predication.net

Let them glorify you, Lord, all your works, and your saints praise you. Let them talk about the glory of your kingdom, and let them talk about your power…» Psalm 145, 10-11.

How did today’s saint glorify God with his life, St. Luke?

St. Luke, the evangelist (+ around 80 AD), was probably born in the Syrian pagan city of Antioch in a wealthy family. Lukáš became a doctor and traveled a lot in Greece and Egypt. He was perhaps touched by preaching the Gospel from the mouth of St. Apostle Paul in Antioch. Luke then accompanied him on his apostolic journeys. In the year 51, he went with him and with other disciples, Timothy and Silas, to Philippi, Thessaloniki, Macedonia, and subsequently also to Greece, Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, and Italy. He was the only one who stayed with him in prison in Rome and was with Paul even before his death, as Paul himself writes: “…only Luke is with me.” Apparently, at Paul’s instigation, Luke wrote a description of the life and activities of the Lord Jesus, that is, the Gospel

. St. told him about many events. Paul, but the fathers write that he was a close friend of the apostle St. John and the Virgin Mary and knew other apostles. So, he had enough sources to capture the performance of Jesus Christ reliably. He dedicated his gospel to the noble Theophilus. He probably wrote it after the fall of Jerusalem, between 80 and 90 in Greek. He addressed it to Christians who had converted from paganism. This is also evidenced by the fact that he always tries to explain Jewish customs in detail in the Gospel. In his gospel, he is the only one of the evangelists to provide a detailed description of the birth of the Messiah. He writes very beautifully about God’s mercy (the parable of the prodigal son, the good shepherd, the good Samaritan, Mary Magdalene, the penitent later). He begins his gospel with Zechariah’s sacrifice in the temple, which is why the bull became his symbol.

The Acts of the Apostles also come from the pen of St. Luke. He also dedicates them to Theophilus, for whom he wrote the Gospel. This second book aimed for him to witness a living Church that did not perish despite the heathen world raging around. It describes the ascension of the Lord and the sending of the Holy Spirit, and the book deals mainly with the work of St. apostles Peter and Paul. According to tradition, after Paul’s death (67), Luke preached the gospel in Dalmatia, Italy and Gaul. There are several reports about his death. One of them claims that he died a martyr’s death in Patras, Greece, at eighty-four. But others say he died of natural causes.

It is common among Christians that he was also a painter and painted a picture of the Virgin Mary. Some paintings in the East are even attributed to him. However, it is not likely. He certainly painted a spiritual picture of the Virgin Mary in his Gospel since he wrote about her the most of all the Evangelists. Although many places claim ownership, it is also uncertain where his grave is located. Scientific research from 1998 says that the place of his grave could be the Basilica of St. Justin in Padua (Italy).

How should we glorify God with our lives? Well, by painting a spiritual image of the Virgin Mary in our hearts by reading and thinking about the Gospel, just like Mary, who kept all these things in her heart and thought about them.

Jesus said: “Woe to you, Pharisees because you tithe mint, rue, and every vegetable, but you bypass justice and God’s love!” This had to be done and addressed there! Woe to you, Pharisees, because you love the first chair in the synagogues and greetings in the streets! Woe to you, for you, are like unmarked graves, and people do not even know what they are walking on!” Then, a scribe told him, “Teacher, when you speak like this, you also insult us.” He said to him: “Woe to you, scribes too! For you burden the people with burdens that cannot be borne, but you do not touch those burdens with a single finger.”

How did you react to the harsh reprimand? Did you not recognize your half-brother? Did you attack, too, or did you take it as a gift? Jesus says “woe” to the Pharisees three times, and they reply: “Teacher, when you speak like that, you also insult us” (Lk 11:45). The social class of the Pharisees did not die out. They don’t seem to do anything wrong. They pay tithes to the temple; what they consider good is enough for them. Jesus wants more – they do all this with their hearts directed to God and not themselves. We are tempted to pretend to be better but worse. It is appropriate to remind ourselves that we have to fight against pretense and especially not to be offended when reminded of it. Whoever wants to stand before God is not a friend of pretense. I am thinking about a note from a friend, a confessor, a professor…?

To love God means also to love everything that God created, especially what he endowed with his divine form, what he loves, and for which he gave his human life to an inhuman death. Such love excludes contempt for people who are less religiously aware. When we look at such people, even less morally familiar, perhaps disgusted with the world, we lose faith in man and his possibilities. And yet many people around us, even non-believers, strive with the most significant effort for something better, for some ideals / and everywhere life is entirely of heroism. It must be seen, recognized, and appreciated, and recommend these minds and hearts that sit in darkness and the shadow of death to God’s mercy.

Let’s think about ourselves: Am I satisfied? Am I happy with myself? What does that mean?

* 22 July 1647 Lhautecour, Burgundy, France
† 17 October 1690 Paray-le-Monial, FranceMeaning of the name Margita: pearl (Greek-Latin)Attribute: palm tree

St. Margita Mary Alacoque was born on July 22, 1647, in France in the village of Lauthecour near Verosvres. Her father was the royal notary in the village. Margita was the fifth of seven children. She was given the name Mary during confirmation. Parents lead their children to faith from an early age. When she was eight years old, her father died. Her mother sent her to the monastery of St. Clary in Charolles. Margita was very religious; she prayed a lot. When she was nine years old, she had a severe illness. She couldn’t move at all. She lost weight to the bone and skin. No one could help her. She said that she would recover only when her relatives and friends put her under the protection of the Virgin Mary. She promised herself that when she recovered, she would enter a monastery. She spent two years in bed in a monastery and another two years at home. After she recovered, she began to lead an austere life. She fasted, meditated, wore penitential robes, and slept on the ground. In addition, she had to suffer from her relatives – grandmother, aunt, and maid who ran the household as her mother was weak and sick. They mistreated her. They humiliated her and did not give her food or clothes. They didn’t even want to take care of her mother. Margita endured it all without pride and cared for her mother as best as possible. She even started whipping herself. Her mother cried because of this, forbade her to live in a separate room, and forced her to get married. In the end, however, she gave her freedom, and Margita, at the age of twenty-four, entered the monastery of the Order of the Visitation of the Virgin Mary, founded by St. Francis of Sales, in the town of Paray-le-Monial in the Burgundy region. In 1672, she took her first vows. She lived strictly and knelt before the Sacrament of the Altar whenever possible.

On December 27, 1673, the Divine Heart appeared to her in dazzling brilliance. It was then that she knelt before the Sacrament of the Altar. The heart was surrounded by thorns and decorated with a cross. According to her own words, she was filled with unspeakable love. She had her second apparition on Friday in the octave of the Body of God. Then, she saw the five wounds of Christ. At the same time, she heard a voice: “You cannot show me a greater love than to do what I asked of you, to increase your respect for my loving Heart. You can only become perfectly worthy of this grace through humiliation and suffering.” Then the Savior showed her His Divine Heart and continued: “Look, this Heart that loved people so much, spared nothing, even spent itself, just to show its love. However, he receives in return ingratitude instead of gratitude. Therefore, I ask you that the first Friday after the octave of the feast of my Divine Body be established as a special feast, that on that day, my Heart be worshiped with solemn supplications, and that on that day, people approach St. communion intending to make amends for the innumerable indignities it had received during the time it had been exposed on the altar.’

After this apparition, Margita fell seriously ill. She felt an immense pain in her heart, which did not leave her until her death. No doctor knew what kind of disease it was. Margita dutifully told the superior what was needed. However, the special and the other sisters did not want to believe her and persecuted her for making things up. Margita tried to endure everything in silence and humility. On Sunday, June 16, 1675, the Savior appeared to her for the third time. Again, he spoke of how men belittle his love and the sacraments. He asked Margita to attend the first Friday of every month to St. communion so that, according to her strength, she would correct the insults that befall the Most Holy Sacrament in that month. Since then, every night from Thursday to Friday, Margaret experienced the deathly anguish that Jesus had before his Passion in the Garden of Gethsemane. All this confused her; she could not understand that Jesus had chosen her for such an important task. However, God sent a wise and pious priest, Claudio de la Comboniér, a Jesuit, who became her spiritual leader, comforter, and adviser. With his help, she could carry out what the Savior had said and preached to spread further through the revelations.

In 1685, she became matron of novices for two years. Then, she became assistant to the matron of the house. In 1690, she started talking about death. She begged the matron to allow her to withdraw for forty days and prepare for death. The matron was surprised because Margita did not suffer from any illness. She got a cold in the fall, but the doctor said the disease was not dangerous. But the humiliated nun smiled and said they would not even notice when God would call her back. She often pressed the cross to her chest when sick and called on God. On the morning of October 17, 1690, she asked for a priest. The priest took care of her, and Margita died the same day. She was only forty-three years old. Her brain was found intact over a hundred years after her grave was opened. She was declared blessed in 1864 and a saint in 1920. Her remains rest under the main altar of the convent church in Paray-le-Monial. Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus spread throughout the Church.

From the revelations of St. Margita, which she described in her notes, established over time the twelve promises of the Divine Heart for those who will worship the Divine Heart:

I will give them all the graces necessary for their condition.

I will bring peace to their families and comfort them in their troubles.

I will become their haven in life, especially in the hour of death.

I will shower abundant blessings on all their events.

Sinners will find a source of grace and an endless sea of ​​mercy in my heart. Indifferent souls become zealous.

Ardent souls will attain great perfection.

I will also bless the houses where the image of my Sacred Heart will be displayed and venerated.

I will give priests the gift that they will convert even the most hardened hearts.

The names of those who will spread this respect will be written in my Heart and will never be erased from it.

To all who approach St. Communion on the first Friday for nine consecutive months,

I promise the grace of repentance when dying – they will not die in grace nor without the sacraments. My Heart will be a haven for them in the last moments of their lives.

This first stage is also called “contact, contact”. It is the first image coming from the imagination, the first thought, the first impulse. So, for example, a miser sees unguarded money and attacks him: “Could I have …hide it.” In the same way, we can have of the flesh, the idea that I’m better than everybody …the impulse to quit your job, etc. In this case. We’re not deciding anything yet; we’re just finding that the opportunity to do evil presents itself to us, and evil presents itself to us in an attractive form. Newcomers to the spiritual life get scared and confess that they “had bad thoughts,” even in church and during prayer. It is said that the saint  Anthony led one of his pupils, who complained bitterly of his evil thoughts, to the terrace and ordered
him to catch the wind with his hands. And after a while, he said, “If you can’t see the wind with your bare hands, much less control your evil thoughts.

How to purify your heart?
And that there is no guilt in the first incitement and that we will not be able to get rid of it as long as we live. Similar to flies, which bother us the more we become impatient. And what does “conversation” mean? This stage is recalled in Genesis chapter 3 when Eve converses with the serpent. Not heeding the first prompting, she leaves as it comes. But man does not normally do that, but instead allows himself to be provoked and begins …to think. So the miser says to himself, “If I take this money, I will put it in the bank.” But then it occurs to him that this is not honest, and besides, it’s dangerous. What if someone finds out about it? And so he thinks it would be better to keep the whole thing a secret. But he can’t make up his mind, but the money has been on his mind all day. The same thing happens to someone angry with someone. For a long time, he dwells on who made him so angry. He imagines how he would have beaten him up, insulted him, and forgiven him magnanimously; then he thinks again what he could have done to him… he forgets it only after a while. What guilt is in these internal “conversations”? Who decided nothing could not have sinned. But how much time and how much
of life energy is wasted in these meaningless internal “conversations”!

Why is the struggle only in third place?
We are on the third step. After a long conversation with …the thought has taken root in my heart; it’s not quickly banished. A sensual man’s imagination is so soaked with impure …that he can’t get rid of them. He’s still free; he doesn’t have to agree. He can, and he has from this struggle of his… but it costs him a great deal of effort: he must fight. His will must stand firm; he must make himself repeat: “I feel the strong attraction of sin, and yet I don’t want to agree; I freely decide the opposite, and I am willing to resist.”

What is consent?
That is the fourth stage. He who has lost the battle decides …to do what he feels compelled to do at the first opportunity… a lousy idea gives his free consent to the temptation of badness. Sin occurs at this stage in the true and proper sense of the word. And though the sin does not take place outwardly, it remains inwardly. Morality calls this a “sin in thought.” Unfortunately, the uninformed and inexperienced confuse the concepts. They think it is sinful to think of sin. So, such people become scrupulous and confess in confession that  they cannot get rid of the “sins of thought.” How do we come out of this confusion? One must be able to stop and say to oneself.
How do I purify my heart?
Do I feel an attraction to sin? Do I like it? I’m very attracted to it, to do it? Do you know if I do it? No! No! No! No! I choose not to do it.” This last decision must comfort us. The moment we made it, we discovered our freedom. Man is what and not what his senses draw him to. At such times, when he gives free consent to evil, he also experiences sin.

Cards. Fortune-tellers… and their ilk have success with the stupid, until time. God is eternal. What we don’t know, and it’s good that we don’t know.

In the Gospel, we hear the harsh words of Jesus Christ: “This generation is an evil generation. He asks for a sign, but he does not receive a sign…” (Lk 11:29). He speaks them to those who have hard hearts and refuse to believe him, that his testimony is much more powerful and convincing than anyone before him. When we want to convey these words of the Lord to the present day, it is first necessary to know that in the time of Jesus, unbelief did not mean denying God’s existence. Everyone believed in God, the Pharisees, and the scribes. Instead, unbelief meant unwillingness to accept that God speaks through Jesus Christ – there was a rejection of God’s voice. In today’s situation, disbelief means atheism, denying God and his existence.

In addition, Jesus says that at the last judgment, our generation will be confronted with the generations that lived in the past long before us. In the ancient past, these were not shadows and bones but lived close to God’s goal. One day, they will look us in the eye and ask how we handled their legacy. Let’s imagine how many generations sold faith in Christ before it reached us at the beginning of the third millennium. Although our ancestors had a difficult life, they knew the most valuable heritage and wealth that must be sold to children and preserved under all circumstances. Nowadays, we have to ask ourselves: Aren’t we the generation in the nation’s history that failed to sell faith in Christ to its own generation? What’s more, isn’t it true of this generation that it has lost its faith? Can this generation be converted and renewed?!

The worst is dull indifference, emptiness, inability, and unwillingness to ask and try to catch God’s voice in the heart. Such serious reflection opens God’s word in us today so that we realize with deadly seriousness what is expected of those who understand, hear, and believe. Let’s ask God to help us find an answer worthy of God.

It is challenging for a natural scientist to leave his world of numbers, matter, and energy and step into the unknown, into the vacuum of philosophy and theology. But we still have to ask the question: What if the world is still something other than a game of matter and energy? What if, to understand the nature of things, it will be necessary to leave the stream of naturalistic reasoning, to step aside from the river of thought and look at the world from elsewhere, from the position of a painter or a theologian? Biologists are very good at mapping the genes that make up material DNA and the visible environment. Still, they have trouble accepting the existence of an immaterial soul and an immeasurable God. Just what if this is true? God or soul lie beyond the reach of the natural sciences, but does that mean they don’t exist?
It’s hard for us because it’s hard to imagine; it’s another world. For scientists, it is qualitatively different and often challenging to think about God because God is from a different world – different from the world of the natural sciences. God is somehow on a separate page, on a separate page of the book. Questions about cause materials, the material cause of things, lead to firmly enclosed answers in the world of matter. Thus,  man/e is a clump of cells, and the chalice is silver. This is the correct answer, but such an answer is only meant to be a stepping stone for further questions.

In this way, Christians emphasize one more thing: the love of God
to man, understood personally, the love of God for me. This move, love, has been in me since childhood. St. Paul writes: I am what I am by God’s grace!  This being surrounded by God’s love, independently of my merits and reflections, perhaps even more clearly in the well-known opening of the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. He is called upon to be a prophet independently of his merits, even before he is born, even before he can do anything good or bad in his life: Before I formed thee in thy mother’s womb, I knew you, before you came out of my womb, I consecrated you, I made you a prophet to the Gentiles.™  1 Cor. 10.
Catholic Christians have a strange custom: they baptize little children. We often talk about how freedom and love are a matter of choice: For the Good for non-Christians or the Good for Christians. That is why we baptize little children. The child does not know what is happening to him and cannot give the information of consent to his baptism. Biblical reasons for baptism. Baptizing children is, moreover, fragile and very indirect. Well, Paul baptized the Psalmist and his whole house, with his wife, any servants, and his children, if he had any. Also, Peter baptized Cornelius the centurion and his relatives. Perhaps there were young children, perhaps not. But the biblical reasons could be more compelling. The reason we baptize little children is theological. The baptism of a child is a beautiful symbol that God speaks the first sentence of the conversation between God and man. All questions about the meaning of being in this world, where I came from, and who, in the Catholic understanding, I think about God, and prayer is only man’s response to the call, the restlessness God puts in him. No, it is not, therefore, that after studying the catechism textbooks and observing the world, I said, yes, I believe that God exists, and I want to be baptized. The decision is correct, but it is only the answer to a question that the Lord God once long ago and quietly voiced in us.

So genes, environment, freedom of the soul, and God’s grace are not the four players playing against each other: all come from God, and so can, therefore, to make this fundamental truth evident, the whole of the Holy Scripture with the phrase, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. So genes, environment, freedom, and God’s grace. Of man’s freedom, of how it is intertwined with God’s grace, and of man’s can be called to a role, often even before he is born, is explicitly stated in Holy Scripture and by many saints and theologians after him. Modern biology supplies the background of genes and the environment that make us shapes us. We are made of inanimate matter, which, like any other piece of matter, is subject to the laws of physics, and yet we tout the matter we can move; we are this matter, and through it, our spirit manifests itself. In this perspective, the ancient biblical image, in which God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life, becomes surprisingly modern.

The beauty of man is in his uniqueness. As the only creature we know, man is a fusion of sensuality and spirituality. Yes, we are composed of the same elements of Mendeleev’s system as the whole universe; all the atoms of the carbon of our bodies were once stars and then plants. Many genes and proteins of our body are the same as butterflies, trees, and birds; in all the cells of our body, we are populated with friendly bacteria. We are one blood with all life on Earth. Similarly, like nature, we reflect God’s beauty – but at the same time, our minds are drawn to God, we think about freedom, we create art and paint icons, the contemplative hearts of monks pray for the world in contemplative monasteries, we are the origin of the Fugue in D minor, the Vatican temple, Gregorian chant, the Song of Songs or the Ode to Joy, we discover and rejoice in knowledge; we can give and not expect back; we struggle with temptations, and for love, we can deny ourselves or even to die; we can forgive and love; we are humble in our greatness – and great if we live in humility; we can celebrate, we rejoice when in good happens in the world, and we are sad when evil is done. We are like angels. We are the most beautiful meeting of sensuality and spirituality. Through the material, we see the spiritual, and the spiritual is reflected in our bodies. As people who believe in God, we can think of Mary and Jesus.’ birth, the spiritual and physical union, and Christ Himself, whom we confess to as true God and true man. St. Athanasius says that God became man so that man might become God.

Let’s try to imagine our churches without statues of the Virgin Mary. They probably wouldn’t be what they are anymore. Many of us cannot even imagine our prayers without the rosary. Perhaps many of you, as well as me, were taught by grandmothers to respect the Virgin Mary from childhood. Her life was very mysterious and extraordinary. Let us not be surprised at the woman in the crowd when she exclaimed: “Blessed is the life that bore you and the breasts that you enjoyed” (Luke 11:26).

The teaching about the Virgin Mary appears at the very beginning of the history of Christianity. Holy Scripture mentions little about her life. Jesus beautifully comments on the event from the Gospel: “Certainly, but more blessed are those who listen to God’s word and keep it” (Lk 11:28). Jesus loved his mother, and with this text, he says that he loves us too. The Church teaches that the Virgin Mary is in heaven with body and soul. God has prepared a place for each of us in heaven. The Virgin Mary is one of the greatest mysteries of our faith. The mystery always gives space for searching and thinking and gives us space for the most diverse answers. That is why many Virgin Marys love her, even hate her, worship her, and reject her.

One of the causes of the split between the East and the West in the Church, when the Orthodox Church separated from us, was the lack of respect for the Virgin Mary in the West. In the East, she has always been adored and worshiped to a degree that is often incomprehensible to us. For Orthodox Christians, respect for the Mother of God is increased directly in faith’s very foundations. On the other hand, some of you may have noticed that Marian devotion is a big thorn in the side of believers in evangelical churches. But even among Catholics, there are all kinds of opinions about the figure of the Mother of God. For example, let’s think of some controversial Marian pilgrimage sites for many, such as  Međugorje, where the church authorities have difficulty expressing themselves due to known circumstances.

The Virgin Mary is a mystery, and mysteries are there to capture our attention and occupy our minds. And that is precisely why we have not forgotten the Virgin Mary and often think of her and pray to her. Perhaps precisely because of this, the power of her intercession, which she speaks to God for us, has been manifested many times in the history of the Church. And that’s good because we need it. The importance of Marian’s devotion is immense, even so significant that we cannot adequately explain it. It is precisely because of her modesty and humility that we know so little about her because she did not want to be in the foreground in front of everyone’s eyes. She did her part in salvation quietly in the background. Marian’s devotion is not a human invention. It was given to us from above for our good, sanctification, and salvation. And as the Lord Jesus descended through Mary, we can ascend to Jesus through Mary. Through Mary, God gives us a helping hand. We will not refuse her. 

 Quite naturally and logically, the idea that in terms of answering the question of what was before the Big Bang, one can, between scientists can be found as a group of materialistically oriented people who, by their postulate of eternity, uncreation, and indestructibility of matter, assume the existence of some form of matter before the Big Bang and a group of idealistically oriented ones who prefer the so-called “creation ex nihilo,” i.e., creation out of nothing. But it’s different. Some materialistically oriented scientists admit the possibility of the universe coming from nothing, and some idealistic-oriented scientists do not reject the possibility that God could have created our world out of something, provided, of course, that the “something” also came from him. As can a materialist reconcile himself to the notion that matter could come into existence by itself and out of nothing? The expert answer to this question is that it can and can do so by the so-called law of conservation with “zero right-hand sides.” Let us try to explain this further. We know that natural phenomena compensate each other so precisely that they add up to zero. A trivial example of this is, for example, the condition where we have a certain of money, but we have just as much debt. Our total financial situation is zero. That is precisely how it behaves in nature, like an electric charge. There is precisely as much positive in it as much negative electric charge, so the total electric charge in the universe is zero. If such a law were for energy or mass, there would be no problem imagining the creation of the universe out of nothing; it would just have to be arranged to start the simultaneous generation of positive and negative energy, respectively.

Positive and negative mass. This presupposes that, as in the case of
electric charge, there is a place in the universe for both positive and negative energy and positive and negative matter. What is the actual reality? Everyone will readily acknowledge that there is motion associated with matter and  positive energy. To set any body in motion requires exerting a specific (positive) effort, which measures the respective (motion) energy. But we also know situations in which  we do not have to exert effort, but on the contrary, we can gain. For example, when we (inadvertently) let fall on our head  a stone, we will feel convincingly that we have not expended any energy but, on the contrary, that we have received a certain amount of energy.

Where did it come from? It was produced by what, in physics, we call
the gravitational field. By its effect, all bodies fall towards the Earth. It follows from the above example that while matter itself needs to be assigned a positive energy, the gravitational field is given a negative energy. In nature, therefore, there are “deposits” of both positive and negative energy. But the question is whether their quantities are equal. So far, we don’t know exactly, so we can’t say that our universe
has the law of conservation of energy with a zero right-hand side. Even less clear is the situation with the matter. However, there is no shortage of attempts to work out specific “super-unified” theories that should be natural for both positive and negative matters.

In the case of the validity of the conservation mentioned above, laws with zero right-hand side, one could, therefore speak of a “creation ex nihilo,” but it is there is one open problem: it requires a stimulus that would to set in motion the separation of the “positive” from the “negative” and, thus, actually the process of the emergence of something tangible out of nothing. It must be said that such a “initiators” are known in contemporary physics. These are the so-called vacuum fluctuations,29) the chaotic eruptions of pairs of particles and antiparticles from the vacuum, in which these particles briefly “borrow” energy from the vacuum and, after a very a short time, they give it back without any residue. The physical vacuum behaves like as a source of packets of energy (vacuum fluctuations), which – if they are large enough – can materialize into a pair of particles and antiparticle, which, after its extinction, returns this energy to it.

The above mechanism could represent a model of generating real-world particles from a vacuum. Still, it doesn’t explain where these particles would get the energy that would allow them to exist in the real world.30) Even for this, some possible prescriptions. Such a source could be a sufficiently strong gravitational field. We can see that there is no lack of attempts in modern physics to explain the universe’s origin out of nothing, but the assumptions under which this could be done are only in the realm of hypothesis. If it were so easily feasible, we might ask why such a process has occurred only once and why we haven’t seen anything like it in the real world since we have not observed it. We can see that we “solve” one problem by making the mystery out the window, and another, perhaps even more significant, moves in through the door.

Although this question has been controversial since the earliest times
of human civilization, it was in 1929 that the modern cause broke out.
Astrophysicist Erwin Hubble irrefutably proved that our universe is not stationary but dynamic. He found that all distant galaxies are away from each other, which means the universe is expanding. When the is increasing, it means that in the past it was smaller, and the current question of what minimum volume it’s growing from. To solve the most famous physicists of the time (Stephen Hawking, Arthur Peacock, and others), the result of their study was surprising: the universe must expand from a “singular point,” which is, in layman’s terms, from “zero.” Science has thus (by scientific methods) arrived at
a knowledge which, since the beginning of humanity, has been proclaimed by all religions that the universe has a beginning, i.e., that it is not eternal. It is an earnest insight for philosophy, so it is no wonder that the problem of the Big Bang, as the moment of birth of the universe, has been and still is given special attention.

If we look at this problem in more detail, it doesn’t hurt. We know from history that the deeper we delve into it, the less accurate and confident we are of individual events and personalities. And this is information from a few millennia at most. There is talk of the Big Bang, which is said to have taken place about 15 billion years ago. On what basis can we so confidently claim that a particular extraordinary event took place that many billions of years ago? What do we have to guarantee that it took place at all? And so, quite naturally and insistently, the problem arises: Was there or was there not a Big Bang? The idea of the Big Bang was born in the 1930s and was formulated by the Russian physicist George Gamow, who left the then-Soviet Union to live in the USA. He even predicted that there would be a direct witness to this glorious event in the universe, so-called relic radiation, but his idea was sparked earlier by a smile. At that time, only one other observation suggested the possibility of a Big Bang – Hubble’s universe expansion.

The discovery of the existence of the Gamow-predicted relic radiation (1965) by the American astrophysicists Robert W. Wilson and Arne A. Penzias. When added to this was an excellent agreement of data on the composition of the oldest of the oldest stars, with the prediction arising from the existence of the Big Bang, a situation arose in which only a negligible fraction of the world’s public does not believe that it happened. So, we now have three experimental proofs that the Big Bang did happen, and further evidence appears to be on the horizon. To reinforce our belief that our universe began with the Big Bang, we’ll review all three pieces of evidence for its existence. The first is Hubble’s discovery of the expansion of the universe. The subjective circumstance that allowed Hubble to detect the universe’s expansion was the good fortune of having a telescope to observe even the most distant galaxies. The objective factor that helped him to make his world-famous discovery is known as It is a physical phenomenon that anyone can try and whose nature is not difficult to understand. Perhaps the ordinary person is not even aware of it, but if it were brought to his attention, he would certainly notice that when the source of the sound approaches him, he hears a higher pitch than when the source is moving away from him. This observation also applies to light because it is also a wave. The case is interesting for astrophysics because the latter deals, among other things, with the reception of light (and different types of electromagnetic radiation) from astrophysical objects. An increase in wavelength means a shift of light to the red color, and a decrease shifts it to the violet color of the spectrum. Therefore, the “red” or “violet” shift has been adopted.

If Hubble focused the telescope on closer objects, by the expectation, it measured redshift or purple shift, depending on whether the object was moving towards or away from it. When he focused only on the most distant galaxies, he measured only the red redshift, which indicated that all the distant galaxies were moving away from the observed “reference point.” This receding is insignificant, as it might seem at first glance. At present, the most distant galaxies are moving away from us (and are moving away from each other at speeds comparable to the speed of light (i.e., about 300,000 km/s). In this context, laypeople often ask whether this speed, which, according to Einstein’s theory of relativity, is the maximum possible, can also be exceeded. The answer is yes – in this case, it is mainly a matter of receding due to the expansion of space-time and not the motion of galaxies in it.