A question for Atheists regarding the Big Bang.

[thacraic]

Howdy everyone,

I am not here to debate. I have sworn off debating in online forums. I just have a quick question for the Atheists here. Those Christians here that wish to answer that is fine as well, but this is more directed towards our Atheist friends.

What are your feelings about the Big Bang? Do you agree that it is a sound theory which explains the origins of the Universe? Again I am not asking this to open up a debate. Whatever views I have on this will go unsaid. Just wanted to get um.. statistical information! So just a yes or no will do.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

Take care,

Carrie

 

[datatyme]

I don't know there even was a beginning of the universe, or that "nothing" has ever existed, so the Big Bang Theory or Creationism Theory is irrelevant to me. Besides, a universe without a beginning or end is no more far-fetched than an uncreated creator.

 

[BVS]

I believe God could have "used" the BBT when creating the universe.

 

[saltines17]

Howdy everyone,
What are your feelings about the Big Bang? Do you agree that it is a sound theory which explains the origins of the Universe? Again I am not asking this to open up a debate. Whatever views I have on this will go unsaid. Just wanted to get um.. statistical information! So just a yes or no will do.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

Take care,

Carrie

How can one possibly argue the merits/flaws in this theory without knowing the science behind it?

 

[MaxFisher]

I personally think it takes just as much faith to believe in the Big Bang as it does to believe in a Creator.

 

[saltines17]

I personally think it takes just as much faith to believe in the Big Bang as it does to believe in a Creator.

Again, how can you say something like that without knowing the science behind the theory?

I'm not professing to be an expert -- I don't know it either -- but that's like saying it takes the same faith to believe in a Creator as written in the Bible as it takes to believe in special/general relativity or quantum mechanics... it's just not comparable.

 

[MaxFisher]

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, at one point, whether you believe in Creationism or the Big Bang, matter appeared and formed the universe as we know it. How did that happen? Neither side can explain it scientifically.

I don't think one needs to be well versed in evolutionary science in order to realize that. Nor does one need to be an expert in theology or creationism. Both beliefs cannot account for how matter was generated from nothing. Therefore I believe that both views require a certain measure of faith.

Also....I dont think it takes faith to understand relativity. It has been proven in countless experiments. Tests done in airplanes flying at very high speeds have accounted for the slowing down of time that Einstein predicted in his theory.

 

[Judah]

The Big Bang theory and belief in God don't have to be exclusive. You can believe in a creator and still believe there was a "Big Bang" behind our current universe's beginning.

 

[melon]

Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Energy superheated to an extremely high temperature (i.e., 10,000,000,000,000 degrees) creates an equal amount of matter and antimatter as it cools down. Matter and antimatter, when in contact, annihilates each other. It is thought that, for whatever reason, the universe created a disproportionate amount of matter versus antimatter; hence, here we are.

Basically, under normal physics, matter cannot be created or destroyed. However, outside of that, it is possible, as listed above.

With that, I'm one of those who believe in a God-created "Big Bang" and evolution. Faith and science should not be incompatible...unless, of course, you're purposely trying to be incompatible.

Melon

 

[thacraic]

Hey everybody!

Wow. It turned into a bit of a debate! lol.

Well thank you everyone who has contributed thus far.

I look forward to more responses.

Take Care,

Carrie

 

[thacraic]

Re: Re: A question for Atheists regarding the Big Bang.

How can one possibly argue the merits/flaws in this theory without knowing the science behind it?

I am not asking for a anyone to discuss the merits /flaws of the Big Bang. I am just asking if people who are Atheist do accept the Big Bang. This does not require they understand the fundementals of Physics or Cosmology. I am just asking what their personal feelings are on it.

 

[speedracer]

With that, I'm one of those who believe in a God-created "Big Bang" and evolution. Faith and science should not be incompatible...unless, of course, you're purposely trying to be incompatible.

When scientists were first studying the implications of general relativity for cosmology, it was hypothesized, given the current rate of expansion of the universe, that the entire universe had originated from a single point of infinite space-time curvature at some finite time in the past.

Many scientists noted that this could be construed as having been caused by God, and they started derisively calling this theory the "Big Bang".

Funny how things have turned around.

(If you want my opinion -- I believe in God, and I'm pretty sure the Big Bang or something like it occurred.)

 

[NotAnEasyThing]

As I understand it the BBT requires no first cause as there was no "before". But the real question is where do the mathmatical contsants behind quantum physics as we know it come from? As far as I can undertand, science struggles to really explain the 'beauty' of these and the intricate design that appears to be evidenced in them. The only answer put forward beside a creator is the idea of an infinate number of parallel universes of which ours just happens to be the lucky one with the right parametres for the universe as we know it.

To me this seems like more of a cop out than simply taking the evidence at face value- design = creator. The simple fact that something such as human conciousness even exists to consider these things makes it all the more obvious to me.

But to simply answer your questions, yes I believe it is a theory which describes the way our universe unfolded- but doesn't answer the deeper question of "why?"

 

[Angela Harlem]

No, I dont think I believe in it.


~Agnostic/athiest/too unsure

 

[DaveC]

I'm an agnostic. I'll weigh in.

I believe in the Big Bang theory. There's just too much evidence. Yes, it does take a leap of faith to believe it, of course. But it's certainly not completely implausible. Redshifting, the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (and the space-time warping in that photo)...there's just too much evidence for me to be able to believe that something of that kind didn't happen.

I don't know if God did it or if it's a force of the universe. At this particular moment I lean towards the natural side (as I do on most things), but it's really quite spectacular when you think about it.

It's like a lot of things we don't fully understand. I was looking in my biology book the other day and saw this figure showing the Signal-Transduction Pathway in plants for the hormone auxin. And it just stuns me how much that thing controls. Proton pumps, RNA transcription, ribosome functions, production of growth factors...so much goes on inside these tiny little cells that works so perfectly and so precisely. I have a difficult time believing that something like that was the cause of random atoms coming together in a proper environment that was zapped by lightning. But I just don't know.



I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't believe that God caused the Big Bang, but that it did happen.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

The Big Bang theory and belief in God don't have to be exclusive. You can believe in a creator and still believe there was a "Big Bang" behind our current universe's beginning.

I'm not an atheist, but I agree with this. I think a few principles from evolution may be true or applicable, although I don't believe we "came from monkeys", I find that to be a rather pathetic explanation. I don't see how "changes in the environment" are enough to turn monkeys into humans. Why aren't monkeys still turning human? Is time a magic wand?

Charlie Darwin was a human being - not a god - from the 1800's and we interpret his theory as a fact.

"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school.'"
-Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, leading cladistic taxonomist), Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981.

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. (Quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.)


SOURCE: GALLUP POLL NEWS SERVICE / AP:

 

[melon]

I don't see how "changes in the environment" are enough to turn monkeys into humans. Why aren't monkeys still turning human? Is time a magic wand?

First off, "isolation" (hence, inbreeding) is a necessary requirement for evolution. This is generally why isolated islands (like the Galapagos Islands) are fertile grounds for evidence of evolution.

Secondly, "monkeys" is a generic term. Humans would have come from specific species of "monkey" that is now extinct. Lumping chimpanzees, apes, and gorillas all into the same category is wrong; they are not seen as even being the same species.

Third, we see evidence of evolution every day. "Drug resistant" bacteria and viruses are examples of evolution.

Fourth, those quotes are complete crap. The "Colin Patterson" quote is creationist propaganda, and this site...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

...explains it further.

As for "Professor Louis Bounoure," the French National Center for Research had this to say:

"As far as we know, Louis Bounoure never served as "Director" (nor was even a member) of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Bounoure was a Christian but did not affirm that Genesis was to be taken to the letter. He expressed his ideas in his work. He is clearly "finalist" and against all contingent visions of evolution. ["Finalism" is a philosophical term related to a belief in ultimate purpose or design behind everything, including, in this case, the evolution of the cosmos and of life. - ED.] He bases his views, among other things, on the existence of elements that are pre-adapted for their future functions."

In other words, Bounoure is not a creationist, as much as a "finalist."

As for creationism vs. evolution, creationism is completely founded upon mythic speech and pseudoscience. But, because of its "mythic" nature, you can't disprove it. If I was convinced of an invisible leprechaun being under my bed and you told me it wasn't there, I could just say that only true believers can see it.

Calling evolution as "merely a theory, not a fact" exploits inherent scientific uncertainty to the point of ridiculousness. It's a theory with lots of evidence, while, meanwhile, there is little to no evidence for half the stuff involved in creationism. Creationism is not a fact; it's just "a theory." And a disproven one at that.

I think this National Geographic article, though, explains a lot of what I think about the issue...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html

...which essentially says what I said earlier: science and religion aren't necessarily incompatible.

Melon

 

[thacraic]

No, I dont think I believe in it.


~Agnostic/athiest/too unsure

Exactly the kind of response I was looking for LOL!!

Yes or no more or less. But hey some great respones all around!

I am chomping at the bit to weigh in with my views on this discussion but as I said, I have sworn off online debates! Lemme find a smiley for my sentiment ....
ok a few. Arrrrrrrrrrrgh LOL!

At any rate, thanks Angela and everyone else who is still responding to the thread. Will continue checking back. I will let you guys know why I asked in a week or so.

Take Care,

Carrie

 

[DaveC]

OK folks. Listen.

Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are completely unrelated. Absolutely 100% not the same in any way shape or form. The Big Bang did not cause life to form, and neither did evolution receive any effect from the Big Bang, no matter what you believe.

This thread is about the Big Bang Theory. Please go discuss evolution elsewhere if you want to.

 

[financeguy]

Howdy everyone,

I am not here to debate. I have sworn off debating in online forums. I just have a quick question for the Atheists here. Those Christians here that wish to answer that is fine as well, but this is more directed towards our Atheist friends.

What are your feelings about the Big Bang? Do you agree that it is a sound theory which explains the origins of the Universe? Again I am not asking this to open up a debate. Whatever views I have on this will go unsaid. Just wanted to get um.. statistical information! So just a yes or no will do.

Thanks in advance for your participation.

Take care,

Carrie

Hmm...interesting thread. I am not really an atheist, probably more of an agnostic (whatever that means) but I'm going to go ahead and respond anyway.

Now certain atheist philosophers have come up with possible explanations for Big Bang which do not involve a Creator. My understanding is, the basis for their arguments is that quantum physics has proved that uncaused events - that is, events which simply have no cause - occur at the sub-atomic level. Therefore, they argue, it is not inconceivable that Big Bang was itself an uncaused event.

Though this argument is not without merit, I feel it's really asking to much to believe that an event as massive as the Big Bang could be uncaused. So my point of view, is at this point we really don't know. I view the claims of strong atheists as unsubstantiated. I also view the claims of theists as unsubstantiated. Personally, I think it more likely than not that Big Bang was caused by a Creator (God?) of some sort. However at this point in time I am an agnostic!

 

[intedomine]

Athiest here. (Or agnostic depending on what defenition of God is put forward.)

The Big Bang is as good as any other theory yet I like to be honest and ackowledge that we just don't know for sure.


On the day the universe began, something wierd and bizarre happened. We don't know the reason for it and probably never will. Yet it created something quite remarkable.

Blindly claiming God created the world is outta the question, cause no ones met the "bloke/sheila/thing"

 

[A_Wanderer]

Athiest here. (Or agnostic depending on what defenition of God is put forward.)

The Big Bang is as good as any other theory yet I like to be honest and ackowledge that we just don't know for sure.


On the day the universe began, something wierd and bizarre happened. We don't know the reason for it and probably never will. Yet it created something quite remarkable.

Blindly claiming God created the world is outta the question, cause no ones met the "bloke/sheila/thing"

Actually the big bang is much better than any other theory because it can explain the hubble constant, a theory must explain the observations at hand so BB theory is much more valid than the steady state model.

 

[thacraic]

Ok well just want to thank everyone that responded.

I asked this because the instructor of this course I am taking at church said that "Atheists hate the Big Bang". I guess because it calls for an actual beginning? At any rate, I really couldn't figure out why he was saying Atheists don't embrace the BB. We are going to actually go through that lesson this coming Sunday evening so I guess I will find out where he is coming from on this.

I will actually break down and comment on one thing. Evolution and the BB are two entirely different topics. I wanted to agree with the person that made that statement but I thought it would be entering into the debate - something I didn't want to do. But yeh, that was a true statement so whoever said it... right on and all that.

 

[thacraic]

Re: Re: A question for Atheists regarding the Big Bang.

Hmm...interesting thread. I am not really an atheist, probably more of an agnostic (whatever that means) but I'm going to go ahead and respond anyway.

Now certain atheist philosophers have come up with possible explanations for Big Bang which do not involve a Creator. My understanding is, the basis for their arguments is that quantum physics has proved that uncaused events - that is, events which simply have no cause - occur at the sub-atomic level. Therefore, they argue, it is not inconceivable that Big Bang was itself an uncaused event.

Though this argument is not without merit, I feel it's really asking to much to believe that an event as massive as the Big Bang could be uncaused. So my point of view, is at this point we really don't know. I view the claims of strong atheists as unsubstantiated. I also view the claims of theists as unsubstantiated. Personally, I think it more likely than not that Big Bang was caused by a Creator (God?) of some sort. However at this point in time I am an agnostic!

I have to comment on this as well! LOL I can't help it. Know this though, I am in no way debating... Honest!!

Quantum theories do not really offer up any evidence that things at a sub-atomic level operate any differently than they do outside of that. If you mean that quantumist state that particles at a subatomic level do not operate in an orderly fashion then yeh but it can not be proven. Therefore, the rule of cause and effect at a sub-atomic level can not be tossed out the cosmological window.

In fact, String Theory or well the unified String Theory known as M-Theory (or the possible "Theory of Everything") suggest that gravity is a factor at a sub-atomic level. Before this, the Standard Model had us believing that only 3 forces are at work sub-atomically (electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force). Many scientist could not and would not come to terms with this because gravity was discounted as being even a remote factor.

With new methods of observation and with those who are embracing M-Theory as plausible, they are in fact finding that gravity may have a significant role sub-atomically which would bring order to the chaos that the quantumists theorize is so prevalent. One thing to know about M-Theory though is that it requires 11 deminsions! EEK! 3 or well 4 with space time, are the only deminsions we can actually prove. The fifth of course is the spiritual realm which I believe in 100%. But still that would leave 6 other deminsions out there that can not be seen nor proven therefore they can not be observed. Good science requires observation and if that isn't possible then the line between science and philosiphy is drawn.

It is all so very confusing! It is however amazing on the other hand no matter which side of discussion you are on. I love physics but my knowledge of it is so very elementary. My comprehension of it is even worse.

At any rate I am off to audition for a game show! LOL!!! Any of those here in Interference that actually tolerate me, wish me luck!

Take care,

Carrie

 

[A_Wanderer]

Quantum theories do not really offer up any evidence that things at a sub-atomic level operate any differently than they do outside of that. If you mean that quantumist state that particles at a subatomic level do not operate in an orderly fashion then yeh but it can not be proven. Therefore, the rule of cause and effect at a sub-atomic level can not be tossed out the cosmological window.

Ahem, refer to Young's double slit experiment showing wave behaviour in light. Also refer to photon tunnelling and a whole manner of other quantum effects that are used every day.

The other dimensions that you have trouble imagining (as all human brains do) can exist however they will be compactified. It may at some point be possible to test string theory through observation, a recent article in New Scientist wrote about the possible discovery of such an object in space.

 

[thacraic]

Ahem, refer to Young's double slit experiment showing wave behaviour in light. Also refer to photon tunnelling and a whole manner of other quantum effects that are used every day.

The other dimensions that you have trouble imagining (as all human brains do) can exist however they will be compactified. It may at some point be possible to test string theory through observation, a recent article in New Scientist wrote about the possible discovery of such an object in space.

Yes but the things you pointed out would demonstrate cause and effect would they not? Essentially it still requires order and not chaos to arrive at a the end result, right? That is the point I was trying to make. I do not really see how things, even at a sub-atomic level operate in a random and chaotic manner. Again I do have a very limited understanding of this but what I have read and things that I have seen (NOVA when I am lucky enough to catch it) to me do not prove much other than the "possiblity" of chaos. Do you not see that as being somewhat vague and inconclusive?

That's the thing with String Theory. It does offer up a solution of sorts. It essentially states that things are not chaotic as quantum theorist would have us believe. Things do have an order even at the most minuscule level. Do you see how ST can demostrate this?

The reason I pointed out the problem of the extra deminsions is because at present they can not be proven to exist. It is not a matter of comprehending extra deminsions for me. I do. I know there are at least 5! So why not 11? But from a purely scientific stance, it ain't gonna fly. If they can not see it, it cannot be observed and therefore no conclusions can be drawn.

This possible discovery written about in New Scientist, does that mean they have discovered a new object that could possibly be observed or does it mean it is possible they will one day discover this object? I have to think it is the latter because I am not aware of such a thing having actually been discovered. Just let me know on that one because it would be incredibly exciting to read about it.

At any rate if you want to fill me in (and I really hope you do) I look forward to any response. I think you can tell that I have a really crude understanding of all of this? But I am so very interested in all of it. I have like 20 links to various Physics websites and I think I understand about a sentence on each of them! So I sincerely hope you do want to continue this discussion.

Take Care,

Carrie