Atheism and the Big Bang

[ecco]

You can simply reject the gods so far proposed as non-existent due to insufficient evidence. That does not mean you believe there are no gods, it simply means that you are unconvinced about the proposed ones. .

If one rejects the gods so far proposed as non-existent, for any number of reasons, then why should one even consider the notion that somehow, somewhere, for some reason, there is a god?

We know that, as far as we have been able to determine, there is no such thing as psychic snowflakes. Is it logical (rational?) to conclude that maybe somehow, somewhere, for some reason, there are psychic snowflakes?

 

[ecco]

Intuition tells me that something brought the universe into existence. I don't know what it was, and certainly don't think for a minute it was anthropomorphic. But, the deistic position is where I lean.

• Intuition and common sense tells me the earth is flat.
• Intuition and common sense tells me that the earth is the center of everything.
• Intuition and common sense tells me that nothing can be a particle and a wave.

Intuition and common sense do little to explain the intricacies of the universe.

Man has substituted GodDidIt for IDunno from the time that man could ask questions. GodDidIt has never been the right answer. Why would you lean in that direction?

 

[ecco]

I have no definition of god, and I have no clue what the nature of the cause of the universe or god could be, or what this "God" is like. I have no idea what the cause of the universe was, but I believe that it had a cause, and the "cause" is what I label as "God." Certainly don't think it was a "personal" god that keeps track of sins etc.

What caused cause?

 

[ecco]

I don't have any problem leaving it as unknown forces. I guess where I differ from some atheists is that I don't believe the universe was an accident, or that it's purposeless. I think their *might* be some grand, unfathomable plan behind the whole universe but I'm not sure. I dont believe in a personal god or life after death or anything like that, but I'm not a nihilist.

What planned the plan?

 

[ecco]

I sometimes use I don't know--it IS a powerful statement. But here's what we DO know:

There is conservation of matter and energy, and problems of infinite regression, so the universe has to be CREATED.

You mention infinite regression and somehow fail to apply it to the problem of the creator of the creator. That seems hypocritical or, at best, inconsistent.

 

[ecco]

So, if I show you beyond a reasonable doubt that 1948 AD is in prophecy, will you convert?

No. But why don't you give it your best shot anyway. I need a good chuckle.

 

[Milton Platt]

If one rejects the gods so far proposed as non-existent, for any number of reasons, then why should one even consider the notion that somehow, somewhere, for some reason, there is a god?

We know that, as far as we have been able to determine, there is no such thing as psychic snowflakes. Is it logical (rational?) to conclude that maybe somehow, somewhere, for some reason, there are psychic snowflakes?

I totally agree with you. I have the same level of confidence that a god will turn up some day that I have that a purple fire breathing dragon will turn up in my backyard. I only hedge because 100% certainty is not possible on anything and I don’t have the patience to go down that rabbit hole with theists anymore.

 

[gnostic]

PS. The Bible says the universe is expanding. That should make you sit up to take notice!

No where in the bible, where it talks of expanding universe.

The only way for to be one, if you cherrypick a passage or two, and twist the meaning of those passages, which is a common dishonest tactics of creationists.

Do you care to quote your verse(s), which contain your bogus claim?

No! I'm stating categorically that no respected cosmologists believe SS because of thermodynamics, infinite regression and other problems, and all accept BB, but BB relies on infinite regression and SomethingIDon'tKnowWhatDidIt.

Can you deal with current knowledge on cosmology instead of model that were debunked half a century ago (eg Steady State model was debunked in 1964, discovery of CMBR support the BB model)?

You keep equating Steady State model with atheism, because Hoyle was an atheist, but you keep ignoring that Lemaître’s contemporaries who contributed to the expanding universe model, were atheists and agnostics.

I keep mentioning these contemporary scientists who were either atheists or agnostics, but you keep ignoring them:

• Alexander Friedmann (1922)
• Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25 (predicted redshift), and early 1930s with Arthur Geoffrey Walker)
• Edwin Hubble (1929, discovered redshift)
• George Gamow (1948, predicted BBN with Alpher and Bethe; 1938 in Stellar Nucleosynthesis, the proton-on-proton cyclic reaction)
• Ralph Alpher (1948; predicted BBN with Gamow; predicted CMBR with Herman)
• Robert Herman (1948)
• Hans Bethe (1939, predicted Stellar Nucleosynthesis of heavier elements, the CNO Cyclic reaction (CNO stands for carbon, nitrogen and oxygen)
• Arno Penzias (1964, discovered CMBR with Wilson)
• Robert Wilson (1964)

As you see in the list above, not all astrophysicists join Hoyle’s SS bandwagon.

 

[ecco]

I totally agree with you. I have the same level of confidence that a god will turn up some day that I have that a purple fire breathing dragon will turn up in my backyard. I only hedge because 100% certainty is not possible on anything and I don’t have the patience to go down that rabbit hole with theists anymore.

OK. I have 100% certainty that gods that gods are the creations of man's imaginings.

 

[Milton Platt]

OK. I have 100% certainty that gods that gods are the creations of man's imaginings.

Totally agree with you. I am 100% certain of same. The hedge is because there could be a god nobody knows about. I don't think there is, but there is no way to verify.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Though I reject all religions and named man-made gods, I don't consider myself to be an atheist, and recently have been increasingly inclined toward deistic beliefs, though I don't believe in a "God" in the sense that most people think of "God." The purpose of this post is to express my issue with atheism, particularly strong atheism, and how it is difficult to reconcile a fully atheistic position with Big Bang cosmology. I recognize that many people who describe themselves as atheists will probably agree with most of what I say here, so I hope I'm not straw-manning the atheist position here.

In any case, strong atheism, at least the way I understand it, asserts that there are no intelligent or creative forces in the universe beyond the natural universe as we see it. Additionally, most atheists believe that the universe began as an inconceivably small particle that exploded and rapidly expanded to produce the universe that we know today. I believe this as well, however I find it problematic to assert with confidence that there was no intelligent or supernatural agent involved in this process. Think about it this way: Have you ever seen an explosion produce order? Every example of an explosion that I can think of produces chaos, not order. Yet somehow, according to atheists, this infinitely tiny particle exploded in such a way as to produce an orderly universe (more or less) built upon fundamental particles whose interactions are dictated by specific physical laws. All of the matter and energy in this tiny particle that exploded somehow just re-arranged itself to form galaxies, stars, planets, and the conditions for life, and then life evolved and here we are, along with everything we know and love. Ultimately, according to this perspective, everything and everyone we know and love are ultimately the product of an entirely un-directed explosion that just happened to produce these conditions that would give rise to everything and everyone in existence, and ultimately, it's all meaningless, and the big bang was just a convenient accident that just happened to produce all the necessary conditions for the physical laws of the universe to cause atoms to re-arrange in such a way as to produce the universe as we know it, and to produce all of the wonders and beauties of it all. This is hard for me to believe. Bear in mind that if the initial conditions of the universe were even slightly different, there is no way that life, or even physical structures like galaxies, would exist.

Of course I'm not asserting that any specific god of any religion orchestrated the whole process, nor am I trying to create my own magic genie-god of the gaps to deal with this problem. It's even more ridiculous to believe a magical anthropomorphic immortal genie created it all with an incantation spell. My purpose for this post is just to encourage atheists to keep an open mind. Maybe there's something greater than us out there that is behind the whole thing. Maybe we'll never know what it is, or if it exists. In any case, it's interesting to speculate about, though many (though certainly not all) atheists tend to pooh-pooh any suggestion of a possible intelligent agent or creative force involved in the origin of the universe. Some of them also mock the idea that there could possibly be a purpose for all of this. I think that's a closed-minded mistake.

As I think we discussed before, many atheists mocked and rejected the Big Bang for the exact reasons you state here; the overt implications of a creator that THEY perceived in such a specific creation event. They preferred a range of static/eternal models for the opposite rationale: 'no creation= no creator"

The theistic implications only 'disappeared' once the theory was established beyond most reasonable doubt.

I agree entirely, we have no frame of reference for how life supporting, self aware universes are 'usually' created. We know that both creative intelligence and naturalistic 'automated' mechanisms exist within this universe, we simply have no good reason to eliminate either phenomena from playing a possible role in it's creation. We don't know the answer, my money is on intelligent agency as the least improbable possibility, but I'm open to both- we all want to know the truth ultimately

 

[Guy Threepwood]

OK. I have 100% certainty that gods that gods are the creations of man's imaginings.

So much for atheism not making any positive assertions!

I used to feel exactly the same-

 

[Samantha Rinne]

I keep mentioning these contemporary scientists who were either atheists or agnostics, but you keep ignoring them:

• Alexander Friedmann (1922)
• Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25 (predicted redshift), and early 1930s with Arthur Geoffrey Walker)
• Edwin Hubble (1929, discovered redshift)
• George Gamow (1948, predicted BBN with Alpher and Bethe; 1938 in Stellar Nucleosynthesis, the proton-on-proton cyclic reaction)
• Ralph Alpher (1948; predicted BBN with Gamow; predicted CMBR with Herman)
• Robert Herman (1948)
• Hans Bethe (1939, predicted Stellar Nucleosynthesis of heavier elements, the CNO Cyclic reaction (CNO stands for carbon, nitrogen and oxygen)
• Arno Penzias (1964, discovered CMBR with Wilson)
• Robert Wilson (1964)

As you see in the list above, not all astrophysicists join Hoyle’s SS bandwagon.

So what?

Here's Christian scientists (not to be confused with Christian Scientists):

• Rosalind Picard - Professor of Media Arts and Sciences at MIT, director and also the founder of the Affective Computing Research Group at the MIT Media Lab, co-director of the Things That Think Consortium,[1] and co-founder of startups Affectiva[2] and Empatica
• Hugh Ross (astrophysicist) - Canadian astrophysicist, Christian apologist, and old earth creationist.
• Alister McGrath - Northern Irish scientist, theologian, priest, intellectual historian and Christian apologist.
• Francis Collins - American physician, geneticist. He is director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
• Alexis Carrel - French surgeon and biologist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1912.[3]
• Dr Russell Humphreys American Physicist

By the way...

Anyone who is an atheist who believes in the Big Bang cannot be taken seriously, unless they can properly account for the fact that Big Bang is actually a Christian theory, developed by Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest/physicist. Stephen Hawking takes credit for this theory in the film The Theory of Everything, but this is blatant misinformation. Lemaître discovered this theory 20 years before Hawking was even born!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think it is fine to use the phrase "strong atheism" to denote those who claim that no gods exist. As long as there is an acknowledgement that atheism does not require a belief that no gods exist it should be fine.



Most scientists conclude that the universe started out very small and dense and then expanded outward, and this conclusion is based on mountains of evidence. Atheists tend to accept this finding because it is supported by mountains of evidence.



As an atheist, I fully agree. We simply don't know how the universe got started. Period. I don't see how you can make any statement about what was involved or not involved. I also don't see how anyone can make the claim that deities were required or not required.

At the same time, looking for natural causes has been a very fruitful line of inquiry over the last 400 years, so I tend to think this is the best way to look for answers. However, I am quite open to being proven wrong.



It wasn't an explosion. An explosion is the movement of material through space. In the case of the Big Bang it was an expansion of space itself, so it wasn't an explosion.

Also, we do see order arise out of condensation all of the time, and this is the process that gave order to our universe. In the world we are familiar with, we see ordered crystals form from condensation all of the time. Emeralds are formed from minerals in hot water that cool and then condense into solids. Ordered ice crystals form from the condensation of liquid water molecules. The same for our universe. As space expanded the universe cooled and we got hydrogen, helium, and a little bit of lithium that formed. From their, gravity takes over and starts to form galaxies, stars, and planets.

The Sun is an ongoing nuclear explosion, and it seems to be quite ordered.

That would be his point I believe... a stable ordered explosion which just happens to manufacture a wide range of specific more complex elements necessary for not only life on Earth, but resources that it's technologically advanced life can use to further explore, understand, appreciate, reverse engineer the world around them

all by pure fluke? not impossible....
the most likely explanation? a far more interesting question ...

 

[gnostic]

Anyone who is an atheist who believes in the Big Bang cannot be taken seriously, unless they can properly account for the fact that Big Bang is actually a Christian theory, developed by Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest/physicist.

Samantha, the Big Bang is no more a theist theory than it is an atheist theory.

And Lemaître didn’t bring up the expanding universe model alone. Two other physicists independently wrote papers on the same model or hypothesis, before Lemaître’s version (1927).

(Note that’s what it was called back then, or the “inflationary universe model”, because the name “Big Bang Theory” wasn’t coined until 1948 or 49.)

They were Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann in 1922, and American Howard Percy Robertson in 1924-25.

I am not denying Lemaître’s importance, but he wasn’t the only one.

It was Robertson who predicted in his hypothesis, the redshift, an important observational testings that the universe is expanding, not Lemaître. The redshift was discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929, the first evidence that verified the expanding universe model/Big Bang model.

The 2nd evidence was discovered in 1964 with the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), but it was predicted in the hypothesis of Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948, as well as equally important hypothesis on the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) by Russian George Gamow, Alpher’s former mentor and professor, which Alpher also co-wrote in 1948.

Gamow based his hypothesis on his former professor, Friedmann, during the 1920s, before Friedmann’s death in 1925.

I just don’t think it is about atheists vs theists, but BilliardsBall have made it into one.

And I am arguing against BilliardsBall because he is ignoring other scientists’ involvements in the Big Bang theory.

In other threads, BilliardsBall made the same argument that atheists only followed Fred Hoyle’s debunked Steady State model (1948-51), because of Hoyle being an atheist.

That typical BilliardsBall’s BS, because Friedmann, Robertson, Gamow, Alpher and Herman were all atheists, and were on Lemaître’s side.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, the Bible does not say that the universe is expanding. You are merely reinterpreting one verse taken out of context. By your standards the Bible also says that the Earth is flat.

Your Bible ignorance is showing both in your lack of Bible interpretation tools and your misquoting the Bible, saying it's ONE VERSE:

BibleGateway - : stretched heavens

 

[BilliardsBall]

You mention infinite regression and somehow fail to apply it to the problem of the creator of the creator. That seems hypocritical or, at best, inconsistent.

An excellent point, that. Are you aware that this issue is specifically addressed in scripture?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No where in the bible, where it talks of expanding universe.

The only way for to be one, if you cherrypick a passage or two, and twist the meaning of those passages, which is a common dishonest tactics of creationists.

Do you care to quote your verse(s), which contain your bogus claim?



Can you deal with current knowledge on cosmology instead of model that were debunked half a century ago (eg Steady State model was debunked in 1964, discovery of CMBR support the BB model)?

You keep equating Steady State model with atheism, because Hoyle was an atheist, but you keep ignoring that Lemaître’s contemporaries who contributed to the expanding universe model, were atheists and agnostics.

I keep mentioning these contemporary scientists who were either atheists or agnostics, but you keep ignoring them:

• Alexander Friedmann (1922)
• Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25 (predicted redshift), and early 1930s with Arthur Geoffrey Walker)
• Edwin Hubble (1929, discovered redshift)
• George Gamow (1948, predicted BBN with Alpher and Bethe; 1938 in Stellar Nucleosynthesis, the proton-on-proton cyclic reaction)
• Ralph Alpher (1948; predicted BBN with Gamow; predicted CMBR with Herman)
• Robert Herman (1948)
• Hans Bethe (1939, predicted Stellar Nucleosynthesis of heavier elements, the CNO Cyclic reaction (CNO stands for carbon, nitrogen and oxygen)
• Arno Penzias (1964, discovered CMBR with Wilson)
• Robert Wilson (1964)

As you see in the list above, not all astrophysicists join Hoyle’s SS bandwagon.

I NEVER said ANYTHING about SS or BB being "atheistic" or "religious". NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER. What I've written is, "cosmologists universally in modern years reject SS and accept BB". I didn't even say if I MYSELF accept SS! PLEASE stop talking to yourself, open your eyes and ears!

Here are multiple authors speaking of our rapidly expanding universe: BibleGateway - : stretched heavens

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your Bible ignorance is showing both in your lack of Bible interpretation tools and your misquoting the Bible, saying it's ONE VERSE:

BibleGateway - : stretched heavens

Fine, it was a common phrase in the Bible. The rest of my post was 100% correct.

 

[ecco]

Totally agree with you. I am 100% certain of same. The hedge is because there could be a god nobody knows about. I don't think there is, but there is no way to verify.

Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse. Are you saying that somewhere out there in the Universe there could be a real mouse that talks in a squeaky voice and has big ears?