• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheism and the Big Bang

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
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.

There are several hypothesis on how the universe came onto existence. As far as i know none require a god

Here is one idea of how a universe could have been the result of nothing.
[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing


Of course if anyone can offer a rational hypothesis that a god did it, I'm sure it would be examined in the same way other valid hypothesise are
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Ironically atheism and humanism were classified as religions and rightly so since they have many faith principles. Then toward the second half of the 20th century they started making themselves a not a religion.... but really... they are

I don't think the big bang is a slam dunk and there are numerous issues and problems with it ... but it;s a not very good grasp at explaining the world without a creator and so it appeals to someone not wanting a creator to be accountable to. There also are theistic big bang views... as there are theistic evolutionists... and I think those have issues as well

Atheism is religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

atheism is one thing and one thing only
"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
Anything else is just wanton misrepresentation.

So please provide citation for your claim
"classified as religions" and "toward the second half of the 20th century they started making themselves a not a religion"


Also please provide details of the "problems" you claim with the bb model.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
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.

The time frame involved in getting order to coalesce out
of chaos is something that gets missed in the creationist
argument.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
The time frame involved in getting order to coalesce out
of chaos is something that gets missed in the creationist
argument.

They do seem to have a mental block with times over a few thousand years
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
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.

HF:

The Bible predicts precisely how atheists will respond to the OP, and how born again believers will respond. Respectfully, I did not read any other posts on this thread but yours. See how the Bible tells us the truth! :)
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
HF:

The Bible predicts precisely how atheists will respond to the OP, and how born again believers will respond. Respectfully, I did not read any other posts on this thread but yours. See how the Bible tells us the truth! :)

And i predict precisely how you will respond, you are an open book. Take note, im living, the bible is an old book. See how i tell the truth?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
HF:

The Bible predicts precisely how atheists will respond to the OP, and how born again believers will respond. Respectfully, I did not read any other posts on this thread but yours. See how the Bible tells us the truth! :)

We certainly see how the bible says precisely what the
person reading wants it to say.

Wonder if you are aware, btw, of a difference between
precision and accuracy?
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
HF:

The Bible predicts precisely how atheists will respond to the OP, and how born again believers will respond. Respectfully, I did not read any other posts on this thread but yours. See how the Bible tells us the truth! :)

There are born again believers who accept the Big Bang as an accurate description of our universe's history. In fact, it was a born again believer that came up with the Big Bang theory to begin with.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
You're falling for a creationist ploy. Despite the name's implication, the "Big Bang" was not an explosion, so your initial premis is wrong.
I think that the Big Bang makes a great illustration of the superiority of Science over Religion.

Back in the mid 20th century, there simply wasn't enough data to say anything important about the origins of the Universe with any real authority. The real answer to "Where did the universe come from?" was ''Nobody knows". But lots of people had opinions and hypothesis.

There were lots, but they fell into two main categories, "Steady state" and "Expanding". But there wasn't really enough data to say for sure. "The Big Bang" was a derogatory term invented by Steady State supporters to describe the "Expanding" believers.

But, unlike religious folks, the scientific community didn't schism and start politically convenient wars. They kept accumulating information and publishing it in peer reviewed journals. They made predictions that could be validated. Eventually, some of the world's leading scientists were proven wrong, by peer reviewed evidence, and they changed their minds.

That's how Science works, and what makes it different from religion. That's why Science has so much more credibility than Religion, amongst people who are interested in the Truth, rather than feeling better about themselves and their situation.
Tom
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
There are born again believers who accept the Big Bang as an accurate description of our universe's history. In fact, it was a born again believer that came up with the Big Bang theory to begin with.
It was a Catholic priest, I don't know if "born again believer" really gives the correct impression.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
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.
Yes, I agree, and that's an interesting article. And as I said, I'm not criticizing all atheists. From what I've seen of your posts, you seem to be very reasonable and open-minded.

The Big Bang have nothing to with atheism, theism, agnosticism, deism, pantheism, or any other “-ism”, or the other ways around.

You can be atheist or theist and still understand and accept the concept of and evidences for the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is a -ism-neutral theory, just like theories of gravity and evolution.

Did you know that 3 theoretical astrophysicists independently formulate 3 hypotheses on the expanding universe model, during the 1920s?

The expanding universe model or inflationary universe model what was it called during 20s, 30s and most of the 40s; that’s what it was called before the “Big Bang” was coined in 1948 or 49.

All 3 were pioneers to this model and each independently wrote papers on the expanding universe model (EUM):
  1. Alexander Friedmann, Russian, 1922
  2. Howard Percy Robertson, American, 1924-25
  3. Georges Lemaître, Belgian, 1927
Both Friedmann and Robertson may have been atheists, Lemaître was a theist.

Lemaître was actually a Roman Catholic priest, as well as a physicist. He wrote the Hypothesis of the primeval atom in 1927, and most considered him the Father of the Big Bang model, even though Friedmann and Robertson wrote their papers on the same model earlier than he did.

Albert Einstein have met all 3 of them, and he read all 3 of their papers. And all 3 of them apply Einstein’s General Relativity to their respective EUM models.

Although Lemaître’s maths was correct, Einstein actually rejected and criticised Lemaître’s concept that the universe was expanding, preferring his own cosmology of static eternal universe (known as Static Universe model), but his concept didn’t work well with his recently published General Relativity (1917), unless he applied his Cosmological Constant to his GR’s field equation.

Einstein would go on to reject his own cosmology model for 2 reasons.

Robertson, whom Einstein met at Georg-August University of Göttingen in Germany, had predicted the Redshift as a mean of observing and measuring how the universe is expanding, which Edwin Hubble would prove from 1929 to 1931.

My point is that the Big Bang is not a religion, nor a philosophy. It is a working scientific theory. They are still trying to investigate the Big Bang more, with space observatories.

Hopefully the new James Webb Space Telescope (unfortunately won’t be launched until 2020) we will see more further back in time than the Hubble, WMAP and Planck missions.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I am sure they truly cry "Oh my lord save me from this...." when they are alone and in trouble.

Why are you sure? Because that's what you do?

I don't. I don't know any atheists who do.

Does it make you feel better when you try to transfer your insecurities onto others?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
HF:

The Bible predicts precisely how atheists will respond to the OP, and how born again believers will respond. ...See how the Bible tells us the truth! :)
The OP is a very long post.

Please show where the bible predicts how atheists will respond to all the comments in the OP.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Where, when, by whom?

The first humanist manifesto written by atheists and humanists.

see WikI
"The first manifesto, entitled simply A Humanist Manifesto, was written in 1933 primarily by Roy Wood Sellarsand Raymond Bragg and was published with 34 signatories including philosopher John Dewey. Unlike the later ones, the first Manifesto talked of a new "religion", and referred to Humanism as a religious movement to transcend and replace previous religions that were based on allegations of supernatural revelation..."

but as you can see they remade/re-marketted themselves in later manifestos as not a religion at all
 
Last edited:

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
I think that the Big Bang makes a great illustration of the superiority of Science over Religion.

Back in the mid 20th century, there simply wasn't enough data to say anything important about the origins of the Universe with any real authority. The real answer to "Where did the universe come from?" was ''Nobody knows". But lots of people had opinions and hypothesis.

There were lots, but they fell into two main categories, "Steady state" and "Expanding". But there wasn't really enough data to say for sure. "The Big Bang" was a derogatory term invented by Steady State supporters to describe the "Expanding" believers.

But, unlike religious folks, the scientific community didn't schism and start politically convenient wars. They kept accumulating information and publishing it in peer reviewed journals. They made predictions that could be validated. Eventually, some of the world's leading scientists were proven wrong, by peer reviewed evidence, and they changed their minds.

That's how Science works, and what makes it different from religion. That's why Science has so much more credibility than Religion, amongst people who are interested in the Truth, rather than feeling better about themselves and their situation.
Tom


'the' big bang? which one... it changed many times in the last century and has lots of problems

Where are the monopoles? Ahh! I remember the monopole pit built at Watson Research in Yorktown Heights well !!! It was about 15 yards away from where my office.

Unsolved problems in the Big Bang model - Physics and Universe

bottom line... take a queue from the Hollywood show
7 Reasons Why We Are Ready For ‘The Big Bang Theory’ To End
It must be a sign
07325444-450x300.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top