All throughout Bel Canto we have seen religion, Catholicism in particular. Here in chapter eight we see it even more with Father Arguedas having a bigger role as he performs confessions with several of the characters. During the dialogue between Father Arguedas and Beatriz I noticed some of the things he was saying were a bit weird, like when he told her all she had to do when she sinned was just come to him, confess, and her sins would be forgiven. Who is forgiving her sins, what evidence do we actually have that would lead so many to believe that there is a God?
There is a lot of scientific evidence that would lead many to say that there is no way there is a God out there. As I am researching however, I find that there is also a lot of evidence that a God exists. Evidence that points towards the creation of the universe by something other than chance. The law of cause and effect ( Law of Causation or Causality) states that everything that has a beginning must have a cause. Merriam-Webster defines the Law of Causality as a principle that every change in nature is produced by some cause. This is a law that can not be disproved, it is as concrete as the Law of Gravity. With this being truth we then must move forward with the statement that the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe had a cause (Geisler and Turek). There is a great deal of evidence that the universe had a beginning and it is accepted by most modern scientists, because none of it can not be disproved. Some of this evidence includes: The Second Law of Thermodynamics, radiation discovered from the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe, and the Theory of General Relativity.
In 1916 Albert Einstein went on a quest to try and find that the world was eternal, but his findings did just the opposite. He continued to pursue with a relentless effort to try and disprove what he had found and show that the universe was self-existent, even to the point of dividing by zero (Geisler and Turek). His calculations eventually lead him to accept what he coined as the Theory of General Relativity, one of Einsteins greatest discoveries that revolutionized the scientific understanding of space, time, mass, energy, and gravity (Redd). The Theory of General Relativity states that time, space and matter are interdependent (Einstein). You can not have any of them without having all of them, which then shows that there had to be a beginning to the universe, because they all came in to existence at the same instant. There was no time before matter and space. Notice that I previously said “at the same instant”. This would lead us to believe that the Big Bang actually did occur.
All the universe was created from nothing in an instant. This declaration would disprove the Law of Causality though if we were to affirm that it was true. Why? Something (the universe) can’t come from nothing (nothing). The Big Bang isn’t nothing though, so maybe the Big Bang could be the cause of nothing coming from something, and that nothing could be the Big Bang. But then where did the Big Bang come from? Some scientist claim that it came from virtual particles that can create themselves. These particles then spontaneously combusted resulting in the Big Bang, and the inception of the universe . It is necessary for arguments sake to mention that virtual particles have never been observed, nor have they ever been created by a scientist. Even if scientists were to be able to create particles from nothing, they would be the cause, they would be the ones creating something from nothing. Technically they would be essentially disproving what they set out to prove in the first place if they were to successfully pull off this Houdini act. The idea of virtual particles is not scientific whatsoever, so we must then move on to a more logical approach. Is it more logical to believe that a God who exists outside of time, space, and matter created the universe in one instant; forming time, space and matter interdependently? Or is it more logical to assume that virtual particles that have never been seen or created, collided in one particular moment starting the onset of time, matter, and space?
I know there is no way to concretely prove the existence of a God who created the universe, just as there is no way to scientifically disprove the existence of a God. However, I find it interesting to look at the science behind both sides. There is most definitely science that supports the idea of no supernatural beings, but I want to see which side is stronger. I want to look more from the atheistic side as I move forward. Can I find scientific evidence that would result in less faith being needed to believe in the universe being self-existent, or will I end up with the same results as Einstein?