Slideshow image

For the past 175 years or so, atheists have made effective use of science to attack the Creation account found in Genesis.  This is a matter to which Christians should pay close attention, for if Genesis falls, all of Christianity falls with it.

I am not a scientist and I claim no special scientific expertise.  Nevertheless, when scientists advance explanations of origins like the big bang theory that fail basic tests of logic, non-scientists, especially those who are Christian, shouldn’t hesitate to speak out.  Christians do not give up the right to speak merely because they are Christians!  And contrary to popular belief, it is not necessary to be an expert on a subject in order to make valid observations concerning it.  You do not need to be an electrical engineer to recognize the foolhardiness of sticking your finger into an electric light socket.

You may ask, “If the big bang theory is so flawed, why don’t more scientists challenge it?”  In our day, any scientist, university professor or other academic who disagrees with prevailing scientific thought and wishes to remain gainfully employed cannot speak freely.  We live in what has been aptly called a “cancel culture.”  I suspect that there are many in the sciences that secretly question the validity of the big bang theory, but they dare not speak out for fear of losing their funding or their jobs.  It is unfortunate that so few are able to overcome peer pressure and the threat of being “cancelled.”

Finally, I am aware that much more could be said, both for and against the big bang theory.  For example, when pressed, some scientists will agree to the logical necessity of the existence of something that is eternal and has the power of being within itself.  But they go on to claim that what is self-existent and eternal is the universe, not God.  There are Christian answers to such claims, but to pursue them here would expand these affirmations significantly and accomplish little.  For that reason, the scope of these statements is limited to the proposition that billions of years ago, the universe as we know it “exploded into being.”

 

  1. The big bang theory of cosmology is an attempt to explain the origin of the universe without God.
  2. Proponents of the big bang theory use it in an attempt to explain God away.
  3. We can use long-accepted laws of reason (principles of logic) and established science to evaluate propositions like the big bang.
  4. Laws of reason can be deceptively simple, so simple as to seem trivial on the surface, yet they are often violated in practice.
  5. The law of cause and effect says that for every effect there must be an antecedent cause.
  6. From the law of cause and effect, it logically follows that if there had ever been a time when nothing at all existed, nothing at all could possibly exist today.
  7. If we accept that things exist today, it follows from the law of cause and effect that there has never been a time when nothing at all existed.
  8. The law of cause and effect demands the existence of an eternal, self-existent, non-contingent (uncreated) cause.
  9. The eternal, self-existent, non-contingent cause is called the first cause.
  10. The first cause is God.
  11. Because God has the power of being within himself, God is not an effect and His existence is not a violation of the law of cause and effect.
  12. Proponents of the big bang theory claim it explains how the physical universe came into existence.
  13. By implication, proponents of the big bang theory believe that before the big bang happened, there was nothing.
  14. On its face, the big bang theory violates the law of cause and effect, for if there had been nothing before the big bang, there would have been nothing to cause the big bang.
  15. The big bang theory postulates an explosion at a time when there was nothing to explode.
  16. The explosion of nothing is nonsense and a violation a long-standing principle of philosophy:  Out of nothing, nothing comes (Aristotle).
  17. Only God can create “ex-nihilo” (out of nothing).
  18. The explosion of nothing is impossible and absurd. 
  19. Scientists explain that what exploded at the time of the big bang was not really “nothing,” but what they call a “point of singularity.”
  20. According to scientists, the point of singularity that exploded into the universe was a vanishingly small point containing all the mass and energy of the present universe, but occupying no volume.
  21. A thing that occupies no volume is not a thing at all.
  22. A thing that occupies no volume is nothing.
  23. A point of singularity is a purely theoretical construct having attributes of nothing (no volume) and everything (all the mass and energy of the universe) at the very same time.
  24. Scientists have never found a point of singularity.
  25. Scientists cannot create a point of singularity.
  26. In the beginning, if a point of singularity really existed, if it really was “something” and if it really exploded, logic demands that it must have existed before the explosion took place (otherwise it couldn’t have exploded).
  27. If a point of singularity was something and it existed before everything that exists came into being, it pre-existed everything and its explosion cannot possibly explain the origin of the universe.
  28. If the explosion of a point of singularity does not explain the origin of the universe, it defeats the very purpose of the big bang theory.
  29. Science doesn’t explain what brought the theoretical point of singularity into existence.
  30. Science doesn’t explain what caused the theoretical point of singularity to explode.
  31. The law of non-contradiction (simplified) holds that something cannot be (exist) and not be (not exist) at the same time.
  32. If the hypothetical point of singularity existed before the big bang happened (a logical requirement) and if there was nothing before the big bang happened (the premise behind the big bang theory), the big bang theory contradicts itself and violates the law of non-contradiction.
  33. If a point of singularity is defined as nothing (occupying no volume) and everything (having all the mass and energy of the universe) at the same time, its existence would violate the law of non-contradiction.
  34. The law of non-contradiction explains why nothing can create itself, for in order to create itself, something would have to exist before it came into being.
  35. The big bang theory is a complicated way of claiming that the universe created itself, which is clearly impossible.
  36. Any way you look at the big bang theory, it is ridiculous.
  37. To believe the big bang theory, you must accept that either (1) nothing exploded into something, or that (2) something that exploded existed before it came into being.
  38. To believe in the big bang theory you must accept the possibility of something that has no volume and infinite mass at the same time.
  39. To believe a point of singularity could exist, you must believe that something can be nothing and everything at the same time.
  40. The big bang theory does not stand to reason from any standpoint and is utter nonsense.  It is astonishing that so many people take it seriously.