Astronomers tell us that the universe is expanding. If you go back in time, the universe will get smaller and smaller. And if you go back far enough, the universe is condensed into a single point. At this “point,” all physical laws will no longer work, and physicists call it a singularity. Big Bang theory tells us that the universe started from this singularity and expanded rapidly into the universe we live in today, and it is still continuously expanding.
Theories such as the Big Bang and the theory of evolution cannot be proven scientifically as they are singular events that cannot be repeated or verified. However, there is ample evidence to support the Big Bang theory. In 1948, Physicists predicted the existence of a three-degree Kelvin (that is, -270 degree Celsius below freezing) background radiation as a remnant of the Big Bang. Back then, the big bang theory was not the mainstream scientific theory, and most physicists had forgotten this prediction and weren’t actively looking for it. In 1964, scientists at Bell Laboratories developed a highly sensitive antenna, but the original intention wasn’t to detect cosmic background radiation. They had to eliminate all forms of interference from other sources to improve the antenna’s sensitivity. Despite their efforts to eliminate all known noise sources, they found that they were consistently observing some background signals in all directions. After searching for an explanation for this background radiation, they realized that they had stumbled upon a significant discovery – the background noise they were trying to eliminate was actually the cosmic background radiation that the big bang theory had predicted. Eventually, they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery. Observation of these three Kelvin-degree background radiation sealed the deal for the big bang theory, and it is a classic example of exploration verifying a theory. Today big bang theory is considered a well-established theory, and most physicists believe in it. However, what happened at the first tiny fraction of a second is still under debate.
The “God of the gaps” perspective is a theological perspective that relies on the idea that scientific gaps in knowledge are proof or evidence of God’s existence. This perspective assumes that if science cannot explain something, it must be God’s work. Many Christians believe that God started the big bang and that time and space were created during the big bang, similar to what is described in Genesis, which says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Thus, some Christians see the big bang starter as evidence of God’s existence, an example of the “God of the gaps” perspective.
Stephen Hawking, a prominent physicist who made significant contributions to the study of black holes and the big bang theory, proposed a new hypothesis that instead of a single point at the beginning of time, there may have been a round shape with no singularity or boundary conditions. According to this theory, time and space are always present, and God does not need to start the big bang, just as there is nothing further south from the South Pole. This idea caused a stir both in the Christian and scientific communities when presented in his book, “A Brief History of Time.” Although Hawking’s theory is highly speculative and lacks evidence, some people have questioned whether God is still necessary to explain the big bang or if God is dead. However, if one’s faith is based on the idea of God creating the big bang, it can be difficult to accept the idea that God is no longer needed to explain it.
The danger of the God of the gaps theory is that when science eventually provides explanations for previously unanswerable questions, there may no longer be a need to invoke God to explain them. This can lead to the false conclusion that God does not exist. Therefore, it is important to avoid using God to explain gaps in scientific knowledge and instead embrace the idea that science and faith can coexist.
The arguments presented on this website may resemble the God of the Gaps theory to some readers. However, there is a distinction between using a scientific gap to justify the existence of God and making bold assumptions to develop a model that allows for a greater comprehension of God. The latter approach provides valuable insights, and I am willing to acknowledge any errors and adjust or abandon my models accordingly.