It really is remarkable how atheists, at least the one’s that comment here, pledge their allegiance to the scientific method of knowing and discovering. And that’s good. It’s a fine, fine model for getting answers to natural phenomena. In fact, it’s so good that we can know beyond a reasonable doubt that the Standard Big Bang Model of our universe’s origin is how it happened.
As was noted previously:
It can be said with absolute confidence that no cosmogonic model has been:
As repeatedly verified in its predictions,
As corroborated by attempts at its falsification,
As concordant with empirical discoveries, and
As philosophically coherent as the Standard Big Bang Creation Event Model.
The remarkable part of all this is that these same atheists don’t seem to want to accept this model. So the question becomes - Why? If, as atheists are fond of saying, they're rational, logical, reasonable people, and if the evidence points to the Big Bang Model, why do you reject that model and instead fancy models for which there is ONLY speculation AND for which there is concrete evidence that negates their feasibility?
Why won’t you allow yourself to accept the Big Bang Model of Creation when that's where the evidence points?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
...
I'm not sure what commentators you're referring to because I don't recall anyone suggesting anything of the sort.
What you are saying is that the universe must have a creator because of this or that therefor that creator must be your god.
And that is of course very silly. Genesis is so riddled with errors that it could only be the product of mythology. Your god seemed to think that 14.5 billion years = 6 days (not the only math error in the Bible, check out what is says Pi is)and that evolution never happened. That your god just willed species into existence as they are now.
Oh and the dinosaurs, no mention of an entire species that once dominated the Earth for millions of years. You'd think he'd mention them.
It doesn’t matter what I’m saying.
In this post I’m asking atheists, “What is your reason for rejecting Big Bang cosmology when there is such compelling evidence to support it?”
And, “Why are you drawn to speculative theories when there is compelling evidence to reject them?”
In this post I’m asking atheists, “What is your reason for rejecting Big Bang cosmology when there is such compelling evidence to support it?”
I don't reject "Big Bang" cosmology and I'm sorry if this comment sounds mean, it isn't meant to be.
It's just that your posts about it have contained such a large ammount of misinformation and faulty logic.
I'm not an expert but it's clear you do not understand half of the subjects you have mentioned. It reads like you've cut and paste lists of different subjects without stating why you've listed them and without researching them.
Maybe you could attempt to prove quantum events happen with a cause.
Again, I'm sorry if that sounded mean.
>“What is your reason for rejecting Big Bang cosmology when there is such compelling evidence to support it?”
It isn't rejected but it certainly has been refined since its introduction. That's the cool thing about science when something doesn't make sense they don't stick to it out of sheer bloody mindedness.
>And, “Why are you drawn to speculative theories when there is compelling evidence to reject them?”
If there is compelling evidence to reject them they are rejected.
Are you referring to any specific theory or are you suggesting that there is as compelling evidence for your god as there is for the "Big Bang"?
Are you referring to any specific theory"
Just the ones that I've mentioned over and over and over.
==================
"Maybe you could attempt to prove quantum events happen with a cause."
Why would I do that? Are you suggesting that the Big Bang was a quantum event? Are you suggesting even, that there is evidence fr that? Or are you again, going with speculation vs. evidence and if so, why?
What I'm getting at Flute, is I'm curious why atheists who reply here say things like, “I think brane comology is relevant to the appearing of our universe, I think black hole theory is relevant, I think the multi verse is a good explanation" and on and on and on.
What is going on? These theories are NOT workable. Since Big Bang IS a workable premise, and the others are not, why even bring them up. That’s what I’m trying to understand.
Of course now I’m interested in knowing why you think the second law, background radiation etc. DON’T confirm Big Bang. Where is this error that I’m making?
It's amazing that certain atheists will outright reject the supernatural as if they were stating that it doesnt exist at all. It's illogical. How can they know that the supernatural does not exist?
Flute: "Maybe you could attempt to prove quantum events happen with a cause."
Mak: Why would I do that? Are you suggesting that the Big Bang was a quantum event?
Stop. Stop. Stop. Mak, YOU implied quantum events have a cause.
Mak: Of course now I’m interested in knowing why you think the second law, background radiation etc. DON’T confirm Big Bang. Where is this error that I’m making?
That's not what Flute said.
>How can they know that the supernatural does not exist?
And once again Gerald rears his ugly head.
JD right now in my living room is a giraffe named Gerald, he is juggling flaming snowballs while singing Pink Floyd's "The Wall".
How can you know that Gerald doesn't exist?
See that is a very silly argument, we know the supernatural doesn't exist because nothing unreal exists.
You know the stuff they used to ascribe to the supernatural? Things like the sun, the moon, earthquakes, lighting, cats, birds, dung beetles, etc? You know what we call it now?
Natural.
See you used to worship critters like that and one by one science shot them down by saying stuff like "No, hold on, that isn't an incarnation of a sun god, it's a bug that eats poo, if that's what you want to worship...".
That's one of the reasons why I love Scooby Doo and encourage kids to watch it. Supernatural is the natural wearing a mask, science and reason will always take it off in the end.
But you need your god to get through your day so even with the mask off you'll still insist that it's not Old Man Jenkins but a real honest P-p-p-pirate G-g-g-g-ghooooosssst!!!
http://xkcd.com/154/
Salvage, this post has nothing to do with the supernatural. This post is about one thing and one thing only, Why do atheists entertain fantasies about theories for which there is evidence negating their relevance while turning away from the Big Bang theory which has been verified over and over again.
Like Glen you haven’t let me know your opinion on this Salvage. I’m interested in what you think.
Glen said: "YOU implied quantum events have a cause.”
Well they sure don’t come out of nothing! I still don’t know if Flute was making a statement or a request. Nevertheless, any particles that arise do so as spontaneous fluctuation of the energy contained in the sub-atomic vacuum and that ain’t “nothing.”
Rather, the vacuum in which the particles appear is a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to the laws of physics. QM models, as oppossed to the Big Bang model do NOT involve the origination of matter ex nihilo.
Oh, and Flute, I am interested in the misinformation that you say I'm putting out re: Big Bang. Listen, if I'm saying something that's wrong, show me and I'll quit saying it. Just show me, that's all.
So, Rab and TAM and Glen and Salvage and Hump and Personal and God777 and Chris and Jeff, and Bob, I’m curious. What is it that is drawing you to theories that aren’t workable and away from Big Bang?
After all, BB is the only theory that fits the evidence. And atheists always follow the evidence, so why this seeming contradiction? Flute you say you don’t reject BB but you don’t say why you still are drawn to baseless speculation. What’s up with that?
I started on a comment on the misinformation a few times. The task seemed so great that I started over a few times and then gave up... sorry.
.Flute you say you don’t reject BB but you don’t say why you still are drawn to baseless speculation. What’s up with that?
What baseless speculation are you refering to?
>After all, BB is the only theory that fits the evidence.
No, the fact that the universe is speeding up rather than slowing down is one of the many elements that suggests the big bang theory needs refinement.
I don't know, are you being deliberately obtuse about this? Science doesn't come close to having all of the answers in regards to the origin(s) of the universe and as new evidence comes in theories will be adjusted, tweaked, thrown out and or new ones will be developed.
That's how science works, it's an endless quest for what is true and just because we have an answer that "fits" that doesn't mean it's the actual answer.
Just like the Greeks and their "Celestial Spheres" they could only theorize based on what they knew and as they learned more about the problem the theories were honed.
Religion on the other hand doesn't like that sort of thing.
right now in my living room is a giraffe named Gerald, he is juggling flaming snowballs while singing Pink Floyd's "The Wall".
The difference is this is arbitrary and comparable to the FSM-Teapot nonsense.
“The task seemed so great”
Ya, right.
============
“What baseless speculation are you refering to?”
The easiest way to answer is, What evidence is there for
Oscillating universe - Baby universes - Multi verses - The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario - The Chaotic Inflationary universe - Brane-cosmology - Inflationary multi-verse - Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum - The many worlds hypothesis - The black hole hypothesis -
Quantum gravity models - Vacuum fluctuation models - Imaginary time and imaginary space -
Space aliens brought life to earth?
That answer is NONE. They are pure speculation.
So, I wonder. What does the absence of comment mean? Is there an atheist convention somewhere? Is it an atheist holiday? Or is it just a holiday from self-honesty? If there is a convention or holiday, Sal and Flute either couldn’t afford to go or didn’t get invited - yet - they still won’t answer. Why? It can’t be that you’re not interested in the topic. There’s been comment all along, but now, when it comes to the crunch, nothing. Hmmm
>The difference is this is arbitrary and comparable to the FSM-Teapot nonsense.
Of course it is comparable to FSM (bless his noodles) but I came up with Gerald a long time ago.
See it's the boilerplate answer to the theist's rather childish argument that "we can't know everything therefore there must be a god." When you say that then anything is possible even something as ridiculous as a god who sacrifices himself to himself. Next to that a singing giraffe is perfectly reasonable.
The easiest way to answer is, What evidence is there for
Oscillating universe - Baby universes - Multi verses - The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario - The Chaotic Inflationary universe - Brane-cosmology - Inflationary multi-verse - Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum - The many worlds hypothesis - The black hole hypothesis -
Quantum gravity models - Vacuum fluctuation models - Imaginary time and imaginary space -
Space aliens brought life to earth?
Actually there IS a fair bit of evidence for _some_ of these models. To put it in simple terms, some of these models describe WHY the "Big Bang" happened.
But I don't have the time or expertise to explain it.
One thing I have to ask. Why is "space aliens brought life to earth" in your list?
"To put it in simple terms, some of these models describe WHY the "Big Bang" happened."
Flute, please. Can you not see that if there was a universe that existed previous to our universe, then the same problems re: origins apply to that / those universes as apply to our universe? That's what the conclusion of the BGV theorem states that ANY model of an expanding universe, be it theoreticl or real requires a beginning from nothing, a Singularity, a Big Bang event. You don't haveto be an expert to get this Flute. You just need an open mind.
===========
Why is "space aliens brought life to earth" in your list?
Actually I believe it was Dawkins himself who put this idea forward as an explanation for how life came to a planet where only inorganic inanimate matter existed.
Dawkins says about that:
Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. ... I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe).
thank you, I couldn't remember where I'd heard it.
Given that spaghetti is man-made and isnt known outside of the realm on man the entire FSM thing falls on it's face.
Gerald on the other hand could be easily proven. Did you send a picture of him to the National Inquirer? How did he get the snowballs to ignite?
Given that god are man-made and isn't known outside of the realm on man the entire religion thing falls on it's face.
See what I did there? That's the point of FSM, it's a made up thing that can't be disprove therefore it is as real as any god.
That is, it isn't of course.
>Gerald on the other hand could be easily proven. Did you send a picture of him to the National Inquirer?
Oh dear... this is embarrassing.. Gerald is... a vampire and as such does not show up on film, digital or otherwise. I guess when you're walking around with a neck like that eventually you're going to get some fanged creature of the night on your case.
Sadly Gerald remains a vegetarian so he's a very frustrated vampire singing giraffe but on the plus side he's immortal and teenage girls dig his pathos.
>How did he get the snowballs to ignite?
A question I have asked him time and time again and all he says is "It's strange and mysterious!" It's kind of like how your god turned water into wine, came back from the dead, cured lepers but not leprosy itself which is weird isn't it? Why would Jesus save a few lepers he came across and not the whole horrible disease.
That he made in the first place.
And you'd think that Jerusalem would have been overrun with lepers looking to be cured once word got out.
See that's the sort of third party history that would offer evidence of Jesus actually existing. Like if some Roman official had noted a sudden influx of lepers into the city because some Jewish teacher had a cure that worked. Then of course the Roman doctors would come by to investigate and would have been stunned to see lepers waking in all gross and coming out cured. They then would have renounced their pagans ways and started worshiping the One True God right then and there.
I mean how can you compete or argue with cured lepers?
But nope, Jesus only worked his miracles for a select few and for some odd reason they never told anyone.
Just more of the strange and mysterious stuff that are hallmarks of gods and singing vampire giraffes.
For fucks sake makarios.
I've said it before and i'll try to say it again.
Why does god have to be the answer?
We just don't know, i for one believ the big bang theory as it fits the evidence.
The evidence however, does not automatically therefore point to a creator, i.e. god.
That is what you like to believe as it 'makes sense' of the whole thing.
I for one, will not ruel that out, although i do find it highly improbable due to the solution to the problem introducing more complexities than the problem itself.
I do believe, however, that if there is a creator, he is NOT the christian god. Or any other man-made god for that matter.
Why do you insinuate we all tend to move away from BB theory? I for one, don't. I just don't think it ultimately proves the existence (or even points towards the existence) of a divine creator, more specifically your god.
“Why does god have to be the answer?”
And I’ve said before this post has nothing to do with God being the answer. Although I have to say, with everyone being so silent on the issue it’s beginning to make me wonder if that’s exactly what’s going on. Otherwise, why would that be your assumption?
====================
“That is what you like to believe as it 'makes sense' of the whole thing.”
That’s right but I’m trying to understand what atheists believe and why - well - you know what I’m asking but now it’s you who can’t seem to get past the God question.
===============
“I do believe, however, that if there is a creator, he is NOT the christian god. Or any other man-made god for that matter.”
Well, you said that before and I asked before, “What do you mean? I don’t follow how you come to that conclusion.”
==================
“Why do you insinuate we all tend to move away from BB theory? I for one, don't.”
You for one DO! You are the one who says, “I like the black hole theory.” And another says, “I prefer Brane Cosmology.” Yet another says “The multi verse seems to explain how our universe exists as it is.” Rab, each and every one of these had been PROVEN unworkable, at least as the evidence stands, yet you and others “move away from” an established workable theory to these other theories that have arrived at a baseless and hopeless end? I’m trying to understand why that is, and YOUR obsession with Creator God is leading me to believe THAT is the reason.
Now:
If gays have the courage to say, “I’m here and I’m queer - deal with it,” and
If some atheists have the courage to say, “That’s right, I’m a moral relativist,” and
If other atheists have the courage to say, “Ya, I’m a social Darwinist,”
IF BB’s pointing to Creator God is the reason that you’d rather look elsewhere, JUST SAY IT! Show a little courage here and be honest with yourself.
You for one DO! You are the one who says, “I like the black hole theory.” And another says, “I prefer Brane Cosmology.”
Quotation marks and all. Priceless.
I said no such thing.
I just put it forward to you as one theory of how the big bang occurred. As far as i'm aware mak, it hasn't been ruled out. I'm pretty sure Hawking himself both came up with, and stands behind that theory.
The black hole thing also highlights my point and Flute's, that you don't know what your on about.
I thought i made it clear that the black hole thing is a theory of how the big bang occurred? It's an explanation for the big bang.
I've already told you that none of this matters.
If one day, we prove how it happened, lets just say we did prove that a black hole spewed up the universe, you will simply take another step back, ask what caused that (the black hole) and credit it to god until we can answer it ourselves.
Sometimes you make me cringe mak, despite me just telling you in the previous post that i believe in BB theory, you still insist that i don't.
I'm not running away from anything, i simply refuse to credit the big bang to god.
“I do believe, however, that if there is a creator, he is NOT the christian god. Or any other man-made god for that matter.”
Well, you said that before and I asked before, “What do you mean? I don’t follow how you come to that conclusion.”
Are you deliberately obtuse?
There is no reason to believe this hypothetical creator, if he exists, is the christian god. He is just as likely to be the muslim, or ancient greek, pagan etc etc etc.
Indeed, one that i'd say is more probable than any of that, he is likely to be the god of none of them.
I don't understand why you don't get that.
I think part of the problem here is your constant parroting. I've addressed this elsewhere, and it is not as simple as saying that you are not allowed to comment on something that you don't fully understand. - Of course you can.
It's the way you present your case, i'd expect it to come from someone who is educated in that field. It's like your copying and pasting.
All you do is find stuff that you think backs you up and spraff it down.
IF BB’s pointing to Creator God is the reason that you’d rather look elsewhere, JUST SAY IT! Show a little courage here and be honest with yourself.
Again, your just being a pain in the arse. Despite what i tell you, you still insist that i'm turning away from it, and furthermore attack my personal courage.
Shame on you.
"that you don't know what your on about."
What I'm saying and it doesn't matter if you don't like my tone of confidence (what a stupid excuse for rejecting evidence) because it's correct, is that if the black hole theory caused THIS universe or if any of the other theories were responsible for THIS universe they are unworkable because each and everyone of them present the same issues / problems that we have with this universe. That's what I mean by unworkable. It solves nothing regarding how did matter come into being. Each and every one of them require a Singularity - as far as current evidence is concerned, it's a fact.
If billions of years ago, a black hole did spew out the universe (which by the way, i don't find hard to visualise, i think it would give much the same effect as the one you no doubt have in your mind of matter suddenly and spontaneously erupting in all directions out of nothing, but hey, i'm not an expert) then no, it still wouldn't explain how that matter came about in the first place.
Again, it doesn't matter though does it?
If we came up with a 100% positive explanation for the creation of matter out of seemingly nothing, you would then just ask what caused that. You will always believe a creator is ultimately responsible.
I'm not rejecting evidence makarios. I've just told you for the second time, and now for the third i believe big bang theory. However, the 'evidence' does not point towards the supernatural as you like to think it does. We just don't know.
I'm especially not rejecting anything becasue you have a tone of confidence. Mak, you always have the tone of confidence no matter what you post about. My problem is you are establishing a basis for the existence of the christian god by assembling an argument within a field that you are far from qualified in.
Sure, things you might post could well be fact, but do you actually understand any of it? Or does it just sound appealing in a manner that fits your world, and indeed, universal view.
Many people a hell of a lot more educated than you (and me for that matter) in the fields of astronomy and cosmology do not agree with your hypothesis that god must be responsible.
What you are exhibiting, in my opinion, is a lazy way of thinking.
To put it short, we can't explain it so it must be god.
This is effectively your argument. Dress it up by parroting all the information you want - ultimately, mankind just doesn't know.
Way down at the quantum level, there is something that exists called wave-particle duality. The classic example of this would be displayed by the diffraction of a single electron.
Diffraction is a property only exhibited classically by waves, yet a single electron, a particle with a measurable and defined mass displays it.
Why?
As far as i have been lead to believe, we don't actually know. It just does, and by extension it is believed that everything in existence has wave-particle duality. The very thought of it almost makes my head hurt, it is like the electron is multiplying like a bacterial cell as it goes under diffraction so that it can be detected at different intervals.
Now, i for one believe that there will be an explanation for this, we just simply don't understand at the moment.
You, however, will focus on the idea that a particle, is acting like a wave (something that intuitively you find impossible, much like matter coming out of seemingly nothing) and will likely attribute it to god's mysterious ways.
Do you?
What about the Mpemba effect? Hot water will freeze quicker than colder water under the correct circumstances.
Again, whether you be a chemist/physicist or not, you intuitively would laugh off such a claim. You won;t be surprised we still don't have an explanation for this phenomenon.
Is god taking the piss out of us?
It's late here so i'm off to bed. Hopefully that gives you something to think about.
Given that god are man-made and isn't known outside of the realm on man the entire religion thing falls on it's face.
You've stated opinion here and nothing more. You have not proven that the supernatural does not exist. Please substantiate the "god are man-made" part of the above quotation.
>You've stated opinion here and nothing more. You have not proven that the supernatural does not exist.
Because you cannot prove a negative you very smart person.
You have not proven that the signing giraffe doesn't exist.
See how that works? You can pop in any old crazy ass thing.
>Please substantiate the "god are man-made" part of the above quotation.
Sure. Every culture since the being of time has had a god of one sort or another. While they have in-common characteristics they're all so wildly different in the specifics and details that they couldn't possibly be the same being. Furthermore there has never, ever, been any sort of evidence for their existence other than ancient word of mouth. So only one of two possibilities present themselves:
a) your god is a trickster god who spent the first 10,000 years pretending to be other gods.
b) Man makes gods in his own image and that they're just tools that primitive humans used to explain the world and bring comfort to the harshness of life.
See you can't sit there and sniff "Well MY god is the real one and all those other gods are made up!" because if you do then you are admitting that those gods are in fact "man made" and if their gods are man-made why isn't yours?
I know, I know, because it's YOURS!
What a wonderful coincidence that in a world full of false gods yours happens to be the real deal. Ain't you lucky!
Post a Comment