The origin of the universe

Everything has been written about the origin of the universe, it is a subject about which much has been said, whether from a scientific or religious point of view, both sides present quite firm positions and are supported by their beliefs. Although science always claims to be based on observations, the truth is that it takes a lot of faith to believe some of its positions; many of them as implausible as some beliefs of religious faith, wherever it comes from.

 

Well, with this writing I'm not going to rant on one side and support the other. On the contrary, I intend to reach several agreements that will allow us to improve our vision of the universe. Because let's face it, some of us prefer faith and others science and those on one side are not going to go over to the other. So, the solution that I find is to find points of convergence between both positions clearly antagonized by their followers, but more united than we think in their principles and goals. With the above, I make it clear that both religion and science are right in many of their postulates, and they are also wrong in many of their premises. However, there are many more conclusions in which they support each other.

 

Let's start from a fact, religion and science are not enemies, on the contrary they are great friends who communicate everything but have a means of communication (human beings) that filters the information that flows from one side to the other in a very poor way. But, just as there is no single convincing proof of the origin of the universe that religion can present (I mean that it goes beyond faith, since by faith I believe what the scriptures say), neither can science. from their exalted knowledge. Although there is not a single proof of life after death that science can do, religion cannot prove that there is an afterlife either. However, there is no scientific study that proves, among other things, that God does not exist. In the same way, there is no biblical criterion that can prove that science is wrong in many of the eccentricities that it preaches. Stephen Hawking, the great scientist whom many unfairly label as a great atheist and as having given shape to modern atheism, in his books little reflects his atheist conviction, either because he wanted to capture the Christian public of the world (majority), which is much , or because he respected the impossibility of proving the non-existence of a God from a merely scientific point of view. He always made conjectures about the creation of the universe, that although he did not need a creator, he left the great dilemmas unresolved to the existence of One. His greatest work "Brief history of time" ends with the sentence: the great scientist whom many unfairly brand as a great atheist and as having embodied modern atheism, in his books little reflects his atheist conviction, either because he wanted to capture the world's (majority) Christian public, which is a lot, or because respect the impossibility of proving the non-existence of a God from a merely scientific point of view. He always made conjectures about the creation of the universe, that although he did not need a creator, he left the great dilemmas unresolved to the existence of One. His greatest work "Brief history of time" ends with the sentence: the great scientist whom many unfairly brand as a great atheist and as having embodied modern atheism, in his books little reflects his atheist conviction, either because he wanted to capture the world's (majority) Christian public, which is a lot, or because respect the impossibility of proving the non-existence of a God from a merely scientific point of view. He always made conjectures about the creation of the universe, that although he did not need a creator, he left the great dilemmas unresolved to the existence of One. His greatest work "Brief history of time" ends with the sentence:when we understand the universe, then we will understand God because we will know how He thinks. The above does not seem to me, the thought of an atheist, it seems to me the thought of someone who analyzed a lot and came to the wise conclusion that there is not enough scientific data to exclude God from the equation of the universe, or that for The least big questions about the universe can only be explained from the conception of a creator God.

 WE'RE ALONE?

However, the bible tells us about another scenario, it explains how and when the universe was created; tells us that God first created the heavens and the earth. Well, that biblical principle seems to place the earth, (this planet that scientists have identified as a small particle of dust in the universe), as the center of it. Over there, it seems that the biblical interpretation is already moving away from scientific thought. Now, beyond whether or not the earth is physically the center of the universe, there is the fact that we are on this insignificant planet and it seems, at least science and Drake's equation cannot yet prove that this is not the case. true, that we are the only beings in the universe capable of realizing that they are alone. Which implies that there are no more living beings in another region of the universe or that intelligent life is at least 70 light years away (round trip time of our first radio and television transmissions and that if life exists intelligent had already received it and perhaps responded) there are no beings that pick up our signals sent to space, which is why we can be sure that at least in a radius of 70 light years there is no intelligent life in the universe, except us. Another interpretation would be that there is intelligent life around us at a distance that could pick up our signals, but they are simply not interested in us or do not have enough technology to return the message, much less visit us.

 

So by there we would already be straightening science to the biblical principle. For all we know, it is very likely that we are alone in the universe, which makes us the center of it. Since, going a little further, scientists have shown that from where we look or from where an observer is located, due to the breadth of the universe and its vastness together with the impossibility of calculating a limit; that is, the universe being infinite, stable, constant and uniform from where you look (and this may not be proven, it's just that we have no way of seeing the end of the flash of light we call the universe). Therefore, we cannot establish a center of the universe, so the center will always be where we are. That is, science supports what the Bible says from the beginning: that we are the center of the universe. Consequently,

 

Now, already out there having heavens and having earth, the bible tells us that there is a universe. Universe than another biblical passage from Job, makes it clear that God made out of nothing, and it is on nothing that the earth hangs. And what is nothing? It seems to be nothing, it is something that cannot be seen says the Bible (Hebrews), it also says that what is not seen and what is seen was created by God; Moreover, the Bible affirms that what is seen was created from what is not seen. This is interesting, especially if we want to test it against science. Does nothing exist scientifically? The answer is yes, if nothing exists and is the largest in the universe and forms 95% of it, nothing, also called dark matter, is what makes the universe as it is and not otherwise (with what the biblical principle of Hebrews is proven), It is also one of the most incredible substances found in the universe and one of the craziest theories that exist. Well, just like in the bible, nothing in the real world cannot be seen, we only know of its existence by its effects on matter; that is, we know that nothing exists because it somehow alters our reality and our universe. The latter is something a little more difficult to explain, but with this we have already understood what we are trying to prove here, and that is that it is also a biblical concept that science supports 100%. The universe or reality that we observe is the result of what we do not see: nothingness, dark matter. we only know of its existence by its effects on matter; that is, we know that nothing exists because it somehow alters our reality and our universe. The latter is something a little more difficult to explain, but with this we have already understood what we are trying to prove here, and that is that it is also a biblical concept that science supports 100%. The universe or reality that we observe is the result of what we do not see: nothingness, dark matter. we only know of its existence by its effects on matter; that is, we know that nothing exists because it somehow alters our reality and our universe. The latter is something a little more difficult to explain, but with this we have already understood what we are trying to prove here, and that is that it is also a biblical concept that science supports 100%. The universe or reality that we observe is the result of what we do not see: nothingness, dark matter.

 

Another emblematic point about the universe and the Bible is light. What is light? What does the bible say about light? the bible says that light was made exactly after the universe was created, although it speaks of days in biblical translations, it has already been accepted by the philosophical and theological community that they are not days in the literal sense of our days, but which refers to eras, stages or universal periods. This is not so far from what science says and although frankly it is more difficult to make fit as the other concepts that we have mentioned; apparently, yes, light was created nanoseconds after the universe was created or along with it, so as the universe expanded, so did light. Einstein's Big Bang theory offers a reasonable explanation; It says that first there was a great explosion that created light and that as it expanded, all the matter and antimatter in the universe did so: that is, everything that exists in it; what we can see and what we cannot see. However, as in the bible, this theory lacks ways to prove, so it is better to keep an open mind waiting for new approaches or new elements of conviction for or against any of the possibilities that may exist.

 THE PRINCIPLE OF FAITH:

At the moment, we only have to believe in what the bible says, just as we have to accept what science tells us so far. Both fields leave many elements to the imagination and there are several gaps in their positions. But for now, a creator's explanation cannot be ruled out. At least I would like it to be scientifically proven that there is a creator; only that the mere thought of that would suppose a very important biblical negation: the principle of faith, since without it it is impossible to please That Creator; by proving its existence, it would cease to be faith: by definition something I believe in without seeing, to become a fact, for which it would be impossible for me to please God. Faced with such an antagonistic and paradoxical statement, I think that the human being will not be able to prove the existence of God in a long time, much less his non-existence. Alright though, concluding that something isn't present simply because I have no way of proving it doesn't mean it isn't (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...Carl Sagan 1997). There is much to explain about this fact. Because scientists have not found evidence of a God, but at the same time their own theories affirm what I just said: not finding something, it only implies not having the necessary means to better search for that something; therefore, at no time does it imply that what is being sought does not exist. The God particle was a theory for 50 years until a new hadron collider proved it existed. Namely,

GOD EXISTS? 

Well, we started talking about the origin of the universe and now we are talking about the existence of a God. This happens because the mere existence of the universe leads us to ask ourselves the following question: Was the universe created? Because science can explain what happened at the instant of the Big Bang or the nanosecond after, but no one can tell us what happened before (forgive me Hawkins). So we have to leave those answers to a higher entity. There are no theories for a before, all scientific conventions start from the explosion of a particle, but not from who put the particle, how the particle existed, who created it, because it exploded, they are only questions that point against the explanations of science and lead us to consider the existence of a superior being, a God or Creator.

 

There is no reason to wear ourselves out trying to prove that God exists, the fact is that we exist and we can ask ourselves questions, which makes us unique creatures. Nor is it healthy to wear yourself out trying to prove that God does not exist or that it was not necessary for the creation of the universe, the only truth is that there is still no way to prove how the universe originated, either spontaneously or by creation: leaving both approaches in a paradigm of faith

 

If you ask me, it started with a great explosion of a particle created by God and that Peter Higgs himself jokingly called the God particle, later baptized the Higgs Boson, and which is responsible for the creation of mass in the universe. Well, that fundamental particle is responsible for creating the universe so far, therefore I conclude that God set the particle that created the universe to roll and that scientists have boldly found it. Which gives me the idea for another blog: THE SIZE OF GOD. Therefore, I faithfully believe that God created the particle; therefore I place God in the creative principle, and from there I believe I support everything that science says about what happened after that first event, doing so does not make me an atheist, it only makes me find God in another universal approach: the scientific. 

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR READING...