God of the gaps

If *insert your favourite god here* created the universe then why is it expanding?

The expansion is so specific there’s a scientific law and formula that explains it.

V = Ho d

  • v = velocity of a galaxy, in km/s
  • Ho = Hubble Constant, measured in km/s/Mpc
  • d = distance of a galaxy, in Mpc

The ‘Hubble–Lemaître law’ shows that the objects are moving away from us with a velocity that’s proportionate to their distance, which means the further something is away from us, the faster the rate of expansion, and this has been observed by studying the ‘cosmological redshift’ (light emission) of the moving objects. Using the Hubble–Lemaître law, astrophysicists have accurately determined that the universe is 13.82 billion years old, and this points to a beginning or origin of the known universe.

There are two main theories which both involve a tremendous amount of dense energy and matter being violently released, causing a vast expansion of space almost instantly. The first is the ‘Primordial’ or ‘Primeval Atom’ theory which was proposed by ‘Georges Lemaître’ and that is the beginning was a ‘single quantum’ with the universe in an infinitely dense state. He suggested that if the universe is expanding then it must have been smaller in the past which leads to the conclusion; it must have had a starting point. The second is the ‘Initial Singularity’ which is similar in that the universe was infinite density and gravity and a tremendous release of energy and heat has been observed with the ‘Cosmic Microwave Background’ (CMB) radiation. It’s suggested by cosmologists that quantum fluctuations within the singularity allowed it to rapidly expand in a time known as ‘Planck epoch’, which is the beginning of time and space. Whilst these are both just theories, the science and mathematics both confirm the universe is expanding from a point of origin.

The radius of space began at zero; the first stages of the expansion consisted of a rapid expansion determined by the mass of the initial atom, almost equal to the present mass of the universe.” – Georges Lemaître

Why did *insert your favourite god here* allow the most destructive force in the universe to exist; a ‘black hole’?

At the centre of a black hole is the ‘singularity‘, which is a point where everything we know about physics goes out of the window. In a singularity is an immense mass that’s crushed into a small space, where both gravity and density are apparently infinite. Once an object passes the ‘event horizon‘, nothing, not even light can escape. Within the singularity it’s considered that all of the mass and space time (three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time) of the universe was contained, and ‘Planck Epoch’ began. It’s difficult to imagine that all the energy and matter within the universe condensed into a tiny space, so whatever caused it to expand, it expanded with unimaginable force to escape the gravity of a black hole and expanded over a vast distance almost instantly at incredible speeds.

This puts God in an awkward position, as black holes certainly exist, and two were specifically studied. One, ‘Sagittarius A’, is located within our galaxy, the ‘Milky Way’, and the other is far away, ‘M87’, in the ‘Messier 87’ galaxy.

“M87* contains 6.5 billion solar masses. One solar mass is equivalent to the mass of our Sun, approximately 2×10^30 kilograms” – Source

So why would God create something so immense and with destructive power with no comparison? That’s because he didn’t, I know it, and many other people know it, but theists are so conditioned to accept God did it. There’s no reason why God would create black holes as they serve no purpose other than to destroy whatever is in their path.

If *insert your favourite god here* is all-knowing and loves us all unconditionally, then where is there so much unnecessary suffering?

If a supernatural being created everything we know then where’s the compassion if he loves us all? Theists will defend the actions or lack of by playing the old sin card. The very first humans disobeyed god so he punished every single person and animal since. He promised that every woman will go through painful labour during pregnancy. Regarding original sin, how exactly does this apply to animals that unnecessarily suffer, or children that live a brief, miserable existence as they die from an illness that despite continuous attempts, doctors cannot secure a cure. The ‘god works in mysterious ways‘ excuse is unacceptable considering the plethora of ways that humans and animals suffer around the world. Be it natural disasters, contaminated water, failed crops, and many painful diseases that destroy their victim without mercy. Why would a loving god create illnesses and diseases that are capable of destroying lives in such a cruel way?

“You can’t just say there is a god because the world is beautiful. You have to account for bone cancer in children.” -Stephen Fry

If *insert your favourite god here* exists then surely the objective evidence to support this would be them revealing themselves?

Many people are Christians and many of them believe some if not all that’s written in the Holy Bible, but it’s just a collection of religious texts amongst many who all make similar claims about creationism, yet none have any basis or evidence to support what’s written. Outside of those pages there’s no evidence of any scientific explanation being influenced by a god. Science is ruled by strict observations that’s extremely sceptical until evidence is repeatable and demonstrable. Evolution is a proven fact and because scientists can’t explain abiogenesis this doesn’t pave the way for the god of the gaps or make any argument in favour of creationism any more valid. Scientists can accurately date using several methods and are certain of not only the age of the Earth but all life shares the same genetic make up and all evolved from a universal common ancestor. Even if god was responsible but the first unicellular life and he programmed it to reproduce and adapt, it contradicts the Bible or the Qur’an. If god was responsible for evolution then the garden of Eden story is refuted, if evolution is denied then that’s purposefully and wilfully ignoring facts. Theists often say that a creation needs a creator but who created the creator? The answer that god always existed is nonsensical as what was he doing before he created the universe?

“You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really un-evolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. “I believe God created me in one day”. Yeah, looks like He rushed it ” – Bill Hicks

Everything came from nothing

”Atheists believe that everything came from nothing”

Is a straw man fallacy that I’ve read more times than I care to mention. It’s a presumption that being an atheist automatically makes you a believer in the ‘Big Bang’ which theists claim ‘everything came from nothing’.There are two major flaws in this argument.

The first is if the ‘Big Bang’ originated from an initial singularity, or the primeval atom like many astrophysicists suggest then that isn’t ‘nothing’. There was obviously quantum activity which was responsible for the fluctuations that initiated the massive release of energy.

The second is quantum physics states that there’s no such thing as ‘nothing’, as there is always something there even if it’s invisible to the human eye.

Because of quantum mechanics there is no such thing as a state of nothing as there are atoms, photons and neutrinos in the vacuum of space, along with dark matter and dark energy. In other words the blackness of space is littered with activity, and just because it can’t be seen doesn’t mean it’s not there. Black holes have been a tricky thing for scientists to capture images of, as against the blackness of space it would appear as though there’s nothing there. They only know they are there because of the destruction they cause.

I quote the BBC comedy Red Dwarf:

”Well, the thing about a black hole – its main distinguishing feature – is it’s black. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is black. So how are you supposed to see them?

Take an empty fridge for an example. To the naked human eye there’s nothing in it, and it means that an urgent trip to the grocery store is required. But in reality there are microscopic organisms, germs and bacteria. Just because you can’t see them doesn’t mean the space is empty.

In regards to the vacuum of space, and understanding that quantum mechanics means there’s activity wherever your scientific equipment is looking, it means that the idea of nothing is an impossibility. Take an empty, unused jar. It seems like there’s nothing there, but it contains the gases in our atmosphere and light particles. Even sealed in a vacuum environment, it still wouldn’t be without activity. So nothing, as a word describing an apparent void, is misleading.

If you’re interested, Here are the results of a 2015 experiment carried out to observe quantum fluctuations without damaging them, but be warned, this isn’t for the faint of heart. This is some complicated science.

The altar of ignorance

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘faith‘ as complete trust and confidence in something, so going by that definition there’s no room for manoeuvre, as it’s unlikely that a mind will be changed even if presented with definitive evidence. The Oxford dictionary describes ‘religious faith‘ as strong belief and conviction in the doctrines of religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Christian theologists often define faith as divine trust in God and Jesus Christ, so even from a theistic perspective it’s without any evidence. To rely on faith, and the stories written in the ‘Bible‘ and ‘Qur’an‘ as evidence for scientific explanations for the first cause, or historical fact is no more than completely absurd.

“Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.” – Albert Einstein

When theists claim that science continues to prove the existence of their God, all it proves is their inability to reason and look at things rationally. As a perfect example take the Old Testament. God was everywhere and you couldn’t get rid of him. He got involved in everything and influenced many happenings, yet it only happened in a small location in the world, The Levant. Why didn’t he interact with any other area of the world where people worshipped other Gods?

Ignorance‘ is defined as a lack of awareness, or believing a rumour that has no basis in reality ie: God created the Universe because a book written thousands of years ago says so, despite no one being there to witness his creation, and no physical evidence has ever been discovered. It’s ignorant to take the words of the Bible as gods because it’s been claimed through many generations to be true. Faith is a glorification of ignorance as even when presented with facts, they still refuse to believe because it goes against the teachings of their religion, which is extremely worrying when the majority of people on the planet have some form of faith. Take ‘evolution‘ – theists claim that if you accept evolution then you’re part of the religion of ‘Darwinism‘. Evolution has an abundance of evidence, and natural selection is evident in such things as humans becoming immune to antibiotics., or scientists struggling to create a reliable vaccine for COVID-19. As Darwin said ‘It is the one most adaptable to change‘ that will survive.

What many theists fail to understand, even after having it relentlessly explained is the meaning of the ‘theory of evolution‘. They instantly assume that a theory is just a theory and has no basis, and even after telling them that scientists don’t use the word theory that way, they still refuse to acknowledge or accept its definition. The National Academy of Sciences explains a scientific theory as follows.

“a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses”

Evolution is a proven fact but the theory of how it happened has movement the more scientists understand. Theists can’t help themselves when they attempt to mock that which they remain unknowledgeable about. The ‘why are there still monkeys?’ is such lazy thinking as scientists claim that we have a universal common ancestor, and all life shares a genetic heritage and has descended from one species, that’s more than likely a uni-cellular life form that’s mutated and evolved into more complex structure through natural selection.

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works” – Stephen Hawking

The biggest issue we face as a civilised society is ‘religious tolerance‘, as if anyone stands up to it, they are accused of hateful conduct. Religion is wrongfully protected, and should be heavily criticised when it gets in the way of scientific progress, especially in the field of medicine. Religion involves and concerns the spiritual and supernatural and that’s where it should stay. It has no place attempting interfere with science and the natural world. Science doesn’t attempt to prove or disprove religion, so religion shouldn’t attempt to disprove science. Both are very different areas and are entirely exclusive. Science isn’t compatible with religion, as the scientific method involves observation, and repeatable experimentation in an attempt to reach a conclusion. Theists can be scientists, there’s no dispute from me there, but they cannot ever include their beliefs in their research as then their science is invalid. ‘Sir Francis Bacon‘ was able to separate the two when he created what’s known as the ‘scientific method‘, despite being an Anglican, but others claim that he became irreligious, but that’s another story.

The problem with many non-scientist theists is they don’t have the mental capability or the courage to accept that science and religion cannot be inclusive. So because of this you’ve got people like Ken Ham, who gives the illusion that he’s an intelligent man, but promotes young creationism, and despite looking like an Ape, he denies that humans are Great Apes. He claims that evolution is a pseudoscience and Jesus rode a Brontosaurus to work.

According to the Bible, humans and dinosaurs originally lived at the same time; they were not separated by millions of years. There are many biblical and extrabiblical clues that humans continued to have first-hand knowledge of dinosaurs after the Flood. ” – Answers in Genesis

This is exactly why creationism is a deliberate attempt to misinform and create a false narrative, and basically suggests that palaeontology is a pseudoscience. Dating methods have come a long way in recent years, and index fossils are used in some cases, and radiometric dating in others.

“The atoms in some chemical elements have different forms, called isotopes. These isotopes break down at a constant rate over time through radioactive decay. By measuring the ratio of the amount of the original (parent) isotope to the amount of the (daughter) isotopes that it breaks down into an age can be determined. ” – Fossil Era

Ken Ham and his army of degenerates think that people who study science, accept evolution and think the universe is billions of years old have a secularist ideology, so how exactly can anything they say be taken seriously when they don’t even know that all secularism involves is the separation of religion from government. What exactly has that got to do with the age of the universe? Young Earth creationists believe that Genesis is the literal word of God, but how can God be so confused about the alleged facts about creation? The errors are constant yet people like Ken Ham believe it’s every word and vehemently defend it.

Genesis 1 gives the order of creation as plants, animals, man and woman. Genesis 2 gives it as man, plants, animals and woman. Genesis 1:3-5 says light was created on the first day, Genesis 1:14-19 says the sun was created on the fourth. Genesis 7:2 says Noah took seven pairs of each beast, Genesis 7:8-15 says one pair.” – New Scientist

This is where the art of cherry picking comes into play, or non-creationists are taking the scriptures out of context, or just don’t have the mental ability to understand what is written. I’ve seen apologists attempt to defend the inaccuracies, inconsistencies and errors, time and time again where it’s gotten to the point where it’s predictable what they’re going to say.

This article perfectly highlights how the ignorant, irrational, unreasonable, illogical viewpoint that young Earth creationism holds and maintains. The only evidence they have to cling to are words from a book that’s been lost in translation, and the author of he article hasn’t even referenced which version of the Bible they’ve quoted, as we all know there are multiple versions of the Bible, some with drastically different translations that can completely change the context of a passage.

A branch of Creationism is intelligent design, but theologists tend to refrain from mentioning God or the Bible and make it seem like a genuine scientific hypothesis, but is fraudulent and has been challenged by the courts as pseudoscience. United States District Judge, ‘John Edward Jones II’ announced in court that Intelligent Design went against the establishment clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which meant that it wasn’t allowed to be taught in schools as an alternative to biology classes and lectures. He received death threats for this decision. How very Christian.

“God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.” – Genesis 1 29:30

One of the claims from Genesis is all life at the beginning was initially vegetarian, and I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s very vague, which must mean there were no predators, so if this is true, why are there now many species of predatory animals, reptiles, fish and birds? As you can see with the Tyrannosaurus Rex, it has teeth made for one purpose, and one purpose only.

Killing and tearing flesh.

If it was a vegetarian like Ken Ham suggests, then why is it built to hunt its prey? Despite it reaching heights of forty feet and weighing up to nine tons, it was a formidable sprinter, and scientists claim it may have been able to reach speeds of up to 25 miles per hour. How exactly would Noah have been able to control, house, sanitise and feed such a large animal?

“T. rex had a mouth full of serrated teeth; the largest tooth of any carnivorous dinosaur ever found was 12 inches (30 centimeters) long. But not all of the dinosaur’s teeth served the same function, according to a 2012 study in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. Specifically, the dinosaur’s front teeth gripped and pulled; its side teeth tore flesh, and its back teeth diced chunks of meat and forced food into the throat. Importantly, T. rex’s teeth were wide and somewhat dull (rather than being flat and daggerlike), allowing the teeth to withstand the forces exerted by struggling prey, the study found.” – Live Science

So what’s the deal with Creationism, when science clearly contradicts it at every turn? What must be going through your head to believe that book if Genesis is the absolute truth regarding the history of the universe? Catholics and Protestants going as far back as Saint Augustine have always maintained that not all of the Bible can be taken literally, and much of it is metaphorically speaking, and is worded in such a way as to get a message across to the reader. So why are there people like Ken Ham, who claim to be devout fundamentalists, but have turned Answers in Genesis into a business opportunity. I’ve always claimed that Ham and his cronies are disingenuous, and have literally cornered a market aimed at indoctrinated Americans to feed his bank account.