Changes

|pages=67-6967–69, 186, 204

|quote=Apart from the obvious fact that no one observed [the origin of the universe], scientists think of the Big Bang as a singularity in the past, an unrepeatable event;...}}</ref> and that has no ''natural'' explanation. Most frequently the term is used in connection with the origin of the [[universe]] (so called [[Singularity#The_big_bang_singularityThe big bang singularity|cosmic or big bang singularity]]) or less frequently with the [[origin of life]] ([[Singularity#Biological_singularityBiological singularity|biological singularity]]) and its field is in general subject of study by [[origin science]]. When scientific principles were first being developed into the [[scientific method]], scientists like [[Francis Bacon]], [[Johannes Kepler]]{{#tag:ref|cf."I commence a sacred discourse, a most true hymn to God the Founder, and I judge it to be piety, not to sacrifice many hecatombs of bulls to Him and to burn incense of innumerable perfumes and cassia, but first to learn myself, and afterwards to teach others too, how great He is in wisdom, how great in power, and of what sort in goodness.(''Harmonies of the World''; in Latin: ''Harmonices Mundi'')"<ref>{{cite web|title=Man of Science, Man of God: Johann Kepler|author=Christine Dao|publisher=Institute for Creation Research|url=https://www.icr.org/article/3751/313/|access date=02.02.2014}}</ref>|group=note}}, [[Isaac Newton]]{{#tag:ref|cf."This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God "''pantokrator''," or Universal Ruler...Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where....God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance.…It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and every where....And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearance of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy." ''Newton, I.: General Scholium. Translated by Motte, A. 1825. Newton's Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy''<ref>{{cite web

|url=httphttps://www.icr.org/article/newton/

}}</ref>|group=note}}, and [[Lord Kelvin|William Kelvin]] distinguished between primary and [[Natural causes|secondary (''natural'') causes]].{{#tag:ref|Adherents of [[Methodological naturalism|methodological naturalism]] such as E.J.Larson often mistakenly portray these scientists from their position as "freely mix[ing] matters of supernatural and natural causation" without recognizing the real difference they made between primary and secondary (natural) causes.<ref>{{cite book

|url=httphttps://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Remarkable-History-Scientific-Chronicles/dp/0679642889

| pages = 213-215213–215

| url = httphttps://books.google.com/books?id=hF24HwAACAAJ&dq=when+skeptics+ask&hl=en&sa=X&ei=imcgT7foFpPU4QS1m5yIDw&redir_esc=y

}}</ref> [[Thomas Aquinas]] in his [[Summa Theologica]] argued that when it comes to [[Cause and effect|''causes'']], it is not possible to go to [[Infinity|''[[infinity'']] '' (either there is a first cause or there is no cause at all){{#tag:ref|cf."Seeing an endless row of dominoes toppling before our eyes, would we without pause say that no first domino set the other dominoes to toppling? Really?" in Berlinski: Devil's Delusion, p.67<ref name="Devils"/>|group=note}} and he referred to the first cause as the ''ultimate cause''.{{#tag:ref|cf.[[Max Planck]]: "Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."<ref>{{cite book

}}</ref>|group=note}} He identified it with God, because at least in one respect, a first cause exhibits an important property of the divine: It is ''uncaused''. According to David Berlinski this is a weak (Aquinas's conclusion might not be definitively confirmed as true or false){{#tag:ref|cf."The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man." ''The Book of Job: An introduction'' ([[G.K. Chesterton]], 1907)|group=note}} but not absurd argument that is frequently met with inept objections.<ref name="Devils"/> Berlinski also argues that the concept of singularity belongs ''essentially'' to mathematics and singularities are not ''experimentally'' accessible objects that could be weighted, measured, assessed, replicated, balanced, or seen by any modality of the senses.<ref name="DeniableDarwin">{{cite book

|pages=226-228226–228

|pages=93-9493–94, 101, 121

|quote=You can imagine the problems though -- how do we interpret an infinite mass or infinite energy or infinite force? Usually we assume that there is some new set of laws or some new way of looking at the problem that makes the apparent singularity go away. ...Most people worry about singularities involving general relativity: two examples being a black hole and the singularity that classical general relativity predicts was our universe at the moment it began. If you try to apply the laws of general relativity in these situations you will inevitably find the same 1/x singularities I've been talking about. How are we going to resolve these singularities? We expect quantum mechanics to do the job, since it is the theory that correctly describes physics at small distance scales. Unfortunately, while we have good theories of atomic physics, we don't real have a good theory of quantum gravity. Many of us think string theory will ultimately provide the resolution to these problems.In short then, a singularity represents an infinity and we generally don't think nature is infinite. The problem arises from not having some kind of 'floor' built into a theory that keeps you from taking the limit of 1/x as x goes to zero. The way out is to apply a new theory that has such a floor, such as quantum mechanics or string theory (quantum gravity).}}</ref> According to C.J.S. Clarke, no final satisfactory statement emerges of what a singularity really is like.<ref>{{cite book|author=C.J.S. Clarke|title=The Analysis of Space-Time Singularities|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge, UK|year=1993|page=152|pages=175|isbn=0-521-43796-2|url=httphttps://books.google.com/books?ei=Mh9sT9moNM-Sswa6g5XQAg&id=aeUADsSiC1QC&dq=Clarke+The+analysis+of+space-time+singularities&q=final+satisfactory+statement#v=snippet&q=final%20satisfactory%20statement&f=false|quote=It is perhaps one of the disappointments of the subject of time-space singularities, as it was established by the definitive work of Hawking and Penrose in the early 1970s, that no final satisfactory statement emerges of what a singularity really is like.}}</ref> This is in fact just other way of saying and acknowledging that contemporary modern science has no satisfactory explanations on the origins of the universe, matter and life (i.e. physical existence) despite many scientists try, by using bluff, to make general public to think otherwise.<ref>{{cite web |title=About Deniable Darwin|url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/deniable-darwin/about.php|accessdate=June 22, 2013|quote=When it comes to some of life’s most profound questions—the origins of life, of matter, of the universe itself—does modern science already have everything all figured out? Many scientists would like us to think they are mere steps away from solving all the deep enigmas of physical existence. Consummate skeptic David Berlinski shows that all such confidence is at best a bluff. In essays about evolution using humor and wit, Berlinski shows how lost today’s scientists really are. His new book The Deniable Darwin frees us from the superstition of preening [[scientism]] and illuminates the path to a renewal of real science.}}</ref>

'''The [[Big Bang theory|big bang]] singularity''' or '''the cosmic singularity''' refers to a conjectured hypothetical state at ''the beginning of the universe'' in which material particles were at no distance from one another and the temperature, density, and [[Curvature of space|curvature ]] of the universe were ''infinite''. The inference to this state is based on the evidence interpretation of [[cosmological]] [[scientific observation|observations]] stating that the [[expanding universe|universe is expanding ]] and thus it has established a clear path into the past. If expanding things (the large scale structure of the universe) are now far apart, they must at one point have been close together. At the singularity itself, a great many ''physical parameters'' zoom to infinity. This posts however a great problem for attempts for naturalistic explanations of the beginning of the universe since as the astronomer Joseph Silk observed, an indefinitely dense universe is where ''the laws of physics'', and even space and time, break down.<ref name="Devils">{{Cite book

| pages = 74, 79-8279–82

|url=httphttps://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml|quote=NARRATOR: If everything in the Universe was to be explained then String Theory and the Big Bang would now seamlessly merge and they'd complement each other perfectly. After all, one concerned the birth of the Universe and the other all the matter in it. It was surely a foregone conclusion. Physics seemed to be on the edge of glory, but it all went terribly wrong. Try as they might they just couldn't get the two ideas to merge and then, after 10 years of struggling, something even worse happened: their two pet theories now began to self-destruct. The first problem appeared with the Big Bang. The cosmologists had assumed that as they worked backwards in time they would eventually work their way back all the way to the beginning of the Big Bang. There would be no awkward gaps, but after years of end-less refinement there was one gap which refused to disappear, the most important one of all.ALAN GUTH: In spite of the fact that we call it the Big Bang Theory it really says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang. It doesn't tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn't even describe, doesn't really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this bang.MICHIO KAKU: The fundamental problem of cosmology is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the Big Bang. Well some people say what's wrong with that, what's wrong with having the laws of physics collapse? Well for a physicist this is a disaster. All our lives we've dedicated to the proposition that the Universe obeys knowable laws, laws that can be written down in the language of mathematics and here we have the centrepiece of the Universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law.NARRATOR: The very beginning of the Big Bang was the single biggest mystery in all of cosmology. It was called the singularity.PAUL STEINHARDT: When you extrapolate Einstein's general Theory of Relativity back to the beginning you discover what we call a singularity, a cosmic singularity, which is to say that the equations blow up.}}</ref>

Many naturalistic scientists are trying to escape the inescapable [[scientific evidence|evidence]] that the universe really did begin by proposing speculative theories including imaginary time (cf. [[Stephen Hawking]]:"Only if we could picture the universe in terms of ''imaginary time'' would there be no singularities...When we go back to the ''real time'' in which we live, however, there will still be ''singularities''"),<ref name="Hawking">{{cite book

|url=}}</ref>, [[string theory]], prior and/or alternative (parallel) universe(s) beyond the reach of [[Scientific observation|observation]]<ref name="ESA">{{cite web

|quote= ESA: We seem to agree that the Big Bang started with an 'inflation', a short period of high-speed expansion. But what happened before that?Joseph Silk: Maybe long before inflation there was a Universe that was collapsing near a singularity, which then inflated again, so there was already a history before the Big Bang. Some people think there was a 'pre-Big Bang'. One possibility is that this pre-Big Bang, ''if there was such a place'', would have made lots of entropy (the amount of disorder in the Universe). And the Universe we live in does have huge amounts of entropy. That's one theory. But ''we have no understanding of how to change from collapsing to expanding. There's no physical way to explain that transition.'' Some people believe that they have explanations the pre-Big Bang, so it's a respectable theory.}}</ref> (cf. [[Victor J. Stenger]]: ''"In the scenario I presented, our universe is described as having "tunneled" through the [[chaos]] ...from ''prior universe'' that existed for all previous time"'';<ref name="WhomadeGod"/>; Neil Turok, Cambridge University: ''"And the Big Bang is the aftermath of some encounter between two parallel worlds"''<ref name="BBC"/>{{#tag:ref|The idea of ''parallel universes'' is not new and it is native to many [[Gnostic]] heresies. Basilidean mythology, for instance, sets the number of ''"heavens"'' (cosmic spheres) at three hundred and sixty five.<ref name="Hart">{{cite book |title=Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies|author=David Bentley Hart|publisher=YALE University Press|year=2010|pages=140|isbn=978-03-0016-4299|url=httphttps://books.google.com/books?id=NtG5QQAACAAJ&dq=Ateist+delusions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LWKgUezkCumF4ATem4DYCA&redir_esc=y}}</ref> According to [[Alan Guth]], evidently by applying the [[Logic of possibility]] and Gnostic thought, ''"essentially anything that can happen does happen in one of the alternatives which means that superimposed on top of the Universe that we know of is an alternative universe where Al Gore is President and Elvis Presley is still alive."''<ref name="BBC"/>|group=note}}), or put their hope to [[quantum mechanics]].<ref name="PhysLink"/><ref name="DismantlingBB">{{cite book|author=Alex Williams, John Hartnett|title=Dismantling the Big Bang|publisher=Master Books|location=Green Forest, AR, USA|year=2005|page=101|pages=346|isbn=978-0-89051-437-5|url=httphttps://books.google.com/books?id=FR7basoxkSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hartnett+dismantling+the+big+bang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvNwT_6nJJOP4gTP6fG_Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hartnett%20dismantling%20the%20big%20bang&f=false|quote=It is simply assumed that space was expanding right from the beginning and the substance of the universe "went along for the ride", and was thereby carried out of the singular state. No one can explain how, so they place their hope for an explanation in quantum gravity...At this stage it is still in the realm of speculation. ... Big-bang theory is based on the laws of physics but those laws cannot explain the important components of the model. The big-bang universe begins in a singularity (all matter, energy, space and time crushed into a point of infinite density) and there is no known mechanism to start the universe expanding out of the singularity - the equations in the theory only work after the expansion has begun.}}</ref>. Some resort to the assertion that the world was ''uncaused'' (cf. [[Carl Sagan]]: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be")<ref name="skeptics"/> while other dismiss the question of ''the first cause'' altogether (cf. Hawking: "To ask what happened before the universe began is like asking for a point on the Earth at 91 degrees north latitude. Instead of talking about the universe being created, and maybe coming to and end, one should just say: the universe is.").<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>.

The big bang singularity is sometimes named '''the ''hot'' big bang singularity''' to emphasize the fact <ref name="WhomadeGod"/> that while going back in the time towards the origin of the universe, all matter and ''energy'' in the universe gets squeezed together into a "pinhead" - a process that would make it "very, very, very ''hot''".<ref name="WhomadeGod"/><ref name="NAS"/> Hot Big Bang singularity appears to be in violation of [[The First Law of Thermodynamics|the first law of thermodynamics]] since the global energy needed to run universe has come from nowhere and the principles of nineteenth-century physics require that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Thus, the hot Big Bang singularity remains beyond any [[cause and effect|causal]] scheme and the creation of the universe is still unexplained by any force, field, power, potency, influence or instrumentality known to physics or humankind.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> The [hot] big bang singularity does not represent a physical concept, because it cannot be accommodated by a physical theory. It is a point at which physical theories give the way.<ref name="Devils"/>

''See Also:'' [[Horror of a Divine Foot]]<br/>[[John Lennox|J.C. Lennox]] points out that the supporters of various schools of [[materialism]] violate the scientific [[Socratic principle]] by letting their worldview to play a role in their antipathy to the idea of beginning. Among them are [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] (cf. ''"Did the God created the world, or has the world been in existence eternally?"''), [[Stephen Hawking]] (cf.''"the idea that the time has beginning...smacks of divine intervention"'') and Sir John Maddox, a former editor of ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' (cf. ''"ultimite origin of our world [gave creationists] ample justification [for their beliefs]"'').<ref name="LENNOX"/> To many the notion of the beginning of the universe was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event -the creation.<ref>{{ref cite book |title=Darwin's Black Box|author=Michael J. Behe|publisher=Free Press|placelocation=New York, London|year=1996, 2006|pages=244|isbn=978-0743-290319|url=httphttps://books.google.com/books?id=4IKhPwAACAAJ&dq=behe+darwin%27s+black+box&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DEPBUbS_GoKI4gT9oYCoBg&redir_esc=y}}</ref> The prominent physicist [[Arthur Eddington|A.S. Eddington ]] also voiced his utter disgust with such an idea:''"Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single winding-up at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind"''<ref>{{cite book |author=John MacQueen, Stanley L. Jaki|title=Cosmos and creator|publisher=Scottish Academic Press |year=1980|pages=5, 145|isbn=978-0707-302904|url=httphttps://books.google.com/books?ei=i0PBUe-qOoiC4ATMjIDwDw&id=MhouAAAAMAAJ&dq=jaki+cosmos+and+creator&q=repugnant#search_anchor}}</ref> The late Professor [[Carl Sagan|C. Sagan]] wrote in the introduction to the book ''"A brief history of time"'' by [[Stephen Hawking]] that ''"This book is also about God...or perhaps about the absence of God...a universe with no edge in space and no beginning or end in time [leaves] nothing for the Creator to do."''<ref name="DismantlingBB"/>{{#tag:ref|cf.[[Horror of a unique position]]|group=note}}  The similar position was in the 18th century expressed by [[James Hutton]], whose aphorism ''"The revolt, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find [[Age of the Earth#Evolutionists vs. .E2.80.9Codius spectre.E2.80.9D Kelvin|no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end]]"'' was acсompanying the onset of [[uniformitarian]] [[geology]] and [[Darwinian]] [[evolutionism]]. Their partisans however were not only ones having problem with the idea of beginning. As late as in 1913, Arthur Holmes wrote that ''"Even at the present day there exist barbaric tribes to whom it has never occured that the earth may have had a beginning."''<ref name="Holmes1913">{{cite web |title= The age of the earth |author= Arthur Holmes |publisher= Harper |place=London |year= 1913 |chapter=1 |pages=1 |url= https://archive.org/details/ageofearth00holmuoft |accessdate=July 18, 2015 |quote= }}</ref> When in 1920s Russian mathematician A.Friedman (1924) and Belgian catholic priest and professor of physics G.Lemaître (1927) independently found that Einstein's gravitational field equations of [[general relativity]] have non-static cosmological solution implying an expanding or collapsing universe, Einstein, wishing to cancel out expansion and to support the universe model without any beginning or end, suggested modification to his field equations by adding a so-called [[Cosmological constant|cosmological term]]. Few years later, after Hubble's interpretation of new discoveries as expanding universe in 1929, Einstein called the cosmological constant "''the biggest blunder of my life"''.

|quote=A black hole has two parts. At its core is a singularity, the infinitesimal point into which all the matter of the star gets crushed. Surrounding the singularity is the region of space from which escape is impossible, the perimeter of which is called the event horizon. Once something enters the event horizon, it loses all hope of exiting. Whatever light the falling body gives off is trapped, too, so an outside observer never sees it again. It ultimately crashes into the singularity. Conventional wisdom has it that a large star eventually collapses to a black hole, but some theoretical models suggest it might instead become a so-called naked singularity. Sorting out what happens is one of the most important unresolved problems in [[astrophysics]].The discovery of naked singularities would transform the search for a unified theory of physics, not least by providing direct observational tests of such a theory.}}</ref> Berlinski writes with irony that until recently, great physicists have attempted with dignity to respect the distinction between what is known and what is not. He continues that contemporary cosmologists compromised their scrupulousness and feel free to say anything that pops into their heads, uncorrected by any criticism beyond the trivial.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>{{#tag:ref|cf."When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything."<ref>{{cite book|author=Don Bierle|title=Surprised by Faith|chapter=3|publisher=FaithSearch International (www.faithsearch.org)|location=Chaska, MN, USA|year=2004|page=67|pages=143|url=httphttps://books.google.com/books?id=iP7tAQAACAAJ&dq=DonBierle+Surprised+by+faith&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z5FnT4rkLqOo4gTRl9D6Bw&redir_esc=y|isbn=978-0-9714-1008-4|quote=}}</ref> (paraphrased G.K. Chesterton) or more precisely attributed: "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense." ([[G.K. Chesterton]]) "The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything" (É.L. Cammaerts)<ref>{{cite journal|author=Nigel Rees |title=First things|year=1997|issue=69-74|url=httphttps://books.google.com/books?id=NuQnAAAAYAAJ&q=%22The+first+effect+of+not+believing+in+God+is+to+believe+in+anything%22|quote=}}</ref>|group=note}}

Some scientists argue that when Einstein's [[General theory of relativity]] is extrapolated back to the beginning [of the universe] it is discovered the equations blow up in the region of singularity or a [[Singularity#The_big_bang_singularityThe big bang singularity|cosmic singularity]], respectively.<ref name="BBC"/> Einstein himself however expressed his following views on this matter: "One may not therefore assume the validity of the [field] equation for very high density of the field and of the matter and one may not conclude that the beginning of the [[Expanding universe|expansion]] must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions."<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> [[John Hartnett]] also points out that there is no known mechanism to start the universe expanding out of singularity - the equations in the theory only work after the expansion has begun.<ref name="DismantlingBB"/>

According to [[Werner Gitt|W.Gitt]] the French chemist and microbiologist [[Louis Pasteur|L.Pasteur]] in 1864 rejected the doctrine of [[spontaneous generation]] of living cells in his historical lecture at the Sorbonne university in Paris and formulated a [[scientific law]] about life expressed in latin Latin words like [[Law of biogenesis|''Omne vivum ex vivo'']] (All life comes [only] from life) that has never been disproved by [[experiment]].<ref name="Excuse">{{cite book

|pages=143,177,323

|accessdate=02 2 April 2013

|quote=Pasteur considered the matter closed. Nevertheless, the dispute dragged on and we can detect his exasperation in the tone of his lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864 when he outlined the history of the controversy and concluded by saying:[139] "Gentlemen, I could point to that liquid (in the flask of sterile culture medium on the table before him) and say to you, I have taken my drop of water from the immensity of creation, and I have taken it full of the elements appropriated to the development of inferior beings. And I wait, I watch, I question it, begging it to recommence for me the beautiful spectacle of the first creation. But it is dumb, dumb since these experiments were begun several years ago; it is dumb because I have kept it from the only thing man cannot produce, from the germs which float in the air, from Life, for Life is a germ and a germ is Life. Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment.No, there is now no circumstance known in which it can be affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves. Those who affirm it have been duped by illusions, by ill-conducted experiments, spoilt by errors that they either did not perceive or did not know how to avoid."

|url=httphttps://books.google.com/books?id=NMAf65cDmAQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ayala+Studies+in+the+Philosophy+of+Biology&source=bl&ots=_AdLVUJ-Ty&sig=DgTuY14OElB3PW9uTfvfZBM7VnU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uhxiULPQB4SB4gSeooCoCg&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=barrier&f=false

Scientists who are biblical Christians believe that a [[creation]] model of the biblical kind clearly predicted a beginning of the world, <ref name="LENNOX"/> {{#tag:ref|cf. ''"Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements and the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."''<ref name="Jastrow"/>|group=note}} and thus this can be considered as successful testable prediction giving the credit to predictive power of Biblical message.{{#tag:ref|In the more exact sense the Biblical message in this context is regarded to be a sort of testimony about things that are believed to had happened in the unobservable past. The predictive power of this message relates to actual discovery of scientific evidence inferring this testimony (claiming the World had the beginning) to be correct.|group=note}} They warn against the danger of being seduced by speculation masquerading as science {{#tag:ref|The [[Cosmic inflation]] theory that tries to account for several objections to the materialistic [[Big Bang]] model has been described by its partisan Alexei V. Filippenko as "seductively powerful".|group=note}} and they consider cosmic singularity to be compatible with creation of space, time, matter and energy ''ex nihilo'' (i.e. out of nothing) and often cite Arno Penzias, astrophysicist and Nobel laureate who stated in 1978 for [[The New York Times]] that "The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang){{#tag:ref|To avoid confusion, an explanatory note should be made that the ‘big bang’ in this context obviously connotes the concept of the rapid ''expansion of the universe'' formulated to interpret the evidence (such as the Hubble’s law,<ref>{{cite web

}}</ref>, or later the ''accelerating universe''<ref name="Riess 1998">{{cite journal|author=Adam G. Riess ''et al.'' (Supernova Search Team)|year=1998|title=Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant|journal=Astronomical J.|volume=116|issue=3|pages=1009–38|doi=10.1086/300499}}</ref>) for universal expansion. According to W. Gitt et al. the Bible states twelve times an expansion of that kind had happened when God ''stretched out the heavens'''.<ref name="WITHOUT EXCUSE">{{cite book

|quote=The commonly accepted beginning to the universe is a modern theory referred to as the Big Bang. …The Big Bang was formulated to account for evidence of universal expansion (which the Bible states (twelve times) happened when God says He stretched out the heavens). While the concept of an expansion is not a problem, the idea that everything started with this ‘singularity’ which unaccountably brought the entire universe into existence, is worth challenging. …The Big Bang is the secular Materialist’s hypothesis of how the (purely material) universe came into existence.}}</ref> While the concept of expansion itself is not a problem, the notion of Big Bang as the secular materialistic hypothesis of how the purely material universe came into existence is according to creationist community or biblical literalists, respectively, worth of challenging. For scientific objections to Big Bang theory cf.''the cosmology statement'',<ref>{{cite web

}}</ref>, the objections of [[YEC]] community might be reviewed, in paper ‘Christian apologists should abandon the big bang’<ref>{{cite web

|url= httphttps://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_103-109.pdf

|url= httphttps://creation.com/exploding-the-big-bang

}}</ref>|group=note}} are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."<ref name="WhomadeGod"/> The [[New Atheism|New Atheists]] object to God as a final explanation for ''ultimate cause'', yet they themselves have no explanation for the existence of the mass/energy of which the universe is formed and thus must regard it essentially as a ''brute fact''. Due to the [[law of causality]], [[explanation in science]], if it is to avoid [[infinite regress]], always leads to certain things that are regarded as ''ultimate''.<ref name="LENNOX"/> American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist Robert Jastrow closes his book ''God and the Astronomers'' with these words: "At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the ''power of reason'', the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."<refname="Jastrow">{{cite book

|url=httphttps://books.google.com/books?id=1IfLYHv5pyUC&dq=inauthor:%22Robert+Jastrow%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cF9aT6TIMcPe4QSK77jeDw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA}}</ref>

*[httphttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pP8ENlWfRk&feature=related ''The Case for a Creator'']: [[Lee Strobel]] & [[William Lane Craig]] on the [[Big Bang]] and the [[Cosmological_argumentCosmological argument#Cosmological_argumentsCosmological arguments|Kalam Cosmological Argument]]*[httphttps://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_13-14.pdf Daniel Schmidt: [[String theory]] and the origin of the universe—new idea, old problem]

[[Category:Philosophy of scienceScience]]