God doesn't write in Letters, he writes in Math.

Except the Big Bang wasn't really the creation of the Universe, it was merely the expansion of it. All the energy was already there - the Big Bang just sort of stretched it out.

I want to believe in God but I wanna ask. If God just was there, he didn't get made, then why couldn't the universe have "just been made?"

To create a universe you must exist outside it.

As he said this scientifically proves the "God of the Bible". So since it is the biblical God please explain scientifically why it took him six days to create the universe?

I love how there's people in the comments that think they're smarter than this guy too. Lol

How can something predate the big bang? Time itself began at the big bang. Any notion of before or after cannot be said about a timeless time.

When God said, "Let there be Light." That was the Big Bang.

We will never know the truth. Period.

The most important attribute of God is left out: volition. Without volition, you don't have a God, you just have forces, natural laws.

I’m not convinced. Maybe as another commentator said, I’m not as smart as him. But it really seems to me like he’s coming from the conclusion that god exists and then fitting these discoveries to that conclusion.

Imagine having researched this for so long and still not having any proof or basic research and instead just saying: "Well something should have started it"

And where did god come? From nothing to create something from nothing?

So, if everything was created in "6 days" then what were these days based off of if the sun was not created until (what was it? the 3rd day?) How was there a day/night cycle without the sun yet?

even if you accept literally everything he says in this video, you still don't reach the conclusion that god exists. you get that the universe has something that created it. you don't know if its a being, you don't know if there are multiple somethings which created the universe, and you certainly don't know that what created the universe was your very specific version of god which you only believe in because of your upbringing and what region of the world you were born in.

Just because it's outside the diagram doesn't mean it's nothing and just because we don't know where the universe came from doesn't mean it was god. Redefining god also doesn't mean it was the biblical god. This is more god of the gaps 🐂 💩.

Give me back those five minutes...

If a scientist is asked the question ... "Do you believe that the universe was created by a God?" and the scientist answers "Yes" ... that is not science ... that is religion.

"The Bible got it right." The only thing that the Bible got right about the beginning of the universe was that there was a beginning, and it had a pretty good shot of getting that right by just guessing.

Came here to Lol at theists. Wasn't disappointed.

i wouldn't say this proves the biblical god. it proves that a non-physical force or consciousness may have created the physical universe from nothing. it doesn't prove that the god described in the bible is actually the force behind this creation. just because the bible says god created the world from nothing doesn't mean that everything that follows, including all the disgusting atrocities carried out by this god, are factual in any way.

So if god is just the forces of nature, why should people pray to the forces of nature. It would be an assumption or an act of faith to assume that the forces of nature have a conscience which is capable of hearing, understanding, and acting upon those prayers.

Misinterpretation of science. The bible says there was a beginning and from our current understanding of science, there was also a beginning to our universe; therefore, science proves the bible. That's essentially the definition of pseudoscience there.

It is written, "For the invisible things of Him are clearly seen even His eternal Power and Godhead so that they are without excuse.

Unconvincing ! However, even if he was right it would still get him no closer to showing that the force that set it in motion was, in fact, a god of any kind, nor would it be any indication that it is his own preferred christian god.

God is real he loves us all so be glad we have i loving God

God of Gaps. As usually. "I don't know, therefore - God!" :)

God and science can co-exist on the same plane. Science is an interpretation and explanation of all that God has designed and created.

I'd love to see a debate between Dr. Gerald Schroeder and Lawrence Krauss. That would be fun.

Mr Wegener: Who told you that the six days of creation are 24 hour days if the sun and other planets were not yet created? It is obvious to any careful reader that these 'days' are metaphorical periods of time. Also, Jewish Oral tradition informs us that Genesis is not chronological when referring to objects or forces listed.

one day mankind will have the same reaction to people who believe in god as we do now to people who believe in flat earth . The sad thing is i will probably not be here when this discovery will be made

This has so many dislikes, just because it has a different premise than the mainstream atheistic view. Nice video :)

This conflates the idea of natural laws as 'GOD' being equivalent to the notion of a 'person' that created the universe. They are very different notions. The rational argument that 'laws' must have predated the matter they act on does not prove the myth of an entity in whose image we are allegedly created and with whom we can have a personal relationship. Science can infer one, but not the other.

This is all well and good, but i feel like the typical understanding of the abrahamic god as described in the bible etc. has a few more attributes than the ones you listed. To me this seems like you are moving the goalposts so to speak.

It is almost always the case that "scientists" who believe, have believed before they scienced, they are trying desperately to justify the conclusion they started with, which is not scientific

"God" implies intelligence awareness and intention All we have is a beginning that's not really a beginning Which is practically the same as the universe has always been First earth was the world Now the universe is the world Once we break the next barrier i bet you're going to ague god made that too

did he just conclude that the laws of nature are God itself ? like gravity is god , or electromagnetism is god ?

The second I heard the word “creation”, I already knew this was gonna be silly. His train of though was basically 1) The CMB is leftover energy from an earlier universe---> 2) The universe had a beginning and therefore was created at some point ----> 3) The Bible got it right. Typical “universe had a beginning, therefore god” argument with so many errors I don’t even know where to begin

One can mean anything with the word "God" that doesn't prove his existence tho. Only way to one day prove or disprove God is to 1st settle down and agree to a single scientific definition to the word "God". If we don't do that we can never claim that whatever God means exists or not.

So the bible just calls the universe "God" that's it.

"I believe in god, only I spell it nature." - Frank Lloyd Wright..

How does this explain the omnipresent God people know today? How does it explain the omni-benevolent being who supposedly loves everyone so long as they believe in Christ? How is a hypothesis suddenly a theory? If you can establish that something can indeed come from nothing, then why has it taken supposedly 6 days to do, when your hypothesis explains that it was done in several billions of years. Also, if God were to see humans as so special, how do you explain the several hundred other planets that we've found to be in the right spot as earth is, but in their Galaxy, and still have the potential to support life? This isn't scientific proof of God existing, this is a scientific hypothesis for how our universe was created. Biblical definition of God: God is not a creature and never had a beginning point, being eternal: Deut 33:27; Isa 9:6; 1 Tim 1:17; Isa 44:6 I'm sorry if I'm missing it, but you contradicted yourself by stating that the universe did in fact have a start, in which God has no start, but if God has no start, then the hypothesis that something can come from nothing is invalid, meaning something came from something. So are you either saying that God made something come from nothing, or that something came from the behalf of God?

It's not proof but it's a very good argument

Wait just a second! The universe had a “beginning,”therefore “god?” Umm... there’s so much missing! I am unconvinced.

The black spaces around the edges of the diagram to which Gerald Schroeder refers are indeed “nothing”, but not in the sense in which he uses the term. Everything is contained within the gridlines. The black spaces are merely the margins of the diagram, and do not represent a physical reality. Schroeder says that the laws of nature are not physical. This is indeed true. They are abstract representations of nature created by human beings. Humans observe the cosmos (or “nature”) and represent the interactions they observe as “laws”. It seems to me that Schroeder’s assertion that the laws of nature “act” on the physical world is incorrect. A law of nature is not nature, and it does not act on nature. It is an abstract representation of the behaviour of nature. Nature acts on nature. Schroeder claims that the laws of nature predate the universe. There is no evidence that the laws we know have always applied, nor that they will always apply. This video does not provide scientific evidence for the existence of God.

There is no predating the universe. We know that time and space are interconnected, and that there is no "before" the Bing Bang. To talk about predating time makes no sense.

Leave put the part where he misunderstands the big bang, where instead of being a "beginning" it is just the point where our understanding of existence stops. It could easily be the point where we get the illeged something out of "absolute nothing" but there is just as much evidence for that as there is for, say a magical unicorn farting out a rainbow that then collapsed on itself and then exploded again and became the universe

I believe in the Heavenly Father .

Pikachu created the universe. Disprove me 🤣🤣🤣

Talk about reaching

This guys is not thinking clearly for a scientist...first of all ...science isn’t claiming that the universe came from nothing ...but it is saying that’s where our understanding sort of like end ...we don’t really understand what happened before that singularity...also just coz you don’t understand something doesn’t mean you should make bold assumptions like that ...”we don’t understand it ...therefore God”

So... according to this guy... God is real because there is a vague idea that time is linear and not circular? You can have linear time without a sentient creator lol, and then you go on to specify the "biblical God" even if there was a god, how do you know it's your god and not some other god? Even if there was 100% proof that time was linear and a sentient creator pre-dates the laws of nature, we still know nothing of theists' insistence that the supposed creator has a will for us, is aware of us, or even cares. Like, seriously, "there might be proof of a creative force {sentient?}" and "Sky Daddy hates abortions and gay people cause this cryptic book says so" aren't the same thing.

A really smart person but just like the rest of us - without a clue how it all started.

Videos like this are great for discerninglogical fallacies in real time.

Yes God created.

"I don't understand cosmology therefore god" - I am not convinced.

I clicked on this video thinking it'd be fun to read angry comments, but this was very well put and well explained. I myself am an atheist and I was genuinely shocked (the good kind) at his unique approach at explaining the existence of God, especially the way he used actual scientific evidence. This did raise some questions for me though, like why many Christians still see the Big Bang Theory as something that contradicts God, and why there always has to be a fight between religion and science. (The scientist in the video was capable of bypassing both, respect) I don't see this as something that "disproves" atheists though, because from another perspective, the reason this similarity (4:23) is there may just be because both (God and the laws of the universe) happen to be a regulator of what we cannot explain or even perceive (outside of the universe, before the universe, etc.) Also, even though the Biblical God matches these observations of the Laws of Nature, it still seems like a jump in logic since assigning God as the Laws of Nature, while it makes sense, still doesn't validate what was stated in the Bible (for example, flat Earth, Genesis, etc.). I'm not saying that the existence of God is bound to the validity of the Bible but I do think it's a factor in being convinced, which is what's important.

We don’t know if there was a true beginning. It could have happened a million times.

"science has in fact discovered God and you can talk to the hard-line atheists and they will say" it looks like science has indeed discovered God." Urm... I haven't met any hard-line atheists who have said this. And I haven't met anyone except for yourself sir, who use this diagram to say that science has proven God.

If God is outside of time then he can't do anything. This guy needs a dictionary.

Nevermind the fact that the theory also fits pretty much endless other potential gods, descriptions or explanations (thanks, QualiaSoup and CosmicSkeptic), I'll just tell you what's really going on here... So, to summarise (since otherwise this comment would be a wall), the universe is a mathematical structure (so it exists for the same reason 1+1=2) and the point existing before the Big Bang was an initial/post-iterative state. The forces in the universe are probabilistic constants that influence how quanta fluctuate every Planck instant. And now to clear some things up. First, we don't really know if the Big Bang is really the beginning because people also think it could've been an infinite series of Big Crunches or black hole consumptions. Also, it doesn't necessarily point to intelligent design because any randomness is subjective since there are probably infinite universes like this with different quantum fluctuations or initial constants (and besides, if you're working with mathematics, no finite numbers are really considered large (yes that includes Rayo's number, BIG FOOT and sasquatch). You can quite definitely have WAY more intelligent and meaningful life with way larger numbers of particles and objective (Planck) lifetime. Humans have flaws, like the appendix obviously, not to mention megalomania pretty much destroying the world from way too much intelligence and greed from the relief of the burden of survival. Everything biologists and evolutionists have studied about life points to evolution being a fluke. And yes, I am insinuating that you all think you're so good, when really you're not (although morality is subjective) and you just can't bear the idea of how meaningless and chemical you are). If there is a God, God constitutes all of mathematics without bias (so even though you don't have free will, you're God. Congrats for reading this comment). God wouldn't be so biased, anthropomorphic or so demonstrably biased in their specific morals. God wouldn't even be making any decisions: they'd just exist timelessly. I mean of course can you imagine 1+1=2 having any dimensional sense to it other than real finite positive integer space in it? And yes. You probably think I think I'm so good when really we both know I'm not. It's mostly just that for whatever reason, humanity is dumb for a number of realistic, logical, social and psychological reasons. So yes, here's the truth you've all been waiting for. Now to put myself in the depths of the comment section and see if people will fish me to the top...

... the biggest flaw i see is the assumption that the 'laws create'. I think the general view would be that they describe. In this case an QuantumField without any forces are standard particles. The theories he seems to refer to, almost explicitly, deny anything like an 'act of creation'. They describe instabillity of virtual particles in 'nothing'... no agent required, no time, no forces at work at that moment.. Given his four main points: a) in a sense the 'nothing' is a physical system (there are virtual particles) b) there are no real forces at work that act on anything (no causal chains) c) the physical universe could enfold out of this d) it doesn't 'predate' since there has no time.. but that almost seems more a matter of linguistics So... God would the describtion of the QuantumState of 'nothing'. Though i am not an expert .. this is (pretty much) the representation the scientists that did the research actually give... and it diverges rather far from this in ways that seem quite essential to the train of thought he tries to make.

Who or what created God?

Ok, now prove that was not Gaia or Muspell from Greece of Scandinavia respectivelly who did this

Could you please make this transcript available, for deaf people?

So if he does exist then why hasn't he said anything?

Does this work with other gods?

intox, Look up "def of big bang theory" it states that the universe may have been created, it says nothing about there being energy before the big bang, The big bang is stated to be the creation and expansion of the universe.

We Can Call This.... "Stand Up Comedy".

Quantum fluctuations aren't made of nothing. If you study physics you'll learn that the so called quantum fluctuations in the vacuum (quantum foam) are made out of virtual particles (if I'm not wrong, QED says that it's like static noice in the flies of each particle) it doesn't mean creating something out of nothing. It means creating something out of a very small something

Except there's no evidence the laws of nature are sentient, or have a personality. So there's no reason we should pray to them, there's no reason to believe in the afterlife.

His whole argument relies on one vast unsubstantiated claim: that the laws of physics predate the big bang. He seems perfectly willing to accept the standard model, that spacetime started with the big bang, yet he tries to sneak in the notion that there was a time before the beginning of time. That's more than bad science, that's a con.

(Regarding the comment from the Karate club a bit further down) Salisbury Karate Club God is the one thing that doesn’t require being made. All things that we make come from us or the earth, but atheists don’t know what made the earth *or* us God is the source of all good In Genesis (probably one of the most famous parts) it describes how God created the universe, with the Big Bang merely the explosion from him saying ‘let there be light’

What if we are actually operating on an metaphysical equation? Thusly: From dependence flows the need to trust. For trust to properly function, it need to have genuine and righteous truth. The proper harmonization of trust and truth is the basis for love, and, it's the measuring stick for justice when the equation get's violated. The proper harmonization of trust and truth is also recognizably good by non-malevolent people. You cannot imagine a universe where properly functioning trust can operate on a lie (the opposite of truth). Therefore this equation is eternal, and preceded our material universe. God has described himself as the way, the truth and the life. He has also described himself as just and loving. In the creation narrative, God was basically saying to Adam and Eve: Do you, as creatures dependant upon me for your existence, consider me truthful enough in order to trust me enough, so in that in following through with this metaphysical equation/law that is a reflection of who I am, (as well as you being created in my "image") you will not only love me, but obey me, and you will flourish in so doing, but, you will become both evil and good if you don't, as well as suffer evil? This is why hell is eternal... because we temporal creatures are operating on an eternal equation.

I am not totally convinced, yet I do respect the ideas expressed by this man.

Clickbait

Truth is a reasonable explanation as to why it is true, faith is the belief that the explanations are true. Nothing can be truly supported in this world, as we can only conceive and make ideas out of this reality. Everyone has faith in what they believe in, no matter how small. This is why bias is so important to ones worldview. Here is the supposition of an Athiest: Here is a box, with paper origami inside the box. If I were to observe purely things in the box, I could come up with a reasonable explanation as to how they were in the box. This is the explanation: the origami came from a piece of paper, in which it folded itself to create intricate and complex shapes. However, that requires faith, that there wasn't a force folding the paper to make the shapes, as well as the faith that the paper came from nothing. If they only observe things from within the box, they cannot possibly know that that explanation is true. They take science in materialistic aspects with holes in it and say that explains the world. Yet in the theory of evolution itself, if one is to believe that, nothing is true, as everything is up to time and chance. And with the proposition, they cannot say that anything is true, such as the theory of evolution. “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? " Charles Darwin There is a line of thinking one could make to question if anything is true: 1. How can I know what I have been told is true? To most people, the truth that they get is from the people they think have experience and authority. Those people tell you what is true, and give an explanation as to why it is true, but you must have faith to trust in that person's explanation. 2. How do I know if my senses are what they say they are? You know and process everything from your sensory organs, but how do you know that they can see properly? 3. If my senses are wrong, then how do I know if this reality Im living in is even correct? What if this is a simulation? If left unchained to this reality, people are prone to doubt even their existence. Living each day, they have faith that this reality must be true, or they could be having an existential crisis everyday. There is another explanation to the Universe, which does take in accounts from things outside of this reality. That is found in Christianity, where the entire religion is based on a miracle, which is an occurrence that cannot be explained by this reality. That miracle is the raising of the dead. Now, if that miracle is proven true, then what the man who has been resurrected must be true, hence, Christianity. Here is where bias comes to play. People who don't want any influence in their life, no rules, no moral law to be subjected to, believe in Athiesm. They say everything is meaningless, so nothing you do really matters, and you can do whatever. With that, they can live their lives however they want. The reason they do not want to believe in Christianity, is because they are naturally inclined to do evil. That in itself is a proof for why Christianity is true. To some, to be an Athiest is to recognize the natural inclination to do evil, and believe in a reasonable explanation as to why they should and can do evil without consequences. To others who are more deeply embedded in the belief of Athiesm is when they actually believe that nothing matters, and go into either nihilism or hedonism, where they dont care about anything, or they know that nothing matters so they only do what gives them pleasure. Another belief is Agnosticism, where they just put out the supposition that it is impossible to know the why and how for reality, and live on with their lives. These are the people who don't want to go into religion because they think it won't help them. They think that if I devote my life to that religion and it therefore proves to not be true, I have wasted my life for nothing, thus they label the world as impossible to determine, and go on with how they want to live their life. Then there is the Christian, where it has faith in the afterlife, a hope to come. They have a bias towards a purpose in everything in this world. They believe in a world created based on Love. They believe in good and evil, and they know judgement exists. However, the Christian does not pursue good by their own means. The Christian is based on miracles, such as the miracle of the changing of their intention from evil to good, not of their works, but of the works of the savior who has done that for them. Since they believe in miracles, they have faith in healing through prayer, etc. They have faith that the material world is not the truth, but only a glimpse of it.

So let's say these "Laws of Nature" and fit the description of what is God according to the bible. Still, there's no reason why these "Laws of Nature" have to come down here and create an Adam and Eve and then create the tree of knowledge and a talking snake! (I'm talking to those who believe that's actually what happened)

Does the physicist define god clearly before presenting his "evidence"?

Big bang was not an explosion as he described it. Do I need to dig deeper?

This video proves nature is god.

Your scientific proof made me believe in flying spaghetti monsters.

Ah yes, the tired ex-nihilo argument. The universe started, therefore it must have been created by a perfect being who loves us and also commits genocide and loves Israelites more than other people.

Sorry. Not convinced. Do I have to believe a 600 year old man built a boat and stuffed "7 pair of all clean...."

So how did god himself come about?

My question: if God used the Big Bang and created the world using 'science' or metascience/pseudoscience/quantum physics or whatever better terminology we can use... Why does He state in His word that the universe was made over the course of six days? I have often heard this is just to introduce the week to people, but its very hard to tell because it's quite cryptic. Any thoughts or ideas, or better yet, information based on knowledge and evidence?

Dear Sinai Speak, At 4:58, Gerald says "the opening Chapter of the Genesis says...." (1) Can you tell me what exactly the Genesis says; (2) Where can I find that verse in the Genesis? (3) At 4:31 he also mentions "that is the Biblical definition of God...."; and (3) Where can I find this definition? Thanks a lot.

It is illogical to say that a few coincidences mean an entire book is correct. Often times, I have 4 to 6 coincidences in a single day with my own ideas. Does that make my thoughts anymore special than anyone else's? Does it mean I am divine? If another holy book also described their god with coincidences confirmed by science, does that mean we have two legitimate gods and religions?

So it was proven that the Universe came out of nothing? I'm not so sure about that.

There was energy and, as it's says RIGHT THERE quantum fluctuations.

Science has nothing to with god 🤦‍♂️

This is an accurate assessment of the secret of God and the universe. I actually wrote something similar to this in a book named 'Veritas Theologicus'. I rewrote the book twice, and the basics are in the first version of the book, named 'Foundation of the Creation'; copyright 1986. The second version with most of the explanation of abstract existence was 'The Reunion of God and Man'; finished and copyrighted in 2000. The third version was originally completed in 2012, with a couple of updates in 2017 to 2019. In my book I expand on the secrets of God's beginning leading to the creation of the cosmos. Everything starts in "nothing". However, nothing "is not", therefore life must takes its place. But at the beginning of life there is no life, so there must be a "string" of concept laws leading up to and defining reality and life. This progression becomes endless, defining the laws of creation. Since negative time cannot continue, the progression crosses into positive time immediately, with the completed Deity having existed forever. The Deity has the progression in His makeup, and is given the command to create things. As soon as the Deity chooses, the universe begins. The energy of Creation proceeds outward from God and creates the particles of existence. I can't explain the whole thing here, but we can see how "something" actually does come from "nothing"; only with God mediating.

according to this prof,he states that the universe was created from nothing....except for the laws of nature.since the laws of nature are something,the universe did not arise from nothing.

I wonder which of the gods he is talking about...just curious. Oh yeah so sorry... the bible god!!of course!!! silly me!!

Even if I accepted this hypothesis, it still is leap of logic to get to the gid of the Christian bible. A deistic god maybe, but only that. Besides...he assumes this force is an agent if some kind and likens it to the biblical god. It might not be a "who" but a "what." Just another argument from ignorance. Well, at least this man is a thinker and he is not a young earth creationist.

I watched it again. While he explained the "laws of nature" he was saying this is the definition and or name we call God but we have to be cautious. God created those laws of nature which means they are distinct from God. It's easy to get caught up in a religion of naturalism but we know God is super natural. He ended it by saying God is a force and although He is a powerful force, we are still made in the image of Him.

one simple question, why cant we see him? If he showed up he would convert the world!

So this guy seriously think that over 2000 years ago, they predicted right? They predicted, they didn’t do research, just predicted?

If we were told to believe in any number of ideas,but none were true and we never knew we were limited,then how do we now know that we r not?

...there is a book written by Tony Tymstra titled; What is possible? ...here is a chapter you may find interesting...the book is available on amazon. THE LITTLE BUTTERFLY PROOF How much more amazing can this planet be? A butterfly returns to the forest four generations later after having never been there before and lands on the same trees as its great grandparents once did, traveling almost 3000 miles and never getting lost. How can that not be proof of something grand in this world? The Great North American monarch butterfly's migration is only one example of nature's seemingly endless number of inspiring mysteries. It is a demonstration of the complex and elegant entanglements that are still hidden from us. Such a testimony quietly compels us to discover and understand the world around us. Before these butterfly sanctuaries were discovered in the late 1970s, people in North America had always wondered where did all these monarch butterflies go. And in a strange twist of beautiful irony, the people in Mexico had always wondered where did all these butterflies come from. These are two different views of the same incredible pilgrimage. This migration is truly one of nature's wondrous revelations because it is not the life of one butterfly that makes this so unusual. It is the life of four generations of butterflies that makes this story complete and causes us to ponder about our own purpose and destiny. This is a beautiful story. The migration starts in the middle of the forest, in the mountains of Michoacán. It is in an area only thirty by fifty miles round. Millions upon millions of butterflies converge in this place to overwinter enjoying the warmth of the Mexican sun. During their stay in this migratory site, the female monarchs become fully developed, and mating takes place. As this first generation begins their spring migration, they fly over mountain ridges to as far north as Texas and to the southern parts of the United States. Here they lay eggs on milkweed plants along the way. This generation soon dies, but in four days, their eggs will hatch into baby caterpillars. These earthbound caterpillars eat ferociously for two weeks before becoming fully-grown. They will then find a quiet and safe place to hide. Here they will start the process of transforming into a chrysalis. For about ten days, the caterpillar will undergo a remarkable transformation called metamorphosis, and soon a beautiful butterfly will emerge. Deeply embedded in their nature, this second-generation somehow knows to continue the journey, and they fly north to the mid-United States and to the lower parts of Canada where they will lay eggs and begin the cycle for the next generation. As the third generation emerges, they will find milkweed plants, eat, breed, and lay eggs, and soon a fourth generation of butterflies is born. When autumn arrives, and the leaves fall, this fourth-generation will fly all the way back to Mexico. Picking up thermals and getting carried aloft on the upper winds. They will travel roughly sixty miles a day. After two months, they will eventually arrive at the same thirty by fifty-mile forested area of that first generation. It will have been a flight of almost 3000 miles without having any knowledge of being there before, and never getting lost on the way. It is an incredible feat. The Monarch Butterfly migration inspires an overwhelming feeling of reverence and admiration for the glory of nature. It is still a mystery as to how they do it. In early Christianity, the butterfly was a symbol of the soul. In China, it was used as a symbol of bliss and joy. People in Australia and New Zealand call the monarch butterfly "the wanderer." To Native Americans, the butterfly is a symbol of joy, color, and change. The butterfly has inspired many poets, thinkers, and writers. Perhaps this is a testimony to the Creator of this world. Is a butterfly proof that a Creator exists? If and when we learn all the mysteries of the world, then perhaps we will know, but the Great Butterfly Migration gives us a glimpse towards that answer.