Theism vs. Atheism Watch: A Visual Analogy for God’s Creation of the Universe? Or Just Some Curious Coincidences Born of Matter in Motion?

The following brief YouTube video strikes me as an analogy for what the universe is actually doing (passing from a lower entropy state to a higher entropy state with lots of curious patterns appearing along the way). 

See if you agree.


Loading the pendulum balls with energy and order (that is, raising them up into a precisely calibrated line) and releasing them to play out so fabulously is a striking example of what God did in the release of matter at the Big Bang (if you’re willing to entertain the idea that God exists).

If, of course, God does not exist, then the order and laws of physics governing the initial conditions of the Big Bang—and how they would play out—are the products of chance and without purpose: hydrogen atoms in a particular order, on their way to cooling and dissipating to an ultimate stillness, just happen to pass through the curious patterns of stars, planets—and us.

But whooda thunk it?

Maybe nobody did in advance.

Or maybe someone did.

What say you?

About Santi Tafarella

I teach writing and literature at Antelope Valley College in California.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Theism vs. Atheism Watch: A Visual Analogy for God’s Creation of the Universe? Or Just Some Curious Coincidences Born of Matter in Motion?

  1. underu says:

    I have to say that God has to exist, because he is the one that created the flow of physics and science, moving onto creating its laws. The Big Band Theory to me is impossible without someone (like God) making something from it. It is impossible to create something from NOTHING. Why not try and create a solid brick from slushy mud. Throw it in the air and see how it goes. Oh yes, nothing! There is method to everything we do, and therefore God had a method!

  2. It always baffles me how creations contradict themselves and do not even seem to realize it. Then apply attributes to god, but refuse to apply the same attributes to the universe. Then cap it off with a complete misunderstanding of the big bang theory.

    You say that it is impossible for something to come from nothing and that is why god had to of created the universe. Well, where did god come from? The typical answer is “well, he has just always existed.” Why, then, can you not say that what we see as the universe has always existed? The big bang theory does NOT say that the universe came from nothing. Quite the opposite actually. What we know as the universe was a hot, dense point that then exploded. Thermodynamics tells us that matter is neither created nor destroyed. Thus, the energy of this hot, dense point always existed and the way we see the universe today is simply that energy in a very different state. Think cocoon to butterfly if you want a common analogy.

    Trying to express your belief in god in the way you did shows a few things. That you do not understand the basics of the big bang, that you do not understand basic physics – or even believe it for that matter since we can prove out conservation of energy in any elementary school science classroom – and willing to apply what we can prove through science (energy conservation again) to god but not to the universe where we know it already applies.

    If this is merely an education issue, then I suggest you do a little reading and reform your opinion. If you really did already know the stuff I wrote above, then your explanation of your belief is nothing other than a convenient lie of misrepresentation to make your opinion seem informed. The ONLY thing belief in God can boil down to is that you choose to believe in God .. there is no evidence to present, no data to back your belief, just your belief. And that is cool. If that makes you happy, then I am happy for you.

    • Peter says:

      Hi, Jared,
      You are ignoring the possibility that since God always Existed, that God is the source of the same energy that always existed. Since energy can create mass and vice versa- > E = mc2. God used its dynamic energy to create the Universe. The original Poster in no way said that the energy had a begining, of course, if the source of that energy is God who had not a begining, that the existence of God is compatible with the law of conservation of energy.
      Elementary thinking enables you to understand elementary physics…

  3. Cody Deitz says:

    Interesting post. Although there are cetainly some interesting patterns that occur in the world of physics, positing a god at the head of it all solves nothing. Creating a god to act as the ultimate “starter” of anything is little more than a convenient transcendental signified to answer questions we’re still unable to answer ourselves.

  4. Dushun says:

    A resolve you might find interesting to this dispute. If so, please follow up to the site…
    If and only if the ancient writings of genesis 1 is the lone origin to the entire controversy of creation and evolution then, A Firmament is the resolve. It is the visible verification that declares the truth of God’s testament, His hands work. Our inability to clearly see the firmament however, is the dilemma to our unity. It has been lost in translation and we have fallen away to the origin of the universe as if it is the proclamation of His account.
    The statement of faith is God of the universe, meaning; He created the universe in X amount of days. But not according to the source of the entire dispute, that has become the great debate and a public display of controversy, speculation and confusion that ‘truth’ would not be the author of.
    Consider this; regardless of ‘how’ the origin of the universe became; whether it evolved or whether a God created it, either way, it only evolved to a huge formless and void mass of rock, suspended in space, covered entirely with water, from which the documented record of the account begins…
    Therefore, the true question is this: What are we believing a God to have made, relevant to our existence here on this planet He called the ‘dry’ earth? It can’t be the universe…
    Because until or unless a firmament was made in the midst of the waters (an alleged mystery) this huge mass of rock would STILL be formless and void, suspended in space under water and furthermore, in a state or condition that was impossible to sustain life as we know it here on this planet to date, thereby rendering mans history nonexistent.
    Anything prior to this divide is irrelevant to the possibility of mans inhabitance. Nor is there any such record to testify of anything prior to this formless and void condition of the planet or the universe…
    The firmament is the visible verification that declares the beginning of the creation of the heaven and the earth; not the universe.
    This is just a brief intro of what this information has to reveal, that was stumbled across at
    Thank you for your time.

  5. Gato Precambriano says:


    It seems you’re finally droping the “agnostic” thing aren’t you?

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 )

Connecting to %s