Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

In 1916, Albert Einstein discovered the theory of General Relativity. If true, it meant that the universe had an actual beginning. The theory has since been proven accurate to five decimal places.

General Relativity supports something called the Cosmological Argument, which states that:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.

2. The universe had a beginning.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to iPatriot updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Civility has Left the Building

3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

The Cosmological Argument also has support from the following scientific facts.  1) One of the most validated laws in all of nature, the Second Law of Thermodynamics , states that the amount of usable energy in the universe is shrinking, which makes the idea of an “infinite universe” impossible. 2) The universe is expanding, which means that, if reversed, all of the universe would eventually collapse back to a “point” so small that it was nothing. So—Once there was nothing–no time, no space, no matter. Then—Bang!! All three of these came into existence. 3) A discovery in 1965 of the actual afterglow of the Big Bang fireball explosion by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson which earned them a Nobel prize. 4) The discovery, in 1992 by a NASA satellite called COBE, of predicted variations in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation that Penzias and Wilson had discovered. (So important was this finding that Cambridge astronomer Stephen Hawking called it “the most important discovery of the century, if not all time.”)

Since the universe, and all that is in it, had a beginning, it came from something–or from nothing. Which is more reasonable???

There is more evidence for a Universe-Creating Being, but space limits preclude details here. Anyone interested can go online and learn about the Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle. Both consist of numerous scientific facts. The theories that try to refute them use no facts. As does the Theory of Evolution itself.

Evolutionists constantly rail about the fossil record, which simply shows that many different kinds of creatures existed in the past. The theory says that, over much time, you evolved from a one-celled critter. But the fossil record is absolutely empty when it comes to fossilized remains of the transitioning creatures which they claim to have existed. In other words, the gradual changes that a reptile would have had to make over many centuries to end up as a crow do not show up in the fossil record. And neither do any other of the so-called evolving relationships. Not one, single example.

Until someone can show me some facts that disprove an Intelligent Creator of all that is, I will follow the science and acknowledge the existence of an infinite, all-powerful, life-giving God. He is the answer to a question that no other answer can explain–“Why is there something, rather than nothing?”

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.

Leonard Charles Young

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

CONTACT US

Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Sending

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account

Send this to a friend