Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Is the accelerating universe compatible with Hinduism?

First, a news story – and then we’ll see how the accelerating universe relates to the existence of God.


Three astrophysicists who discovered that the universe’s expansion is accelerating rather than decelerating, as had been expected, win the Nobel Prize in physics.

Adam Riess was sure he’d spotted a blatant error in his results. It was 1997, and the young post-doc’s measurements of distant, exploding stars implied that the universe was expanding at a faster and faster rate, instead of slowing down, as he had expected.

It wasn’t an error at all. Instead, what was at fault were some basic assumptions about the workings of the universe.

On Tuesday, the Johns Hopkins University astrophysicist received the Nobel Prize in physics for the revolutionary discovery and its implications, along with team leader Brian Schmidt of Australian National University and astrophysicist Saul Perlmutter of UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who had reached the same conclusion independently.

At the time of their work, astrophysicists believed that the rate of expansion of the universe — set in motion by the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago — would be slowing down as matter was pulled together by gravity. The goal at the time was to figure out how rapid the deceleration was.

What the two teams found instead was that the expansion of the universe was accelerating — an observation that could best be explained by the existence of a mysterious “dark energy” that pushes matter farther and farther apart.

Many scientists had thought that, just as the universe started with the Big Bang, it would end with a Big Crunch — with gravity pulling all the matter in the universe inward.

Does anyone remember that week that I wrote those posts about “Why I am not a… <insert some religion here>”? I explained why I was not all kinds of different religions and denominations, including Roman Catholicism, Calvinism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, etc. Everyone was offended and we fought about it. Ah, I remember it well.

Now let’s apply science to the Hindu religion and see if they go together, especially this new discovery about the expansion of the universe.

Why I am not a Hindu

  1. Hindu cosmology teaches that the universe cycles between creation and destruction, through infinite time.
  2. The closest cosmological model conforming to Hindu Scriptures is the eternally “oscillating” model of the universe.
  3. The “oscillating” model requires that the universe exist eternally into the past.
  4. But the evidence today shows the the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.
  5. The “oscillating” model requires that the expansion of the universe reverse into a collapse, (= crunch).
  6. In 1998, the discovery of the year was that the universe would expand forever. There will be no crunch.
  7. Therefore, the oscillating model is disconfirmed by observations.
  8. The oscillating model also faces theoretical problems with the “bounce” mechanism.

So that’s one reason why I am not a Hindu. And now we have more scientific confirmation that there is no cycle of universes coming into being and going out of being.

The absolute origin of the universe out of nothing is also incompatible with Buddhism and Mormonism and maybe other religions. They also require an eternally existing universe.

And modern cosmology disagrees with atheism, too

I think it’s important for all of you to be familiar with the scientific evidence for the Big Bang. It will help you with your cosmological argument, and it will help you to refute many, many other religions that require eternal universes, including atheism.

I wrote about how the Big Bang theory falsifies atheism before.


According to the Secular Humanist Manifesto, atheism is committed to an eternally existing universe, (See the first item: “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.”). If something non-material brought all existing matter into being, that would be a supernatural cause, and atheists deny that anything supernatural exists. The standard Big Bang theory requires that all the matter in the universe come into being out of nothing. The Big Bang has been confirmed by experimental evidence such as redshift measurements, light element abundances and the cosmic microwave background radiation. This falsifies eternal models of the universe, which are required by atheist Scriptures.

The experimental evidence that confirms the Big Bang creation out of nothing falsifies many worldviews. Those who care about evidence will have to choose some other religion that is compatible with what we know from science today.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses

  1. John M. says:

    Wouldn’t the Higgs-Boson trump atheists’ ex nihilo problem? I.e., a particle with no mass that draws others to it to form mass?

    • I have no idea what you are trying to say there, but the Higgs-Boson has a mass of 125 GeV:

      Please quote sources when commenting.

    • Paradox says:

      Hi, Wintery Knight, John M. John M. said “Wouldn’t the Higgs-Boson trump atheists’ ex nihilo problem? I.e., a particle with no mass that draws others to it to form mass?”

      Actually, no. Let’s say that you are right about the “God Particle” (though I consider your idea illogical –if the particles it draws to itself lack mass, how does grouping them together give it mass?); the question that logically follows is ‘where did the Higgs-Boson come from?’ If they came from nothing, without explanation, the problem stands.

  2. Evil atheist with no morals says:

    Quote: “If something non-material brought all existing matter into being, that would be a supernatural cause, and atheists deny that anything supernatural exists.” Unquote.

    If? so, you use ‘If’s’ to come to conclusions? okay…

    On top of that atheism is not something that can be falsified, you’re creating a strawman argument, first you are defining atheism to mean something it does not when you say ‘Atheism denies anything supernatural’, this is incorrect, the correct definition of atheism is purely the lack of belief due to the lack of evidence, you used an ‘If’ in place of any rational evidence, therefore your argument lacks any cogency and I don’t see how anyone can take this argument seriously.

    Good try though, I’m sure plenty of less intelligent people will fool for this and not do the research and take your statements as ‘Gospel Truth’.

    Laters, I’m too high for this shit enjoying ma weed.

      • Evil atheist with no morals says:

        Hmm well I think we are both right on the definition of atheism, in a narrow sense yes you are right, but in the broader sense it is the rejection of belief.

        The fact that it has been open to debate quite recently shows that we aren’t too sure on it either, there must be some confusion going on there.

        I mean, I believe there is not a god 100% but that is JUST my belief – at the same time I cannot be agnostic which would require that I would be unsure, I dont claim to know it as a fact there is not a God by any means.

        So where would I fit in? I think the people that are defining the words though they be in university positions and so forth show signs of lacking any basic ability to philosophize in a broad manner, and no disrespect mean’t but america’s education system isn’t exactly a shining beacon of light for all to follow.

        • Well, it’s hard for me to have a debate with you about your subjective beliefs. I want to have a debate about what is true out THERE in the objective world. I want to claim that God exists and produce the evidence for that. And I want you to claim that God does not exist (out there) and show me your evidence. I can no more change your preferences about how you choose to live than I can make you like the flavor of ice cream that I like. I’m not really interested in YOU as much as I am interested in TRUTH. So, if you don’t want to make any objective claims, then you aren’t really interesting for me to debate with. I don’t want to debate YOU. I want to debate what is real OUT THERE.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 3,948,118 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,738 other followers



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,738 other followers

%d bloggers like this: