The Big Bang. Banged? By a Banger?

Everyone at some point in their life has been overcome by the overwhelming wonder of creation: "Throughout the vastness of space, the earth being described as a grain of sand would be an immense exaggeration. What could have made us? Are we the cosmic accident of a past eternal universe, or are we the unique creation of a personal Creator?" Of all the topics we seek to learn during our short stay on earth, what more could one desire to learn about than our own existence? And where do we turn to satisfy our pondering? Science? Faith? Or could it be both?

Especially for those attending college, you will constantly be bombarded that science answers everything and that religion is just a wretched crutch to lean on. "Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible . . . [and] helps religion only by disproving its claims. Science nibbles at religion from the other end, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with material ones. We now know that the universe did not require a creator" says Dr. Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago. In the book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything", Christopher Hitchens states that, "Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, religion no longer offers an explanation for anything important." The conventional wisdom is that, if we are going to believe in God, we must rely upon blind faith. Are those statements actually true? Does science really provide us with all the answers we need? Does science ultimately point away from a Creator? To help us answer these questions, while using evidence that virtually every scientist will accept as being true, let's discuss, in a three-part-series, two major compelling scientific arguments for the existence of God. First: The Kalam Cosmological Argument, which speaks of the beginning of the universe. Second (that will be covered in two parts): The Teleological Argument, which speaks of the fine design of the universe and of life on earth.

Up until the last few decades, scientists long believed that the universe has always existed and was uncaused. But thanks to modern scientific discoveries, scientists are now almost unanimously convinced that the universe had a sudden beginning point in the finite past. Let's look specifically at five of these many scientific discoveries. And to help us better remember them, we're going to use the acronym of an insanely tasty, yet discontinued, soda; S.U.R.G.E.

The "S" in S.U.R.G.E. stands for the Second law of thermodynamics.

This law, which was first formulated by the military engineer and physicist Sadi Carnot in 1824, simply states that, by losing energy, the universe is going from a state of order to a state of disorder. So, how does this law point to the fact that the universe had a beginning? By us knowing that the universe is running out of energy, we therefore know that the universe has not existed eternally in the past, or the energy would have long run out (eternally ago). In using an analogy: just as gas dissipates in a running car, the "gas" in the universe is acting in the same manner. We know that if gas in a car is running low, the tank was filled at a certain moment in the past. If your car had been running forever, the gas tank would already be empty. But the fact that it still has a minimal amount of gas shows that it has only been running for a specific period of time. It is in the same way that we know that the universe has not existed eternally in the past, but rather was "filled up with gas" at a specific period in time. Simple observations confirm the truth of the second law of thermodynamics: Paint chips and peels. Wood rots. Metal rusts. Living things decompose. We can see the results of this law before our very eyes every day. And it is in the same way that the universe is going to a state of disorder.

The "U" stands for Universal expansion.

This discovery simply states that the universe is expanding outward from its originating point of creation. As first theorized by physicist and mathematician Aleksandr Friedmann in 1922, and independently by priest, astronomer, and professor of physics, Georges Lemaitre in 1927, it was not until 1929 that Edwin Hubble made the actual discovery. Using the Mount Wilson observatory, Hubble observed that galaxies were expanding and moving away from one another. This was observed by observing galaxies through the telescope at multiple times, noticing that their light waves are changing frequency. With each observation the light waves are becoming larger and larger in what is called “red-shifting”. Think of this expansion as the cone shape pictured below: As you move towards the tip of the cone, the diameter shrinks down to a point. Further, we now know that the universe is expanding at a very specific rate. And, as concluded by Hubble, if we were to run this expansion rate in reverse, we would see that the universe would ultimately shrink down to a point of absolute nothingness. This is what has been coined the "Big Bang" model. Have in mind, though, that the way in which non-believers characterize the Big Bang is actually not at all what science points to. Later in this post, we will greatly expand on this matter (no pun intended).

The "R" stands for the Radiation afterglow.

Although predicted by earlier theories, this discovery was first made in 1965 by Arno Allan Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson as they experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna at Bell Labs. Simply put, the radiation afterglow is the leftover heat that was spread across the universe from the initial big bang explosion -- "the smoking gun" of the universe coming into existence. The discovery of this heat, technically known as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), was hard evidence for an expanding universe (big bang model), and went against the then very popular and uncontroversial "steady state" model which suggested that the universe is without beginning or end. Wilson had been long trained in the steady state model, and he felt uncomfortable with the big bang explanation (how would you feel if you discovered everything you thought you knew on a topic was completely wrong). When he and Penzias published their research, they stuck to what they stated were "just the facts" -- simply reporting their recorded observations, no matter how uncomfortable it made them feel. This discovery brought the big bang model widespread scientific acceptance. The steady state model, not being able to explain the presence of the radiation, was abandoned by most astronomers. And by the mid-1970's, the big bang model was referred to as "the standard model." Penzias and Wilson were later awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978 for their discovery of the CMBR.

The "G" stands for the Great Galaxy Seeds.

Thanks to the discovery of an expanding universe, and the discovery of the radiation afterglow (CMBR), scientists then turned their attention to a prediction that had been made by Penzias and Wilson. And, if found, it would confirm the big bang: "If the big bang really did occur, we should still be able to detect slight variations in the temperature of the CMBR. These temperature variations, caused by the very early universe having fluctuations in heat and density, would have provided suitable conditions for matter to gather, causing galaxies, stars, planets, and ultimately life to exist."

The technology of 1965 simply would not do. Since the microwave wavelengths of CMBR are obscured by earth’s atmosphere, much more sophisticated satellites and computers were necessary. In 1989, the search was strengthened when NASA launched the $600 million Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), a space satellite that would circle the earth for in search for these temperature variations. In order to detect variations in the CMBR, using Differential Microwave Radiometers (DMR), 420 million measurements were made by COBE over the course of just one year alone. The measurements created a map of space as it would appear if humans could see the microwave wavelengths. COBE team member Alan Kogut noted: "We could not have done this without [these] computers. Each of those measurements is like one piece of a gigantic jigsaw puzzle -- you look at the piece by itself and it could mean anything. It's only when you fit hundreds of millions of pieces together that the pattern starts to emerge."

It took three years of tuning their instruments that the COBE team confirmed the discovery; the big bang was real. When the COBE team leader (cosmologist, 2006 Nobel Prize winner in physics, and million dollar winner of the television game show "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?") George Smoot announced their findings in 1992. His shocking characterization was quoted in newspapers all over the world: “If you’re religious, it’s “like looking at God.” Michael Turner, astrophysicist from the University of Chicago, was no less enthusiastic, claiming: “The significance of this [discovery] cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of Cosmology.” An Associated Press article entitled "U.S. Scientists Find a Holy Grail" stated that the discovery was: "evidence for the birth of the universe." The world-renowned Cambridge astronomer and staunch atheist Stephen Hawking also agreed, calling the findings “the most important discovery of the century, if not of all time.” So, what was found to merit such momentous descriptions?

NASA, using COBE, not only found the temperature variations, but they were amazed at their precision. These variations displayed that the explosion, and also the expansion of the universe, were precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to gather, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse on itself. Any slight variation one way or the other, and none of us would be here to tell about it. In fact, the variations are so exact (down to one part in one million) that Smoot called them the “machining marks from the creation of the universe” and the “fingerprints of the maker.” This congregated matter was later referred to as galaxy "seeds" (these “seeds” being the largest structures ever detected, with the biggest extending across one-third of the known universe, or 60 billion trillion miles).

Now, because of the time it takes light from distant objects to reach us, keep in mind that space observations are actually observations of the past. And so, the measurements from COBE are actually measurements of the past. In combining the discovery of universe expansion with the discovery of CMBR and its incredibly fine temperature variations, '"We can measure this CMBR in distant gas clouds, where you're looking back in time. As we do that, we notice that the temperature of that radiation [afterglow] gets hotter and hotter as we look farther and farther away. We can measure exactly how hot it is and see that it matches what the big bang creation model would predict of the cooling of the universe. Each observation of these temperatures is right on the money. The big bang predicts exactly what astronomers are observing. This is where we get our strongest scientific evidence for a transcendent cosmic creation event"', says astrophysicist Hugh Ross.

The CMBR was later mapped in greater detail by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), launched in 2001, and the Planck satellite, launched in 2009, as pictured below.

The “E” stands for Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity (E=Mc^2).

This theory simply states that space, time, matter and energy are all co-relative; meaning that you cannot have one without the others. And so, there was a point in the past in which absolutely nothing existed until space, time, matter and energy came into existence at the exact same time. Therefore, this adds to the evidence for the big bang.

As a side story: Just prior to Hubble (from "U") making the discovery of universal expansion, the theoretical physicist Einstein was formulating a theory of his own. Something was tremendously bothering Einstein, though: His equation for general relativity confirmed Hubble's findings of an expanding universe and pointed directly to a created universe. Einstein did not like that fact, as it conflicted with the then popular steady state model saying that the universe has existed eternally. These were the same conflicting feelings that Wilson (from "R") would later experience. Einstein knew the repercussions his own equation brought if held true: that the universe had a Creator. He simply did not want to believe it. To avoid the truth, he modified his equation, and even went so far as to include a fudge factor (a specific quantity introduced into a calculation, formula, or model, in order to make it fit observations or expectations -- or a worldview) that would make the universe not seem to be expanding. What was the fudge factor, you ask? The great Einstein divided by zero! A grade-schooler even knows you cannot divide by zero! Einstein would ultimately be invited by Hubble in 1931 to view the "red-shifting" of the galaxies. Having visual confirmation that their two discoveries fit seamlessly together in stating that the universe is indeed expanding, it was then that Einstein admitted he himself had made a big mistake in toying with the true data of his own equation. This fudge factor was, as he called it, the "biggest blunder of my life". Einstein no longer felt like hiding from the truth, and bowed to the fact that the universe is not eternal. From then on, he wanted “to know how God created the world", and sought to discover more of the harmony and beauty displayed throughout the entire universe made from "the mind of God."

As a recap:

"S" - The Second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is losing energy. Therefore, the universe has not existed eternally in the past but instead had a beginning.

"U" - Universal expansion states that the universe is expanding away from a point of creation.  And if we were to run this expansion rate in reverse, the universe would ultimately shrink down to a point of absolute nothingness.

"R" - Radiation afterglow (CMBR) is the leftover cooled heat that was spread across the universe from the initial moment of creation -- "the smoking gun" of the universe coming into existence by the big bang.

"G" - Great Galaxy Seeds are the detectable incredibly fine temperature variations within the CMBR. These variations provided suitable conditions for galaxies, stars, planets, and ultimately life to exist.

"E" - Einstein's theory of general relativity states that space, time, matter and energy are all co- relative; meaning that you cannot have one without the others. And so, there was a point in the past in which absolutely nothing existed until space, time, matter and energy came into existence at the exact same time.

This combined evidence (S.U.R.G.E.), and much more, confirms the topic of this post: The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. This argument goes as follows:

Premise 1 = Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2 = The universe began to exist.

Premise 3 = Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Before we discuss this argument, it is crucial to understand why we covered the side stories of both Wilson and Einstein having been bothered by the fact that the steady state model of their time was being blown away (no pun intended) by the big bang model. You see, to this day, even with all of the evidence in hand, some non-believers still are in denial towards admitting the truth. By doing so, they stubbornly resort to objections and to alternative "explanations" in regard to the beginning of the universe. Conveniently, the following discussion of these objections and "explanations" will help us delve into each of the premises within the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

This leads us to the discussion of our first objection.

"What created God?"

This is usually said with a smirk on their face. In a discussion about the universe beginning to exist, one has to wonder why that objection would even come up; it's like the non-believer thinks that, by saying this, it's a way out of their denial, and gives them a free pass from having to answer, themselves, what ultimately created the universe. For one, this objection is not even part of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Premise one is not "Whatever exists has a cause"; the argument is "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." God did not have a beginning; therefore He did not have a cause. But the non-believer should not have a problem with God not having a beginning, when, after all, they themselves were comfortable in maintaining their long held belief that the universe did not have a beginning (that is a double standard).

Can you think of anything that began to exist, but didn't have a cause? Of course not. As analytic philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig states: “The idea that things can come into being uncaused out of nothing is worse than magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, there’s the magician and the hat." If something could come into being from nothing, the obvious question is: "Why don't other things just simply pop into being from nothing?" In using an analogy by Craig: If you found something in the forest, such as a ball, you wouldn't just assume that it simply popped into being out there. Instead, you would know that someone left it there. If something as small as a ball cannot pop into being from nothing, then why would something with such majesty as the entire universe be plausible to do so? As author Mark Mittelberg observes: '"If you loan someone your car, and he brings it back with a fresh dent in the bumper, you don't want to enter into a philosophical discussion about whether or not "dents that begin to exist need a cause"; you just want to know what your friend ran into -- and how he's going to pay for the repairs."' You can’t say that everything that has a beginning has a cause and then suddenly exempt the universe. Along with logical conclusions, SURGE has proven that the universe began to exist. Therefore, premise one and two of the argument are covered.

(We will soon discuss the characteristics of God in greater detail).

It follows logically from the two premises, then, that the universe must have a cause (premise 3). This leads us to our first alternative "explanation".

"The universe was self-caused."

Philosopher Daniel Dennett and his followers hold to the belief that the universe is "self-caused"; that is to say that the universe created itself. But can anything be self-caused? No. Of course not. In order for something to be self-caused, it would have to: exist, before it existed, in order to cause its own existence! This is impossible on all levels.

With premise 3 of the argument still in mind, we come to our next, and final, alternative "explanation".

"Something other than a Creator created the universe."

Before we can proceed, though, we must first answer a crucial question for the upcoming discussion: What exactly is "nothing"? Aristotle had a pretty good definition: "Nothing is what rocks dream about." That is to say, "nothing" is a complete absence of anything. It is with this word that one must be very observant when studying these topics.

Let's start with gravity being the "cause" of the universe.

Stephen Hawking, in his book "The Grand Design", states: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." In other words, because we have the physical law of gravity, we do not need a Creator. There are numerous contradictions within this statement.

Contradiction number one: Hawking says that the universe is created out of "nothing", but in the same sentence says that the law of gravity existed prior to creation.

Contradiction number two: By he saying that gravity existed prior to creation, this means that gravity would be self-caused.

Contradiction number three: On top of gravity being self-caused, by him saying that "the universe will create itself", the universe must be self-caused, too (as Daniel Dennett stated).

Contradiction number four: The two parts of the statement contradict each other; first he says that gravity can create the universe, but then goes on to say that the universe doesn't need anything to create itself!

Aside from these contradictions, we might add the fact that the laws of physics have not created, and will not ever create, anything; they are simply tools used within the universe. For example, a hammer cannot build a house without a builder at the other end. A Craftsman tools commercial was on television the other day and stated that "We were born to make something out of nothing." But common sense says that these tools must be used on something, such as wood or metal, and therefore is not "nothing" at all. Hawking is doing the same thing by interchanging the word "nothing" for "something.”

In a well-known joke, a group of atheistic scientists approach God and claim that they can do everything He can. “Like what?” asks God. “Like creating a human being from nothing,” say the atheists. “Show me”, says God. They say, “Well, we start with some dirt, and then --”. God interrupts, “Wait a second! Get your own dirt!” Just as a carpenter must use preexisting wood to build a cabinet, so would these atheistic scientists have to rely on preexisting dirt to "create a human being.”

Next, the quantum vacuum as the "cause".

Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, in his book "A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing", argues that the quantum vacuum can explain how the universe came into being from "nothing". Again, the problem rests on that pesky little word, “nothing.” If you press Krauss, he admits that he is not really talking about "nothing", but instead is speaking of a theorized microscopic sea of energy that filled all of space. Do you see the problem? He has renamed something (the quantum vacuum) "nothing", when clearly it is some thing. He has not dealt with the fact that one must explain where space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws in which our universe operate under came from in the first place; He, as also done by Hawking, simply redefines the term “nothing” to fit with his own naturalistic presuppositions that there is no God. David Albert, a PhD in quantum physics, reviewed Krauss' book in the New York Times. In this review, Professor Albert states: "Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to there not being any physical stuff at all. But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems —are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. Krauss is dead wrong, and his . . . critics are absolutely right." On several occasions, Krauss admits Dr. Albert’s point in advance and places the word “nothing” in quotation marks (like we just did). For instance, '"If the "nothing" of reality is full of stuff, then I’ll go with that.”'

So when Stephen Hawking claims that gravity created the universe, or Laurence Krauss says it was from the quantum vacuum, or Isaac Asimov talks about positive and negative energy, or Peter Atkins speaks of swirling mathematical points, etc.; none of those things actually existed prior to creation! All that these "explanations" do is give possibilities on what the early stages of the universe were like, after the universe was already created, and do not at all touch on the moment of creation itself, which is the whole point! The laws of physics are all that non-believers can try to use in describing the creation of the universe. But the laws of physics cannot describe creation, because physics didn't exist! So, as the most dreaded question of a parent is "Where do babies come from?” theirs is "Where do the laws of physics come from?"

You now can see to what extremes non-believers must resort to in order to try and make one believe that the universe could somehow bypass a Creator. All that they do is try to avert your eyes away from the fact that there the universe still had a beginning; they're like a magician saying "Hey look over here and you won't see what I'm really doing with my other hand!" These objections and "explanations" really do not even deserve being discussed; they take themselves down with contradictions, a total lack of the scientific approach, quite frankly a total lack of intelligence, and do not come even close to doing away with the need for a Creator.

As a recap of what we have learned from these objections and "explanations":

In the objection of "What created God?" we saw that, just as everything that began to exist must have a cause, so must the universe.

In the "explanation" of the universe being "self-caused," we saw that a created thing cannot be the cause that brought itself into creation.

In the "explanation" that the universe could have been created by physical laws, we saw that there were no physical laws, or anything, before creation, and therefore nature cannot explain the cause of the universe.

Having premise 3 still in mind, this leads to our second, and final, objection.

"There is no reason to endow this cause with any of the properties normally ascribed to God."

Agnostic astronomer, physicist, cosmologist, and leading NASA scientist Robert Jastrow, the man who would later sit in Hubble's chair at Mount Wilson Observatory, stated in an interview: "Astronomers have now found themselves painted into a corner, because they have proven by their own methods that the world began abruptly in an act of creation in which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, and every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that this has happens from the product of forces that they cannot hope to discover: that there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work, that I believe are now a scientifically proven fact." Arthur Stanley Eddington, expert in Einstein's general relativity, states: "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties, unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."

Richard Dawkins, a world-renown atheist, as is Hawking, doesn’t dispute either premise one or premise two of the argument. Instead, he complains about the conclusion (premise 3). We have seen that the cause of the universe must be supernatural. But Dawkins doesn't like this fact. He states: "There is absolutely no reason to endow [the cause] with any of the properties normally ascribed to God." Well, then, let's just discuss what properties (characteristics) the cause of the universe must have.

Since nature did not exist before creation, the cause of the universe cannot be something inside of nature, but must instead be something outside of nature. Since there was not a natural cause, there must have been a supernatural cause; "supernatural" being defined as "what lies beyond the natural world." Since matter and energy did not exist prior to creation, it must be an immaterial and changeless un-bodied mind, and therefore a spirit (anything that is changeless must be non-physical and immaterial, since material things are constantly changing at the molecular and atomic levels). Since space and time did not exist prior to creation, it must be outside of the limits of space and time, therefore being eternal. It must be immensely intelligent and powerful, since it brought the entire universe into being with absolutely nothing to work with. Finally, such a cause must be incredibly personal, since it had the personal will to freely choose to create the universe in the first place. And because the cause is free to choose, it can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions that were not previously present (such as time); In this way, then, it is possible for the finite universe to have come into existence from an eternal cause. Now, those are most certainly properties that are normally ascribed to God. In fact, Dr. Arno Allan Penzias, the cosmologist, physicist, and Nobel Prize winner for helping us discover that the universe had a beginning, states: "The best data we have concerning the origin of the universe are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole." The non-believer cannot escape the fact that this cause, which has the properties we've just discussed, must exist.

Among atheists, the Big Bang is sort of like a rallying cry; for they think it is an explanation of the universe that eliminates the existence of God. They will represent the Big Bang and God as though they were mutually exclusive. And this is something that many Christians have fallen to believe as well. There are Christians who do not believe the Big Bang for the reason described; they think it contradicts the biblical creation account. But in knowing the above facts, the evidence is with the believer. And so, believers in God should feel confident in a belief of the big bang . . . because they know Who banged it!

Astronomer Fred Hoyle once said: "One might think . . . modern science would be totally at odds with western religion. This is far from being so. The big bang . . . requires a recent origin of the universe that openly invites the concept of creation. Many in the atheistic community try and downplay the notion of a beginning because of the religious implications. The idea of a beginning is extremely uncomfortable for those who are committed to a worldview that excludes the existence of a supernatural realm. Hawking notes of this discomfort in his bestseller "A Brief History of Time": "Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention." Physicist and cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin has stated: "With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape. They have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Note that he says the word "problem." It's only a "problem" if you're an atheist, because since the evidence points to the universe having a beginning, it leads to a very powerful and persuasive argument in favor of Genesis 1:1.

"What's so important to understand is how reverse the situation is: It is now the atheist who has to maintain, by faith, despite all of the evidence in contrary, that the universe did not have a beginning, but in some inexplicable way is eternal after all. It is the Christian who can stand confidently within biblical truth, knowing it's in line with cosmology and [every branch of] physics. It's the atheist who feels very uncomfortable and marginalized today", says William Lane Craig. Richard Dawkins once said: "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." How ironic that it's ultimately himself, and other non-believers, that he is talking about!

It is hard not to see the evidence for the Big Bang as a stunning example of where science and theology intersect when both are used correctly. As Lord Kelvin, a British mathematical physicist and engineer once said, "If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God."

Astrophysicist Dr. Robert Jastrow states: “Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy. There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained. This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. Consider the enormity of the problem. Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe? And science cannot answer these questions. For the scientist . . . the story ends like a bad dream: He is about to conquer the highest peak. [And] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by . . . theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

The Bible alone predicted all the fundamentals of big bang cosmology thousands of years before any scientist discovered these cosmic features. This includes the second law of thermodynamics, stated as “the bondage of corruption.” The scientific fact that the universe came from “nothing” is reflecting one of Christianity’s foundational creeds. Creation ex nihilo, Latin for “creation from nothing”, refers to the moment God created the universe from nothing. The opening statement in the Bible, recorded over thirty-five hundred years ago, makes this scientifically spot-on claim. The Bible’s prophets and apostles stated explicitly and repeatedly the two most fundamental properties of the big bang: A transcendent cosmic beginning a finite time period ago, and a universe undergoing continual expansion. The characteristic of the universe stated more frequently than any other in the Bible is its expansion; being “stretched out.” Five Bible authors, in at least eleven different verses, state this phrase (Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; and Zechariah 12:1).

So, as our introduction asked: Are science and faith fundamentally incompatible? Does science help religion only by disproving its claims? Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, does religion not offer an explanation for anything important? Does science divine explanations for the beginning of the universe with material ones? Through our discussion, we can all give a big "No!" As British mathematician and philosopher of science John Lennox explains: "It was Christian theology that sparked an interest in investigating the natural world through science in the first place, since believers in God were under the assumption that there would be observable laws and the fingerprint of design in the universe; which they were correct about. '"You do not have to put your scientific intelligence to one side when you read the Bible. Not at all. In fact, I think the scientific approach helps you to take Scripture sometimes more seriously than you would if you didn't adopt the scientific approach. As a scientist, I see how Genesis starts: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." And I'm well aware that Scripture has been saying that for many, many centuries. But science only caught up with it relatively recently. And it [scientific evidence] was fiercely resisted by some scientists, because they said: "It will give too much leverage to people who believe in the Bible."'

If it were true that Christianity and science were incompatible, there would be no Christians who were respected scientists. In fact, about forty percent of professional natural scientists are practicing Christians, and many others are theists of other kinds. Fewer than thirty percent are atheists", says historian and religious scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell in "Exposing Myths About Christianity". It's a sad truth that many more believers in God are weary to openly state that they are, indeed, believers, because they can (and do) lose their jobs over the fact. If it were true that Christianity and science were incompatible, the majority of the world's most famous scientists wouldn't have been believers in God.

Science and faith, when used correctly, complement one another in absolute harmony. Science is continually catching up with what the Bible has already stated. And it is due to the telescope, and due(it.) to the microscope that we are seeing more and more evidence that points directly to God.

As a final note, we should observe two things.

First: Since the cause of the universe must be supernatural, it was therefore a miracle. And, since the greatest of all miracles occurs in the very first verse of the Bible, any miracle (such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is covered at http://theprimesoulution.blogspot.com/2013/03/was-jesus-christ-really-resurrected.html ) afterwards can at least be possible; every other miracle would be considered child’s play for Him to accomplish.

Second: Since the evidence points to the universe having a Creator, we therefore must have a purpose for being created in the first place. But if you hold to the belief that the universe is, say, "self-caused", then meaning and purpose must be mere illusions, and therefore this life is deemed meaningless. But, if you have a belief in God, you know that your life is not meaningless. Christians have an ultimate goal in hope. We can have the peace of knowing relationships with our loved ones will last, and that our short existence here is with vastly unique meaning and purpose. And in the end, we have confidence all that is of God is true. Science, unlike it does in regard to the beginning of the universe, cannot give us any insight to what happens after we die. It's ultimately going to happen to every single one of us, yet we constantly shrug it off as if it will never happen. The Bible does give us insight, though. And, with Scripture being proved time and time again to be spot-on accurate, it's probably wise to listen to what is says: In the end, Love wins out over all, and good always comes out winner. In fact, this was directly shown when God the Father sent His only Son, Jesus, to die on the cross in order to redeem us so that we may have salvation.

(In reading "The Passion of Christ from a Medical Point of View" by C. Truman Davis, M.D., M.S.):

The physical passion of Christ began in the Garden of Gethsemane.

“And being in agony, He prayed the longer. And His sweat became as drops of blood, trickling down upon the ground.” Though very rare, the phenomenon of hematidrosis, or bloody sweat, is well documented. Under great emotional stress of the kind our Lord suffered, tiny capillaries in the sweat glands can break, thus mixing blood with sweat. This process might well have produced marked weakness and possible shock. After the arrest in the middle of the night, Jesus was next brought before the Sanhedrin and Caiphus, the High Priest; it is here that the first physical trauma was inflicted. A soldier struck Jesus across the face for remaining silent when questioned by Caiphus. The palace guards then blind-folded Him and mockingly taunted Him to identify them as they each passed by, spat upon Him, and struck Him in the face.

In the early morning, battered and bruised, dehydrated, and exhausted from a sleepless night, Jesus was taken to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judaea. It was at this trial that Jesus was stripped of His clothing; His hands tied to a post above His head, and would soon endure the most dreadful torture imaginable. The Roman legionnaires stepped forward with a flagrum in each of their hands (this is a whip consisting of several heavy leather ropes connected to a handle. The ropes were knotted with the likes of pieces of iron, lead, bronze, bones, and hooks). Jesus would have then been forced to stand and to stoop, which would make deeper lashes from the shoulders to the waist. The ropes quickly would cut through the skin. As the blows continue, they cut deeper into the subcutaneous tissues, producing first an oozing of blood from the capillaries and veins of the skin, and finally spurting arterial bleeding from vessels in the underlying muscles. The metal, bones, and hooks would then produce large, deep bruises which are broken open by subsequent blows. Finally the skin of the back is hanging in long ribbons and the entire area is an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue. Lash after endless lash, it was only when determined by the centurion in charge that Jesus was near death that the beating finally stopped. He would then be untied and allowed to slump to the stone pavement, soaking wet, drenched in a pool of His own blood. Jesus was beat to the extent that His body “was so disfigured He seemed hardly human, and from His appearance one would scarcely know He was a man" (Isaiah 52:14).

The Roman soldiers saw a great joke in He claiming to be God. They throw a robe across His shoulders and placed a stick in His hand for a scepter. They still need a crown to make their travesty complete. Flexible branches covered with long thorns were plaited into the shape of a crown and then pressed firmly into His scalp. Again there is copious bleeding, the scalp being one of the most vascular areas of the body. After mocking Him and striking Him across the face, the soldiers take the stick from His hand and strike Him across the head, driving the thorns deeper into His scalp.

The Romans returned some of His garments, which would ultimately soak up some of His heavy bleeding. The patibulum of the cross (weighing roughly 125 pounds) was tied across His shoulders in order to carry it to the place of His death by crucifixion. The pain on the Roman cross was so intensely unbearable that it was beyond words to describe. That is why a new word had to be invented; excruciating; which literally means “out of the cross.”

And so began the slow journey along the Via Dolorosa, until the agonizing 650 yard journey from the fortress Antonia to Golgotha (called "The Place of a Skull") was finally completed. The legionnaire feels for the depression at the front of the wrist. He drives a heavy, square, wrought-iron nail through the wrist and deep into the wood. Quickly, he moves to the other side and repeats the action. The left foot is now pressed backward against the right foot, and with both feet extended, toes down, a nail is driven through the arch of each. Jesus is now crucified.

As He slowly sags down with more weight on the nails in the wrists, excruciating pain shoots along the fingers and up the arms to explode in the brain — the nails in the wrists are putting pressure on the median nerves. As He pushes Himself upward to avoid this stretching torment, He places His full weight on the nail through His feet. Again there is the searing agony of the nail tearing through the nerves between the metatarsal bones of the feet.  At this point, as the arms fatigue, great waves of cramps sweep over the muscles, knotting them in deep, relentless, throbbing pain. With these cramps comes the inability to push Himself upward. Hanging by His arms, the pectoral muscles are paralyzed and the intercostal muscles are unable to act. Air can be drawn into the lungs, but cannot be exhaled. He fights to raise Himself in order to get even one short breath. Finally, carbon dioxide builds up in the lungs and in the blood stream and the cramps partially subside. Having unshakable spasms, He is able to push Himself upward to exhale and bring in the life-giving oxygen. It was undoubtedly during these periods that Jesus uttered at the Roman soldiers, who were "throwing dice" to see who would take the seamless robe He had worn just prior, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”

Jesus experienced hours of limitless pain, cycles of twisting, joint-rending cramps, intermittent partial asphyxiation, searing pain where tissue is torn from His lacerated back as He moves up and down against the rough timber. Then another agony begins -- a terrible crushing pain deep in the chest as the pericardium slowly fills with serum and begins to compress the heart.  One remembers again the 22nd Psalm, the 14th verse: “I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.” The loss of tissue fluids has reached a critical level; the compressed heart is struggling to pump heavy, thick, sluggish blood into the tissue; the tortured lungs are making a frantic effort to gasp in small gulps of air. The body of Jesus is now in extremes, and He can feel the chill of death creeping through His tissues. This realization brings out His words, possibly little more than a tortured whisper, “It is finished.” His mission of redeeming us has been completed. Finally He can allow his body to die. With one last surge of strength, He once again presses His torn feet against the nail, straightens His legs, takes a deeper breath, and utters His last cry, “Father! Into Thy hands I commit my spirit.” And, with that said, He was dead.

To make doubly sure of death, the legionnaire drove a spear through the fifth interspace between the ribs, upward through the pericardium and into the heart. The 34th verse of the 19th chapter of the Gospel according to John reports: “And immediately there came out blood and water.” That is, there was an escape of water fluid from the sac surrounding the heart, giving postmortem scientific evidence that Our Lord died not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure (a broken heart).

In giving this detailed account of this event, it is crucial to grasp the fact that He knew that He would have to go through such pain on our behalf. In other words, it's as if He was beaten and bruised before we were ever created. Having created the universe out of absolutely nothing, don't you believe that Jesus had the power to take Himself off of that Roman cross at any given second? Instead, He endured and endured. One can imagine He thought of your face and mine during every second of those long agonizing hours to and on the cross; the only relief being that He knew He was freeing us from what we deserved. [Enter name here], "It is finished." And now we may live. 

All because of Jesus.

Life is too short to lose another day without knowing our Lord and Savior. Tomorrow may never come for you. After all He has done for you, ask Him to save you. And if you have already asked, thank Him for your redemption and salvation.

God the Father and God the Son. Before creation, they thought of specifically you. And with all of the foreknowledge of the pain and suffering the cross would bring, in the beginning They "created the heavens and the earth."