting killed by a car bomb.

I remember the words of General Patton [as recited in the movie, by George C. Scott as the general]: No one ever won a war by dying for his country; he won the war by making the other, poor, dumb bastard die for his country. Yes, I’m tired of sending our kids overseas to let them die for our country. I want to see a whole lot of the other guys die for their country!

You think we don’t have that power? I assure you that we do. We just have to cinch up our belts and GO TO WAR.

Just a day or so ago, I saw a General suggest that maybe the draft would be a good idea! No lie! But not like Vietnam! Not a vest pocket draft. [The General had to be politically correct or forfeit his career. I have no such worries. If I haven’t made this clear, I eschew political correctness in favor of saving American lives.] A WWII draft. Enough to do the job.

Then, do what you do to win a war [see plank #1].

That’s plank #2.

III

Plank #3: I advocate the BB4B Doctrine.

What’s that? First, a little history. Remember the Monroe Doctrine?

Announced almost 200 years ago by President Monroe. Basically, it stated that if any European nation attempted to expand its holdings anywhere in the Americas, the U S would treat that as an attack on itself and go to war against any such encroaching country.

The theory was simple: Any expansion into the Americas, North, Central or South, would threaten our nation. We couldn’t afford to have Spain, for example, build up its holdings in the Americas until it could have enough troops over here to attack the USA. So Monroe made it clear: The first step was one too many!

The BB4B Doctrine is similar. Let’s not be coy. We have too many nuclear powers in the world. [That is, countries with nuclear warheads.] Until recently, the nuclear powers were large, reasonable nations; that is, they had a lot to lose in a war. Recently, more of the criminal nations are trying to elbow their way up to the table with the big guys. [North Korea and Iran, for example.] They do this to blackmail us.

The BB4B Doctrine is: Any atomic program that could proliferate atomic weapons will be considered an act of war against the USA.

Will we invade every podunk nation that does so? No, we’ll just blow their nuclear capability off the face of the earth. No more begging these criminal nations to be nice. If they put together a nuclear warhead capability [or one reasonably calculated to do so], we will vaporize it.

That’s plank #3.

IV

 

Plank #4 and more? Don’t really have any more.

My domestic agenda? Easy. Essentially the same as during WWII. With full mobilization, there will be no unemployment of those willing to work; just like WWII. [Remember, WWII was preceded by the Great Depression. It got us out of it.]

With full employment by government contracting companies, who will be required to provide health care to employees, we’ll have no health care uninsured folk.

Our domestic agenda will be the same as it was in 1942: WIN THE WAR. [WWII was the greatest time in the history of this nation. Everyone worked together. The real threat was the Nazis and the Japs.]

I was on the west coast on 12/7/41; we had NOTHING to stop the Japs. When I went on active duty, those who had been in a position of planning told me that the Joint Chiefs had conceded all of the west coast to the Japs. The Rocky Mountains were to be our line of defense.

Thanks to the brave Phillipinos who magnificently delayed the Jap time table, the battle of Midway was fought in June [not January as planned by the Japs] and, since that had given us time to rebuild our Pacific fleet, [and thanks to some excellent strategy by the admirals and heroic efforts by many pilots] we won the battle of Midway.

Trust me: When we finally realize that our very way of life is being attacked today [just as in 12/41], our domestic problems will shrink as we fight the real enemy.

That’s the end of my first campaign speech.

[Maybe you disagree with my platform: I welcome questions/challenges to my admittedly simple platform.]

But I like simplicity. We obfuscate real needs with a multiplicity of junk issues while killing off our innocent young people. How can you live with yourselves while being a part of that random sacrifice [without hope of winning, just like Vietnam] of our youth?

I offer you a ‘return to yesteryear’; a return to when America was the greatest nation in the world, a return to success!

P. S. You want to know my name? You don’t like BB4G? Well, I’m sure that many of you know my name. You can easily figure out my name from all of the clues I gave you in ‘Who Am I?’ [with the help of the web], can’t you? Just to prove it, a 6 pack of Bud to the first person who posts my name in a comment — if you’re wrong, you owe me a case.

 

For a stronger, successful, America, I am BB4G.

Advertisements

What now brown cow?

According to Quentin Smith, and I agree, the numbers of atheists have gradually declined as the Big Bang moved towards acceptance. They dwindled steadily until the discovery of the CMB in 1965 [which killed Hoyle’s ‘steady state’ nonsense] and then many more followed. Ditto when Penzias & Wilson won the Nobel prize. Current estimates of atheists in America range from 0.5% to 2.5%. [The 0.5% estimate is apparently the most accurate, i.e., based on much the larger sample size.]

In the ‘Roaring Twenties’, I am told, the percentage of atheists in America was about 20% [college students at that time were about 40% atheists].

To those honest folk who saw that they had lost the bet and honored it, I extend my congratulations. I respect a person who, upon losing a bet, pays up. Without protest or excuse. He/She placed the bet and honored its requirements. Such people are honest and honorable. By the way, numbered among those honest folk are Einstein and Hoyle; both of whom, although lifelong atheists, recognized God, the creator of the universe, before they died. [Not on their death beds, but while they were alive and well, but convinced by the evidence.]

But we still have atheists among us. I’m sure you know some of the more famous: Hawking and Quentin Smith, and, among college folk, I suppose Jon Voisey deserves a mention, for example.

Hawking is the most outrageous example. Most people don’t know that his wife is a Christian and prays for his survival every day and credits her belief in God for the strength to, first, marry him, and second to keep him going, day by day, for what is now over 40 years that he has suffered from ALS. Over 40 years! The second longest survival of ALS [the average is about 5 years] that I could find was 24 years. How can he deny the power of prayer? But he does.

Everyone who is still an atheist [or agnostic] is a welcher. A person who loses a bet and then denies making it. A dishonest person. A dishonorable person.

Now, of course, instead of admitting they lost the bet, Hawking and Smith have invented new arguments of cosmology that avoid God’s act of creation. Strange that none of these arguments appeared back in the 1750’s. Or by 1850. Or by 1875. Or by 1900. Or by 1925. Or even after 1935 when it was pretty clear the bet had been lost. No. No new arguments. No new bets . They stuck to their guns. “Nothing out of Nothing.” Now “Nothing out of Nothing” is exactly what Hawking argues. Nobody heard of a singularity in 1850. After 250 years of consistency [honest consistency], now the diehards have welched on the bet and scurry around like cockroaches looking for a way to escape the obvious conclusion that God created the universe.

How obvious is it? Ever heard of the watchmaker analogy?

I don’t refer to Paley’s bastardization of the watchmaker analogy in 1802. An that time, Paley changes it into an intelligent design argument.

No, the original argument which led to the watchmaker analogy is very simple. That argument is an example of our friend, the syllogism: 1. Every creation has a creator. 2. ‘This thing’ is a creation. 3. Therefore, whatever ‘this thing’ is, it has a creator.

The analogy was to a watch/watchmaker: 1. You see a watch. 2. You know it to be a creation. 3. Therefore, there must be a watchmaker; a creatorevery creation has a creator.

The key issue is whether or not a thing is a creation. Now you see where we’re going, right? The atheists, in order to deny the existence of God, the creator of the universe, had only one option: They had to deny the creation of the universe. They did so. For centuries no one could prove the universe was, indeed, a creation. How do we define a creation? It has a beginning.

The atheists said the universe had no beginning. It was eternal. It had always been and would always be: eternal; immutable; unchanging. That was their only option.

Now that option is gone; the universe is known to have had a beginning. About 13,708,010,000 years ago, right? [Not, as Hawking, et al, say, 13,708,020,000 years, right?]

Therefore atheism and agnosticism are no longer rational, nor scientific, options. Nor is Naturalism [the belief that God is ‘everywhere’ inside of the universe]. Let’s go back to our watchmaker analogy. You see the watch, right? You want to find the watchmaker, OK? Where do you look for the watchmaker? I don’t know either, but I can tell you one thing: You won’t find him inside the watch. So much for Naturalism.

So, how do we conclude? Very simply. Today, anyone who is an atheist, or an agnostic, or a naturalist must be labeled as: 1, Non-scientific, not a scientist, 2, irrational, 3, a welcher, 4, illogical, and 5, immoral.

Why non-scientific? Why cannot an atheist or agnostic or naturalist logically claim to be a scientist? Because the scientific evidence for the Big Bang is so overwhelming [see the COBE an WMAP data — billions and billions of data points] that it couldn’t be disproved in our lifetimes [even if one of you is 5 years old and lives to be 125].

Why irrational? A person is irrational if that person ignores conclusive scientific data. The universe had a beginning; it is not eternal. It is a creation. It has a creator. The name we give to that creator is God.

Why a welcher? Because they lost the bet and won’t pay up. Sure, I agree that calling a teenager atheist a welcher about a bet they probably have never heard of may seem unfair. We know many who claim to be atheists have never researched that position. They are only a welcher de facto. Your job is to explain to them that the basis of the belief they have glibly ascribed to is long gone. Then if they don’t accept the fact that God created the universe, they’re welchers.

Why illogical? If you don’t accept the ‘watch/watchmaker’ syllogism, you’re illogical.

Why immoral? Advocating a position [such as atheism, agnosticism or naturalism] that may lead others to accept it, knowing that that position is invalid, is erroneous, can do damage to that person. Willfully attempting to mislead another person is immoral.

—– That’s the way it was;

—————That’s the way it is;

————————-That’s the way it will be.

I hope I’ve answered all of your questions. I hope you understand the conclusiveness of the scientific evidence that God created the universe. That any cosmology must begin with His act of creation. It must recognize e = mc^2, not ex nihilo.

I hope you feel comfortable in challenging an atheist’s beliefs; especially if the atheist [or agnostic or naturalist] is criticizing you for your belief in God. I hope you now realize that only belief in God, the creator of the universe, can be logically accepted. It is not you who is illogical; who is non-scientific; who is immoral: It is the non-believer. Yes, I challenge you to do so. I challenge the non-believer to accept God, the Creator of the universe.

True, I’m only saying that God as the creator of the universe must be accepted. Just that first step. The step that Einstein and Hoyle took. I’m not saying the Nicene Creed, or the Apostles’ Creed, or any other creed, must be accepted. I’m not even saying that God as the Father of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, and my Savior, must be accepted by a non-believer. No, just the first step: God as the creator of the universe. I don’t say that’s the end; but, just like those 500 lawyers, it’s a good start!

Thanks for your time and attention. I’ve said what I have to say. My next post will just say a little about me should you care.

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.

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.

So let’s go forward. Antwort! Let’s see how God did it. First let me make one thing perfectly clear. The universe did not originate ex nihilo. As the song says, like I mentioned before, ‘nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could .. ‘ That’s just common sense. But you hear preachers say that all the time. If you visit a theist web site, he’s going to say the universe was created out of nothing. How did Christians get lured down such a path? Why did they go along with such a ridiculous belief?

It happened a long time ago. And that’s the chief defense of the belief. It was made by nice, well-meaning, but ignorant people out of their ignorance. Namely it happened before e = mc^2 was made known; long before. The argument dates at least from early Biblical studies if not before. There are verses in the Bible that make it clear that before God created the universe there was nothing And then He made the universe.

Therefore, it seemed clear, the universe was created from nothing. When the ex nihilo argument was first put forth, the only perceived possibility was that some matter was made where before there had been nothing. Ergo, the universe was created from nothing, that is, it was created ex nihilo. But now we know better, right? We know e = mc^2. As I’ll shortly describe, the universe was made according to that equation; the matter was made from energy, the energy to do so came from God. NOT OUT OF NOTHING. FROM GOD! ! ! That is, out of God’s tremendous energy the universe was created.

If you think about it, it’s very simple. As many of my fellow theists point out, GOD is very powerful. No lie! But power is not the issue. Energy is the issue. God possesses an indefinite amount of energy as well as power. [You may believe his energy is infinite. OK by me, but not needed to create the universe since the universe if finite.] What does that mean? It means that God, who created the reality that Einstein published as e = mc^2, is fully able to convert energy into matter just like the formula says! How much energy would it take? How much do you think? I’d appreciate it if you figured it out, let me know, and then we could talk. However, until the search engines find this site, I don’t think you will. But I need to stop for now; more later.

If you’re here, you must have liked the title of this blog. I want to talk about a Big Bang cosmology that doesn’t ignore GOD, but includes Him AS THE CREATOR.

I’m just flabbergasted. Everybody knows that when the Big Bang was accepted by mainstream science [which occurred probably by 1967, 2 years after Penzias and Wilson discovered the CMB, but certainly by ’78 when they received the Nobel Prize for their discovery] it meant that there was now proof that the universe had a beginning [it was not eternal, immutable and unchanging], that is, it was a creation, and that meant the existence of God, as the Creator, was proven. [By way of the time-tested ‘watchmaker’ analogy.] And yet, although I’ve reviewed at least 100 web sites about the Big Bang cosmology, NOT ONE OF THEM BEGINS WITH THE FACT OF GOD’S CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE! Have you?

We get bombarded with an imaginary point called a ‘singularity’, an impossible process called ‘inflation’ from the atheists and, the theists accept those two impossibilities then chime in that the universe was created ex nihilo [out of nothing].

Hey, like the song says: “Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could …” The universe being created out of nothing is just as impossible as the singularity or inflation.

I’ve even seen websites where they use the ‘watch’ [the universe] to disprove the existence of the Watchmaker [God]! ! ! Let me know if you’ve found a Big Bang site that starts with God creating the universe [when and how]. If you have no more luck than me, I’d like to share my views as to how God did it. Let me hear from you.

Welcome everybody, to the Big Bang for Believers website.  We are excited about what we have in store for you.  Stay tuned!