Should Atheists reject the Big Bang? (Non-Theistic/Non-Religious Only)

[Milton Platt]

The idea that the big bang somehow implies deity has no more basis than anything else implying deity: which is none.

I think you just peed in his cornflakes.....

 

[Milton Platt]

The idea that the big bang somehow implies deity has no more basis than anything else implying deity: which is none.

Yep, and that's all that needs to be said.

 

[Milton Platt]

I've been looking at criticisms of the Big Bang in Soviet Cosmology and it has proven to be very intresting and rewarding. In essence, by suggesting that the universe has a "beginning" (or indeed an end in the "Big Crunch") this means that there must logically be caused something beyond the physical universe.

Whilst not providing definitive "proof" for the existence of god, it clearly makes it a logically inconsistent position to hold because it means that "everything came from nothing" or that there could be pheneomena which was without 'natural' causes. this is what deeply alarmed Soviet Physicists (or rather the Communist Party, whilst Physicists kept their mouths shut).

This fundamentally challanges a "materialist" view of the universe and therefore the view that we can legitimately dismiss 'supernatural' causes. It appears that the Soviets prefered a "steady-state universe" because it fitted with assumption of an infinite and eternal universe, without beginning or end, in which space and time exist objectibely of human consciousness. If the universe, and therefore all nature/matter, has a beginning, there cannot, by definition, be a "natural" the 'cause' of the universe. So the "lack of proof" argument is not valid as a defence if we value logical consistency of an argument.

In 1951, Pope Pius XII (and the Catholic Church) declared that the Big Bang dos not conflict with the Catholic concept of creation. This view is based on an "Old earth creationism" which is more compatable with current scientific thinking rather than "young earth creationism" based on a literal interpretation of the book of Genisis in which the world was created in six days. The same basic proposition, that the Big Bang supports the existence of a creator, is made in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, notably by William Lane Craig.

It also demonstrates that the conflict thesis, that science and religion are irreconciably opposed is based on a very selective understanding of the history of science, particuarly by focusing on Gallieo and Darwin.

It would appear to me, that for me to remain an atheist, I would have to accept significant revisions to my understanding of science in which philosophy or ideology takes precedence over the "free" interpretation of the evidence as happened in the USSR. I do not have a deep understanding of the physics behind it so I'm not sure how far this would involve rejecting not simply current scientific thinking, but scientific facts. I will keep researching it, but I want to ask;

i) Whether atheists should reject the Big Bang because it strengthens the cosmological argument for god?Or is there an obligation to accept the scientific consensus?

ii) should we re-examine the "conflict thesis" that religion and science are mutually exclusive and irreconcilable?

You cannot say that the big bang somehow means that something came from nothing because we have no idea what was before the big bang. Well, I should say before the singularity, which was before the big bang. You offered absolutely no details about this "Soviet Cosmology" so how can anyone address it directly?

As an aside, how do we know something cannot come from nothing since we have no examples of nothing to examine?

 

[Altfish]

whats your EVIDENCE for saying that?

WLC arguments have been debunked numerous times on numerous YouTube videos. He is now just known as an apologetic that uses big words. Admittedly he is a good debater because he never answers the question and skirts round evidence against his arguments.
He is one up from Kent Hovind

 

[Laika]

You cannot say that the big bang somehow means that something came from nothing because we have no idea what was before the big bang. Well, I should say before the singularity, which was before the big bang. You offered absolutely no details about this "Soviet Cosmology" so how can anyone address it directly?

As an aside, how do we know something cannot come from nothing since we have no examples of nothing to examine?

One wonders why you have discarded the the most honest answer of all: "I Don't Know"?
Why would you throw god in the gap?

If all "natural" causes come within the universe, and we're dealing with a cause of the universe itself, that cause cannot by definition be natural because it would have to be of this universe. In terms of logical argument, it falls flat even if there may well be no evidence for god, it can clearly be inferred. Given that the "Gap" concerns the origin of the universe, everything in it, and the physical/natural laws by which the universe is governed, that poses a serious challange to the view that the universe was 'uncreated'. it is not a huge leap to go from a universe that has a beginning, say it cannot have a natural cause, and must therefore have a supernatural one. one option, is god, but it's not the only one as theoretical physicists.

Here's is the reference to Soviet Cosmology in the OP.

This fundamentally challanges a "materialist" view of the universe and therefore the view that we can legitimately dismiss 'supernatural' causes. It appears that the Soviets prefered a "steady-state universe" because it fitted with assumption of an infinite and eternal universe, without beginning or end, in which space and time exist objectibely of human consciousness. If the universe, and therefore all nature/matter, has a beginning, there cannot, by definition, be a "natural" the 'cause' of the universe. So the "lack of proof" argument is not valid as a defence if we value logical consistency of an argument.

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

Listed below are the (apparent) underlying assumptions of Soviet Cosmology;

i) the universe is infinite in both space and its content of matter;

ii) The universe is eternal; there never was a beginning and there will never be an end.

iii) Only matter and its manifestations in the form of motion and energy have any real existence in the universe.

iv) the truth of cosmological theories should be judged by their correspondance with laws of dialectical materialism

v) The galatic redshift do not indicate that cosmic space is in a state of expansion, but can be explained by other mechanisms;

They come from page 4 from this PDF file here: The Universe, The Cold War and Dialectical Materialism (Helge Kragh)

However, steady state theory is not the only interpretation that fits in with Soviet Cosmology, but dialectical materialism is so ridicously complex and alien to western science and philosophy, that I didn't feel elaborating on it in depth would make a good OP. I felt it would make responses harder when the question is already raised by western theologians, such as the Catholic Church and could already include theoretical physics.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Whether atheists should reject the Big Bang because it strengthens the cosmological argument for god?Or is there an obligation to accept the scientific consensus?

Science is still only scraping the surface on what the big bang was, what came before it, what lies outside the observable universe, whether our universe is one of many, what the universe is really made of, and so on. What's increasingly clear is that the universe is unimaginably strange, so limited human notions about "God" are probably not weird enough to be credible.

 

[McBell]

If all "natural" causes come within the universe, and we're dealing with a cause of the universe itself, that cause cannot by definition be natural because it would have to be of this universe.

Taking your premise at face value...
You are still merely throwing God into the gap.

 

[picnic]

FWIW, here is something from Wikipedia describing the flimsiness of cause and effect.

An epistemological problem with using causality as an arrow of time is that, as David Hume maintained, the causal relation per se cannot be perceived; one only perceives sequences of events. Furthermore, it is surprisingly difficult to provide a clear explanation of what the terms cause and effect really mean, or to define the events to which they refer.

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

 

[jonathan180iq]

There is absolutely no evidence at all that "nothing" has ever been a state of being...

Even if we accept the Big Bang, everything was still stuffed into this Ball Before The Bang, right?

So nothing has never been.
Everything didn't come from nothing.

 

[Desert Snake]

There is absolutely no evidence at all that "nothing" has ever been a state of being...

Even if we accept the Big Bang, everything was still stuffed into this Ball Before The Bang, right?

So nothing has never been.
Everything didn't come from nothing.

How did your theoretical lump of something come into existence? magic? Santa claus?

 

[McBell]

How did your theoretical lump of something come into existence? magic? Santa claus?

Please show where it had to "come into existence".
Or better still, please show that there was ever a complete absolute "nothing".

And no, it does not "just makes sense".

 

[Jumi]

I didn't say there was ever a ''nothing'', that's your problem, as an atheist.

You must have read the posts wrong, if you see a problem like that existing.

 

[McBell]

...

That's just it though, it is not a problem for me.
I am ok with saying "I Don't Know".

I do happen to find it comical how theists are the ones so concerned with the "from nothing" strawman.
At least, until they are asked about their god...

 

[jonathan180iq]

How did your theoretical lump of something come into existence? magic? Santa claus?

No idea

As far as we know, some form of something has always been here.

Ask yourself how the planet formed... Was is magic? Was it Santa Claus?

We know in good detail how solar systems form, and what happens to the accretion disks that makes them turn into planets and none of those processes are caused by Magic of Santa Claus either...
Why should we assume the rest of Universe would be any different? Why do we come to the conclusion that our planet and our solar system are different than any other?

I didn't say there was ever a ''nothing'', that's your problem, as an atheist. I don't even go by your humorous definitions of these concepts.

To make the argument that something came from nothing is to not know what you're talking about. To even ask the question shows a fundamental misunderstanding.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

The big bang was not the beginning of everything... The big bang started as a result of Quantum Fluctuations, which could not have happened without the existence of energy

 

[Shad]

i) Whether atheists should reject the Big Bang because it strengthens the cosmological argument for god?Or is there an obligation to accept the scientific consensus?

The repeated ad nauseum theory, spouted by laymen, is so out of date that it is irrelevant. More so the explanation is filled with such as ideas of "before time" which is a time reference while claiming time started at the very event makes the explanation untenable. The theory only established the inflation model, nothing more. Not how it happened, if there was a before, etc. Everything but inflation is conjuncture. The entire idea could collapse into a rejected and refuted idea, it will not change my views or influence my view in the slightest. Yet the theist will be scrambling for the next theory they can attach their religion to in order to give some sort of validation. The BB is not even viewed in consensus any longer and has not for decades.

ii) should we re-examine the "conflict thesis" that religion and science are mutually exclusive and irreconcilable?

No. The conflict waxes and wanes depending on the theist's views as they scramble to fill in the "blanks" with scientific knowledge. The conflict is entirely one sided like an ant attacking an elephant. The elephant does not notice the ant regardless of what the ant thinks it is accomplishing or views are.

 

[Shad]

whats your EVIDENCE for saying that?

Go look up criticism of his views by philosophers, physicists and theologians. There is a major reason Craig is one of the last people around arguing for KSA. IE He is religiously invested into it and it is his only talking point in theology and philsophy. It is the only thing he does these days. Repeating the same arguments for the last 30 years almost word for word to the point that you could sync different lectures years apart.