1. Brief Considerations on The Origin of Creation

Reading many internet postings and listening to numerous commentators today, we get the impression that currently, few academic scientists believe in God, it is like if science had replaced religion as the only credible way of learning about creation. Yet, According to Prof John Lennox’s based on statistics taken from Baruch Shalev’s “100 Years of Nobel Prizes” (Los Angeles, 2005), over 65% of Nobel prize winners, between 1901 and 2000, believed in God. Interestingly, far more of those that declared themselves agnostics or atheists were in the field of literature than in scientific disciplines.

In this brief note I review, at a basic level, the current scientific theory on the creation of the world and the risk taken by those who use it to reject the existence of a superior creator being.

Currently, with the latest scientific knowledge, the universally accepted theory on the creation of the world, which follows the current laws in quantic mechanics, is known as the Big-Bang Theory, and was developed by Steve Hawkins in the sixties. It is based on the known fact that the farther the galaxies are, the faster they separate from Earth. When we invert the process on time, that cosmic expansion points to a universe increasingly concentrated that originates from an original singularity before which nothing existed. This concept is crucial, it means that before the Big-Bang took place, absolutely nothing existed, no space, no time, no matter, and no life.

Digressing for a moment, I suggest trying to imagine the absence of everything. Some friends told me that initially they think of an empty space, forgetting that there is no space. Others mention a deflating globe that at the end disappears, but aren’t they considering the before and after when there is no time? And where is this taking place? I don’t have a good example either and I will be delighted if any reader cares to share a good one.

It is estimated that about 13.8 billion years ago, suddenly a big explosion takes place and once the initial heat starts dissipating, matter starts forming first at subatomic and later at atomic levels. Therefore, it is when that explosion takes place that matter arises, space is created, and time starts.

When we carefully read the previous paragraph, a set of questions arises for which, as I see it, our current scientific knowledge has no acceptable answer. Where does that singularity come from? What originates it? Is there any other example known of a similar phenomenon?

It is estimated that currently the universe has a size of about 93 billion light years. Recall that light travels at 300,000 km/s, and that a year has 31.5 million seconds, hence we are talking about “only” 10^24 km. Now, from the beginning the universe is expanding, but, if the universe is all that exists, where is it expanding to?

Remember that Darwinism talks about evolution, but without establishing any origin. The Big-Bang talks about the origin of matter, not of life; therefore, where does life come from? Does it arise with the extraordinary complexity that we still observe in the simplest organisms? And how does the capability of reproduction of life itself originate?

It was the last two questions, or rather, the recent answers found to them with the discovery of the incredible complexity in elementary organisms that existed from the beginning, which made Anthony Flew, the best known and intellectually respected advocate of atheism from the XX century, become a theist.

Reviewing briefly, we have seen that modern science theorizes the existence of an initial singularity but does not tell us where it comes from, nor can it show us any other singularity that has existed since then. On the other hand, if the universe contains everything, where does the space needed to allow for its continuous expansion comes from?

And what about life, with its multiple manifestations and its incredible complexity, does it arise spontaneously or proceed from inner matter?

It is clear that science will continue advancing, and in the future, we will have more complex explanations to the theories we now have but let us remember that no matter how much it advances, the question about «where life comes from» will remain open since Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation has no scientific basis.

As a scientist and with all humility I believe that considering the absence of coherent answers to the questions afore mentioned, to accept the current scientific explanation about the origin of creation is an act of faith, neither bigger nor smaller than to believe, as many great scientists have done, in the existence of a superior eternal being that does the creation. One could think that if both positions are an act of faith, it does not matter which one does adopt. However, before reaching that conclusion, it is convenient to review the seventeenth-century mathematician, philosopher, physicist, and theologian that created probability, Blaise Pascal. Pascal’s bet is often expressed by the table that follows.

 God ExistsGod does not Exists
You believe in God (& live accordingly)Eternal happiness (=Heaven)Nothing happens
You do not believe in GodEternal damnation (=Hell)Nothing happens
Pascal’s bet

Basically, Pascal argues that even if there is no total certainty of the existence of God, the wise thing for a rational person is to live as though He exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not exist, the person will have a finite loss, whereas if God exists, he stands to receive infinite gains, namely eternity in Heaven, and avoid infinite losses as is an eternity in hell.

Por Antonio R Quesada

A esta altura de mi vida reconozco que lo que creo saber es ínfimo comparado con lo que desconozco. Usando mis experiencias, trato de profundizar en algunas ideas espirituales básicas que comparto con toda humildad a fin de animar a otros a que hagan lo mismo. Agradezco de antemano cualquier sugerencia o corrección que reciba. ________________________________________________________________________________ At this time of my life, I acknowledge that what I think I know, is minimal compared to what I don’t know. Using my experiences, I try to deepen on some basic spiritual ideas that I share with all humility, with the purpose of encouraging others to do the same. I thank you in advance for any suggestions or corrections that I receive. ________________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Antonio R. Quesada, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at The University of Akron. Ohio Teaching Fellow. Director of Project AMP. T^3 International Emeritus Professor.

Dejar un comentario

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *