So far, we’ve examined:
- There is an absolute moral standard in the Universe.
- There is something greater than myself
- That something set up those absolute moral standards.
- That Something greater who has set up moral standards will someday judge me according to those standards.
- If the Universe exists, it either has always been there, or it has been created.
- If it was created, it had a creation.
- If it had a creation, it had a creator.
- If I see something moving, I recognize that a force or energy was applied to that something to make it move.
- A+B=C. If C = 0 and A =0 then B = 0. If A =0 and B=0, then C cannot equal “Everything”
- There’s no reason why we have universal laws.
- If we did not have protons, would the laws of nature work? No. By that very concept, we identify that the kinds of materials the universe is made of are DESIGNED to cooperate with the very laws that were put in place.
So far, Science and Atheism aren’t doing very good! I had to work a little harder to deal with Roman Catholicism than this!
We were dealing with a compound question often raised by Atheists, which is:
“Well, the Universe created itself! There’s tons of proof for this! The Hubble showed us that!”
So far I just kicked the first leg out from under that argument. The proof shows so far pretty conclusively that the Universe could not have created itself. Behind closed doors, Astronomers are dealing with the same conflicts that we just presented. However, to the public, they show a united front that privately they question. There’s a couple of hundred different little theories floating around, that are often presented as if fact. For instance, we see Fred Hoyles’ “Steady State Theory” or George Gamow’s “Oscillating State theory” (which presents a cycle of collapsing universe, then Big Bangs) often presented to the public when anyone raises the timid question about the Big Bang. The public isn’t informed that the scientific community debunked the “Steady State” theory back in the late 1960’s.
“um… you must have made a mistake. You just said George Gamow created the Oscillating State theory. You said yesterday he created the Big Bang theory.”
Actually, he popularized it, until he created the steady state theory. Once the Oscillating State theory was disproved conclusively, and Sir Fred Hoyle’s Steady State as well, he went back to the Big Bang theory. Why did he leave it in the first place? A lot of holes in it. Why did he go back to it? He refused to acknowledge the ugly specter that was rearing its head – the universe shows unmistakable evidence of creation. And a creation means a creator.
Let’s move on to the “tons of proof” objection. Where is it?
“Red light spectrum. Background radiation. The Van Allen belts.”
You forgot “Eye of a newt”. What is Red light spectrum? That’s looking at the spectrum of stars and comets. We can see that when the spectrum is examined on an object, and then examined a short time later, we see a movement in the red spectrum, right? What does that prove?
“It’s moving away from us.”
You moved too soon. Remember basic Algebra. I just gave you the value of A. What’s B & C?
“Uh… I don’t know.”
Right. WE know that just about EVERY object shows red light spectrum movement. What does that mean? They all show red light spectrum movement. That’s about it. We know the value of A in that equation. B is what we’re discussing right now. What’s B?
- Movement away from us
- temperature changes
- the effect of gravity between us and them
- distortion of the fabric of space by gravity wells, and the passage of light past that.
- an overabundance of yard gnomes on the distant objects. If one tips over, the light shifts to red.
pick one. We’re really not sure. And an awful lot of astronomers are entertaining option 4 right now, but quietly, because it’s a sacred cow of science. Sadly, to my knowledge, there are no astronomers entertaining option #5. If any do, all I ask is that you call it Dean’s Hypothesis. Thanks. Meet you in Geneva.
If everything is showing red shift, that either means the Earth is the very center of the Big Bang (and none of the models show that) – or it means something else.
Background radiation. Hm. I like that one. Let’s look at it.
Shouldn’t there be a lot more? Remember, there’s a vacuum. Radiation maintains its motion until it encounters something. There’s very little gas particles floating in space. Hang on that thought, because I’m addressing that tomorrow in a lot of detail!
There’s very little sand. Very little free floating ice. Absolutely no concrete walls. Free floating lead seems to be in short supply. In other words, Newton proves that radiation particles (and by radiation, we’re always meaning certain kinds of particles, such as alpha, gamma, and X rays) would continue on their way, unabated until they encounter resistance of some kind. We should be seeing enough X-rays radiating from a common source, and there should be enough to make space capsules turn into little microwaveable packages.
Yet there’s …not that much radiation out there. Some. And surely it’s enough background noise that the very planets, plutoids (since we have to have that designation now), and the Sun all can account for it, plus or minus a minute amount.
What was your third objection? The Van Allen belt? There’s a reason scientists stopped talking about it back in the ’60’s. It’s accountable for by the very presence of a lot of nickel and iron in the crust of the earth. And it’s rate of decay is important. i’ll hit on that briefly as well.
The real reason astronomers stopped talking about the Van Allen belt is because it’s a favorite topic of Christian apologists. It’s like dropping your hands in a prize fight – you’re just asking for the chin punch.
“We HEAR the Big Bang!”
You hear lots of noise from space. Do you actually hear the loud “Boom”? Or just lots of noise from stars? The latter explanation. Remember Occam’s Razor. Atheists are fond of shaving with it. In this case, it’s cutting deep.
As for what the Hubble showed – well, let me point out nobody ever asked me if I wanted MY tax dollars to pay for a telescope that would look for proof of something that we’ve already demonstrated could not have happened. I’d like my share of that tax money BACK.
If Christians asked Congress for money to prove the existence of God, and to popularize the proof of the Lord Jesus Christ, Atheists would be the first to jump up and shout against it. Yet when scientists asked for BILLIONS of dollars to search for evidence of the Big Bang, nobody squeaked.
Getting back to the Hubble, the rationale for the Hubble was that the atmosphere creates distortion that prevents us from being able to see millions of light years away. so we spent billions of dollars putting it up. So far, its gotten some photographs that after technicians get done digitally enhancing (read: photoshopping), look spectacular.
Nobody’s jumped out there with a photograph showing real proofs of anything. Incidentally, we’re not so sure about the distances of these objects. You see, you can triangulate the location of something only so far. We measure the distance of something by looking at it one day, then measuring again six months later.
Because if you picture the earth’s orbit as a circle – O – we know the distance from one side to another. so 180,000 miles or so. When we draw a triangle from the earth to that object, we can tell by the two sides of the triangle how far out the point is.
At 180,000 miles, the triangle is perfect. At 360,000 miles, it’s getting stretched. At 900,000 miles, the triangle is MIGHTY STRETCHED OUT! Triangulation works only so far, to only so much of a distance. Past that, the error factor RUSHES in, not “creeps in”.
So, any distance past 1,000,000 miles is suspect.
What’s the implications of that? Simple. If the universe is expanding… then it’s only been expanding a short time. If it’s not expanding… then there’s no Big Bang. To accept the Big Bang, we must then propose a certain number of conditions…
- The speed of light is constant
- the red shift says everything is moving away from us rapidly
- nothing decided to explode and create everything, from absolutely nothing.
- Distances are exaggerated, and we must conclude on the higher order of probability that something is further away (in layman’s terms, if something is estimated to be 5 to 10 million miles away, choose the farther distance, because it conforms to the theory better)
The Big Bang has so much circular reasoning, that under its own weight the circular logic has begun to orbit each other!