There were two boys outside board to death. Sabastian asked, “I wonder who created the trees.” Beau being very knowledgeable and educated replied simply, “God created the trees.” Sabastian, being pretty educated himself thought he would take this a little farther and with nothing else to do asked, “I wonder who created that bird in the tree.” Beau had his standard educated answer, “God created the bird.” Sabastian let that sink and asked the final and logical question, “Who created God?” Beau replied, “God created himself.”
There you have it. God created himself! Let me tell another story:
There were two boys outside board to death. Sabastian asked, “I wonder who created the trees.” Beau being very knowledgeable and educated replied simply, “God The Big Bang created the trees.” Sabastian, being pretty educated himself thought he would take this a little farther and with nothing else to do asked, “I wonder who created that bird in the tree.” Beau had his standard educated answer, “God The Big Bang created the bird.” Sabastian let that sink and asked the final and logical question, “Who created God the Big Bang?” Beau replied, “God The Big Bang created himself itself.”
Could anything (God or the Big Bang) create itself? You tell me if this is believible?
Thinking; not Creative Thinking
- Is the Big Bang rational? – Nothing comes out of nothing because nothing CANNOT produce something out of nothing. One of the theories of the beginning is nothing producing something. See Space. com‘s article entitled, “Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory Explained” that states, “Nearly 14 billion years ago, there was nothing and nowhere. Then, due to a random fluctuation in a completely empty void, a universe exploded into existence.” It is irrational science (but not irrational mythology) to claim that an empty void with nothing in it could have a “fluctuation”. What “fluctuated” in a nothing void? The Big Bang hypothesis is irrational.
- Is the Big Bang analytically true? – Self-creation or the universe coming out of nothing is a claim that does not hold up to Analytical Thinking as see on the chart to the right. The Big Bang hypothsis is fits the creative profile of being generative with no specifics, imaginative with no scientific facts, emotional, subjective with all of the other “beginning hypothesis. The Big Bang hypothesis does not fit the analytical requirements.
- Is the Big Bang compatible with Laws of Nature? – Let us take one law for example. Law of Non-Contradiction says that you cannot have a contradiction. Either nothing was there at the beginning or something was there but both cannot be there at the same place, time and “beginning” relationship. It would have to exist and be nothing at the same moment. Scientifically, the Big Bang is not compatible with many Laws of Nature.
- Could the Big Bang happen by Chance? – People believe in chance as demonstrated by their lottery betting. The odds of winning that ($700 million) jackpot are one in 302.5 million, according to Mega Millions and people continue to gamble against the odds. But the fact is that chance is a mathematical number and has no power to influence anything. When one says that the universe was created by chance they are in essence saying one of two things: 1) that chance is the power that created it or 2) that chance is a word to define our ignorance. We use chance when we don’t know what is going on or lack an understanding. While science may mean the second explanation, the meaning has changed into “chance” having some power to create. I don’t want to think about intellectually honest scientist considering the mathematical probability of something coming out of nothing is anything above zero. The Big Bang by chance is zero probability.
Could the universe create itself? Could God create Himself? Seldom will anyone admit the universe is self-created or created itself because that sounds 1) irrational and 2) analytically false. So, scientist will use terms other than self-created like: big bang, spontaneous generation, exploded from nothing, exploded by chance or expanded from a point of singularity. Let’s look at the science behind this self-creation claim and ask ourselves some questions.
The big bang explanation (Click Here to see other “beginning explanations) is a scientist explanation to the questions, “If there was nothing before the universe, why is there something now?” It seems to me from a strictly Laws of Nature position that both evolutionary scientist and religious leaders have viable myths for the beginning and expansion of the universe.
Science and Reason Destroy the Big Bang. Stop teaching it as science. Teach it with all of the other myths.