Monday, 25 June 2012

MSNBC article reports that the Big Bang didn't need God to start the universe

Hi Folks,

I just saw an article on msnbc called Big Bang didn't need God to start universe, researchers say. Basically the argument holds that the Big Bang could have come from "nothing" due to the laws of gravity. I promised myself when I first started this blog that I would try to keep my posts as short as possible (people have busy days and don't have the energy to read through long rants).

Anyways, the first problem with this is that this argument isn't new, it has been rehashed over and over again and made popular by Stephen Hawking. The argument is very problematic as it is a blatant attempt at equivocating the term "nothing" in physics. For your regular non-physicist, "nothing" usually connotes the ontological non-being, i.e. absolute nothing (zip, nada!). However, in physics "nothing" does not mean that at all! It actually refers to a pure state of vacuum energy. In other words, "nothing" is a point where all the positive and negative energy of the universe balance out and the net energy of the universe becomes zero. This, however, has absolutely nothing to do with the ontological state of non-being (absolute nothing). To consider this state of energy as really nothing would be the equivalent of thinking that I have $8 in my pocket, but I also owe $8 to UPS. Since the net sum of both is $0,  there is, therefore, no money in this situation. Well try telling that to UPS because they were willing to take me to court for that $8 (the reason I owed them that money was because the UPS guy at the door didn't charge me the full amount for my package - it's a customs thing).

Anyway, even the smallest peak into the concept of nothing in physics on wikipedia will confirm this. What is most disturbing, however, is that the clowns that are writing these articles know very well that they are equivocating the term "nothing" (and so does the msnbc reporter). So this gets me thinking, are certain parts of the mass media in collusion with certain parts of the scientific establishment in promoting an atheistic agenda? The answer here is quite clear and even a retard can figure it out.

For those who are interested, please see the following youtube debate on the subject where William Lane Craig completely trashes and humiliates the atheist physicist  Lawrence Krauss on the evidence for God and exposes his slick deceptions and lies. You can see another debate of Craig's on whether or not Stephen Hawking has eliminated God (his opponent, like Krauss, gets humiliated).

Finally, for those who don't have the time or energy to sit down and watch these debates, see the following 2 minute clip on the subject:


  1. Great post!

    I prefer this beautiful debate:

    Tradition of the Myrobalan Fruit

  2. The funny thing is, no matter how many people correct these guys, they will probably never acknowledge that they made an error (probably because it was deliberate). So much for being super-ultra-rational freethinkers.

  3. I agree with you. However, one can still point out that the laws of physics didn't have a cause and that they are eternal, thus not needing God, thus they can be use as an argument against God's existence or at least that God created everything. That's something I still struggle to this day.

    As for the media trying to conform to an atheist agenda? Not really, they just want a sensasionalist story, which is provided by this. The same with all those truth about Jesus and christian conspiracies programs, books, newstories, etc, etc. It pulls the audience in.

    1. The laws of physics are only explanations of natural phenomena (and is at most a formal cause), I don't see how this is relevant for efficient causes like the First Cause (God) argument (which is what is needed for existence). See the following quotation from Stephen Barr:

      "The laws of physics are proposed by some, as brought out by Furgesson, as constituting a "final cause" in place of God. This view is actually suggestive of an inversion and can be turned around into an argument for the existence of God."

      Barr states "The more serious problem with this idea of laws of physics as necessary first casue is that it is based on an elementary confusion. At most the laws of physics could be said to be the 'formal cause' of the physical universe, whereas by first cause is meant efficient cause, the cause of its very existence. Hawking himself asked percisely the right question when he wrote 'even if there is only one possible unified theory is it just a set of rules and equations? What is it that breaths fire into the equassions and makes a universe for them to descirbe? The usual approach of science constutcing a methematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.' That is decisive--crushing...." (in First Things)