God’s Not Dead, Chapter 4 – There Was A Beginning (pt41)
THERE WAS A BEGINNING
Cosmologists (physicists who study the structure and origins of the universe) came to agree that there was an initial moment where everything, including space and time, came into being.
The accepted view from Aristotle to Einstein was that it had always existed.
The accepted view from Moses to Aristotle was that the Earth was flat. Ad populam arguments give no sway to the truth of a claim. No matter how many people believe something, simply them believing it doesn’t make it true, the evidence is required. The same is said of the god claim. Simply because so many people around the world believe a god created this universe doesn’t mean that god actually exists. The scientific view on the origin of the universe has changed over the years but that is expected and more favorable to claiming one thing with no backing evidence and sticking with that claim in light of new evidence.
I don’t understand it completely so I won’t go very deep but I know of some of the theories of the origins of the universe. The singularity, a singularity of all matter and energy, infinitely dense, came into existence and exploded into space-time as we know it. Quantum physics allows for some particles to pop into and out of existence and this is probably the most widely held current view of the Big Bang. Saying it is the view held right now is not to say that scientists have now decided that is how it happened and they are going to stop thinking about it or stop looking for evidence and explanation.
One more thing about this theory. To say that an explosion of a singularity that popped into existence is ludicrous because of the things that pop into existence pop out of existence as well says nothing about our universe. Time came from this explosion and Einstein explained and showed that time is relative. So to us eons have passed by but to an outside observer it could be a mere instant. I do not say this to insinuate that I believe in a god or watcher, only that from a different perspective the time would pass differently.
To provide some historical perspective, this view was supported in the nineteenth century by Charles Darwin’s release of On the Origin of Species, which proposed that all of life arose spontaneously through natural causes.
Actually, Darwin only spoke of the divergence of life after it’s arrival, he made no theory about the origin of life itself. Evolution only deals with the adaptation and change of life over time. Abiogenesis deals with the emergence of life from nonliving material.
But maybe the most earthshaking discovery came through the observations of astronomer Edwin Hubble in 1929. Like Galileo over three hundred years before him, he looked through his telescope and observed something that would change the world: he saw that the light measured from distant stars appeared to be redder as the distance of the stars from the earth increased. Light appears redder when a star is moving away from the earth and bluer when coming toward the earth. This is called the red-shift effect, and it demonstrated that all distant galaxies are moving away from Earth at velocities proportional to the distance from Earth.
Something the author doesn’t mention is that the speed of the expansion of the universe is still increasing. I think another mark up to the theory I mentioned above accounting for relative time, we are still in the explosion.
I have but one question after this subsection. Wouldn’t a static universe be more realistic if you claimed heavenly origins? It seems most likely to fit with the theories that have come from religious based science. A solar system, a universe in fact, centered around our planet (as was taught by many churches and the ignorant before the evidence was available) would needs be a static universe.