Atheism and the Big Bang

[ecco]

As I think we discussed before, many atheists mocked and rejected the Big Bang for the exact reasons you state here;

Not quite correct. The people still believing in the Steady State saw their beliefs being challenged by a competing theory. One way they retaliated was by mocking the new concept and it's supporters by trying to label them as religious. It was a desperation move.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑​

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

So much for atheism not making any positive assertions!

Who ruled atheists should not make any positive assertions?

I used to feel exactly the same-

Somehow, I doubt that.

 

[ecco]

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.

Is it a Christian Theory or is it a theory proposed by a Christian? There is a big difference.

Do you also believe heliocentricity is a Christian theory"?
Do you also believe Evolution is a Christian theory"?
Do you also believe Einstein's Theory of Relativity a Jewish theory?

Stephen Hawking takes credit for this theory in the film The Theory of Everything,

Source?

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑

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?

No, I'm not. Why don't you enlighten me.


ETA:
I just saw another of your posts. Are you referring to "Stretched Heavens"? Really? That's a stretch. It also shows the desperation of religious apologists.

Hebrews have words for stretch לִמְתוֹחַ and for expand לְהַרְחִיב.

I guess you can't show any biblical verses that state that god expanded the heavens.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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

You seem to be pretty reasonable. Have you read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne? It's an excellent book explaining the evidence for evolution. If I recall, you've said that you're a "Darwinian skeptic." Yet Darwinian evolution is a well-established scientific fact, with mountains of evidence to support it. It seems to me that you are a critical thinker who has unfortunately fallen for creationist ploys, probably due to lack of knowledge of evolutionary biology. There is much evidence to support evolution including transitional fossils, DNA analysis, bio-geography, embryology, vestigial structures, along with many other examples of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Sounds good, that would mean that somewhere all of my adolescent James Bond fantasies came true.

 

[Segev Moran]

That's understandable. Many people don't understand other people's reasoning on any variety of subjects

Agreed.
More than that many times call something reasonable while the fact is it is not so.

No. I believe none.

Welcome to the club

However, if you believe one, then the logical question to ask yourself is why you don't believe all the others.
Then take whatever answers you came up with and apply them to the one you do believe. If you find that 99.99% of all gods are the creations of man's imaginings, then how can you logically conclude that your one is somehow different?

Religion is not logical.
And i think this is a key point you are missing.
Religion is a subjective thing.

See above.

The above statement doesn't answer the question.
How does not believing something makes it false?????
Its the same logic as theists use.
If i believe than it must be true.
You use it vice versa
If i don't believe it must be false.
Same fallacy, different direction

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

Not if we know factually that Walt Disney is the creator of the Mickey Character, and we do have that evidence.
Likewise, it is not too dificult to disprove the existence of specific versions of a god if you have a clear enough discription of it’s supposed attributes.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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

The Sun is one big ongoing nuclear explosion, yet it stays together. The Sun is also still producing complex new elements. What you are saying is impossible is happening right in our own solar system through well understood and natural processes.

 

[ecco]

ecco previously

However, if you believe one, then the logical question to ask yourself is why you don't believe all the others.
Then take whatever answers you came up with and apply them to the one you do believe. If you find that 99.99% of all gods are the creations of man's imaginings, then how can you logically conclude that your one is somehow different?
​

Religion is not logical.
And i think this is a key point you are missing.
Religion is a subjective thing.

My comments were not addressed to religious people, they were addressed to you in response to your all or none statement.

The above statement doesn't answer the question.
How does not believing something makes it false?????
Its the same logic as theists use.
If i believe than it must be true.
You use it vice versa
If i don't believe it must be false.
Same fallacy, different direction

Believing or not believing has not impact on fact and fiction. I have come to the conclusion that gods are the creation of man's imaginings. There is ample evidence to support that conclusion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You seem to be pretty reasonable. Have you read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne? It's an excellent book explaining the evidence for evolution. If I recall, you've said that you're a "Darwinian skeptic." Yet Darwinian evolution is a well-established scientific fact, with mountains of evidence to support it. It seems to me that you are a critical thinker who has unfortunately fallen for creationist ploys, probably due to lack of knowledge of evolutionary biology. There is much evidence to support evolution including transitional fossils, DNA analysis, bio-geography, embryology, vestigial structures, along with many other examples of evidence.

Likewise, you seem perfectly reasonable and capable of critical thought to me- I have to say so anyway since I used to be convinced of Darwinian evolution also!

But few things are as subjective as 'evidence' and 'facts'...

If we do see shared traits, some jumps, gaps, disappearances, a few regressions, vestigial features, but a general trend towards increased sophistication - what does all this evidence prove to you?

 

[paarsurrey]

Most religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam are considered dualist religions. Dualist=God and Creation are Two

Are you familiar with non-dual religions (God and creation are not-two)?

I am a non-dualist now myself (advaita) but it took some time to wrap my head around what non-dualism is trying to say.

I don't find anything like that mentioned in Quran. G-d is One and the rest is because He has caused it "to be", till such time He command it "not to be". He is First and the Last, please.
Regards

 

[George-ananda]

I don't find anything like that mentioned in Quran. G-d is One and the rest is because He has caused it "to be", till such time He command it "not to be". He is First and the Last, please.
Regards

Sufism starts to head Islam more towards non-dualism.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If we do see shared traits, some jumps, gaps, disappearances, a few regressions, vestigial features, but a general trend towards increased sophistication - what does all this evidence prove to you?

How can you claim there are gaps when you refuse to accept the fossils that fill those gaps?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Likewise, you seem perfectly reasonable and capable of critical thought to me- I have to say so anyway since I used to be convinced of Darwinian evolution also!

But few things are as subjective as 'evidence' and 'facts'...

If we do see shared traits, some jumps, gaps, disappearances, a few regressions, vestigial features, but a general trend towards increased sophistication - what does all this evidence prove to you?

Why don't you read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne and then we can discuss it. It's a fairly quick and easy read. Or are you too worried to read it because you know it will change your mind?

 

[gnostic]

Likewise, you seem perfectly reasonable and capable of critical thought to me- I have to say so anyway since I used to be convinced of Darwinian evolution also!

But few things are as subjective as 'evidence' and 'facts'...

If we do see shared traits, some jumps, gaps, disappearances, a few regressions, vestigial features, but a general trend towards increased sophistication - what does all this evidence prove to you?

This topic is about the Big Bang, not evolution (natural selection).

The Big Bang falls under the “astrophysics” and “physical cosmology”. The Big Bang has nothing to with biology, so why are sidetracking this thread.

Can you not stay on topic?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why don't you read Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne and then we can discuss it. It's a fairly quick and easy read. Or are you too worried to read it because you know it will change your mind?

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?

 

[Audie]

Likewise, you seem perfectly reasonable and capable of critical thought to me- I have to say so anyway since I used to be convinced of Darwinian evolution also!

But few things are as subjective as 'evidence' and 'facts'...

If we do see shared traits, some jumps, gaps, disappearances, a few regressions, vestigial features, but a general trend towards increased sophistication - what does all this evidence prove to you?

Jumps, gaps, regressions...

Name something specific, and say how it contradicts TOE.

That is far more interesting than a list of vague generalities.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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'm not taking his word for it; he just does a good job laying out all of the evidence. So will you read the book?

 

[ecco]

the whole point of science is NOT having to take other people's word for it. Would you not agree Hubert?

I'm not Hubert, but I'd like to address that point.

I completely disagree. The entire purpose of books and education is to present other people's words.

You, I, almost everyone, is not in a position to do the the kind of research necessary to develop our own understanding of any subject, certainly not something as complex as evolution.

You have your opinions regarding evolution. What are those opinions based on? Did you do any scientific research yourself? No, of course not.

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.