When it comes to the Big Bang Theory, better to deny it and enrage the dragon, than God
I’ve noticed a number of Christians – including some well known defenders of the faith1 – like to use the Big Bang as a way to ease a scientifically minded culture into belief in God since the Big Bang theory requires you believe that 1) the universe began 2) a finite amount of time ago, at a point in time, 3) out of nothing – just like the bible says. That leaves a perfect opening to present the Kalam cosmological argument which, briefly stated, says:
1. Anything that begins to exist has a creator
2. The Universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe had a creator
The Christian apologists then endeavor to show why the required creator is the God of the Judeo-Christian bible. So it’s easy to see the appeal of the argument, but it’s always seemed to me like a bad idea. Initially, I was going to use this article to go through the various reasons why the big bang is untenable, and Christians especially shouldn’t be relying on it to persuade people. Things like a required belief in 1) Cosmic Inflation, 2) a 13.9 billion year old universe 3) The scientific belief in a self caused “singularity” that defies the laws of physics. But I’ll save a discussion over those issues for another time.2
Instead, I’ll give two reasons why using such an approach is a bad idea for Christians.
Why using the Big Bang to “prove” God’s existence is a bad idea.
1. It isn’t true.
Using the Big Bang to prove God’s existence is like using the tales of Santa Claus to prove the Christmas story is true. Yes, there really was a St. Nicholas, the birth of Jesus is a real event, and there is a North pole, so there are points that touch reality. But there are no flying reindeer, and no person who flies around the globe on Christmas eve giving out gifts made by elves. I submit to you that trying to prove the true account of the creation of the universe by using the Big Bang theory is as useful as trying to prove the true story of Christmas by using the tales of Santa Claus. Neither tales – the Big Bang, nor those of Santa Clause – are true, so using them to persuade people of anything of substance is ill-advised.
2. Using Half Truths to persuade is not a strategy Jesus uses
There was a time when WWJD – What would Jesus do – was all the rage when giving advise on how to handle difficult choices. Can you imagine Jesus – The Word who created all things (John 1.1-3) – trying to convince anyone using the currently accepted “scientific” account of origins? Would he talk about the big bang (From a time where no time existed and a place where no space existed an unexplainable singularity exploded uncaused into existence…), or would he simply talk of the creator as he does in Matt 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator...”
The big bang contradicts the biblical account, and so I can’t imagine Jesus talking about the Big Bang – as scientists discuss it – if asked about how the universe was created. On the other hand, I can easily imagine the serpent, the liar and the father of lies (identified as the devil – John 8.44) who delights in half truths – taking delight in speaking about the big bang – and encouraging others to do so as well. He is a master of lies, innuendo and manipulation – and the big bang has all the elements he likes to play on – elements of truth (there was a beginning, etc.), parts that appear feasible, etc. – but as always – he twists the truth into falsehood. His first question to Eve (Did God really say… Gen 3.1) was really just the first volley in an all out attack on the character of God. An attack using a typical tactic that Jesus warned about – a wolf coming in sheep’s clothing, or in that case a character assassination coming as an innocent question.
Is using the Big Bang to persuade any different? No, it’s another example of the doctrine of demons. The power, majesty, love of beauty, wisdom, foresight and Love of God are all assassinated if one seriously believes the universe came about not by a God who directed its creation, but by mindless processes whose sum total of interactions results in the beautiful creation we see today. Such a belief is an affront to God that the deceiver no doubt delights in.
On the other hand, what is it that the deceiver – the dragon hates? That enrages him?
Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring–those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.
The deceiver hates it when people stand for and tell the truth – when people hold to the testimony of the truth and will not be turned from it. Strictly speaking the testimony spoken of in the above verse from Revelation is the testimony of the Gospel of Jesus – that he died to pay for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day and all those who believe this, and trust him to save you from the wrath to come will be saved. That is the testimony; but in a broader sense the testimony is the truth that Jesus stands for. That truth includes the truth about the creation – and the one who created it.
Telling the truth enrages the dragon – as it does many atheists – as many people have noted3. I’m not saying you should tell the truth because it will enrage the dragon and atheists. No, you should tell the truth because 1. It’s the truth and 2. It’s pleasing to God. The result will be that you enrage the dragon (and likely a number atheists too but that’s not the goal); but better to enrage the dragon, than to enrage the creator of the universe. Now for those who believe God is only a God of love and does not express anger I leave you with this admonition from Jesus – a reminder that it is much better to enrage man – and the dragon – than God.
“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
Duane Caldwell | posted 6/30/2014 | Printer friendly version
1. In particular, William Lane Craig, for whom the big bang forms a foundation for his preferred proof of the existence of God: The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Here is a sample of Craig being interviewed by Kirby Anderson. They start with the big bang on the table as a “given”. Craig indicates he has bought into the whole big bang paradigm including inflation, which I consider more storytelling by naturalistic cosmologists. For more on the problems with inflation, see Which theory has the fatal flaw, Big Bang or Creation? For a description of inflation, see here.
2 For more on the problems with the Big Bang, see:
Which theory has the fatal flaw, Big Bang or Creation?
Or Problems with the Big Bang
3. One such example of Angry Atheists see:
“Why Do Atheists Get So Angry When Christians Talk About Their Unbelief?” http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/watchman-on-the-wall/41882-why-do-atheists-get-so-angry-when-christians-talk-about-their-unbelief