Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Astrophysics Points to the God of the Bible MP3 Audio by Hugh Ross

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross presents the case for the fine-tuning of the universe for supporting intelligent human life, and how this points to the God of the Bible. Original here at

Full MP3 Audio here.



Matthew said...

Why exactly does he think it's the god of the bible?

BubbaCoop said...

Good question. I don't know how he could possibly come to that conclusion since he doesn't believe in Genesis as it's written. He has to jump through innumberable hoops to come up with convoluted and occasionally absurd ways of harmonizing the Genesis account with secular fabrications of history.

Lee said...

This should be fun...



Brian said...

Ross points to the cosmic singularity beginning reflected in these scriptures: Genesis 1:1, Genesis 2:3, Genesis 2:4, Psalm 148:5, Isaiah 40:26, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 45:18, John 1:3, Col. 1:15-17, Hebrews 11:3. He also points to the expansion of the universe, or "stretching of the heavens" in these scriptures: Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:1
That is why he says that contemporary cosmology points to the God of the Bible.

Ryan Hemelaar said...

That's interesting. Is Hugh Ross saying that it proves the God of the Bible as being the only true God? As I was reading a Muslim Apologetic book the other day and they said that modern cosmology proves the Qur'an. The verse they point to is Surah 21:30: "Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?"

Both the verses in the Bible and the ones in the Qur'an I think are amazingly vague and so I do not think this is a good argument for Christianity (or Islam, for that matter). Moreover, as BubbaCoop pointed out, modern cosmology does not agree with the creation accounts as listed in Genesis 1-2, so I think it's best not use it as an argument to prove the God of the Bible.

bossmanham said...


Know the Qur'an was written long after the book of genesis (at least 1500 years, not 100% sure on the number). It's not surprising that it draws heavily on some Biblical influences, just like most books of "later revelations."

Ryan Hemelaar said...

bossmanham: That is true, you make a good point about that.

But the verses in the Bible are amazingly vague, so they are hardly convincing. Moreover, Genesis 1-2 don't actually agree with modern-day Cosmology.

So I think it's simply best to use other more convincing arguments, such as the Resurrection of Jesus. :)

Lee said...

Hi Brian

I've only just downloaded the lecture, had problems the other day, so this is just based on comments here.

"Ross points to the cosmic singularity..."

The singularity is nothing more than when the current physic models fail. It is not something physicists believe actually exists.

Dividing numbers by zero is a bad thing - you get infinity coming out.

This is why no one in physics believes Einstein’s equations are the ‘last word’ on the subject.

If Ross is basing his argument on this – that would be, erm, silly.

All Ross would be doing is pointing out where the current models fail and actually using this as proof that the bible described these errors correctly – this would all sound a little strange to me.

“He also points to the expansion of the universe, or "stretching of the heavens" in these scriptures:”

The problem with quote mining and shoehorning prophecy :-)

You’ve ignored all the bits that the bible speaks that goes against modern astrophysics, and cherry picked what you liked.

For example:- Job 9:6-8
“He shakes the earth from its place
and makes its pillars tremble.
He speaks to the sun and it does not shine;
he seals off the light of the stars.
He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.

Makes the pillars tremble? So what pillars is the Earth on?
The Sun not shining? Now that would be a nice miracle, but Ross cannot expect us to believe that.

The light generated at the centre of the Sun takes a million years or so to reach us (from the top of my head). If God told the Sun to stop in it’s nuclear fusion, we would learn this within minutes from the sudden lack of neutrinos being generated, and then have to wait million years or so for the last bit of light generated by the Nuclear fusion to reach us… or something like that.
Oh, and what is this about God walking on waves? Nice trick, what size shoes does God wear?

So the bible does NOT match observation in the universe… a line here, a line there might by chance, fit, but NOT when the passage is taken as a whole and in context (something the Christians love telling me to do – read the passage in context)

Does this mean I can quote another bit of the bible that states “and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.”?

That doesn’t sound right, it is as if the writer thought the stars were nothing more than tiny dots of light, about the size of figs :-)

Take care


Lee said...

So I think it's simply best to use other more convincing arguments, such as the Resurrection of Jesus. :)

Sorry, more convincing?

I guess I just need to learn more about this argument. What I heard so far isn't actually that good.

It seems you need to believe in the conclusions FIRST, before you can believe in the argument.

That doesn't make sense.


Lee said...

Erm... has this thread gone dead?

I hope it wasn't because I quoted the bible :-)

Ryan Hemelaar said...

I think the reason why it went dead is because Kent Hughes is not here to back up his claims. So basically, I think you are arguing against no one.

Regarding the argument for the resurrection, it isn't circular, but instead it is very convincing. It's formulated well here.

Lee said...

Hi Ryan

Well, there were a few comments defending Hugh's position. Even with some quotes from the bible.

I do not expect Hugh Ross to be here to defend his position, but what about his fellow Christians?

Do they also not believe this story


Brian said...

When someone says that the cosmological evidence points to the God of the Bible, it is not necessarily presented as a logical proof that the God of the Bible exists.

If I am an investigator, I can say that the evidence points to a cause that must fulfill x, y, and z. (if it were a person, for example, they have blue eyes, are over 6 feet tall, and have a tattoo). Now I have narrowed down my field of options.

What I think Hugh Ross is trying to do here (agreement or disagreement with his views on Genesis aside) is look at the factors of the cosmic singularity, the expansion of the universe, etc. (he gives more reasons in the talk)... and is saying that the God of the Bible meets these x, y, and z requirements as an explanation. That is to say, when you are looking for an adequate cause for the stuff he cites, the God of the Bible fits the description, so to speak. I don't think he is saying, "it could therefore, only be the God of the Bible."

I would agree somewhat with Lee and Ryan that some of the scriptures cited are vague. However, one need not revert to ambiguous scriptures (which some are) in order to say that, for example, the need for a first cause points to the God of the Bible. Indeed, we could say that it does.

But the mistake is to say that this one argument ONLY points to the God of the Bible. This is trying to prove too much. One could also say that it points to Allah of Islam, etc.

Instead, I would suggest that Ross's cosmological and teleological arguments are reasonable arguments in a cumulative case for the existence of God that includes such things as the moral argument, the argument from consciousness, the life of Christ, the resurrection, etc.

Either way, the talk, I think, is worth the listen - whether you agree with his position or conclusions or not. There is much more in it than eluded to here anyway. Check here for Hugh's outline. (not sure if he covered it all exactly). Lots of fine-tuning stuff, which should not be discounted with a hand-wave, for those wont to do so. : )

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.

Blog Archive