<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

The Kalam and Teleological Arguements as Proof of the Christian God; or, Sherman, set the Wayback machine for the Big Bang  

INTRODUCTION - The Wayback Machine
FADE IN:

INT. - LABORATORY
Small laboratory filled to the brim along one wall with dials, switches and buttons. We scan along one wall until we come to MR. PEABODY and his boy SHERMAN.

MR. PEABODY
Hello, children. Peabody here. This is my boy Sherman.

SHERMAN
Hi.

MR. PEABODY
Set the Wayback machine for the Big Bang, Sherman. We’re going to prove one of the greatest mysteries of the universe; the existence of God.

SHERMAN-CLOSEUP

SHERMAN
Why don’t we just go to before the Big Bang and meet God, Mr. Peabody?

BACK TO SHOT

MR. PEABODY
Because this is a time machine, boy. Can’t go where there is no time, now can we?

SHERMAN-CLOSEUP

SHERMAN
Won’t we need spacesuits, Mr. Peabody?

PEABODY-CLOSEUP

MR. PEABODY
You ask too many questions for a cartoon character. Please set the machine.

BACK TO SHOT

Both characters walk through an OPEN DOOR during the voice over.

MR. PEABODY (V.O.) (CONT’D)
So with a flick of the switch Sherman and I were off to find God.

FADE TO BLACK.


Only Mr. Peabody could solve the question of the identity of God that simply.
Most lay people fail to understand the controversy surrounding the theory of the Big Bang. Dr. Hugh Ross described the problem succinctly when he quoted former NASA head Robert Jastrow as saying that scientists were afraid if the theory were true “that their colleagues were going to run out and join the First Church of Jesus Christ of the Big Bang.”

This concerned scientists so much that efforts were made to refine the theory to eliminate its Christological ramifications, giving rise to gurus and British rock stars singing to them in India. Ross, a former NASA astronomer, wrote #:

"Most eastern religions, old and new, are founded on the belief that the universe oscillates or reincarnates. In fact, the popularity of these faiths soared with the popularity of the oscillating universe model, more so when it was recognized that the Hindu number for the period of the oscillation, (specifically, four and a half billion years) came close to the twenty to thirty billion year period proposed by the astronomers working on the model. Many reasoned that for the ancient Hindu theologians to get that close to the "right" answer there had to be some truth to Hinduism.

Now that the hesitation, steady state, and oscillation models for the universe have evaporated in the face of new measurements and discoveries, so, too, has any scientific basis for the cosmology of the eastern faiths. The impossibility of the oscillating universe destroys the foundation of Hinduism, Buddhism, and its New Age derivatives. The impossibility of the eternal existence of the cosmos translates into the impossibility of pantheism and all of its daughter faiths."

While the similarities between the Genesis account of creation and the observations that lead to the Big Bang theory may concern scientist (see Appendix 1), most philosophers were perhaps better equipped to deal with the similarities, thanks to familiarity with the various forms of the Cosmological Arguement and the Teleological Argument.

Simply put:

Cosmological:
(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
(3) Therefore: the universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
(5) Therefore: God exists.

Teleological:
(A) The universe displays order, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. The way they exist and coexist displays an intricate order and regularity.
(B) Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
(C ) Not chance.
(D) Therefore: the universe is the product of intelligent design.
(E) Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
(F) Therefore: the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer. This Designer is God.
The question is: Does this God have a name?

Kalam and the Big Bang

Ask the average man on the street what the Big Bang theory is and chances are they will tell you that at sometime in the ancient past a huge explosion occurred and sent the raw materials the universe is made of was sent expanding outward to fill up the empty void. The idea that the universe is expanding from some common point of explosion was first postulated by American astronomer Edwin Hubble. For centuries, astronomers believed that the Milky Way made up the entire Universe. Hubble was the first to show that the fuzzy patches in the sky seen through telescopes were other galaxies, not distant parts of the Milky Way. By looking at different forms of light being emitted from these galaxies (red shift#*), he concluded that the Universe was expanding!#

In 1922, Russian mathematician Alexander A. Friedman discovered an error in Einstein's proof for a static universe that allowed for a non-static model.** # The work of Friedman and Hubble was then developed further by a Belgian theoretical astronomer and Priest, Father Georges Lemaitre, who proposed that our universe started from a highly compressed, extremely hot state called the "primeval atom". By extrapolating the expansion of galaxies backwards in time to a singular event, the violent explosion of this "primeval atom" is estimated to have occurred about 19 billion years ago, with the universe undergoing expansion ever since. # We can detect the residual traces of that cosmic fireball in the form of what is called background radiation (BG). It can be safely said we know the Universe had a beginning.

The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. If we plug in what we know about the Big Bang, the Standard Cosmological argument takes on this form:


(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
(3) Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is the Big Bang.
(5) Therefore: God exists.

This is a false argument. But there are other forms of the Cosmological argument that work better with the data. We can start with simply delineating more modifiers:

(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The Universe exists.
(3) It is possible for the Universe to not exist.
(4) Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. Therefore: the Universe was caused to exist by the Big Bang.
(5) The Big Bang existed.
(6) It is possible for the Big Bang to have not existed.
(7) Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. Therefore: the Big Bang was caused to exist.
(8) Something cannot bring itself into existence since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
(9) There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
(10) Since the Big Bang existed, it must have a cause.
(11) Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things. The uncaused cause must be God.

If God were thought to have a cause to His existence, then stating the existence of God in order to explain the existence of the universe doesn‘t work. Without God we could not explain the existence of the universe; with God we cannot explain the existence of God. Positing the existence of God, then raises as many problems as it solved.

On the other hand, if God was an uncaused being this would cause difficulties as well. If God were an uncaused being then His existence would invalidate premise (1). If God exists but does not have a cause of His existence then premise (1) is false, in which case the argument is unsound. If premise (1) is false, i.e. if some things that exist do not have a cause, then the argument might be resisted on the ground that the universe itself might exist without cause. The existence of an uncaused God renders the argument unsound and useless as a proof of the existence of God. Numbers (9) and (11) do not remove this objection, and in fact demands an explanation of its own.

In the Kalam argument, the distinction between the universe and God is that the universe has a beginning in time. Something that has a beginning in time has a cause; the uncaused existence of God, who does not have a beginning in time, is then consistent and so doesn’t present the problem encountered in the simple cosmological argument. This takes the form:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3)Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being. This cause is God.

So if we plug in the Big Bang data:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(2) The universe began to exist when the Big Bang occurred.
(3) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(4) The Big Bang began to exist.
(5)Therefore, the Big Bang has a cause for its coming into being. This cause is God.


In the Kalam argument, God is responsible for starting the Big Bang, because there cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence. If the universe began as a “primeval atom”, in which time and space where infinitely shrunken, and the history of the universe tells the story of the expansion of this original fire ball (giving rise to the physical universe today), God may be introduced to explain the existence of the “primeval atom” and what got it to "explode" and begin expanding.

The possible objection to the argument is that there is no reason that God has no cause. The Kalam Argument eliminates this objection:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(1.1) Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
(1.1.1) There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
(1.2) Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
(2) The universe began to exist when the Big Bang occurred.
(2.1) Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
(2.1.1) There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
(2.2) Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
(2.3) If the Big Bang has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a cause of the Big Bang, who, outside the Big Bang, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and powerful.
(4) The Big Bang began to exist.
(4.1) The Big Bang is not necessary in its existence.
(5) Therefore, the Big Bang has a cause for its coming into being.
(5.1) This cause is defined by (2.3).
(8) Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
The uncaused cause must be God.

While this allows for the possibility of an uncaused God, it doesn’t define it as the only possibility. Pantheism and Consciousless Force works just as well in this argument as monotheism. Both Pantheism and Consciousless Force are described attributes of Hinduism, the other religious cosmology scientists have suggested is similar to the Big Bang. The answer to the Identity of God is a simple one then; compare and contrast the creation stories of Judaism and Christianity with the Hindu creation story and see which one matches up most closely with the Big Bang scenario. Before this can be done however, further definition is required. This is where we begin to examine the Teleological argument. Using the Teleological argument, we can determine which religion’s Creation story follows the timeline of the Big Bang scenario most closely.

Design, Creation, and the name of God

Before examining the Teleological argument itself, a little housekeeping is in order.

Describing the attributes of God and the universe, as defined in Judaism/Christianity and as defined in Eastern religions and daughter faiths like Hinduism/New Age, may help us in limiting the definition of God further. For our purpose we will limit the scope of the comparison to astronomy, physics, biology and metaphysical criteria as applied to the Creation myths and the design of what was created:

Judeo-Christian
The universe was created from nothing (ex nihilo). God existed before the universe. God exists totally apart from the universe, and yet can be everywhere within it. (extra-dimensionality) God is very near, yet we cannot see Him, a further evidence of His extra-dimensionality.
Time has a beginning. God's existence precedes time.
The Earth is round, and suspended in space.
God designed the universe in such a way that it would support life.
God created life in a specific order, man being the last living creature made.
God is a Personal God, interacting in history with His creation.
Specific to Christianity
Jesus Christ created the universe. He has no beginning and was not created. (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17)
God created the universe from what cannot be detected with the five senses. (Hebrews 11:3)
After His resurrection Jesus could pass through walls in His physical body, an evidence of His extra-dimensionality. (Luke 24:36-43, John 20:26-28)

Hinduism #
The material universe is not the creation of a personal God but is rather a sort of unconscious emanation from the divine.
The universe is (1) beginningless, and endless, and (2) unreal, an illusion because the only true reality is Brahman. There are many gods or incarnations of gods, all of whom are manifestations of the one supreme being, Brahman, described as a supreme, impersonal being completely above all creation and uninvolved with life on earth.
The universe "pulsates," alternately being destroyed and recreated over time. Each creation period lasting about 4 billion years. The world is seen as a huge series of repeated cycles, each cycle being nearly a copy of the last.
The earth was universally held to be flat. The earth is supported by a 1000-headed serpent. The earth floats in a sea of wine The universe is 26 trillion years old . The universe is filled with alcohol.
The universe existed in darkness. Brahman appeared and dispelled the darkness.
Brahman produced beings of many kinds from his own body, by placed his seed in water, which became a golden egg; in that egg he himself was born as Brahman, thus giving birth to himself.
Brahman resided in the egg one year, then divided it into two halves, forming heaven and earth, the middle sphere, the eight points of the horizon, the mind, the ego, the soul, the five organs which perceive the objects of sensation. Joining minute particles even of those six, which possess measureless power, with particles of himself, he created all beings.

Now that we have a very crude definition of God for both Hinduism and Judeo-Christianity, we may turn our attention to the actual argument. To reiterate:

(A) The universe displays order, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves.
(B) Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
(C )Not chance.
(D) Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
(E) Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
(F) Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.

From (A), the obvious question is what kind of order. Ross assembled a partial list which will demonstrate for our purposes in this argument#***:

1. gravitational coupling constant
if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar lifespans
if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
2. strong nuclear force coupling constant
if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable
if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
3. weak nuclear force coupling constant
if larger: all hydrogen is converted to helium in the big hang, hence too much heavy elements
if smaller: no helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
4. electromagnetic coupling constant
if larger: no chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission
if smaller: no chemical bonding
5. ratio of protons to electrons
if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: no chemical bonding
if smaller: no chemical bonding
7. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxy formation
if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation
8. entropy level of the universe
if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
9. mass density of the universe
if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars bum too rapidly
if smaller: no helium from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements
10. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
11. initial uniformity of radiation
if smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
12. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planet production
if smaller: planetary orbits become destabilized
13. solar luminosity
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect
if increases too late: frozen oceans
14. fine structure constant (a function of three other fundamental constants, Planck's constant, the velocity of light, and the electron charge each of which, therefore, must be fine-tuned)
if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
15. decay rate of the proton
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
16. 12C to 16O energy level ratio
if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon
17. decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
18. mass difference between the neutron and the proton
if greater: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
if smaller: protons would decay before stable nuclei could form
19. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form #

So when we speak of “order“, we refer to the highly detailed interaction of nuclear, chemical and molecular entities in a coherent system. Since similar interaction takes place on higher levels, “order” may speak to these as well. The question is whether (B) is accurate.

(B) is problematic, because in actuality it could be either chance or design. Neither possibility is completely ruled out of the equation, although mathematical probability can help us determine the likelihood of one over the other. In looking at the data in Appendix 2, # we can determine that the mathematical probability of 75 requirements for the creation of a life sustaining planet (which is only one part of the necessary requirements for life) occurring is approximately 10 -99 . This exceeds the maximum possible number of planets in universe, which is approximately 10 22 . # And since the possibility of life by necessity has other requirements too numerous to mention that are just as statistically complex, we can safely eliminate chance as a probability for the creation of the universe, although as stated we cannot eliminate it as a possibility.

The question then remains which religion’s Creation story fits what science knows about the origin of the Universe and origin of life. Keeping in mind that neither the Hindu Vedic or Upanishad scriptures or the Bible are science textbooks, the following comparisons can be made:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judeo-Christian
The universe was created from nothing (ex nihilo) in an explosion of light. (extra-dimensionality) Light and darkness were separated as day and night. Dry land was formed in the midst of the seas. God allows stars and celestial bodies to be created in the night sky. The universe is expanding.

Hinduism
The material universe is not the creation of God but is unconscious emanation from God (Brahman). The universe is unreal; an illusion within the mind of Brahman. Brahman produced beings of many kinds from his own body, by placed his seed in water, which became a golden egg; in that egg he himself was born as Brahman, thus giving birth to himself. Brahman resided in the egg one year, then divided it into two halves, forming heaven and earth, the middle sphere, the eight points of the horizon, the mind, the ego, the soul, the five organs which perceive the objects of sensation.

Science
A massive explosion tears the fabric of space/time, expelling enormous amounts of matter across space. Super hot atoms, called plasma, heat up the surrounding space, giving off huge amounts of radiation. The origin of the explosion is unknown, although theories range from a super dense point of matter to the creation of virtual particles. The plasma clouds begin to cool, forming first clouds of gasses, then stars, and planets. On Earth, volcanic and tectonic activity is present, pushing up land masses from beneath water/ammonia seas. The Earth’s atmosphere changes from opaque to transparent, allowing visible light from the Sun and stars to be seen from the surface. The Universe is expanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Judeo-Christian
Time has a beginning. God's existence precedes time.

Hinduism
The universe is beginningless, and endless. The universe "pulsates," being destroyed and recreated over about 4 billion year span. The world is a series of repeated cycles.

Science
Although theories have changed over time, it is believed that time began along with the physical universe in the Big Bang singularity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Judeo-Christian
God designed the universe in such a way that it would support life.

Hinduism
The universe is unreal; an illusion within the mind of Brahman. The only true reality is Brahman. Brahman is described as a supreme, impersonal being completely above all creation and uninvolved with life on earth which is not truly real.

Science
Evolution theory states that natural forces created conditions for life. Life sprang forth from these unique conditions. Random chance is responsible for the unique conditions in which life appears regardless of mathematical probability against likelihood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Judeo-Christian
God created life in a specific order. After the creation of the planetary system, God created plant life, then fish and insects, then land based life, then man.

Hinduism
Brahman produced beings of many kinds from his own body, by placed his seed in water, which became a golden egg; in that egg he himself was born as Brahman, thus giving birth to himself. Brahman resided in the egg one year, then divided it into two halves, forming heaven and earth, the middle sphere, the eight points of the horizon, the mind, the ego, the soul, the five organs which perceive the objects of sensation. Joining minute particles even of those six, which possess measureless power, with particles of himself, he created all beings.

Science
Volcanic and tectonic activity is present, pushing up land masses from beneath water/ammonia seas. The atmosphere of the Earth begins to grow less opaque, allowing for a pre-biotic “soup” to be formed. This allows the first bacterial and viral forms of life to arise, which evolve into single cell plants capable of photosynthesis. As the atmosphere continues to become more transparent, the single cell plants clump together becoming the first multicultural life, eventually forming grasses, ferns and evergreen plants. The first single cell animals appear, and evolve into more complex multicellular animals called fish. The first lunged fish appears, evolving shortly into a huge multitude of amphibians in what is known as the Pre-Cambian explosion. From these amphibians evolved early reptiles, then dinosaurs, birds and mammals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Judeo-Christian
The Earth is round and suspended in space. Directly over the North Pole there are no stars visible.

Hinduism
The earth was universally held to be flat. The earth is supported either by a 1000-headed serpent, or by an elephant resting on a turtle. The earth floats in a sea of wine. The universe is filled with alcohol.

Science
The Earth is round and suspended in space. Directly over the North Pole there are no stars visible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By direct comparison, it would seem that the Biblical account matches up better with what science says the universe is like and how it was created than the Hindu account, although there are still some similarities there as well. It is interesting and important to note that both ancient Israel and ancient India were pre-scientific societies when their respective religions were formed.

Let us return to our argument now, with all of the necessary modifications:

Identity Revealed

(A) The universe displays order, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves.
(B) Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
(C )Not chance.
(D) Therefore: the universe is the product of intelligent design.
(E) Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
(F) Therefore: the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.
(G) The universal design pattern can be mapped by scientific observation.
(H) The Biblical account of creation (and other relevant scriptural references), most closely resemble the universal design pattern as mapped by science.
(I) Therefore: the intelligent Designer of the universe is the God of the Bible.

One, and in our opinion the only, objection to this argument would be centered on how the ancient Israelites, living in a prescientific society, came to knowledge of this type. While the details of that issue are beyond the scope of this paper, one issue gives us a clue as to how that research might go. The ancient Israelites were a desert people, nomads initially, and there is no account of their travels outside of the Ancient Near East. Then why, in Job 26: 7 (He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.), do they know there are no visible stars directly above the North Pole, and that Earth is floating in space?

If this objection is not legitimate, and it is our contention it is not, then the case is made from the Teleological argument that the God of the Bible is the identity of the intelligent Designer. We can now go back to the Kalam argument and synthesize the two arguments:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(1.1) Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
(1.2) Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
(2.1) The universe began to exist when the Big Bang occurred.
(2.1.1) The universe is not necessary in its existence.
(2.2) Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
(2.3) The Big Bang began to exist.
(2.3.1) The Big Bang is not necessary in its existence.
(2.4) Therefore, the Big Bang has a cause for its coming into being.
(2.4.1) If the Big Bang has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a cause of the Big Bang, who, outside the Big Bang, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and powerful.
(2.4.2) The Big Bang produced a very specific universe. We know this by the displayed evidence of having a beginning point and an intelligible order of chronology and interaction among its components (universal design pattern).
(2.4.3) Therefore: the cause of the Big Bang is defined as that which is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, powerful, and which caused the universe to form following a recognizable chronological order and method of interaction within its components (universal design pattern).
(3) There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence, because an infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause which means there is no cause of existence.
(4) Something that comes into existence displaying intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
(4.1) Chance does not fit the definition in (2.4.3).
(5 )Not chance.
(6) Therefore the universe was caused by intelligent design.
(7) Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
(8) Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.
(8.1) Of the two religious cosmologies science says share similarities with the details of the Big Bang scenario (Hinduism and Judeo-Christianity), only one fit’s the definition found in (2.4.3) - Judeo-Christianity.
(8.1.1) The Biblical account of creation (and other relevant scriptural references), most closely resemble the universal design pattern as mapped by science.
(8.1.2) The Biblical description of God and his attributes most closely resembles the description of the timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and powerful cause described in (2.4.1).
(9) Therefore the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible.

Epilogue

FADE IN:

INT. - LABORATORY

MR. PEABODY and his boy SHERMAN walk through the doorway back into the lab.

MR. PEABODY
Did you enjoy meeting God, Sherman?

SHERMAN
Boy did I ever, Mr. Peabody And was he ever nice, considering how rude we were.

MR. PEABODY
Rude, Sherman?

SHERMAN-CLOSEUP

SHERMAN
Well, we didn’t call ahead to tell Him we were coming.

BACK TO SHOT

MR. PEABODY
I’ll save that one for when we meet John Calvin, Sherman. In the meantime, If you should ever want to see Him again, you can simply go to the mall.

SHERMAN
The mall, Mr. Peabody?

MR. PEABODY-CLOSEUP

MR. PEABODY
Of course, Sherman. Every scientist knows you can find God… in the Gap!

SHERMAN
Aww, Mr. Peabody!

MR. PEABODY scrunches his face and the music swells as we
FADE TO BLACK

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:
*The linear velocity-distance relation, now referred to as Hubble’s Law, was set out in a paper in 1929, followed by a series of papers with Humason between 1931 and 1936 that verified the relation to large (i.e. 60,000 km s[-1] redshifts. This discovery lead to the expanding universe cosmological models of today.

** In carrying out his proof, Einstein had divided both sides of an equation by a quantity, which Friedman found could become zero under certain circumstances. Since division by zero is not permitted in algebraic computations, the possibility of a non static universe could not be excluded. Friedman showed that two non static models were possible. One pictured the universe as expanding with time; the other, contracting.

***For the purpose of our argument we will accept Dr. Ross’ data a priori. We refer any questions about the accuracy of the data back to the original paper.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ross, Hugh, Ph D., “Astronomical Evidences for the God of the Bible “, 1989, Reasons to Believe,
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/astroevid.shtml?main

Sandage, Allan, Ph D., “EDWIN HUBBLE 1889-1953”, Vol. 83, No.6 December 1989 Whole No. 621, Journal De La Societe Royale D Astronomie Du Canada (The Journal Of The Royal Astronomical Society Of Canada )
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html

Scientific American, Sept. 1956, p. 140. As quoted on http://zyx.org/BBHIST.html

“Science & Hindu Scripture” http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4229/in4.htm

“Creation beliefs” http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/creation_belief

“The Bible Compared to Major Contemporary Religious Systems”, http://www.eburgcofc.org/otherfth.html

Kreeft, Peter, Ph D., “Comparing Christianity & Hinduism”, May 1987 National Catholic Register
http://www.christlife.org/faith/articles/C_comparinghinduism.html

Ross, Hugh, Ph D., “Design Evidences in the Cosmos”, 1998, Reasons To Believe , as reprinted from Ross, Hugh, Ph D., The Fingerprint of God, 1989, Orange, CA: Promise Publishing
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/designevidenceupdate1998.shtml?main





Footnote References

http://www.godandscience.org/slideshow/sld004.html

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html.

Appendix References

Appendix 1
Visual from Men’s Discipleship Class at Crystal Springs Assembly of God, prepared by Tom Bryant. Listed at the next blog this site.

Appendix 2: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/designevidenceupdate1998.shtml?main



Links to this post:

<\$BlogItemBacklinkCreate\$>

links to this post
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?