My faith is too small to be an atheist
In spite of all disagreements that may exist between theists and atheists, there is at least agreement between those who, despite different points of view, cultivate a respectful contact with each other, but at least agreement about the position the respective other one stands for and to what extent it differs from one's own.
I, for my part, am a theist, i.e. someone who believes in God and orients his life according to him. Atheists, on the other hand, are the opposite and assume that God does not exist. Even if everyone is allowed to believe what he wants, it is clear to both of them that either there is a God or he does not exist. Of course, I don't want to be labeled "stupid", "not intellectual" or, as Sigmund Freud put it, "mentally ill", but many atheists, such as Marx, Nietzsche, Hawkins, Dawkins or Dennett, use this pejorative term to describe people.
Of course, there are stupid, non-intellectual and even mentally ill people who believe in God, but there are also stupid, non-intellectual and mentally ill atheists... Does this say anything about whether God exists? Of course not, because what's important are facts! Among theists and atheists, there are many people who observe their environment and as a result have given their faith to certain views, some to atheism, others to theism, in my case Jesus Christ to be precise. However, here too, whatever logical thinking always applies, the one who has the best reasons for a view is most likely to be able to say what is true and what is false. One reason why I believe in God is the universe.
For many years, atheists have believed that our universe has existed for eternity, the so-called "Steady State Model" (Fred Hoyles). It had no beginning and will therefore - so they believed - have no end. This did not change until 1927, when Edwin Hubble confirmed the "Big Bang Theory" with his discovery of the red light shift and put an end to this belief. Since then and many other proofs, science has agreed that the universe must have had a beginning, and will also have an end.
To put it very simply, science says that our universe was created as if by an explosion: we didn't hear the original bang, but Edwin Hubble proved with the red light shift that the parts move apart as in an explosion: Penzias and Wilson found a kind of "cosmic fingerprint" of the Big Bang with the groundbreaking invention of background radiation, which earned them a Nobel Prize in 1978. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe loses its energy, i.e. all energy virtually disappears into thin air as in an explosion. The facts that speak in favour of this Big Bang are so overwhelming that no scientist familiar with this field still has any serious doubts.
So the question is no longer "if" there was a big bang, but "how" it came about and how it happened, so if we could watch a video about the history of the universe in regression, the expanding universe would contract again to a point from which it explosively formed, but to a tiny point, not the size of a planet or a football, not the size of a golf ball, not even the size of the head of a pin. No, the current state of science is that it contracts until it simply no longer exists, until it virtually disappears into nothingness and no longer exists; space, time and all matter would also disappear into it, because according to Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" they must have had a beginning and thus, like our universe with its galaxies and solar systems, were created in a huge explosion.
But what was "before" this big bang? who or what initiated this big bang, brought all energy and matter into our universe? a considerable part of thinking people and atheists are convinced that in the beginning there was nothing and nobody. No space, no time, no matter and BOOM, suddenly out of nothing, for no reason, like in a wonderful fairy tale a universe exploded into existence.
Many people who believe in a God are also convinced of a big bang, they believe that only something incredibly big and powerful and energetic could create a big bang. Something that exists outside of space, time and matter in another dimension, a kind of "creator". In short, something or someone created everything and this something or someone is, as the first sentence of the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).
Now which equation sounds more logical, more intelligent and more plausible? Imagine I show my new car to someone who asks me the manufacturer and I say "There is no manufacturer, it was created by an explosion out of nothing". He asks me "how" (?), and I say "Well, just BOOM and it stood there"! He certainly wouldn't believe me and thinks I'm trying to make him stupid. Now your car is nothing compared to a whole universe. It is much more logical for me to believe in one manufacturer than in none. If it were different, then you would have to be really careful to do nothing for lunch, because a universe could come out of it. No, for that a person has to have a very big and astonishing belief in the ability of "Nothing", therefore my belief is not big enough to be an atheist. For me it is obvious that a car needs a manufacturer and that a big bang needs a big bang.
So, and since "everything from nothing" is not only a bad hypothesis, but is also physically simply impossible, it presents science and atheists with a dilemma that Robert Jastrow best summed up. Jastrow is an astrophysicist, cosmologist, NASA scientist and founder of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Jastrow does not describe himself as a godly man, but as an agnostic. He wrote: "We now see that the astronomical facts support the biblical view of the origin of the world". The essential elements in the astronomical and biblical descriptions of Genesis are the same. Just consider the size of the problem. Science has proven that the universe exploded into existence at a given moment. She asks "What was the cause of this effect"? Who or what brought matter into the universe in energy??? The fact is, science cannot answer this question.
For the scientist who has lived his whole life believing in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He's tackled the mountain of ignorance. He is now on the verge of conquering the highest peak, and as he rises above the last ledge, he is greeted by a crowd of God scholars who have been sitting there for centuries. It is interesting that the Bible anticipated the current knowledge in Genesis several thousand years ago.
In the Bible Paul of Tarsus wrote "For what men can know of God is known to them. He himself has made it clear to them, for his invisible reality, an eternal power and his divine nature have been known in his works since the creation of the world" (Romans 1:19-20). Given the facts that everything came into being in a moment out of nothing, isn't it even illogical to categorically exclude the existence of a God as an explanatory model? Is it not more logical to believe in a great creator?? I know that from here it can still be a long way to believe in the God of the Bible and that atheists have desperately searched for explanatory models in order to avoid theism anyway, but nevertheless I would like to take up another thought. What if the writers of the Bible were not only right in this statement, but also in others, such as this one: "For what is a man to gain the whole world, but lose his life in the process? What could he give in exchange for his soul (quote Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:26)"?
What if this verse is also true, dear atheist? You could win the whole world in this life and wake up one day to realize that you have missed the most important thing of all, a successful restoration of your broken relationship with God...