Except my beliefs are easy to explain. I believe that the natural world has yet to be completely discovered, so there's plenty of room for mystery and ignorance, and whatever we pretend to know about things we don't know is simply that: pretending.

Uh, what? On the side of science, there are hypotheses, and on the theistic side, there's one, unclear idea that doesn't even count as a hypothesis.

See, for a hypothesis, you'd need a clear statement that could be tested. "God did it" isn't clear, nor is it testable. So it's not a hypothesis.

Non sequitur.

Ah, no. The Big Bang theory is a description of what we have evidence of actually happening thus far. It's just a description of available evidence, and the pattern behind that. "Why" doesn't really enter into it. If you want to know why, then you'll have to admit ignorance, here. None of us have any idea as to the why.

Your 1, 2, 3 for my side missed a few steps.

What I believe is the evidence and the math. What you have is a non sequitur. How are those equivalent?

So, what I am gathering so far (please be patient):

- Atheists trust in evidence, reason and logic

- Nobody claims to know the reason or logic for the BB's occurance

- Nobody can offer evidence that our BB is the beginning of matter (it may be collapsed matter from infinite other BB's, and may yet collapse again)

- Nobody can say why they exist other than the BB farted out properties convenient for life "allova suddin'"

- Singularities seem to be the cause of themselves (singularity exploded, produced universe, produced other singularities in the centre of black holes..producing..more..worl...)

- You can tell me what an electron is, but I want to know the "why." Why are they here?

 

I like the answer usually given to the last one, "Wtf? Why? Why does a dog bark? It came from the BB man, get over it already." Read, "Wtf? I have no idea, and I 've taken their existence a priori from the start."

 

EDIT: The reason behind this enquiry is to prove that the BB is not the beginning of the universe. Given KSBM's link, it supports exactly what I've been driving at. Curious though that some maintain it is, even though there is evidence to the contrary, (under the title "common misconceptions about BB theory&quot.

1. SOME atheists aknowledge evidence, reason and logic as (indeed, the only) valid approaches to actually knowing anything about the universe.  Trust is too strong a word. There is ALWAYS an error bar.

2. We know how black holes can decay and eventually evaporate, and this may or may not shed light on what made the pre-BB singularity unstable.  I'm not an expert in quantum, string- or M-theory, so I won't hypothesize beyond that.

3. Again, that's not really what the BBT is about. It has little to say on where matter/energy and space/time came from.  That's like complaining that evolutionary theory doesn't explain the existence of Pluto.  It's technically true, but also irrelevant.

4. The teleological argument is NOT a good argument for the existence of God or against the validity of scientific theories like the BB or evolution.  Just because you keep saying that there has to be a "why", that there must be some intent, doesn't mean there actually has to be.  Particles have certain properties because those properties are stable enough to accumulate and produce larger particles, which in turn must be stable enough to produce atoms that are stable enough to produce stable molecules in order for us to notice their existence.  Sometimes we see extremely unstable particles with properties unlike those we know, typically when we slam protons or electrons together at nearly the speed of light. Note that it matters not at all to the particles themselves if their properties are stable or not.

For example, electrons must have certain levels of energy as they orbit the nucleus of an atom.  Why? Because only those certain levels produce stable standing waves.  If it has some other amount of energy, it isn't an electron, or isn't for very long.

5. Singularities are not self-causal, any more than a child is self-causal. That a phenomenon might result in similar future phenomena isn't unusual or at all strange.  Our stars wouldn't exist without earlier stars that seeded the cosmos with dust and gas, that wouldn't have existed without, etc. Also, I should note that the fractal universe idea is just one that I happen to like.  I have no idea if it's supported by the science, I just think it's cool the same way I like Tolkien's worldbuilding without necessarily believing it's true.

Again, don't rely on teleological arguments.  We are a species that is built to seek patterns and assume agency.  It helped us when we had to figure out if that lion was looking for dinner, but it doesn't when we're building a society built on quantum tunneling (Yes, we have.  Without quantum tunneling, all our electronic doodads fail to work.).

 Edit in response to edit: You specifically asked about the Big Bang and why those of us who are of a scientific bent accepted it as our "origin myth" did so.  I specificially responded to that. The Big Bang does not answer questions about where the universe came from or why (what does that even mean? Where means what, exactly, divorced from the spacial references of our self-contained universe? What does "why?" mean when you're talking about natural processes without any kind of agency?) but it serves as the origin of this universe because of the informational barrier of the singularity.  It doesn't really matter what the singularity was up to before it expanded because none of that information can cross the event horizon of the singularity.  Nothing that happened "before" survived the trip in.

Except that's not what's going on.  I believe the BB to be an acurrate representation of the history of the universe so far as we know.  It may not be, but the odds are pretty slim.  There is evidence for the Big Bang, unlike God. We have presented quite a bit of that evidence.  The fact that you bring up questions that are irrelevant to that evidence and claim that your questions invalidate that evidence does NOT place the Big Bang on the same footing as God.

Also, what does it say about YOUR beliefs that you seem to think lowering scientific theories to their level makes those theories shaky?

 

1) I believe the Big Bang theory.

2) EVIDENCE: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

3) Any actual questions that could actually undermine the validity of that mountain of evidence, or are you intent on simply placing your flag atop it and declaring it conquered?

4) ???

5) Profit!

Why are theists so concerned with the question of why? Why do they seem to think that because they can phrase a question, the question makes sense? I can ask "What color is Tuesday?" or "What's north of the north pole?", but that doesn't mean they make sense.

 

It wasn't my link, Kavis posted it first. I just reposted it because I thought it was a nice summary. If you don't like the BB theory, you are of course free to construct your own scientific model about how the universe formed. I am sure you can come up with something that takes into account all current observations, and in fact does so better than the current state of the BB theory. Don't forget to make a scientific prediction so the model can be falsified. I am already looking forward to reading about your model in the scientific journals.

i apologise, bobspence1. statement about getting creamed retracted.

Notice how the "why" turned into "what" in your examples. You may want to work on that.

 

In the opening few paragraphs of your own link on BBT is:

The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.

BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.

The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.

You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began

There is also the widespread mistaken belief that, according to Hubble's law, the Big Bang began at one certain point in space

Now lets see what I have posted:

- "yes I am saying we don't know what caused the BB. There are infinite hypothesis about the beginning, Esmeralda and Keith the lobster might have set the BB off for all i care. If you believe the BB theory, I'm happy to talk about what banged, how, when, why, if it is the first bang, what it means if its not"

- "Furthermore, to say "We don't know what caused the BB...If all the evidence supports the BB..." does not address the beginning of the BB itself, only what happens after"

- "What evidence are we proposing when we talk about BB theory? A singularity? And what does physics tell us about a singularity? Keeping in mind that gravity, electrons and such happened after the BB. Can science tell us why an electron has a certain charge? Why {electrons have} that particular charge?"

- "So a singularity is compressed matter resulting in a black hole? Then the singularity that "started" the universe expanding had compressed matter in it already? Then it is not really the beginning then, is it? The matter that was compressed already existed. If it didn't where did it come from? Another BB before it? Then what is the BB if not a singularity of infinitely dense material?"

 

I could go on, but I feel I have said enough. I may very well believe the BB happened, and explain all sorts of stuff about it. What I wont do is pass that stuff off as an explanation for why it occured, or even how it coccured. Many examples have been given about the evidence that a BB occured, but (if you read my posts) that is not my concern¹. From the beginning, I made my intentions clear:

1. (your theory here) - BB theory for example, created everything

2. You cant explain why

------

3. You believe your theory

Ah, okay, so I was wrong too. It's just three separate assertions. Except, of course, the Big Bang didn't create everything. 

 

If nobody holds that the BB created the universe, then what did?

 

I am confused.

 

Are you saying that nothing created the universe?

 

My three statement/arguments are invalid, this was on purpose. I was trying to say that I cant prove "God(s)" created the universe. The second one was about those who hold that the BB created the universe, which is also invalid, because BB theory can't be proven as the beginning either.

 

Is that more clear, or have I got something wrong again?

 

Almost precisely right. "AFAWK" may need some debating, but hey. It has taken this long to get to the point that I raised earlier:

So I think i have answered the first part of the question that was posted by HissWillness:

If by described, you meant understood logically or scientifically, then yes, since no one has described to me (about origin!!) scientifically or logically how a "singularity" that does not appear in your own BB theory (as in "not based on evidence&quot - as according to the link provided, under "Common misconceptions"; produced any of the energy/mass/electrons/etc that you claim it did.

That leaves the second half of what Hiswillingness, bobspence1 and several others have said - namely "the description {of God} fails to be in any way reasonable." I did not want to get to this question prematurely, as I wanted the distinction between fact (evidence) and hypothesis ("to suppose&quot to be very clear.

I'm pretty tired atm, but I have enjoyed the convo thus far.

I said earlier, that I find no major philosophical issue with the belief in God; perhaps that needs some padding. I find no major philosophical issues with the belief in God that I don't find with any other hypothesis proposed about origin.

 

I'll leave it there for now, but am interested in responses.

 

 

The BB is simplly an event, a cause from an effect of the singularity expanding, why did the singularity cause an expansion is up to debate, it could have been a quantum fluctuation, an unstable singulairty, maybe something farted, who knows, at this point I highly doubt humanity will even know the answer to that question. However many of us are find with it. Basically the BB effect or cause occured which basically is the start of this universe as we know it. Why was the singularity there? No clue, doesn't matter it was there. Why did it expand? No clue, but it did and we can see the effects and the evidence of it. Why is there something instead of nothing? Why not? Where did the singularity come from? Ready the answer? No idea at all, and no one could give you a proper answer. However saying god did it, doesn't actually answer the question. Because there is no evidence for god at all, in a universe that all seems to have a natural cause and effect. Why add a supernatural deity that cannot be explained in natural terms? I just don't get why god is necessary.

I hope I don't chase you off with my bluntness. I do apreciate those who can hang in there when the words are tough to handle. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THE FOLLOWING PERSONALLY. This being my first response to you, and not knowing you in person, keep in mind I am judging your words(questions and responses ONLY).

 

Here goes.

 

Magic does not exist. Whatever ingredience of the universe there were or that we may never know, should not constitute defaulting to ancient myth.

You today, do not atribute lighting to Thor nor do you think the Sun is a real deity like the Ancient Egyptians litterally believed at one time. Whatever we don't know there are lots of things we do know.

We know that it takes TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote, which negates the claims of virgin births. We do know that human flesh cannot survive rigor mortis, which negates dead flesh reconstituting itself as if nothing happened.

We also know that humans have throughout history made stories up only later for those stories to be discarded.

I think what most believers of ALL religions fail to realize is that a "WHAT" is what is going on and not a "WHO". The universe is an ongoing random process, an unthinking process. In laymen's terms you could look at the universe as an ongoing random fractile.

And it is a mistake to equate the origins of the universe as being the same as the evolution of biological carbon based life forms. The two are unrelated. The universe is not a giant strand of DNA nor does it "replicate" like DNA.

If you are unwilling to insert "Allah" in to fill the gap of how the universe started, why should any other claim of the super natural get a pass?

Is it not more realistic that humans, because they don't know better, will attempt to comfort themselves with falsehoods because of the wishful thinking of desiring some sense of control?

It IS TRUE that humans don't have all the answers. But it is stupid to cling to the past hoping that your man in the cape will swoop you off the train tracks merely because the idea is comforting to you.

 

I'm Anti-Theist and I like the Smolin Solution for the beginning of the Universe:

www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin/smolin_p1.html

 

Supporting evidence of why I like his thinking:

 

www.ted.com/index.php/talks/lee_smolin_on_science_and_democracy.html

 

AFAWK: "As far as we know" - in case you didn't get it.

The speculation about the ultimate origins of the BB are still based on a ideas suggested by massive amount of observation and experiment and calculation which is fairly well-established. The same is not remotely true of the God hypothesis, even if it could be formulated in a way that made same kind of internal logical sense. It has all of the logical problems you raise or attempt to raise against cosmological theories, with nothing remotely approaching the amount of detailed knowledge and established theory that informs scientific speculation. 

You still appear to be trying to put them on a comparable footing. Just because various ideas all lack 'proof', does not mean we are justified in treating them as equally possible or plausible. You don't seem willing or able to specifically acknowledge this very important point.

The "singularity" is the simplest extrapolation backwards from what has been reasonably well modelled so far, but Quantum Theory strongly suggests that it would not go all the way back to something really matching a mathematical 'singularity', but practically, something at the Planck scale of around 10^-33 centimeters, with a density of 10⁹⁵ gm/cc, with no internal structure, is close enough.

No-one is saying the 'singularity' is the cause of the Big Bang, or IOW the 'cause' of our Universe - it is a state of energy that is presumed to have existed at a point in time, that acting according to the physical constraints and forces existing under such conditions, expanded and followed the sequence of developments we have found evidence for, leading to the Universe as we observe it today.

There is nothing about the ideas of the Big Bang or the Singularity that 'logically' would prevent electrons etc arising as it expanded and cooled. 'Logical' does not imply 'evidence', just that one set of propositions are deductively derivable from a set of starting assumptions. Logic can only demonstrate if assumptions logically contradict each other, it cannot establish the empirical truth of a consistent set of assumptions.

Well that's the problem with philosophy, it allows for all sorts of meaningless nonsense to be discussed as though it referred to something real...

Awww. Lost post. My l337 posting skills are awesome. 

Is that your professional opinion? I thought I said I find no phiolosophical issues with the belief in God, to which people posted objections? I also thought that logic and reason are a fundamental part of PHL. Why did you bother posting a reply based on your opinion, evidence man? Do you have any evidence that philosophy is babble, or are you just ignorant? Keep your opinions to yourself, it slows down debate. I get it. It's just that we dont know anything about the beginning, its all a hypothesis. Should I put more spaces between my words?      Would        that         be         easier? Amost right again. Where did this energy you speak of come from? You know, the one that condenced into matter just like mouldy cheese condences into pure liquid happiness? Assuming the cheese already existed of course, in which case if it didn't then it also must condense out of the thumbs of an albino sloth named kevin. Can you get a scientist to condense me a new computer? The one I have is getting old. Sorry about the sarcasm. Some people like beating dead horses... A hypothesis is likely if the following four criteria are met:1. If H were true then O would be expected2. H fits with background knowledge3. If H were not true then O would not be expected4. H is simple (Occum's razor - more about this later) Where: H=hypothesis, O=observations This is out of Richard Swinburne's book, "Is there a God?" (or "Does God exist?", I can't remember) I agree with butterbattle, at least partially. Moving on. It does seem that way but I hope I'm not. I'm assuming you mean Aquina's 5 ways (his 3rd deals with FC specifically). I am well aware of the problems that plague that argument, hence why i have not used it. What I am trying to do is get people to admit that they just don't know the origins of the universe. When I'm satisfied that no-one is confusing this point with unecessary evidence, I'll move on to some competeing theories, including BBT, Esmeralda and Keith, polytheism (or henotheism, doesn't matter which) then finally theism. As I wrote in my last post that was lost to the WWW (an act of God perhaps... relax, its a joke), I take inspiration from Swinburne, Taylor, Mackie, Plantinga (he is rad) Hillary Bok and a few others (yeesss, the Bible too). Are poeple familiar with these works?