First, Nothing Became Everything . . .
Vol: 145 Issue: 28 Monday, October 28, 2013
The other day I was chatting with the grown son of an acquaintance when the topic of faith came up. ”What?” he says. ”You believe in God? You think you have some cosmic Invisible Friend? Are you kidding me? I thought you were smarter than that!”
I asked him how he thought the universe came to be. He shot me a pitying look and said, “Why the Big Bang, of course!”
The Big Bang Theory posits that in the beginning, there was nothing. No universe, no matter, no air . . . just nothingness. This is his starting position – before the Big Bang, there was nothing.
Join me in a little experiment. Try to imagine nothing. You can’t. Our minds cannot grasp the concept of nothing. You can’t imagine nothing because any observation you might make is, by definition, something.
The one thing that does not exist anywhere in the known universe is . . . nothing.
The Big Bang Theory is the only workable secular scientific explanation for the existence of everything. The theory of a static, eternal and unchanging universe was scrapped in favor of the expanding universe theory developed by Edwin Hubble.
“Hubble was able to show a linear relationship between the velocity of the galaxies and their distance — the farther the galaxy, the faster it was receding. Hubble’s Law is a linear relationship, so every observer at every point in every galaxy of the Universe sees him or herself to be at the center of expansion, when there really is no center.”
For the universe to be expanding, it must have had a starting point. My friend’s position is that the starting point of the universe is the Big Bang.
The Big Bang model was first conceived by George Lemaitre, and was introduced as a working scientific model in 1948, (adding yet another to the list of end-times themes that came into being the same year as Israel’s restoration.)
According to the Big Bang theory, all matter and all space was originally part of an infinitesimally small point called the Singularity. The theory says nothing about where that singularity came from.
The Big Bang Theory holds that, at the point of Singularity, the entire universe was just a pinpoint, although it contained all the matter that now exists. Space itself stretched to its present size. That’s not too far from the truth.
The only difference between the secular version and the Bible’s is that Isaiah credits God:
“Thus saith God the LORD, He that created the heavens, and stretched them out; He that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein . . “ (Isaiah 42.5)
Secular science requires a Singularity, of which secular science claims to know everything and nothing but is certain of only one thing: the Singularity cannot be the God of the Bible.
Nothing is nothing and everything is something. Isn’t it? My friend believes that nothing created everything for no reason.
I thought he was smarter than that!
“The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” (Psalms 14:1)
The problems with the Big Bang Theory are legion; the point of Singularity — that cannot be God — is a based on a theoretic experiment that could not be conducted for which the conclusions had already been reached.
But having already abandoned the first rule of science (verifiability) in order to come up with their Singularity, it gets easier to deal with the other problems.
For example, antimatter is the equivalent in all respects to matter excepting an opposite electro-magnetic charge. There is anti-matter in the universe, but only in small amounts. The Big Bang’s basic theory would demand equal parts matter and anti-matter.
The Big Bang offers an explanation for the incredible vastness of the universe, with stars that are millions of light-years apart. It says the universe is billions of years apart and still expanding. But observations about the expanding universe do not point to where the universe is expanding from.
Cosmologists like Stephen Hawking make use of the Copernican Principle, which says the universe has no center and no outer edges. But that is a scientific assumption, not a scientific conclusion.
The Bible teaches that the universe was spoken into existence by God. It also says that the entire creation process took just six days. It teaches that the universe is of finite size and has a boundary.
The Bible says the Earth is near the center. It says the cosmos has been expanded by God in the past and it says that the cosmos is young.
One Creation model developed by Russell Humphreys says time was dilated at the center as the rest of the universe expanded. The time dilation effect would permit billions of years’ worth of physical processes to take place over the course of a matter of days as observed from the center.
The arguments go back and forth endlessly, but in the final analysis, neither side can prove their case to the satisfaction of the other.
My friend’s son set out to prove his position on the Big Bang and evolution – he’s a bright kid! – but trying to prove the unprovable proved to be his undoing.
I could have made an effort to prove God exists, but I would be doing exactly the same thing and could reasonably expect exactly the same result.
Instead, I let him continue — until he got around to hearing himself argue that nothing created everything out of nothing when nobody was looking and for no apparent reason.
Proverbs 26:4 warns against answering a fool according to his folly, “lest ye be like him.” Scripture identifies “the fool” as one who says, “there is no God.”
So does logic, which says that you can’t prove a negative. He can’t prove there is no God – but you can’t prove that there is, apart from using the Bible, which he assumes is not reliable.
Trying to prove God apart from the Bible puts you in the position of putting God on trial. On trial is the question of whether God exists and if so, does He tell the truth?
You are the prosecutor, the skeptic is the jury and God is the defendant. You are already undone.
The next verse tells us TO answer a fool according to his folly “lest he be wise in his own conceit.”
So which is it?
It is a fool’s errand for a believer to attempt to prove creation to an unbeliever because accepting creation requires accepting a Creator first. You can’t get there from the opposite direction.
But what you can do is demonstrate the absurdity of the Big Bang’s position: a Singularity — that cannot be God! — caused space to expand from a pinpoint into the vastness of the universe, for no particular reason.
And during the course of this random expansion, a biological computer operating system — one infinitely more sophisticated than the most sophisticated computer systems ever devised by man — programmed itself with all the information necessary from birth to death and then somehow installed itself in every living thing.
The fool — that says in his heart, “there is no God” — is only capable of saying that because first, the “Singularity” programmed him with the capability for higher thought.
My dog’s pretty smart, but she doesn’t have the programming necessary for existential thought. But she has DNA. (So does an amoeba.)
Apart from the Bible, the existence of God cannot be ‘proved’ and trying to prove what is impossible to prove makes you as big a fool as he is.
Consider, for a moment, the task you are undertaking when you try. You are attempting to debate with somebody that believes that, in the beginning, nobody created nothing, which then became everything — and for no apparent reason.
And he thinks that you’re the one that’s nuts.