Atheists and the origin of the Universe

[SeattleGriz]

Because the big bang supports more of a theistic model, especially the Genesis story. Something had to create the big bang, so why not God?

Don't know how accurate my statement is, but that is the gist as to why the big bang does not sit well with some atheists.

In light of what I said above, how would it not sit well with a fundy literalist?

Well, seeing as how according to most biblical literalists the universe is only a few thousand years old, and the big flash took place more than a few billion years ago, I can see a potential conflict.

And I don't see how the "big bang" in any way supports a theistic model than a non-theistic one. The Big Bang is a scientific theory. A theistic model for creation is a theological/philosophical discussion unrelated to science. Believe whatever you want to believe. Believe it was a gigantic dragon fart if it floats your boat. I don't care, and I support your right to believe it. It is not, however, science, and that will never change, no matter how long a post JSO makes to the contrary.

Gotcha. Wasn't even thinking up that tree.

[houndawg]

Your god doesn't exist. "It" was always here, neither created or destroyed. Conservation of energy.

Okay, one for burying head in the sand in response to science.

[houndawg]

What is it, exactly, that needs to be "squared"?

That many atheists don't like that the Big Bang is the predominant theory. They would like it to go back to the "it was always there" version.

Many atheists don't drive GM cars either and the Big Bang has lots of competition among theories. Some of them say that there is no such thing as time.

[Chizzang]

Well, seeing as how according to most biblical literalists the universe is only a few thousand years old, and the big flash took place more than a few billion years ago, I can see a potential conflict.

And I don't see how the "big bang" in any way supports a theistic model than a non-theistic one. The Big Bang is a scientific theory. A theistic model for creation is a theological/philosophical discussion unrelated to science. Believe whatever you want to believe. Believe it was a gigantic dragon fart if it floats your boat. I don't care, and I support your right to believe it. It is not, however, science, and that will never change, no matter how long a post JSO makes to the contrary.

This right here is quality postin'

[SeattleGriz]

Because the big bang supports more of a theistic model, especially the Genesis story. Something had to create the big bang, so why not God?

Don't know how accurate my statement is, but that is the gist as to why the big bang does not sit well with some atheists.

In light of what I said above, how would it not sit well with a fundy literalist?

Well, seeing as how according to most biblical literalists the universe is only a few thousand years old, and the big flash took place more than a few billion years ago, I can see a potential conflict.

And I don't see how the "big bang" in any way supports a theistic model than a non-theistic one. The Big Bang is a scientific theory. A theistic model for creation is a theological/philosophical discussion unrelated to science. Believe whatever you want to believe. Believe it was a gigantic dragon fart if it floats your boat. I don't care, and I support your right to believe it. It is not, however, science, and that will never change, no matter how long a post JSO makes to the contrary.

But it is a theory based upon a supernatural event. So what else does that discussion leave? Theology and philosophy until science gives us an answer I don't think it can provide.

By the way, I too support a person's right to believe whatever they want to believe.

[death dealer]

Well, seeing as how according to most biblical literalists the universe is only a few thousand years old, and the big flash took place more than a few billion years ago, I can see a potential conflict.

And I don't see how the "big bang" in any way supports a theistic model than a non-theistic one. The Big Bang is a scientific theory. A theistic model for creation is a theological/philosophical discussion unrelated to science. Believe whatever you want to believe. Believe it was a gigantic dragon fart if it floats your boat. I don't care, and I support your right to believe it. It is not, however, science, and that will never change, no matter how long a post JSO makes to the contrary.

But it is a theory based upon a supernatural event. So what else does that discussion leave? Theology and philosophy until science gives us an answer I don't think it can provide.

By the way, I too support a person's right to believe whatever they want to believe.

Whatchoo talking bout Wiilis? Show me one reputable scientific publication calling the "BB" a supernatural event!?! Doesn't exist.

And I'm assuming by supernatural, you mean outside of natural discernible causes?

[death dealer]

So, how is theology, particularly monotheism, digging string theory and the resultant multi-verse? And don't fall back on that tired old "we don't know all the mysteries of god, and we can never fully comprehend god's plan" bullarky. Cause if that's the case, then God needs to start sending out memos.

[SeattleGriz]

But it is a theory based upon a supernatural event. So what else does that discussion leave? Theology and philosophy until science gives us an answer I don't think it can provide.

By the way, I too support a person's right to believe whatever they want to believe.

Whatchoo talking bout Wiilis? Show me one reputable scientific publication calling the "BB" a supernatural event!?! Doesn't exist.

Dah! Had it in my original post and removed it when I retyped. By supernatural, I didn't mean created by God, but meant:

Adjective
(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

[SeattleGriz]

So, how is theology, particularly monotheism, digging string theory and the resultant multi-verse? And don't fall back on that tired old "we don't know all the mysteries of god, and we can never fully comprehend god's plan" bullarky. Cause if that's the case, then God needs to start sending out memos.

You got me, and that is why I started this thread, wanted to learn more about just what you are asking. Was hoping for some good discussion. Trying to get educated on all of this. Find it interesting.

[death dealer]

Whatchoo talking bout Wiilis? Show me one reputable scientific publication calling the "BB" a supernatural event!?! Doesn't exist.

Dah! Had it in my original post and removed it when I retyped. By supernatural, I didn't mean created by God, but meant:

Adjective
(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Still doesn't exist. No reputable astrophysicist is going to go on record saying that anything is outside of the laws of nature. More like we just haven't discovered the cause or law of nature responsible yet. Nothing is beyond scientific understanding, we just haven't figured out how to understand it at the moment.

[SeattleGriz]

Dah! Had it in my original post and removed it when I retyped. By supernatural, I didn't mean created by God, but meant:

Adjective
(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Still doesn't exist. No reputable astrophysicist is going to go on record saying that anything is outside of the laws of nature. More like we just haven't discovered the cause or law of nature responsible yet. Nothing is beyond scientific understanding, we just haven't figured out how to understand it at the moment.

Yeah, I see that now. I was misunderstanding the usage of the term. Took me a little reading.

[death dealer]

Hey, I love talking about this stuff. And don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist, not a Christian hater. In no way does any scientific law or discovery preclude the existence of a god. Science doesn't care whether there is or is not a god/supernatural deity except in terms of how the study of and attributes of said being would contribute to the understanding of our universe. Your beliefs are based on faith. I would suggest that if you need science to prove god is out there, then the problem is with your lack of faith, not science.

[Chizzang]

Gosh darn it..
I missed the whole entire beat down by Death Dealer (*crap)

[death dealer]

Gosh darn it..
I missed the whole entire beat down by Death Dealer (*crap)

No beat down to see here. SGriz is simply trying to foster a little debate. I hate gotcha's. That isn't intellectual discourse, that's presidential politics. I'd rather have a little back and forth on a subject that educates both parties and helps us see each others perspective. I now see where he's coming from. And ultimately, we're both right. The Big Bang does leave it wide open theologically. If that is the direction you lean, then you can hypothesize in grand form theologically. It also raises more question scientifically than it answers. The Higgs boson breakthrough is going to lead to some exciting new physics. Our understanding of our universe is growing so incredibly fast! It is a great time to be alive!

[kalm]

Science in itself is good since it is knowledge of the world, which is good, created and regarded by the Creator with satisfaction, as the book of Genesis says: “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” I am very attached to the first chapter of Genesis. Original sin has not completely spoilt this original goodness. Human knowledge of the world is a way of participating in the Creator’s knowledge. It is, therefore, a first degree of man’s resemblance to God, an act of respect towards Him, for everything that we discover pays tribute to basic truth."

- John Paul II

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlaoR5m4L80[/youtube]

[SeattleGriz]

Hey, I love talking about this stuff. And don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist, not a Christian hater. In no way does any scientific law or discovery preclude the existence of a god. Science doesn't care whether there is or is not a god/supernatural deity except in terms of how the study of and attributes of said being would contribute to the understanding of our universe. Your beliefs are based on faith. I would suggest that if you need science to prove god is out there, then the problem is with your lack of faith, not science.

Agreed. I think I am on record many times on this board as saying there is no way you could scientifically prove God existed. I based that solely on faith. If you could prove God existed, you wouldn't need faith.

I have read the Bible through a couple times, and in my opinion, it is a book about choices and their consequences. If you could prove the God of the Bible existed, that would take away your faith based choice.

Also, as I stated in the thread previously, if God created the universe then He is not bound by our rules and scientifically, we should be incapable of recognizing Him.

Lastly, my only agenda was to get some input from Atheists on their beliefs, for I do get tired of the slap fighting that happens on the church bashing threads and it is pointless to argue scripture. At least with science you got something a little more firm.

[ASUMountaineer]

I'm not really following how the "big bang" (a dopey name for it by the way) would bother an atheist. I can most definitely see where it would bother a Christian, especially a fundy literalist.

There's no sound in space, shouldn't it have been called the big flash? Of course, the light might not have been in the visible spectrum, and there were no people to see it anyway. Big sudden expansion of energy doesn't sound cool though.

[Chizzang]

Gosh darn it..
I missed the whole entire beat down by Death Dealer (*crap)

No beat down to see here. SGriz is simply trying to foster a little debate. I hate gotcha's. That isn't intellectual discourse, that's presidential politics. I'd rather have a little back and forth on a subject that educates both parties and helps us see each others perspective. I now see where he's coming from. And ultimately, we're both right. The Big Bang does leave it wide open theologically. If that is the direction you lean, then you can hypothesize in grand form theologically. It also raises more question scientifically than it answers. The Higgs boson breakthrough is going to lead to some exciting new physics. Our understanding of our universe is growing so incredibly fast! It is a great time to be alive!

Jeeze way to take all the fun out of it...

[D1B]

Hey, I love talking about this stuff. And don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist, not a Christian hater. In no way does any scientific law or discovery preclude the existence of a god. Science doesn't care whether there is or is not a god/supernatural deity except in terms of how the study of and attributes of said being would contribute to the understanding of our universe. Your beliefs are based on faith. I would suggest that if you need science to prove god is out there, then the problem is with your lack of faith, not science.

Agreed. I think I am on record many times on this board as saying there is no way you could scientifically prove God existed. I based that solely on faith. If you could prove God existed, you wouldn't need faith.

I have read the Bible through a couple times, and in my opinion, it is a book about choices and their consequences. If you could prove the God of the Bible existed, that would take away your faith based choice.

Also, as I stated in the thread previously, if God created the universe then He is not bound by our rules and scientifically, we should be incapable of recognizing Him.

Lastly, my only agenda was to get some input from Atheists on their beliefs, for I do get tired of the slap fighting that happens on the church bashing threads and it is pointless to argue scripture. At least with science you got something a little more firm.

Atheists generally don't give a shit about the origins of the universe. They're too busy crafting the actual laws and code of ethics we live by.

Church bashing is an issue with dogma, theology, separation of church and state and inherent dangers of powerful organized religions.

[kalm]

What was kicking around the second before the Big Bang or, if you will, the lights were turned on is a very interesting question.

[Wedgebuster]

These are such silly threads!

This one might be the very best, please don't stop!

..even better than what they say at facebook!

[death dealer]

What was kicking around the second before the Big Bang or, if you will, the lights were turned on is a very interesting question.

Exactly! It is fascinating stuff. Irrelevant to everyday life, but interesting as hell.

As for D1B's post before yours? It's the typical vitriolic crap he spews about the church. I swear, he hates the church so much, he must have been his priests favorite when he was a kid. The reality is that most of the folks doing the serious research on origins of the universe are atheists.

I, on the other hand, am an atheist because I honestly just don't believe in the existence of a higher all powerful being that is responsible for my existence and plays an unseen but influential role in my day to day life. I don't have an axe to grind with anyone who does believe that, except when they try to force me to follow their rules. Now many of the basic rules of life in a society happen to be common to most religions, but there are many that are really useless, and should only apply to the followers of the religion that promotes them.

[D1B]

What was kicking around the second before the Big Bang or, if you will, the lights were turned on is a very interesting question.

Exactly! It is fascinating stuff. Irrelevant to everyday life, but interesting as hell.

As for D1B's post before yours? It's the typical vitriolic crap he spews about the church. I swear, he hates the church so much, he must have been his priests favorite when he was a kid. The reality is that most of the folks doing the serious research on origins of the universe are atheists.

I, on the other hand, am an atheist because I honestly just don't believe in the existence of a higher all powerful being that is responsible for my existence and plays an unseen but influential role in my day to day life. I don't have an axe to grind with anyone who does believe that, except when they try to force me to follow their rules. Now many of the basic rules of life in a society happen to be common to most religions, but there are many that are really useless, and should only apply to the followers of the religion that promotes them.

Atheists generally don't give a shit about the origins of the universe. They're too busy crafting the actual laws and code of ethics we live by.

Church bashing is an issue with dogma, theology, separation of church and state and inherent dangers of powerful organized religions.

This is vitriolic?

You don't see anything fundamentally wrong with religion?

We'd be at peace, healthier, safer, at a much higher stage of moral development in a cleaner planet if religion, especially the big three, never existed.

Nice, you making light about catholic priests raping children. You fucking dope.

[death dealer]

This is vitriolic?

You don't see anything fundamentally wrong with religion?

We'd be at peace, healthier, safer, at a much higher stage of moral development in a cleaner planet if religion, especially the big three, never existed.

Nice, you making light about catholic priests raping children. You fucking dope.

Actually, I am a dope, so fuck you too.

And yes I agree about organized religion. I thought that's what I said. I just don't begrudge the individual believers their beliefs. I consider them kinda silly and laughable on the whole, but that's just me. But you are right, for the most part, organized religion has been more harmful to mankind than helpful. But not entirely so.

And I wasn't making fun of children getting raped by priests, just you. It probably would have done you a world of good, if for no other reason than they'd have had to pull out that corn cob you've apparently got permanently wedged up your ass.

[Ibanez]

This is vitriolic?

You don't see anything fundamentally wrong with religion?

We'd be at peace, healthier, safer, at a much higher stage of moral development in a cleaner planet if religion, especially the big three, never existed.

Nice, you making light about catholic priests raping children. You fucking dope.

Actually, I am a dope, so fuck you too.

And yes I agree about organized religion. I thought that's what I said. I just don't begrudge the individual believers their beliefs. I consider them kinda silly and laughable on the whole, but that's just me. But you are right, for the most part, organized religion has been more harmful to mankind than helpful. But not entirely so.

And I wasn't making fun of children getting raped by priests, just you. It probably would have done you a world of good, if for no other reason than they'd have had to pull out that corn cob you've apparently got permanently wedged up your ass.

The corn cob is a lure to get the gerbils out.