"Lack of belief"

[Acim]

I do not find atheism or theism funny.
I do, however, find some theists and some atheists funny.

I find both isms have a degree of humor to them. And also find some of the two ists to have comedy down to an art.

 

[McBell]

I find both isms have a degree of humor to them. And also find some of the two ists to have comedy down to an art.

Fair enough.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Guy,

Hi Kartari-

So as an a-evolutionist, I make no claims at all, I simply lack belief in evolution. Period

You can argue that the evidence for your belief is entirely convincing to you, and for most people obviously it is not convincing at all. So that's an entirely subjective point of view is it not?

I don't even know which particular version of evolution you find convincing, Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium?

Whichever it is, I believe in one less version that you do. I lack belief in any of them until I see sufficient scientific evidence..

In claiming to not believe in evolution, you ARE making a very big claim: you are claiming that nearly all scientists in the world have the wrong knowledge, and that the plethora of evidence for evolution which does in fact exist, does not.

One's view of evolution is not a matter of belief vs. non-belief. It's a matter of knowing vs. not knowing.

Does it also make sense to you for one to be an a-gravitist or a-atomist, a "non-believer" in gravity or in atoms, due to a perceived lack of "sufficient scientific evidence?"

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hi Guy,



In claiming to not believe in evolution, you ARE making a very big claim: you are claiming that nearly all scientists in the world have the wrong knowledge, and that the plethora of evidence for evolution which does in fact exist, does not.

One's view of evolution is not a matter of belief vs. non-belief. It's a matter of knowing vs. not knowing.

Does it also make sense to you for one to be an a-gravitist or a-atomist, a "non-believer" in gravity or in atoms, due to a perceived lack of "sufficient scientific evidence?"

Of course, that was my point, simply framing my belief as a disbelief of the alternative, doesn't change my belief- so to with a-theism- it carries a whole host of positive assertions

But that's a very good example- just like evolution, classical physics was once widely accepted as a complete 'God refuting' explanation for all physical reality- the concept of underlying mysterious unpredictable forces required to guide it all was 'religious pseudo-science'. No coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism-

 

[Shad]

Of course, that was my point, simply framing my belief as a disbelief of the alternative, doesn't change my belief- so to with a-theism- it carries a whole host of positive assertions

But that's a very good example- just like evolution, classical physics was once widely accepted as a complete 'God refuting' explanation for all physical reality- the concept of underlying mysterious unpredictable forces required to guide it all was 'religious pseudo-science'. No coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism-

Classical physics was developed primary by theists. Max Planck religious views have no merit in regards to ideas he showed were sound. You are attempting to draw a correlation based on views with evidence as if these mean anything outside it's scope.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Guy,

Of course, that was my point, simply framing my belief as a disbelief of the alternative, doesn't change my belief- so to with a-theism- it carries a whole host of positive assertions

I'm afraid in that case you do not understand that atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in deities. I continue to fail to grasp how some people cannot comprehend that there is a distinct difference between belief and knowledge with meaningful consequences: the former (i.e. belief) is that which is believed in spite of either the lack of evidence or contrary evidence, and belief-based assertions therefore bear the burden of proof, while the latter (i.e. knowledge) is supported by the evidence, and therefore does not bear the burden of proof (i.e. it has already satisfied the burden, it has already been proven).

If you believe that there is a "whole host" of positive claims in the stance "I lack belief in deities," then can you please name at least one such perceived positive assertion? I bet you can't, because there isn't a single one.

The claim that a deity or deities exist bears the burden of proof. Not the reverse, as I have already explained. One more time, I will repeat myself... I will not repeat myself again so read this carefully please. The claim of a deity's or deities' existence bears the burden, rather than the reverse, because there is no evidence whatsoever for their existence beyond the confines of the human imagination. You cannot simply claim something is true without any supporting evidence, or claim something for which the body of evidence actually dismisses your claim, and then expect everyone to take your word for it! How is this not an absurd expectation to you?

But that's a very good example- just like evolution, classical physics was once widely accepted as a complete 'God refuting' explanation for all physical reality- the concept of underlying mysterious unpredictable forces required to guide it all was 'religious pseudo-science'. No coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism-

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that evolution is not a sound scientific theory? Do you have any evidence in support of an alternative theory? If so, by all means, please present it.

If not, then you should know that it is logically fallacious to presume the expanding nature of human knowledge alone somehow justifies your arbitrary dismissal of any scientific theories you happen to not like. Nor does it make any sense to adopt whatever fantasies you subjectively prefer to believe in instead. The theory of evolution is a sound scientific theory with a solid body of evidence to support it. This is a fact, knowable to anyone who wishes to read about it, and remains a fact regardless of how uncomfortable that might make you feel. Your lack of comprehension of evolution and the body of evidence in support of it does not somehow magically invalidate its soundness.

And I fail to see what significance Maxwell Planck's religious views bear on the subject matter.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hi Guy,



I'm afraid in that case you do not understand that atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in deities. I continue to fail to grasp how some people cannot comprehend that there is a distinct difference between belief and knowledge with meaningful consequences: the former (i.e. belief) is that which is believed in spite of either the lack of evidence or contrary evidence, and belief-based assertions therefore bear the burden of proof, while the latter (i.e. knowledge) is supported by the evidence, and therefore does not bear the burden of proof (i.e. it has already satisfied the burden, it has already been proven).

If you believe that there is a "whole host" of positive claims in the stance "I lack belief in deities," then can you please name at least one such perceived positive assertion? I bet you can't, because there isn't a single one.

The claim that a deity or deities exist bears the burden of proof. Not the reverse, as I have already explained. One more time, I will repeat myself... I will not repeat myself again so read this carefully please. The claim of a deity's or deities' existence bears the burden, rather than the reverse, because there is no evidence whatsoever for their existence beyond the confines of the human imagination. You cannot simply claim something is true without any supporting evidence, or claim something for which the body of evidence actually dismisses your claim, and then expect everyone to take your word for it! How is this not an absurd expectation to you?



Do you have any evidence whatsoever that evolution is not a sound scientific theory? Do you have any evidence in support of an alternative theory? If so, by all means, please present it.

If not, then you should know that it is logically fallacious to presume the expanding nature of human knowledge alone somehow justifies your arbitrary dismissal of any scientific theories you happen to not like. Nor does it make any sense to adopt whatever fantasies you subjectively prefer to believe in instead. The theory of evolution is a sound scientific theory with a solid body of evidence to support it. This is a fact, knowable to anyone who wishes to read about it, and remains a fact regardless of how uncomfortable that might make you feel. Your lack of comprehension of evolution and the body of evidence in support of it does not somehow magically invalidate its soundness.

And I fail to see what significance Maxwell Planck's religious views bear on the subject matter.

I understand the semantic distinction entirely- I consider myself an a-naturlaist, meaning nothing more than the lack of belief in natural causes for the universe, life, and everything in it. I lack this belief due to both lack of evidence for such a thing AND evidence to the contrary, therefore the burden of proof is on the belief in a naturalistic universe. NOT the other way around

(Meanwhile I continue to default to the obvious alternative until naturists convince me otherwise...)

see, works exactly the same both ways doesn't it?

You cannot simply claim something is true without any supporting evidence, or claim something for which the body of evidence actually dismisses your claim, and then expect everyone to take your word for it! How is this not an absurd expectation to you?

I fully acknowledge my belief, faith as such, I claim no intellectual superiority, and I don't ask anyone to take my word or the word of 'experts'

how about you?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that evolution is not a sound scientific theory? Do you have any evidence in support of an alternative theory? If so, by all means, please present it.


If not, then you should know that it is logically fallacious to presume the expanding nature of human knowledge alone somehow justifies your arbitrary dismissal of any scientific theories you happen to not like. Nor does it make any sense to adopt whatever fantasies you subjectively prefer to believe in instead. The theory of evolution is a sound scientific theory with a solid body of evidence to support it. This is a fact, knowable to anyone who wishes to read about it, and remains a fact regardless of how uncomfortable that might make you feel. Your lack of comprehension of evolution and the body of evidence in support of it does not somehow magically invalidate its soundness.

^ I guess that answers my question!

a fact? how impressive, has it attained the status of 'immutable' yet like classical physics did?

I think evolution is very likable. It is an elegant, intuitive, comprehensive theory that offers a complete simple explanation of every aspect of the field of science it addresses, just like classical physics did.
And this has been the problem with both theories. They were a little too attractive for their own good...

The interactions of massive celestial objects and subatomic particles, the fossil record and genetics, are not themselves swayed by what peer pressure review declares to be fact, they tell their own story, the scientific one.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Lack of belief"

Lack of belief is lack of life, being dead.
When one dies, one is left with no belief.
Regards

 

[McBell]

(Meanwhile I continue to default to the obvious alternative until naturists convince me otherwise...)

What is your alleged "default" position?

see, works exactly the same both ways doesn't it?

Yes.
yes it does.
That you seem to think it some kind of ace in the hole is actually quite comical.

I fully acknowledge my belief, faith as such, I claim no intellectual superiority, and I don't ask anyone to take my word or the word of 'experts'

how about you?

Yet here you are....

a fact? how impressive, has it attained the status of 'immutable' yet like classical physics did?

I think evolution is very likable. It is an elegant, intuitive, comprehensive theory that offers a complete simple explanation of every aspect of the field of science it addresses, just like classical physics did.
And this has been the problem with both theories. They were a little too attractive for their own good...

The interactions of massive celestial objects and subatomic particles, the fossil record and genetics, are not themselves swayed by what peer pressure review declares to be fact, they tell their own story, the scientific one.

How many times being explained to you before your repeating the same false information before you are lying?

 

[Willamena]

What is your alleged "default" position?

Rationally, that would be the set of beliefs he held before someone tried to convince him otherwise. At least, that's what "default" usually means.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Guy,

I understand the semantic distinction entirely- I consider myself an a-naturlaist, meaning nothing more than the lack of belief in natural causes for the universe, life, and everything in it. I lack this belief due to both lack of evidence for such a thing AND evidence to the contrary, therefore the burden of proof is on the belief in a naturalistic universe. NOT the other way around

(Meanwhile I continue to default to the obvious alternative until naturists convince me otherwise...)

see, works exactly the same both ways doesn't it?

No, it does not. As I explained several times already.

I fully acknowledge my belief, faith as such, I claim no intellectual superiority, and I don't ask anyone to take my word or the word of 'experts'

how about you?

If you understood the difference between faith-based beliefs and fact-based knowledge, you would not be asking me this question.

^ I guess that answers my question!

a fact? how impressive, has it attained the status of 'immutable' yet like classical physics did?

I think evolution is very likable. It is an elegant, intuitive, comprehensive theory that offers a complete simple explanation of every aspect of the field of science it addresses, just like classical physics did.
And this has been the problem with both theories. They were a little too attractive for their own good...

The interactions of massive celestial objects and subatomic particles, the fossil record and genetics, are not themselves swayed by what peer pressure review declares to be fact, they tell their own story, the scientific one.

That's a bad analogy... as I already explained.

You seem determined to believe that by putting the letter 'A' in front of any given term in the dictionary, regardless of the actual meaning of that term, that this somehow magically releases you from the burden of proof... when in fact the burden of proof rests with the one making an unproven claim. And given the fact that there is no proof for the supernatural, your "a-naturalism" is an unproven claim and therefore bears the burden of proof.

Sorry, Guy. I do not believe I will succeed in getting you to understand this point. Good luck.

P.S. As an aside, I am not claiming it is (necessarily) bad to have beliefs. This debate has been a question of acknowledging logical soundness and where the evidence leads.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You seem determined to believe that by putting the letter 'A' in front of any given term in the dictionary, regardless of the actual meaning of that term, that this somehow magically releases you from the burden of proof...

Then I concede that I have done a poor job explaining the point

because that was my point exactly, putting 'a' in front of 'theism' (or anything else) does not magically shift the burden of proof, it does nothing to change the belief itself

There is no default truth, no reference for how universes are 'usually' created by default, any belief must stand on it's own merits.


And I agree with you also, that it is far more interesting to discuss those merits, logical arguments and evidence, than semantics.


On that note, atheists used to share the belief with Buddhists, that there was no creation event, the priest Lemaitre's 'primeval atom' theory was mocked as religious pseudo-science and 'big bang'. They overwhelmingly preferred static/eternal models (no creation = no creator)

But in time, the evidence for this creation event removed any reasonable doubt for most. Do you have an alternative explanation for this evidence, that supports a unique singular creation point for everything as we know it?

 

[paarsurrey]

"Lack of belief"

Lack of belief is lack of life, being dead.
When one dies, one is left with no belief.
Regards

When one dies in that state one is left with lack belief, while living one has to have a belief whether one belongs to a religion or no-religion. Right?
Regards

 

[Kartari]

Hi Guy,

Then I concede that I have done a poor job explaining the point

because that was my point exactly, putting 'a' in front of 'theism' (or anything else) does not magically shift the burden of proof, it does nothing to change the belief itself

So far, so good...

There is no default truth, ...

First mistake. Why should the default position not be the position supported by the facts as we know them? That is: given the evidence for a physical universe, and the lack of evidence for the supernatural, it is logical to presume that only natural explanations for any given events are plausible until proven otherwise. To date, I've yet to find one person able to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural beyond the confines of human imagination. Can you?

no reference for how universes are 'usually' created by default, ...

True. However, given that there is no evidence for the supernatural, and therefore no evidence for a supernatural cause for the existence of the universe, it is logical to presume that the universe either had a natural cause or is uncaused until proven otherwise. The burden of proof rests with the one making a supernatural claim.

any belief must stand on it's own merits.

Beliefs are fine, so long as they do not contradict the facts... and most especially when they also contradict universal ethical standards.

And I agree with you also, that it is far more interesting to discuss those merits, logical arguments and evidence, than semantics.

Good...

On that note, atheists used to share the belief with Buddhists, that there was no creation event, the priest Lemaitre's 'primeval atom' theory was mocked as religious pseudo-science and 'big bang'. They overwhelmingly preferred static/eternal models (no creation = no creator)

But in time, the evidence for this creation event removed any reasonable doubt for most. Do you have an alternative explanation for this evidence, that supports a unique singular creation point for everything as we know it?

You make both logical and factual errors here. First, it is not factually correct to describe the Big Bang as a "creation event." This theory does not claim that the universe was intelligently created, such as by God. Indeed, it makes no claim whatsoever that the universe even had a cause or origin point for that matter, natural or supernatural. It begins with the superdense state of the universe approximately 13.8 billion years ago and describes its expansion and properties since that time to the present. It does not speak at all of what came before this superdense state of the universe.

And logically, one could conceive of a variety of valid possibilities for the existence of this superdense state of the universe. The belief in an intelligent designer is but one of a number of imagined explanations (and one without evidence, as previously explained, i.e. what I wrote about the supernatural). For instance, it could have been caused to exist by natural means (e.g. such as by extradimensional processes, as explained in string theory). Or it could be the case that the universe cyclically and perpetually expands and contracts (more akin to a Hindu notion of cyclical existence if you want to point at a religion). We don't know yet. But does our lack of certain knowledge really justify the human desire to assert one's preferential belief as true? No. It remains mere belief... until proven otherwise.

 

[ArtieE]

On that note, atheists used to share the belief with Buddhists, that there was no creation event, the priest Lemaitre's 'primeval atom' theory was mocked as religious pseudo-science and 'big bang'. They overwhelmingly preferred static/eternal models (no creation = no creator)

But in time, the evidence for this creation event removed any reasonable doubt for most. Do you have an alternative explanation for this evidence, that supports a unique singular creation point for everything as we know it?

There's a big difference between saying that there was an event which resulted in the existence of the universe and a creation event. We have tons of evidence that there was an event that resulted in the existence of the universe but zero evidence that the universe was deliberately created. If you say "creation event" we assume that you believe in the existence of a creator. I prefer to simply refer to it as "the event that resulted in the existence of the universe" because we have no evidence that any creator was involved.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hi Guy,



So far, so good...



First mistake. Why should the default position not be the position supported by the facts as we know them? That is: given the evidence for a physical universe, and the lack of evidence for the supernatural, it is logical to presume that only natural explanations for any given events are plausible until proven otherwise.

sorry for this long post, but you asked lots of very interesting questions!

There are few things more subjective than 'evidence' .

The concept of a creation event for space/time/matter itself was originally rejected and mocked as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'big bang' by atheists explicitly because of what they saw as overt theistic/supernatural implications. This 'evidence for the supernatural' mysteriously vanished when the theory was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

To date, I've yet to find one person able to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural beyond the confines of human imagination. Can you?

The supernatural exists within the human imagination yes. i.e. creative intelligence has a unique capacity for creation that nature alone never can. It is in itself super-natural in that it transcends the 'natural' confines, limitations of an infinite regression of cause and effect.

We can create stories, books, fiction, yes, and that same power creates functional practical objects that have no possible natural explanation.

If I were forced to account for the existence of my cell phone without involvement of an intelligent being... I could first propose that it always existed, no creation = no creator ( static/ steady state/ the original naturlaist explanation for the universe) Once this was debunked by finding a creation date on the phone, I'd be forced to propose that it still needed no creator because it created itself from it's own parts (Big Crunch). Once this was debunked, the last possible explanation would be that it was created by an infinite probability machine along with every other possible object (multiverse)

naturalist theories have constantly retreated from the evidence, into the gaps, the shadows where the light of science has not yet shone, and have now moved altogether beyond the inconvenience of scientific study.

While The priest Lemaitre's primeval atom remains supported, empirical, testable, observable

True. However, given that there is no evidence for the supernatural, and therefore no evidence for a supernatural cause for the existence of the universe, it is logical to presume that the universe either had a natural cause or is uncaused until proven otherwise. The burden of proof rests with the one making a supernatural claim.

As above we have evidence of both creative intelligence and natural cause and effect creating things within the universe, we have no empirical evidence for either creating the universe itself.

And your exact same rationale could be applied to the software running this website, since it contains nothing but automated lines of code, no active creative intelligence within it, then we can deduce that the sofware wrote itself by the same method.

Same paradox for the universe. The assertion of a 'natural' cause, says that the laws of nature were ultimately written by.... those very same laws. That's a paradox unique to naturalist belief.

Beliefs are fine, so long as they do not contradict the facts...

like static universe, steady state, big crunch, every testable natural explanation ever proposed

You make both logical and factual errors here. First, it is not factually correct to describe the Big Bang as a "creation event."

It was only the literal creation of all space/time matter/energy as we can possibly ever know it. How 'creationy' can you get?!

if someone objects to the term 'creation event' for this, it's usually the implication rather than the word itself they object too

This theory does not claim that the universe was intelligently created, such as by God.

No, it wasn't supposed to , the priest Lemaitre went out of his way to disassociate the theory with his personal beliefs. Even telling the pope to stop gloating.

IT was the naturalists and/or atheists who drew that line in the sand, it was THEY who complained of the theistic implications

Indeed, it makes no claim whatsoever that the universe even had a cause or origin point for that matter, natural or supernatural. It begins with the superdense state of the universe approximately 13.8 billion years ago and describes its expansion and properties since that time to the present.

during which all space/time matter/energy as we can possible know it was created

And logically, one could conceive of a variety of valid possibilities for the existence of this superdense state of the universe. The belief in an intelligent designer is but one of a number of imagined explanations (and one without evidence, as previously explained, i.e. what I wrote about the supernatural). For instance, it could have been caused to exist by natural means (e.g. such as by extradimensional processes, as explained in string theory). Or it could be the case that the universe cyclically and perpetually expands and contracts (more akin to a Hindu notion of cyclical existence if you want to point at a religion). .

Just as steady state and big crunch were among several imagined natural explanations.

So far the only 'cosmogenic' theory that has been supported by evidence, was the one atheists considered as having uncomfortable implications for them

We don't know yet. But does our lack of certain knowledge really justify the human desire to assert one's preferential belief as true? No. It remains mere belief... until proven otherwise

I quite agree, we should follow Lemaitre's example, and separate our personal beliefs from our science
As opposed to atheists like Hoyle, who explicitly based their theories on there personal preferences for a naturalistic explanation, despite evidence to the contrary.

And there is the ultimate problem with atheism, how does a person separate a belief he refuses to acknowledge he has?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There's a big difference between saying that there was an event which resulted in the existence of the universe and a creation event. We have tons of evidence that there was an event that resulted in the existence of the universe but zero evidence that the universe was deliberately created. If you say "creation event" we assume that you believe in the existence of a creator. I prefer to simply refer to it as "the event that resulted in the existence of the universe" because we have no evidence that any creator was involved.

or zero evidence that it was a natural event

But It was the literal creation of all space/time matter /energy as we can possibly, inherently, ever know it or even study it. If you don't like the word 'creation' for this- are you sure it's the word, and not the implantation of the event itself that you dislike?


To be fair; when the observation is a highly specific unique creation event for everything we can possibly know, without any known natural cause- that's hardly a slam dunk for naturalism is it?

Had any one of the naturalist- 'creation event dodging' theories turned out to be supported by evidence; static, steady state, big crunch etc- fine- we have a natural un-created explanation. But this is simply not the case.

The only cosmogenic theory that was ever supported by evidence was the one atheists recoiled from because it was so obviously 'creationistic' with all of the overt theistic/Biblical implications. I don't think that's a slam dunk for God either, but it's at least consistent with the evidence so far.

What would be so terrible, or unbelievable anyway about our universe being created by God?

 

[serp777]

"Lack of belief"

Lack of belief is lack of life, being dead.
When one dies, one is left with no belief.
Regards

That's a major logical fallacy.

Being dead does imply a lack of belief, but the converse isn't true that a lack of belief implies being dead.

Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

 

[serp777]

or zero evidence that it was a natural event

But It was the literal creation of all space/time matter /energy as we can possibly, inherently, ever know it or even study it. If you don't like the word 'creation' for this- are you sure it's the word, and not the implantation of the event itself that you dislike?


To be fair; when the observation is a highly specific unique creation event for everything we can possibly know, without any known natural cause- that's hardly a slam dunk for naturalism is it?

Had any one of the naturalist- 'creation event dodging' theories turned out to be supported by evidence; static, steady state, big crunch etc- fine- we have a natural un-created explanation. But this is simply not the case.

The only cosmogenic theory that was ever supported by evidence was the one atheists recoiled from because it was so obviously 'creationistic' with all of the overt theistic/Biblical implications. I don't think that's a slam dunk for God either, but it's at least consistent with the evidence so far.

What would be so terrible, or unbelievable anyway about our universe being created by God?

To be fair; when the observation is a highly specific unique creation event for everything we can possibly know, without any known natural cause- that's hardly a slam dunk for naturalism is it?

It's certainly not a slam dunk for theism either, in case you were thinking that. At best you're left with "I don't know."

The only cosmogenic theory that was ever supported by the evidence was the one atheists recoiled from because it was so obviously 'creationistic' with all of the overt theistic/Biblical implications. I don't think that's a slam dunk for God either, but it's at least consistent with the evidence so far.

It's not overtly theistic or biblical whatsoever. There was a 50% chance of being right--either the universe was created or it wasn't. Christianity happened to pick created. Also the term "let there be light" is entirely incorrect. Light didn't even exist in the universe until 200,000 years after the big bang--that first bit of light formed the CMB. The bible is woefully inaccurate.

What would be so terrible, or unbelievable anyway about our universe being created by God

It depends on the God. If its the deist God who is uninvolved in our universe, then it wouldn't be terrible at all. However, if it's the Christian God who made heaven and hell and punishes those who don't believe with eternal suffering, then that universe sounds pretty bad--even in heaven, knowing that billions of humans were suffering the worst pain possible would be truly awful. I would despair if that universe was the universe we lived in.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's certainly not a slam dunk for theism either, in case you were thinking that. At best you're left with "I don't know."

agreed. I don't know, I acknowledge my belief as such, faith

It's not overtly theistic or biblical whatsoever.

that it was, was the complaint of atheists at the time, their argument not mine!

There was a 50% chance of being right--either the universe was created or it wasn't. Christianity happened to pick created.

atheists picked uncreated explicitly because that meant no creator, which was the point, letting personal beliefs guide conclusions instead of the evidence.

Also the term "let there be light" is entirely incorrect. Light didn't even exist in the universe until 200,000 years after the big bang--that first bit of light formed the CMB. The bible is woefully inaccurate.

In physical cosmology, the photon epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe in which photons dominated the energy of the universe. The photon epoch started after most leptons and anti-leptons were annihilated at the end of the lepton epoch, about 10 seconds after the Big Bang.[1]


...let there be light...

cmon credit where it's due, that's not too shabby is it!? considering atheists considered the whole thing religious pseudoscience.

The atheist Static, steady state, big cruch theories were what turned out to be woefully inaccurate

It depends on the God. If its the deist God who is uninvolved in our universe, then it wouldn't be terrible at all. However, if it's the Christian God who made heaven and hell and punishes those who don't believe with eternal suffering, then that universe sounds pretty bad--even in heaven, knowing that billions of humans were suffering the worst pain possible would be truly awful. I would despair if that universe was the universe we lived in.

The 'Christian God' for sake of argument, created a world with no pain, suffering, grief, hate, that still exists today, for jellyfish, and hence no joy, love, bliss either, would you trade?