Truth or Consequences-pt 2

Truth or Consequences-pt 2

In part one ( )  I establish that truth can be known.  In fact, it is undeniable.  Which then brings us to a question about religions; cannot they all be true?  Religious beliefs cannot all be true, because many religious beliefs are contradictory – they teach opposites.  World religions have more contradictory beliefs then complementary ones.  The notion that all religions teach basically the same thing – that we ought to love one another – demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of world religions.  Most religions and you have some kind of moral code that is similar, because God has implanted right and wrong in our consciences.  They disagree on virtually every other major issue, including the nature of God, the nature of man, sin,  what is salvation, is there a heaven and hell, and then of course the big one creation.

Most religions have some beliefs that are true, not all religious beliefs can be true because they are mutually exclusive – they teach opposite.  Therefore, that leaves us with the fact that some religious beliefs must be wrong.  However, here in America were not supposed to say things like that, we are supposed to be “tolerant” of all religious beliefs.  Moreover, tolerance no longer means to put up with something you believe to be false, tolerance now means that you are supposed to accept every belief as true.  The belief that all religions are true is known as pluralism.  As you can imagine there are several problems with this particular concept or definition of tolerance.

There are dangers in religious intolerance that does not mean we ought to embrace the impossible notion that all religious beliefs are true.  We have determined that mutually exclusive religious police cannot be true, so why pretend.  To frame it in a different light we can say, if Christianity is true, that is dangerous to your eternal destiny not to be a Christian.  In addition, if Islam is true, that is dangerous to your eternal destiny not be a Muslim.

Pluralists believe that you should not question anybody’s religious belief, but that logically is false because that in and of itself is a religious belief that can be questioned.  Therefore, pluralists are just as dogmatic and close minded as anyone else who tries to make truth claims for everyone, besides being an absolute moral position against questioning religious beliefs.  Pluralists – advocates of the new tolerance – ironically, “tolerate” those who already agree with them, it does not sound like the definition of tolerance to me.

The pluralists prohibition against judging is false because it fails to meet its own standard: “you ought not judge” is, in and of itself, a judgment.  The issue is not so much, whether or not we make judgments but should be whether or not we make you are right judgments.

We should respect the rights of others to believe what they want.  However, we would be foolish and maybe even unloving, to tactility except every religious belief is true.  Why?  Because if Christianity were true, then it would be unloving to suggest to anyone that opposing religious beliefs are true.  Agreeing with their beliefs might keep them on the road to damnation.  If Christianity is true, we ought to kindly tell them the truth because only the truth can set them free.  Unfortunately, many of those who deny that there is truth in religion are not actually blind, but only willfully blind.  If we open our eyes and stop hiding behind the self-defeating nonsense, that the truth cannot be known, then will be able to see the truth as well, and not just truth in the areas where we would prefer –money, relationships, health, etc. – but truth in religion also.

“People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”  Blaise Pascal

Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”  Albert Einstein

The above are quotations from two of the most intelligent and highly regarded scientific individuals of all time.  However, Einstein had a problem with his General Theory of Relativity.  Moreover, that was not what he wanted- it showed an expanding universe and Einstein wanted a static universe.  Since at that time, very few scientists were as smart as Einstein and were still trying to understand his Special Relativity and now his General Theory of Relativity, he did what we are finding out is a common problem with secular scientist’s today- he created a “fudge factor.”  He, completely out of the blue, created a constant and did what even third graders know you are not supposed to do and that was to divide by zero.

That was in 1916, when his calculations reveled a definite beginning to all time, all matter and all space.  Einstein called his discovery “irritating.”  In 1919, British cosmologist Arthur Eddington confirmed General Relativity with an experiment conducted during a solar eclipse.

In 1922 a Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann had official exposed the error in Einstein’s calculations. A Dutch astronomer Wilem de Sitter deduced that the Theory of General Relativity required the universe to be expanding and in 1927 it was actually observed to be expanding by Edwin Hubble of whom the space telescope is named after.

Hubble had discovered a “red shift” in the light from every observable galaxy, and the calculations showed that it meant that those galaxies were moving away from us – expanding from a single point in the distant past.  This has been known as Hubble’s Law (which means it has passed the theory stage and now is what is used by all the astrophysicists as they continue to understand the universe).

Einstein went to Mount Wilson to visit Hubble to see for himself and admitted that the cosmological constant he had created was his biggest mistake.  Then he said that he wanted “to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.”[1]  As “irritating” as it seemed to Einstein, the Theory of General Relativity is one of the strongest evidence for a theistic God.  It is one of the oldest formal arguments-the Cosmological Argument-for a theistic God.

The Cosmological Argument is the argument FROM the beginning of the universe. If the universe had a beginning, then the universe had a cause. In logical form, the argument goes like this:

  1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
  2. The universe had a beginning.
  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

If the argument is true it has to be logically valid, and its premises must be true. This is a valid argument but are the premises true?

Premise 1 Everything that had a beginning had a cause- is the Law of Causality. Francis Bacon (often called the father of modern science) has said “True knowledge is knowledge by causes.” [2]  That is what science is-a search for causes-to try to find out what causes what.  The great skeptic David Hume once wrote, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause.” [3] If you think rationally (admitted there are some who are not committed to institutions that do not) you are putting together thoughts (causes) that then result in conclusions (the effects) that you make.

The Law of Causality is well established and undeniable (if you can think of something that is uncaused, I would like to talk with you).  So premise 1 is obviously true.

That leaves us to Premise 2:  Did the universe have a beginning?  If not then no cause was needed.  If it did have a beginning, then it had to have a cause- whether you want to believe it or not.

There are five reasons why the universe had a beginning.  We will discuss two of them in this article and will finish the remainder in Truth or Consequences pt 3.

  • The Second Law of Thermodynamics
  • The Universe has been proven to be expanding
  • Radiation from the initial beginning
  • The speed of the great galaxy
  • Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity (revisited and expanded upon.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

To get to the Second law we have to first understand the First Law of Thermodynamics.  It is often misstated as “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.”  That is a philosophical assertion, not an empirical observation.  Nobody was around at that time to see that energy was not created.  As far as accurate observations would go, the First Law of Thermodynamics can be better defined  as  “the total amount of energy in the universe (both usable and unusable energy) remains constant.”  In other words, as usable energy is consumed, it is converted into unusable energy, but the sum of the two remains the same.  Only the proportion of usable to unusable energy changes.

The universe has only a finite amount of energy.  If the universe were infinite, we would be out of energy by now.  Therefore, the universe is not eternal-it had a beginning.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also known as the Law of Entropy. The basically means that nature tends to bring itself to disorder.  As time goes on “things” both natural and man-made have a tendency to fall apart. Which brings up what seems to be a circular question: if the universe is becoming less ordered, then where did the original order come from that enabled it to become less ordered? This point also brings up more proof that the universe cannot be eternal, if it was we would have reached complete disorder (entropy) by now.


The Universe Is Expanding

It is important to know and understand that the universe is not expanding into empty space, but that space itself is expanding- there was no space before the creation or the “Big Bang.”  And that there was no existing matter or material for the universe to emerge from. There was no “befores” the “Big Bang,” no time, no space, no matter.  NOTHING, there was no something.

This is a VERY BIG PROBLEM for Atheists and non-believers. Dr. Peter Atkins in a debate stated, “Now we go back in time beyond the moment of creation to when there was no time and to where there was no space.  At this time before time, there was a swirling dust of mathematical points which recombine again and again and again and finally come by trial and error to form our space time universe.” [4] That is a fine example of pop-metaphysics. It is a made up explanation- there is no scientific evidence supporting that wild idea.  What is a mathematical point anyway?  Isn’t math a thought and not a physical concept?  How can it form a swirling cloud of dust?  Moreover, it is self-contradictory because it assumes time and space before there was time and space.

What is nothing? Aristotle defined as “nothing is what rocks dream about!”  The nothing from which the universe emerged from is not ‘mathematical points” as Atkins suggested or “positive and negative “energy as Isaac Asimov once wrote about[5].



This was discovered by accident in 1965 when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected strange radiation on their antenna at a Bell Laboratory. Originally, they thought the strange results was from bird droppings on the antenna because no matter where they aimed it, they got the same results.  This discovery (not the droppings but the background radiation) won them Nobel prizes.  It has been described as the afterglow from the Big Bang.

This so called “afterglow” is actually light and heat from the initial explosion.  The light is no longer visible because its wavelength has been stretched by the expanding universe to wavelengths slightly shorter than those produced by a microwave oven.

This radiation was predicted in 1948 but nobody searched for it until these two men from Bell Labs stumbled upon it.  It proves that the universe is not in a steady state.  Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow put it this way: “No explanation other than the Big Bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed. At the present time, the Big Bang theory has no competitors.[6]


That is the three I mentioned, the next article will go into more detail after talking about:

  • The speed of the great galaxy
  • Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity (revisited and expanded upon.

Until then…………

[1] Quoted in Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Wheeling, Ill.: Daystar, 2000), 135.

[2] Francis Bacon, The New Organon (1620; reprint, Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1960), 121.

[3] David Hume, in J. Y. T. Greig, ed., The Letters of David Hume, 2 vols. (New York: Garland, 1983), 1: 187..

[4] The entire debate is available on video at

[5] Isaac Asimov, Beginning and End (New York: Doubleday, 1977), 148.

[6] Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.