Atheism and the Big Bang

[Rational Agnostic]

Your opinions regarding evolution are based entirely on what you have heard and read - other people's words. However, it seems you are unwilling to hear or read words that oppose your anti-evolution thoughts, and you rationalize the reasons for not doing so. That is clear from your comments above.

It seems as though he won't read the book I suggested, probably because he knows it will change his mind and he doesn't want that to happen because he wants evolution to be false.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm asking what your own personal opinion is on this evidence, the whole point of science is NOT having to take other people's word for it. Would you not agree Hubert?

I am not Hubert either, but I strongly disagree.

If you are willing to do the research yourself, then you do not have to take anyone else's word for it. But, in the case of evolution, that may well involve having a well-stocked biology lab and doing a lot of field work.

And, we have scientific journals specifically so we have the word of other people and what results they got. And, those who *do* have the resources can, and do, test things for themselves and also publish their results, allowing those who do not have the resources to read the tests done and the results.

We cannot expect every person to test every single aspect of all of science for themselves. It is necessary and reasonable to 'take the word' of those experts who have done the tests. Even better, look at survey articles that go over the results from several different labs and analyze the results. These tend to be the collected results for a subject and are quite reliable for the present state of knowledge in an area.

So, unless you have a research grade lab and are willing to do all the fieldwork, you *do* have to take someone's word for things.

 

[ecco]

It seems as though he won't read the book I suggested, probably because he knows it will change his mind...

With all due respect, he knows he will never change his mind.

 

[viole]

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.

The Big bang is not an explosion, so your argument is moot.

Incidentally, you seem to think that the so-called initial conditions of the universe were tuned for life, as if life was something cool and desirable somehow. What makes you think that, apart from being an alive set of atoms? Maybe the Universe was tuned to create electrons and life is just a necessary disposable by-product.

Now, why not many believers say that? Why no believers say: look the Universe is fine tuned to create neutrinos, or Mount Everest, ergo God exists. The reason is obvious. Believers do not care about neutrinos or the mount Everest, they care of being alive.

Unfortunately, by arbitrarily promoting life to the reason why the Universe is the way it is, they just beg the question in any fine tuning argument they use.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

All that as it is.....the question you need to answer is...is there a god who continually meddles with the universe and people's lives? If there was a being who did some stuff in the distant past, but now just ignores the natural world, then he is virtually the same as a non-existent deity and he can be ignored. If the deity interferes with the natural world, then there should be ways to detect this meddling, and therefor prove this god might exist. There is no such evidence despite thousands of years of trying. so...........????

 

[Audie]

I'm asking what your own personal opinion is on this evidence, the whole point of science is NOT having to take other people's word for it. Would you not agree Hubert?

Maybe not the WHOLE point but, close enough.

We have Authority, as from "god", or someone
who has special access to arcane knowledge.

I suppose most people through most of time have
not had much chance to learn for themselves, or
challenge the (so-called) authority.

Through science, one at least has the possibility of
challenging science.

We note your challenge, but see no substance to it,
which is disappointing. You are not taking
advantage of the opportunity to mount a serious
challenge, but rather offering what seem to us to be
ill based opinions from somewhere not authority or science.

 

[Audie]

The Big bang is not an explosion, so your argument is moot.

Incidentally, you seem to think that the so-called initial conditions of the universe were tuned for life, as if life was something cool and desirable somehow. What makes you think that, apart from being an alive set of atoms? Maybe the Universe was tuned to create electrons and life is just a necessary disposable by-product.

Now, why not many believers say that? Why no believers say: look the Universe is fine tuned to create neutrinos, or Mount Everest, ergo God exists. The reason is obvious. Believers do not care about neutrinos or the mount Everest, they care of being alive.

Unfortunately, by arbitrarily promoting life to the reason why the Universe is the way it is, they just beg the question in any fine tuning argument they use.

Ciao

- viole

I think arguing whether it was an explosion is
serves only to miss discussing a modestly
reasonable idea.

The conditions, say a year after BB would be
chaotic in the extreme.

The q is how can order emerge from chaos, I
think. I think that is the idea.

 

[Polymath257]

I think arguing whether it was an explosion is
serves only to miss discussing a modestly
reasonable idea.

The conditions, say a year after BB would be
chaotic in the extreme.

The q is how can order emerge from chaos, I
think. I think that is the idea.

That 'chaos' happens on a large enough scale that gravity is a significant factor in the subsequent dynamics. Gravity has a tendency, on this scale, to concentrate matter where it was a bit more dense, and move it away from where it was less dense. Such variation in density is guaranteed in the 'chaos'. The effect of this accentuation of differences is, precisely, structure formation. In other words, gravity is what drives the majority of the order in the universe.

This is seen at a smaller scale in galactic gas and dust clouds. We can see star formation due to the effects of gravity in such clouds. The point is that gravity tends to draw the matter together. And, on the slightly smaller scale, it tends to produce spherical objects like stars and planets. Why? Because a sphere is the solid you get if you try to move everything as close to the center as possible.

 

[Audie]

That 'chaos' happens on a large enough scale that gravity is a significant factor in the subsequent dynamics. Gravity has a tendency, on this scale, to concentrate matter where it was a bit more dense, and move it away from where it was less dense. Such variation in density is guaranteed in the 'chaos'. The effect of this accentuation of differences is, precisely, structure formation. In other words, gravity is what drives the majority of the order in the universe.

This is seen at a smaller scale in galactic gas and dust clouds. We can see star formation due to the effects of gravity in such clouds. The point is that gravity tends to draw the matter together. And, on the slightly smaller scale, it tends to produce spherical objects like stars and planets. Why? Because a sphere is the solid you get if you try to move everything as close to the center as possible.

I guess, but how does that let a creo understand that
"an explosion cannot create..." is a false argument?

 

[Polymath257]

I guess, but how does that let a creo understand that
"an explosion cannot create..." is a false argument?

Well, primarily by getting them to understand that explosions on the Earth do not have gravity as a dominating force. But in the aftermath of the BB, it was, by far, the dominant force. And it *does* produce structure.

I think most people are unaware of just how much structure can be formed on the large scale by gravity and on the small scale by chemistry (ultimately electromagnetism).

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Well, primarily by getting them to understand that explosions on the Earth do not have gravity as a dominating force. But in the aftermath of the BB, it was, by far, the dominant force. And it *does* produce structure.

I think most people are unaware of just how much structure can be formed on the large scale by gravity and on the small scale by chemistry (ultimately electromagnetism).

That's why I like using the Sun as an example. It is a perfect example of an ongoing explosion and gravity working in concert to create a structured system. You can even find structures produced by electromagnetism on the Sun.

 

[Audie]

That's why I like using the Sun as an example. It is a perfect example of an ongoing explosion and gravity working in concert to create a structured system. You can even find structures produced by electromagnetism on the Sun.

Wait till George Noory finds out there are structures
on the sun!

 

[Tiapan]

I think your idea of the "Big Bang" might need some adjustment. You describe it as an explosion like a hand grenade going off, where a perfectly good well manufacture device is blown into a kaotic conflagration of dangerous high speed waste fragments. The actual evidence indicates the "Big Bang" was more of an expansion and series of coalescences stages eventually leading to a universe that had the right materials and and environments for life to start.
The universe expands and by the laws of physics, PV=nRT it cools.
Initially composed of tiny hot particles called quarks
Cooled the quarks coalesced to a soup of very hot and fast subatomic particles protons, neutrons, electrons , positrons, anti protons.
(Possible matter-antimatter annihilation event)
As these cool they formed the first atoms, predominantly Hydrogen the simplest.
After further cooling Hydrogen which has mass and is therefore attracted by gravity to form the first stars, many very large with short lives.
Large short lived stars,explode as supernova creating the higher elements.
Over billions of years new stars are born live and die from the ashes of their forebears
Eventually ending at todays Universe
This is not the same as a fragmenting grenade, but the eventual arrival at circumstances that allow life to exist.
Notice over time the hot quantum Kaos of the "Big Bang" leads eventually, as the universe cools, to the order of the current universe.
From little things, big things grow.
Cheers

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

Quote from the OP "natural"

What do the Atheism* people understand from word "natural",please? and
What do the Agnosticism** people understand from word "natural",please?
What do the Deistic** people understand from word "natural",please?
Regards

________
*one was previously in this worldview
** one is inclined in these worldviews