Many believe that with the Big Bang theory, it would be possible to explain the origins of the universe, only with natural laws, and without the annoying idea of a really-existing God.
But is it true that we can actually do that?
Let’s see how that goes. Even my dog knows that Big Bang is associated with a large explosion that would have caused the universe and so… everything else.
A few decades ago, someone discovered that galaxies would move away from each other with an effect they called Red Shift. This movement would be quite similar to an explosion of galaxies.
So the atheist scientists (or scient-atheists as we will call them from here on), have deduced that in the past the galaxies would have been closer to each other. By backwarding that movement, they deducted that in the beginning the whole universe was compressed into a single point. That is what they call: singularity. It is not a single woman looking for a husband, but an ideal and mysterious state of the universe, which inspires the imagination and creativity of scient-atheists. In the singularity, the whole universe is compressed into a single point with infinite density. ChatGPT says that here, the laws of physics are different from how we know them.
This makes the singularity incomprehensible (and convenient) for scient-atheists. Here space, time and energy would lose their meaning. In a state everything is possible. This is their argument: since we cannot understand the singularity, then everything is possible in it… But one day, a scient-atheist will find (or rather invent) all the answers. Or, better yet, he’ll find just a few, to create more of them further.
But at the end of the night, when my wife takes her makeup off, what we are left with is that the singularity pops out of nowhere, spontaneously, and without any reason whatsoever. The cause of the Big Bang is the singularity. The singularity comes out of nowhere and has no cause. But still, there is an uncomfortable obstacle for scient-atheists: the principle of cause and effect. That states that anything that has a beginning, such as the universe (or a discussion of its origin), must necessarily have a cause. But, like a lazy man without his remote, the universe finds itself without a cause.
So universe remains unexplained, and scient-atheists fail to prove their belief. They can’t explain the origin of the universe only with natural laws. Summing up, scient-atheists say that the universe comes from nothing and for no reason. Like flight attendants of a falling plane, they can assure you that one day… Surely, they will know more. Meanwhile, please, stay seated, and keep your belts fastened: we don’t need a Creator to explain the universe. It is guaranteed: it is not today, but one day, they will explain to you how to get something from nothing. I want to say… Literally nothing! At your choice, they can also find an infinite number of stories based on mathematical formulas.
This materialization out of nowhere is elegantly illustrated with various paraphrases and roundabouts, which avoid the shame of making such a statement directly, knowing it is completely illogical. It’s not they who can’t explain, it’s us who are ignorant and can’t understand!
But what are the real sound-mind options to explain the singularity? Let’s lend a hand to scient-atheists and provide them with all possible cases:
- The singularity is eternal so it doesn’t need a cause, either
- singularity has a beginning, so something caused it,
- Or the singularity never existed, so the Big Bang is wrong.
Is the singularity eternal?
If the singularity were eternal, we would not be here talking about it, since the state would persist forever and therefore also today. This time I agree with the scient-atheists that this is not the case. But they have a special move. Like a mathematical moonwalk by which in the singularity, time works differently, making the concepts of ‘before’, and ‘eternal’ meaningless. This is a beautiful contradiction. They are saying that in the singularity something can exist which, in the same context, has no beginning and is not eternal. So why not a married single too? Or a false truth?… Or a plural singularity?
Probably the conditions of extreme density make the logic work differently. Perhaps scient-atheists need a holiday because they have overworked and their brain is in a state of extreme density.
Does the singularity have a beginning?
But let’s say that the singularity has a beginning. In this case, according to the principle of cause and effect, it must have a cause. And therefore it: either it is eternal, or it has a beginning and therefore a cause. Or, maybe, the Big Bang is wrong.
Perhaps the state of extreme density could cause something to happen without a cause. Also in this case the scientist can buy his plane ticket for the Alps, to take a beach holiday (illogically speaking).
Let’s imagine that one day a scient-atheist invents a new story that explains the singularity, such as a quantum fluctuation. This lawsuit would suffer from the same problem. Either it has a beginning, or it is eternal. Or we can think of an infinite regression. Or all three at once, in the crazy vortex of infinite density!
The Big Bang theory is wrong
If we decide to use logic, we must admit that everything either has a beginning or is eternal. According to the law of non-contradiction, we cannot have both (The bank account full and my wife happy… Impossible!). In this case, the singularity contains an internal contradiction. Therefore if the Big Bang theory leads to this conclusion, this means that this theory is wrong. If Big Bang leads us to conclude that singularity has no beginning, and is not eternal, we have shown by contradiction that it is logically impossible.
Does the singularity come out of nowhere without a cause?
If we think about it, this is nonsense. Let’s think about the concept of nothingness. Nothingness and the opposite of something. Nothingness is the absence of anything, including space, time, energy and matter. Nothing represents non-existence. Nothingness is non-something. It is a very simple concept because it has no properties and cannot be changed by a large density. Nothingness is the simplest concept one can think of. It does not depend on the physical world, nor on natural laws. From nothing comes nothing. Nothing can’t do anything. Nothingness cannot produce singularity. This is impossible. Nothing is what most independent game developers or amateur writers earn.
The singularity from a quantum fluctuation?
Famous philosophers/scientists have speculated that the cause of the singularity would be a quantum fluctuation. Without going into the technical details we can already make the point. Nothingness is the absence of everything. A quantum fluctuation is something and not nothing. The word “nothing” is easy to be misunderstood. Let’s see an example:
- Margarine is better than nothing.
- Nothing is better than butter.
- Therefore margarine is better than butter.
Of course, we come to the wrong conclusion. To understand the misunderstanding, we have to replace the word “nothing” with its definition: “not anything”.
- Having margarine is better than not having anything.
- There is not anything that is better than butter.
This time, the illogical conclusion does not follow.
Even if the scient-atheist could mathematically relate the quantum fluctuation to the singularity, he would still have to explain to us the cause of the quantum fluctuation. Quantum fluctuation has properties and energy. It requires a quantum field in order to occur. So also this time, the explanation of the origin of the universe fails.
We do not experience singularity today, so at some point, if it ever existed, it would necessarily have undergone a change. In this case, we wonder why and how the singularity would have changed. No scientist is able to explain to us how or why at some point the current physical laws (and, apparently, logical ones) would have started to apply to reality.
No matter how hard scient-atheists try, they will never be able to find a model that explains the passage from the infinite to the finite. The singularity is nothing more than a mathematical paradox. Infinity is a mathematical concept that does not apply to real life.
If we think of singularity as a state of the universe in which the density is infinite, we have no way out. We can prove by contradiction that it is not possible to have an infinite density. Let’s think about it: we have the infinite density state. Now the universe begins to expand. By what mathematical process does density go from an infinite measure to a finite one? For example, what if every certain fraction of a second were halved? Or what if the expansion was exponential? Whatever operation we do on infinity, we always get the same result: infinity. In this case, the infinite density would persist forever. So we wouldn’t have atoms and all that. The following is, that it is not possible to have infinite density, nor any other infinite physical property. This makes us understand that thinking of applying an infinite density to real things is impossible. Density is a physical property, physical properties are limited and not infinite. It is much more realistic to think that perhaps some scientist forced the formulas a little too much, and the accounts did not add up (it also used to happen to me, at school, during my math tests).
But let’s say that this density, on the other hand, had a very high finite value. However, scient-atheists cannot provide a plausible explanation for why this expansion would have started. This is because the laws governing the singularity are unknown (they haven’t been invented yet).
The answer of the scient-atheists on the origin of the universe is the following: “We don’t know”. Then, since none of them knows anything, at least we expect that they have found empirical evidence to show that the singularity did exist. But unfortunately for them, the singularity has (obviously) never been observed, and is not repeatable in the laboratory, and there is no empirical evidence to support its existence. It remains pure mathematical speculation with an outcome comparable to my math homework. Maybe, when scient-atheist go for some measurement, they can find numbers matching their formulas… Well… No! The data from the measurements do not agree with the Big Bang theory. Rather, when discrepancies are found with the results, the theory is adjusted, or fancy new mathematical entities are invented, such as inflation and dark energy, to keep the patient alive.
The most recent fiasco is the one with the Hubble Space Telescope. Rivers of money (equivalent to public budgets) were spent to build it. The idea of the scient-atheists was this: “If we build the most powerful telescope in the world, and send it into space, we can observe very far away. This way we’ll see forming galaxies according to the theory of cosmic evolution”. What happened? The telescope showed very distant galaxies already fully formed (like we would expect from the creation account). They disproved the Big Bang by themselves. But of course, scient-atheists quickly patched the tear in their science trousers, to cover their shame and (their lower backs). Indeed, they increased the estimated age of the universe to once again make ends meet.
Scient-atheists accuse Christians of using God as a stopgap when they can’t explain a phenomenon. The name of the practice is God of the Gaps. Which claims that Christians would use God to fill all the gaps due to their ignorance.
But it’s actually scient-atheists who use this trick. When they are not able to explain something (like the singularity), they ask us to trust them, assuring us that one day they will find an answer. So we should drink the singularity, as absolute truth, with the hope that one day someone will find an explanation. Dear scientists… Let me tell you…. This is called dogma.
Religion of scient-atheists
Here are the dogmas you must believe in order to adhere to the scient-atheist faith
- Something can come out of nowhere (absence of anything) for no reason
- From infinite density, one can pass to a finite one in some unknown way
- The existence of dark energy/matter that has never been observed, never proven
- The chance that something, (not being Superman), moves faster than light (inflation)
- Spontaneous formation of celestial bodies and of life, against all laws of probability and against all measurement results, and against all logic.
The first hundred members will be given a book by Dawkins, or one by Krauss, or a discount voucher for Disneyland.
Actually, the singularity is an excuse not to answer questions. The idea that singularity is beyond human comprehension makes it an indispensable tool for evading all logical answers. Many people trust scientists blindly, without really understanding what they are saying. Just because they have great academic acknowledgements doesn’t mean everything they say is true. A Nobel prize doesn’t make something false become true. And many times they use their intellectual position and mathematical formulas to intimidate those who want to oppose their humanistic, postmodern and materialistic philosophy. In fact, we’re talking here about believing something that appears to be more philosophical/religious thinking than actual science. If scient-atheists said it then it must be true!
Paradoxical ideas such as singularity are used as an excuse to deny logic. The principle of cause and effect is part of logic. Without it, we couldn’t even reason. For example, let’s take the sentence “I have one hundred bucks in my wallet because I received my salary”. Without the principle of cause and effect, you could say “I have a hundred bucks in my wallet that appeared out of nowhere”. The corrupt politician says “The hundred thousand bucks appeared in my briefcase out of nowhere!”. The police find a body stabbed several times in the back, and close the case as an accident: the knife materialized several times in the victim’s back. The judge confirms “… Things happen”. A scient-atheist goes to the bank and discovers that all of his savings have vanished for no reason. The manager replies “I’m sorry… Things happen…”. Insurance companies invent the accidental teleportation policy. But they don’t pay because there is no cause and effect. One plus one equals three, sometimes even four. The scient-atheist works all month, but he doesn’t get paid. The phrase “You have to pay me because I worked” is no longer valid without the principle of cause and effect. The scient-atheist gets out of his car after turning it off, and it turns on and drives away without a driver. Anything can happen, for no reason!
Whatever the extreme physical condition, the logic does not change, the principle of cause and effect must always be valid.
Due to pure logic due to the principle of cause and effect, we have two important conclusions:
- An eternal cause is necessary for everything else to exist.
- An omnipotent mind is necessary for a complex universe like ours to exist.
Let’s think about a book. Is it possible for a book to come out of nowhere? No. Every book must have an author, (except those of Krauss), or a thinking mind, which causes the book to be written. The universe is more complex than a book. If we think of physical laws, the amount of energy, galaxies, and life on Earth, we have no doubts on this point. The universe therefore cannot appear out of nowhere. An intelligent and omnipotent mind is needed to ‘write’ the universe. This is pure logic.
But let’s forget about it, and go back to the Big Bang. scient-atheists recognize that if the universe had simply expanded, the theory of cosmic evolution would have been like a giant space firecracker, and would have failed miserably. In order for this story to be believable, they had to add the magical “dark matter”. This is an imaginary, invisible matter that makes all accounts balance. For the same reason (none) that the singularity appears, dark matter appears out of nowhere and balances everything. Gravitational centres are created and… Puff!… The stars. Maybe scientists observed dark matter with a telescope? How can we be so foolish? Matter is called ‘dark’ because it does not react to light or any other electromagnetic wave. So, obviously, dark matter has never been observed, nor empirically proven. All attempts to find dark matter have (as might be expected) failed. Dark matter is like my invisible hamster or my imaginary friend, both are made of dark matter. Even the minds of scient-atheists are probably made of dark matter.
A physicist has speculated that if the Big Bang theory were true, there would be some kind of radiation in the universe. In the 1960s, the CMB or cosmic microwave background was discovered. This would be proof of the Big Bang. When they measured it, it turned out to be totally off the scale of what the numbers coming from the theory predicted. Analyzing the data even better, the results do not agree with the theory and deny it. Here too, scientists have quickly patched up. But as it didn’t work so well, they usually prefer to ignore it and turn a blind eye or two. Oops! Let’s pretend it never happened.
The scient-atheist fails in his attempt to explain the universe without God. The universally accepted principle of cause and effect is for him like the corner of a washing machine for a commuter, who gets up and goes to the bathroom at four in the morning, painfully banging his toe on it.
We know that space, time, matter and energy are interconnected. The laws of thermodynamics confirm that an eternal universe would be entropically dead. If the universe has a beginning, time also has a beginning, so the cause of the universe is not limited by time: it is eternal. An eternal cause does not need another cause because it is eternal. In fact, according to the principle of cause and effect, only what has a beginning must have a cause. A thing without beginning needs no cause. We have also seen that this cause has a thinking mind that designed the complexity of the universe and all life in it. That cause is, therefore, a thinking mind: a personal God.
Let us imagine entering a stadium and seeing a ball moving across the field in the direction that goes from the goal on our left to the one on our right. The ball is near the right-hand net and is entering it. Starting in this situation we cannot tell whether the ball was kicked from the centre of the field or from the left goal, or from any other position in between.
In our analogy, the left goal is the singularity. We’re thinking that the ball must have been kicked by the goalkeeper because that’s the furthest position we can place it going backwards in time.
But the ball could very well have been kicked by a midfielder. In this case in the analogy this player represents God. What the scient-atheists are doing is excluding the hypothesis of the midfielder a priori. But this is simply a prejudice. In this case, scient-atheists are showing a closed mind. They don’t search for all possible solutions. And for this, they will take the defeat goal right at the end of the championship. The only alternative is to notice the player in midfield, and not underestimate him.
There are two real options for explaining the universe: the universe is eternal therefore it does not need a cause, the universe has a beginning and therefore was created by God. The first hypothesis was rejected by the scient-atheists themselves because it doesn’t agree with astronomical data. The second is discarded a priori because God must be removed from the equation. Therefore, there remains an illogical and contradictory universe that appears spontaneously out of nowhere and for no reason.
If we accept the idea that the universe appeared out of nowhere, a new universe could appear at any moment. I actually would like a million bucks to appear out of nowhere in my wallet. But I think the police or the tax agency would not accept this explanation. Maybe, in my wallet. a singularity could appear. I’m so scared about it! Just as inflation made the universe expand faster than light, so does the money in my wallet disappear at this speed. More than dark energy to create stars, I could end up with a dark energy bill. Which I can’t pay due to inflation. Maybe with the Big Crunch, that money could go back into my wallet. Or, having my light cut off, I could heat the soup with the background radiation of the universe.
Okay. We have heard many sci-fi stories. Scient-atheists have one goal: prove that man doesn’t need God to explain his origins. But when they go to practice… Well! they haven’t proved anything. On the contrary, they have shown that, without God, nothing can exist.
Now let’s play a game: let’s start from a single assumption, the Bible tells the truth. Starting from this assumption let’s go to read Genesis. According to the Bible, obviously, God exists. This is taken for granted from the first verse. God created everything including space, time and matter, in six twenty-four-hour days. God is not part of his own creation, but he is spirit. He is eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, and is not limited by the physical world, rather He controls it, and it obeys him. As we read we realize how what is written in the Bible makes more sense than scient-atheists’ theories. So, the truth is that God created everything visible and invisible by supernatural intervention.
He created a logical and regular universe that behaves according to well-defined physical laws. We can trust these laws, they don’t fail to happen, and we can know them by mathematics, reason and logic. They don’t come from man but from God’s mind. In fact, whether man exists or not, mathematics, logic and physical laws continue to be valid in the universe. God created man in his image. Man’s mind is similar to God’s one. It is capable of reasoning and making decisions. God’s existence makes ours possible, as well as that of everything else. As God is the cause of everything, nothing can exist without Him. Above creation, God, who has always existed stands alone. The existence of God makes it possible for man to have knowledge and make science. If we take the assumption that the Bible is true, then anything that contradicts it is false. If we use this assumption to do science, we save a lot of unnecessary time and effort. In fact, if a scientific theory contradicts the Bible, we already know that we can discard it a priori.
If you think about it, scient-atheists do the same with their beliefs. Their assumption is that everything can be explained by natural laws. so they exclude a prior supernatural, i.e. God. For them, creation must be excluded. This way they will never find the truth, because they have discarded it. So we can wonder if scient-atheists are actually interested in the truth. But it seems more that their interest is to prove the validity of their philosophy instead. That is influencing the new generations more and more.
This is not just a science debate. If we came from an accident, there is no meaning in life. But God made us with a purpose, he loves you with an infinite perfect love. Your existence has a meaning, and your life has a purpose. We have been made to worship and serve God, who wants a true relationship with us.
Back to our game: if the Bible tells the truth, then, not only do we have important answers about our past, but also about our future. If your main doubt is about the existence of God, then know that God not only created the whole universe for you, but He also revealed Himself to you through the Scriptures (the Bible) and in history through Jesus, fully man, fully God. For anyone who is open to the truth, it is possible to scientifically investigate the truthfulness of the Bible, and find evidence that it is reliable. The Bible informs us that at some point everyone will appear before God to be judged. God has given us as a point of reference, the ten commandments. Each person will be judged according to the ten commandments. Even a single infraction of them leads to condemnation: a second death sentence, eternal torment. It obviously follows that the destination of each of us is the lake of fire, more commonly known as hell.
This is bad news. Maybe you are asking why are we all doomed? There are two reasons: the first is that God is Holy and perfectly Just. God cannot allow sin to go unpunished. Since He is eternal, eternal must be the punishment. No one can say “I am a good person”, because the comparison is with a perfect and holy God. The second reason is in the essence of sin. If we go to the root of every type of sin, we come to conclude that is nothing more than man’s rebellion against God.
Because of his pride, man wants to put himself in God’s place, and considers himself better than him. Obviously, this rebellion will end badly (unless you know how to create the universe or give life to inanimate matter). What we need to understand is that it is not only about our actions but also about our thoughts. The Bible says that God sees the hearts of men. Not that God has a radiology clinic, but He is omniscient, that is, He knows everything, including all the thoughts of your entire life. Since the first sin of Adam, who, by eating the forbidden fruit, questioned God’s authority, humanity has always wanted to go “on its own mind” by placing itself above the word of a perfect and omniscient God. The result of this rebellion is the sentence to eternal damnation, in which the wrath that God has patiently accumulated will be discharged on the condemned.
Some atheists question the idea of a God who permits evil, using this argument as evidence against the existence of an omnipotent God. But, since they have not read the Bible carefully, they have not understood that if evil exists today, it is due to the wrong choices of men, who constantly decide for sin. God loves men and hates sin. Because sin is against man’s interests. Where I come from they say ‘shoot yourself in the foot’. God wants the best for us and for this, he hates sin, which is the opposite.
This is a just hate, that logically derives from God’s infinite love and justice. God’s justice is perfect. How often do we find someone’s behaviour unfair to us? We can also think of all the awful things happening in the world. There would be no true justice if all sins were not punished. But God has not abandoned us to our fate. Why not? The Bible makes us understand that God created everything for us, as you’d build an aquarium for a fish. But why bother, knowing that all those fishes are ending up in the toilet drain? God wants some fish for his tank, not something to test his toilet flush. God created everything for us and created us to have a fellowship relationship with Him. The initial plan was that of a perfect creation, in which Adam and his descendants would live forever, without pain, toil, death or sin.
There was only one rule, which Adam obviously decided to break (don’t push the red button!). But as soon as sin and death enter the world and corrupt it, God has Plan B ready. God knows that no one will ever be able to live a perfect life without sinning once. The popular saying goes that if you want a job well done, you have to do it yourself. And so it was. God became flesh, in the form of Jesus and paid the price for our sins on the cross. This is a very common phrase, which we must understand thoroughly.
The most common example is someone who gets a series of serious fines, for example for traffic offences. The defendant does not have the money to pay and therefore is called to court before the judge. In the analogy you are the defendant, the fines are your sins and God is the judge. Having no money to pay, the defendant is sentenced to go to prison. In the analogy, having no money is equivalent to saying, that you have no way to pay the price for your sins yourself, and prison is obviously hell. At this point the defendant can try various strategies, all useless. For example, he may regret committing the infractions and say he will never do it again. Useless. The defendant can list a number of good deeds that he has done for the community and ask that they come to balance out his traffic offences.
“Judge, it is true that I entered the highway against traffic, but the next day I helped an old lady to cross the road!”. It does not work. Then the defendant approaches the judge and hands him an envelope with one hundred bucks. This is the worst move of all, because the judge is incorruptible and hates corruption with all his heart. This move makes him even more angry. Perhaps the defendant will be able to convince the judge by saying “Everyone does it!”. The judge will answer, “And everyone who does that has to pay.” About this idea I would like to tell you about a personal experience. When I was a teenager, I was with my mom, she was driving to visit my aunt. Passing by the stadium, I saw some policemen fining a long line of illegally parked cars. There were so many cars, there must have been hundreds. I was amazed and asked my mom if the police really would have fined all those cars. My mother replied that yes: that is their job. The ironic thing is that those who parked there saw all the other cars parked illegally, and said to themselves.
“Everyone put it here… If they fine me, they have to fine everyone else too…”. Thinking that the fact that such a large number of offenders would somehow protect him from being fined. But the policemen, with patience, spent the day writing fines. One by one, each of those cars received its own fine. In this way, the municipality has also put its income in order. So, this idea that if everyone does it, we can do it too, doesn’t work, because we are all illegally parked and we’ll all receive our fine. The judge is not one of us, and he doesn’t think so. The judge doesn’t park illegally because he believes in traffic law. God does not turn a blind eye and does not think like us. God is Holy and abhors sin, while for us it is a normal thing. God hates sin, we live with it and use injustice as a shortcut to quick personal gain. But this does not go unnoticed by an omniscient God, and our fines are ready to be collected.
The scient-atheist dies and goes to trial before God. His defence is this: “There was no empirical evidence that you exist.” But the Bible says in Romans 1:20, that each of us knows in our hearts that God exists. Creation proves his existence to us. The existence of God is logically undeniable, but men repress this truth because they love sin more than the truth. There is no excuse for the scient-atheist, his defence is not accepted. During his life, many spoke to him about the gospel, but he did not want to believe it. The Bible tells us that when we hear the gospel, it is the Holy Spirit Himself who witnesses it to us. But the scient-atheist rejected this testimony and now it is the Holy Spirit who rejects him.
At this point nothing works, the defendant has to go to jail. But… Wait… The judge is also the defendant’s grandfather. The judge’s son, (i.e. the defendant’s father), offers to pay all of the defendant’s fines. The judge accepts this agreement and now it is up to the defendant to decide: accept the offer and avoid prison, or refuse the offer and receive the sentence. The Bible tells us that God is one and three persons at the same time. This is not a logical contradiction, but it’s just hard to imagine. The three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the divine nature. God is also a family that loves each other perfectly. So the Father sent the Son to earth to save us from our sins. Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life and died on the cross for us. Thanks to this sacrifice, our sins have been paid for. The final proof we can count on is that of the resurrection of Jesus, which is historically proven.
The defendant is free to go, the only thing he has to do is accept the offer. Now the defendant has two choices: to accept or not. The defendant has personal problems with the son of the judge and does not want to humiliate himself, accepting that he pays his fines. To accept the offer the defendant must be humble, and recognize that he needs the son of the judge to avoid prison. What’s he going to do? Thus, you too, today can accept the gift of salvation from God. But accepting this gift requires a very important virtue: humility. God loves and chooses the humble to be part of his family. Whoever is proud does not want to submit to God. Whoever knows and accepts the truth is internally transformed, what Jesus defines as ‘being born again’. The person begins to see the world, and perceive sin differently, more similar to how God sees things.
Let’s say you’re in a large building, and you need to go to the bathroom (urgently). You see a sign pointing in the direction of the bathroom, the bathroom is on the north side of the building. Despite this clear indication, ask someone who works there and the north side is confirmed. You also find a map and the map tells you that the bathroom is on the north side. So take it and look for the bathroom on the south side! This is absurd. Since you know the truth, it is obvious that you will choose the right direction. But now it’s too late to realize it, and you need a change of clothes. Maybe you have personal problems with the north side.
The truth is that God created us and loves us enough to die for us rather than see us go through an eternity of torment. But, despite this, many decide to look for the bathroom on the south side or to opt for a ball kicked from the left goal, or to believe in some crazy point of extreme density that is not public transport in a big city at rush hour.
If what I said makes sense to you, and you’ve never heard these things said in this way, beyond public toilets and football nets, I suggest some fundamental steps: read the Bible, believe it, and apply it to your life.