At the very least, the Big Bang Theory finally caught us up to that which the Bible has stated all along: that the universe—time, space, matter—had a beginning. Yet, the Big Bang Theory proposes that the universe came from nothing, by nothing and for nothing.
Are we really and solely left with, stuck with, nothing, nihilism? (This is one of the ways in which atheists rob us of that which the evidence actually points towards: see The Misanthropic Principle – How Atheism Robed Me and follow up with PZ Myers and Atheist Cosmology which explains the term “Robed” in the previous link).
Let us consider a few points that conclude that the universe came forth from, was conceived of by, a mind.
Firstly, is what has come to be known as Ronald Nash’s argument from numbers. Succinctly stated, the argument runs thusly:
What is the number one? Well, you may picture this Arabic character “1,” the Roman numeral “I,” you may hold up one finger or show one object. Yet, this is not the number one; these are various representations of the number one. So, what is the number one? The number one is a concept. And what is a concept? A concept is an idea.
Where does this idea exist? Just as all ideas, the idea of the number one exists in a mind.
Is the number one temporal or eternal (finite or infinite)? The conclusion that it is temporal would have to evidence when the number one came into existence. The number one is eternal and does not change. If it changed, it would no longer be the number one and we would be discussing something else.
The conclusion is that the concept of number one or, oneness, is an eternal and unchanging idea. Ideas such as this one exist in a mind. The only kind of mind in which this kind of eternal and unchanging idea could exist is an eternal and unchanging mind. This sort of mind is that which we call God.
Next let us consider the fact that all, everything, is based on information. Explosions, for example, do not occur without preexisting information and life itself is based on information. The only known source of information is a mind (note: this is the true premise of Intelligent Design (ID) and the low hanging fruit level misconception that something is oh, so very complex that Goddidit).
This sort of mind upon which all is based is that which we call God.
As per natural theology / general revelation (the best that science and philosophy have discerned about the universe’s cause—and the fact that it had a cause in the first place) concludes that the universe had a cause and has even discerned some of the cause’s characteristics.
The cause preceded time and so it is timeless, eternal, not subject to the chronological linear movement of time.
The cause preceded space and so it is transcendent, not subject to locality, omnipresent, not bound by the dimensions with which we are familiar.
The cause preceded matter and so it is immaterial, non-physical, spirit.
Moreover, the cause is a person as it exhibits characteristics of personhood such as a mind which exercises volition: the ability to plan, to carry out the plan, to exercise will (the ability to choose what, is possible, to do).
Furthermore, it could be concluded that the cause is benevolent. How so? What overreaching theologian has concluded benevolence from natural theology / general revelation? Who knows, but, at least, two scientists have (and at least one is an atheist):
Tim Folger (New Scientist),
“Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.”
Steven Weinberg (New Scientist),
“If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning…I think you’d really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse.”
They may have concluded benevolence due to the cause creating a universe that is fine tuned for life.
Moreover, the cause infused the creation with energy up to a point. Thereafter, the energy began a unidirectional downward trend via entropy (consider the first law of thermodynamics, see: The First Commandment of Thermodynamics). For more on this issue of natural theology / general revelation see: On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.
Since we are dealing with a disembodied something we are, essentially, left with two known options: 1) an abstract object, such as a number or 2) a mind.
Since abstract objects do not exhibit personhood, has no mind, no volition they do nothing, they do not cause anything, they conceive of and carry out nothing—they are not in causal relationships.
However, a mind does posses these qualities. This is one reason that supernaturalism is the default position, this and the fact that nature / the universe had a beginning, does not explain itself and did not cause its own existence.
The very first verse in the Bible says it all:
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Consider the components of our universe:
In the beginning [time], God created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].
Consider what this verse alone identifies of the cause:
In the beginning, God [pre-existent, transcendent] created [volition, infusion] the heavens and the earth.
Putting it all together:
In the beginning [time], God [pre-existent, transcendent] created [volition, infusion] the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].
Thus, the universe had a beginning, that which begins to exist has a cause, the cause transcends that of which the effect is made (transcends the space/time continuum), the cause exhibits characteristics of personhood, the cause is a mind, such a mind is what we call God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.