Do atheists/agnostics believe in.....

[Baksteen 84]

Well, your bed probably screams your name too.


But I still curse with the name of God or Jesus.
Part of the object of cursing is 'shock value' for other people.

Besides, as some author once said, it takes a pretty stoic atheist to dance around after they hit their thumb and swearing "aarrggh! Obsolete concept of an outmoded belief system!!" (paraphrased)


Back to the OP, Big bang / creationism.
If given the choice between the two, I'd definitely go for the big bang. However, that doesn't answer everything either. because what was so big that it could go bang and create the universe? There must have been something.
I am, however a firm believer in evolution. But who knows how the very first spark of life originated... conditions exactly so that certain molecules would interact in this specific way, ultimately leading to something as complex as amoebas, bacteria and even multi cellular organisms?
Sounds pretty damn miraculous to me

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[pirana 0]

Quote

That's not to say "God" caused it, that is to say simply that we don't understand it yet.

And never will. All information is lost. Planck limits, etc.

Not even God can have memory of what happened before the creation of this Universe.

Sizzle, pop, sproing.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[crwtom 0]

Quote

the Big Bang Theory of the origin of the Universe?

and if so, why?

(and if they do, do they believe that the Big Bang event had a cause, or did not have a cause?)

I don't believe in anything . I just choose working hypotheses that are optimally consistent with current experience and evidence. They can change as either new data surfaces or better hypotheses are found, and there may be several at a time that seem equally good. By those standards "higher divine beings" are out of the picture very quickly, and the beginning of the universe is a subject of ongoing scientific discussion that won't be settled anytime soon.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[JackC 0]

Quote

I don't believe in anything . I just choose working hypotheses that are optimally consistent with current experience and evidence. They can change as either new data surfaces or better hypotheses are found, and there may be several at a time that seem equally good. By those standards "higher divine beings" are out of the picture very quickly, and the beginning of the universe is a subject of ongoing scientific discussion that won't be settled anytime soon.

That's pretty much it. Saying you believe in the Big Bang is a bit like saying you believe in maps. The map is not the terrain and maps can be wrong, but they still have their uses.

The question is what do you mean by "beleive in the big bang"?
Believe the maths?
Beleive that the Big Bang explains the evidence?
Believe that the Big Bang actually happend?
Believe that the Big Bang happened to save my immortal soul?
Believe that the Big Bang loves me and wants me to be happy?
What?

The believing that scientists do and the believing that the religious do, ain't the same believing.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

the Big Bang Theory of the origin of the Universe?

and if so, why?

(and if they do, do they believe that the Big Bang event had a cause, or did not have a cause?)

I don't believe in anything . I just choose working hypotheses that are optimally consistent with current experience and evidence. They can change as either new data surfaces or better hypotheses are found, and there may be several at a time that seem equally good. By those standards "higher divine beings" are out of the picture very quickly, and the beginning of the universe is a subject of ongoing scientific discussion that won't be settled anytime soon.

Cheers, T

How 'bout now?

Are we there yet?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

I just choose working hypotheses that are optimally consistent with current experience and evidence.

Very good point, along with the comparison to maps as an excellent example.

Taking the map thing another step; imagine being lost in the woods. The map may be full of errors, and you might not know it. It is just a story, a depiction, someone's interpretation.

The being lost part is the reality, the experience. You might even misinterpret that experience, but you are experincing that reality nonetheless.

My line is that anything you learn other than from direct experience is just a story, it is modeling based on the experience of others. Take in enough of it and you probably get a pretty good picture; but it is still just a picture. Unless of course it is a picture of Planet X. In which case it is a camera flare.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Shotgun 1]

To be honest, I don't think I understand enough about the science behind the Big Bang theory to be able to agree or disagree with it. And, while it's an interesting subject, I can't say that I spend much time thinking about the origin of the universe. Though I do tend to think that there was never a time when "nothing" existed. If the Big Bang was the beginning of the world as we know it, I believe that it likely had a cause, and that the universe (or whatever it should be called) likely existed in some form before that.

But this subject has little to do with my not believing in any gods. I was an atheist long before I heard anything about the Big Bang theory.

[pirana 0]

Quote

To be honest, I don't think I understand enough about the science behind the Big Bang theory to be able to agree or disagree with it. And, while it's an interesting subject, I can't say that I spend much time thinking about the origin of the universe. Though I do tend to think that there was never a time when "nothing" existed. If the Big Bang was the beginning of the world as we know it, I believe that it likely had a cause, and that the universe (or whatever it should be called) likely existed in some form before that.

The Bang part can cause discomfort with the idea. It could have just as easily been a Big Whoosh. We tend to hear Bang and think of something like a firecracker.

Working backwards with what we know of physics, we can get back to something like 1 to the -43rd seconds. That's a decimal point, 42 zeroes, and a 1. That's a very tiny amount of time in our world, but a critically important LENGTH of time for something created from nothing, or a singularity containing all the enery in the Universe.

So maybe from that singularity came a rush, or a whoosh of energy. In human perception, maybe it appears as an instantaneous indescribable unordered Bang; but in the realm of interacting particles and waves, there was lots happening and much more definition than just . . . . BANG!

We will never know what that first itty bitty fraction of a second was like simply because to do so would require a concentration of energy that is absolutely, and by definition, inpossible. Unless we come up with a machine capable of jamming all the energy of the Universe inside the space of a single atom, we simply can't know.

We can smash a few bits together, but all that gives us is what happens when you smash a few bits together. Tantalizing hints, and lots to think about, but no cigar.

That alone is reason enough to take stuff like String Theory with a grain of salt. If it is possible to achieve the energy levels at which manifestations of String Theory can be tested, they are a long, long way off. Problem is that as scientific exploration of the origins of everything gets closer to hitting the wall (I think we are almost there) all kinds of goofy shit will be tossed out there because people are uncomfortable with "We don't know." It is why various religions have gotten away with peddling their dogmas. In the absence of knowledge, they create gobbleygook to pacify the uncomfortable masses.

And so it goes. Keep asking questions, and resist the gobbleygook.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

We will never know what that first itty bitty fraction of a second was like simply because to do so would require a concentration of energy that is absolutely, and by definition, inpossible.

I think the problem with knowing what happened during that tiny fraction of a second has to do with lacking a theory that unifies the four fundamental forces (strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, gravity). I don't think the information is fundamentally unknowable.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[livendive 8]

Quote

We will never know what that first itty bitty fraction of a second was like simply because to do so would require a concentration of energy that is absolutely, and by definition, inpossible. Unless we come up with a machine capable of jamming all the energy of the Universe inside the space of a single atom, we simply can't know.

I suspect efforts to understand that fraction of a second are somewhat trivial, as comprehension of "how things work" require perspectives stretched across massive amounts of time rather than miniscule. I can observe that systems become increasingly complex and I have every reason to believe that this tendency continues beyond my ability to comprehend. With a sufficiently wide view of time and space, I think understanding could follow awareness. But until we have that awareness, understanding is, by definition, impossible. The largest mistake I think organized religions make in their promulgated explanations is an incredibly erroneous misperception of our (human) significance. In comparison to the vastness of time and space, we exist in something far shorter than the blink of an eye and far smaller than the head of a pin. Of course from a selfish standpoint, I think this common error is tremendously beneficial.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

which is a form of faith-based reasoning.

By the standard definition of faith (meaning belief without proof/evidence) then, no. Believing in the "Big Bang Theory" or the expansion of the universe a few seconds after its birth based on the evidence of it does not equal faith even if we don't yet know what caused it.

If by faith you mean "because I personally haven't seen it," then I guess it is faith...much like my faith that the Earth is round.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

the Big Bang Theory of the origin of the Universe?

and if so, why?

(and if they do, do they believe that the Big Bang event had a cause, or did not have a cause?)


I'm going away for a few days & won't have access to the Internet, so I won't respond for awhile.

There is an abundance of experimental evidence indicating that the "Big Bang event" occurred, although many details are still unavailable.

There is zero evidence for the existence of a supernatural, invisible, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being who takes a personal interest in our lives. ZERO, none, zilch, zip...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[stitch 0]

A theory is just that. I believe more evidence needs to be presented. Although, with the evidence that has been presented, I don't understand how people can continue to cling to the whole "7 days" explanation.

"No cookies for you"- GFD
"I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65
Don't be a "Racer Hater"

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

We will never know what that first itty bitty fraction of a second was like simply because to do so would require a concentration of energy that is absolutely, and by definition, inpossible.

I think the problem with knowing what happened during that tiny fraction of a second has to do with lacking a theory that unifies the four fundamental forces (strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, gravity). I don't think the information is fundamentally unknowable.

True; but Electromagnetism and the weak force are already demonstrated to be in unity, and I thought I had read a few years back that the evidence for uniting them with the strong force was very good. So that just leaves the bugger of the 4, gravity.

And having a theory on uniting the four, or better said, having the ability to test such theories, will require incredible concentrations of energy. IIRC, the SSC was hoped to provide the concentrations necessary to find the Higgs; which might go a long way to understanding gravity in something other than Newtonian a fashion. But bringing the 4 known forces together still isn't a guarantee of understanding what happens when a singularity expands into a Universe. And we won't know until we get there whether or not it will support or debunk String Theory.

So I agree, GU is a piece of the puzzle, but getting there is still, at it's core, a matter of concentrating energy and seeing what pops out. And then we are still left with what happens when such enormous amounts of energy act over some significant amount of space and the goodies in that space.

I mean, similar to a stylus having some outrageously high temperature where it meets the groove but being meaningless to the human touch; creating a concentration of energy within the limited space of 2 subatomic particles does not exactly equate to what happens in a singularity holding all the existing and potential energy of the entire Universe.

Unification is over-rated. We'll need a collider the size of our solar system to really get down to it.

TIME FOR A JOKE ON THE TOPIC.

A dairy farmer wants to maximize his yield, and so brings in an engineer, an artist, and a physicist for advice.

The engineer gets busy and determines the precise infrastructure and processes necessary to extract the most milk.

The artist paints the barns, puts up artwork, pumps in soothing music, and in general tries to make the cows as comfortable as is bovinely possible.

The physicist walks in and says: "Imagine the cow is a sphere . . ."

Stolen from Fear of Physics. It's not a crime if I give credit, right?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

A theory is just that. I believe more evidence needs to be presented. .

Do you mean "theory" in the vernacular speculative idea/hypthetical notion usage? Or in the precise scientific meaning?
The two usages are almost antonyms of each other and most definitely NOT synonyms.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Though I do tend to think that there was never a time when "nothing" existed. If the Big Bang was the beginning of the world as we know it, I believe that it likely had a cause, and that the universe (or whatever it should be called) likely existed in some form before that.

The big bang is considered the origin/creation of space and time.

So there is no notion of "before" in any reasonable sense.

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And more importantly.... whose name do they scream when they orgasm?

depends on if they can remember the name of the person they're doing.

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

Quote

See, this is what I dont understand. Do you need evidence to belieive?

Actually, yes. I am highly skeptical of anything without supporting evidence to back it up.

Quote

Yes you say you need evidence, but then again you may believe that the evidence needed to disprove the existance of God has already been found, it just hasnt yet been revealled, meaning, its possible that it isnt even there, right? This is how I understand denying even the possibility of the existance of God as expressed through most atheists. It just seems a bit silly to me that with the drastic measures science goes to, they dont invite even the possibility of a Wisdom or inteligence beyond man. Especially with how incredibly "perfect" all things have to be in order to sustain life. That is, all the pieces have to fit.

I just look at a tree and how incredibly amazing it is in its sustainment of life, then I look at us and think, man, Life must be intelligent. Even the greatest thinkers in the history of time have submitted to lifes wonders and mysteries.

Quote

Dont you think its a little interesting that we posess the ability to progress without having evidence of something? Not only that, that it really isnt that unreasonable to do so?

Actually, I think you're once again making assumptions based on a false premise.

I think you may only think that because you know I am a believer. To me, that sentence seems pretty reasonable, believing in God or not.

"We didn't start the fire"

• Quote

[jumpin_Jan 1]

Quote

the Big Bang Theory of the origin of the Universe?

and if so, why?

(and if they do, do they believe that the Big Bang event had a cause, or did not have a cause?)


I'm going away for a few days & won't have access to the Internet, so I won't respond for awhile.

Some do, some don't.
(Do all christians take the Old and New novel literally?)

Next question please.
:)


PULL!
jumpin_Jan

"Dangerous toys are fun but ya could get hurt" -- Vash The Stampede

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Actually, I think you're once again making assumptions based on a false premise.

I think you may only think that because you know I am a believer. To me, that sentence seems pretty reasonable, believing in God or not.

Actually, it's not a reasonable sentence at all.

You said;

Quote

Dont you think its a little interesting that we posess the ability to progress without having evidence of something? Not only that, that it really isnt that unreasonable to do so?

Progress in what without evidence?

The ability to fly airplanes? No. We certainly didn't make much progress before we had evidence of how aerodynamics worked.

The ability to understand how the solar system worked? No again. We certainly didn't have any clue how it worked until we took accurate measurements.

Again, you've assumed a false premise to make what you think is some sort of point. It has nothing to do whatsoever with me knowing you're a believer, but it certainly does have everything to do with the lack of evidence you can show me that you even understand what it is you're trying to say.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

See, this is what I dont understand. Do you need evidence to belieive?

Everyone does. The only thing which is different what kind of evidence you need. You would probably have hard time to believe in Jesus if there were no Bible, for example - so even you need evidence to believe. And for you the Bible is part of the evidence.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I just look at a tree and how incredibly amazing it is in its sustainment of life, then I look at us and think, man, Life must be intelligent. Even the greatest thinkers in the history of time have submitted to lifes wonders and mysteries.

Let me translate from Russian the award-winning text by unknown author.

People wouldn't be able to create an aircraft. The aircraft flies without wings beating, which makes a huge difference comparing to all existing animals. Even ancient reptiles cannot fly like that. The aircraft could move much, much faster than any known animal. Inside an animal there's guts and blood, but inside the aircraft there are nice comfortable seats, air and even some food. The way the aircraft is created protects the people inside from otherwise fatal cold temperatures and low pressure. It is so complex that even the most genius person on the Earth would not be able to make it alone. And it's amazing how the sun reflects its body.

Now let's think together - how could such a beautyful, reasonable and compelx thing be created by the people, who cannot fly themselves? I think, the answer is obvious - it cannot. Just think about it: the first aircraft like we know it was created less than 150 years ago, and the people occupy Earth more than two million years! There was definitely enough time to build an aircraft if they only could! They had even more iron, oil, aluminium, and quartz to build it than we have now. The brain of Cro-Magnon man has the same volume (and therefore thinking capability) as modern people have. So why the people didn't build an aircraft before? The answer is simple: even if thousands of people start throwing iron and aluminium in a pile, and pour it with oil, and do it for thousands of years, they will not create an aircraft. The conclusion is obvious: an aircraft was not build by humans, it's the creation of Higher Intelligence; we cannot understand it, and shall not even try. We shall only worship it, and the High Power which created it.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

Quote

See, this is what I dont understand. Do you need evidence to belieive?

Everyone does. The only thing which is different what kind of evidence you need. You would probably have hard time to believe in Jesus if there were no Bible, for example - so even you need evidence to believe. And for you the Bible is part of the evidence.

See, that makes sense to me, so why is it that people believe we have "no evidence"? You know I believe in the testimonys of those who found the same thing I did. But one of the main points Jesus made, is that there were many who saw the miracles he was performing, and still could/would not believe. So seeing, is not always believing, and even more important, it is the POWER of believing and not seeing that allows us to recieve grace in increasing measures.

In any event it does sound logical, that a mans testimony could be all the "evidence" one needs to believe. The conviction of Jesus' testimony was so strong that he endured a very painful death and unimaginable humility and mocking...Like a lamb led to the slaughter, perhaps like a sacrafice to God that actually was the spirit of God. Not necessarily to keep us from going to hell, but so that we would know that we are so dearly loved, and that, brings heaven into our hearts. Because a life without Heaven is hell.

"We didn't start the fire"

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

See, that makes sense to me, so why is it that people believe we have "no evidence"?

You do. You just don't have reasonable evidence which could be considered acceptable for the rest of the people. The generic problem with all the evidence you have is hearsay, which cannot be cross-examined.

It is basically the same as if I allege that Jesus lives in the cactus in my backyard, and to support that I'd provide a picture of cactus. Is the picture an evidence? Obviously; it might be considered the evidence the cactus is there. Will you believe Jesus lives there? May be; it depends whether you believe in it already, or not.

Quote

But one of the main points Jesus made, is that there were many who saw the miracles he was performing, and still could/would not believe. So seeing, is not always believing, and even more important, it is the POWER of believing and not seeing that allows us to recieve grace in increasing measures.

This point is quite useless. Basically what you're saying is that you don't have to prove your point just because some people won't believe you anyway. This would be a good point if your goal was to convince either everyone or none. Sure, no matter what you do, SOME people would never believe in what they see anyway. However most people are very reasonable, and would accept the reasonable evidence. Most questions asked right here are very reasonable, nobody seriously asks Jesus to create a rock he wouldn't be able to lift. And if someone could not answer reasonable questions, and just says we need to believe him - how could we differ between him and a fake one?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Progress in what without evidence?

Quote

>>>>How about a relationship. People progress in relationships without evidence right?

The ability to fly airplanes? No. We certainly didn't make much progress before we had evidence of how aerodynamics worked.

>>>>Right, but that evidence was gained through a sincere belief that could have been based on perhaps a childhood dream, or an idea, or even an accident. Someone decided to really believe, and they followed that to the end even in the faces of many failures. There was faith in the idea before you received the evidence of aerodynamics.

Quote

The ability to understand how the solar system worked? No again. We certainly didn't have any clue how it worked until we took accurate measurements.

>>>>same logic applies.

Quote

Again, you've assumed a false premise to make what you think is some sort of point. It has nothing to do whatsoever with me knowing you're a believer, but it certainly does have everything to do with the lack of evidence you can show me that you even understand what it is you're trying to say.

>>>>Thats clever, youve managed to take a perfectly good argmument and make it sound as if the other side has no point. But you, and others who have tried, have still not convinced me, I mean seriously, you havent even come close. Does this mean Im irrational? Perhaps. But maybe there is a truth about the application of faith (which resides in the believer and non believer) that you may not have thought of, or, that you just simply deny because it doesnt support your belief.

What do you know about enlightenment?

"We didn't start the fire"