"An argument against an argument against The Big Bang Theory?"
Original Opinion by JamesBufkin (25)
One argument I hear a lot from believers is that there must have been a first cause to start off the Big Bang, and since Scientists don't really have an explanation for that then you might as well say God created the Universe (Big Bang or not). There are a couple of problems with this such as the fact that instead of explaining the issue they are just putting an unknown on top of another unknown. That is a form of tautology and is logically fallacious. but I have a refutation based on one other common belief in religions, the concept of "Free Will". It is often stated that god gave man free will. Besides the fact that I have a problem with this first statement I'll go ahead and concede that we have free will. Now go back to the Big Bang, based on the creationist argument it must have been started up by something besides itself. Okay this is fine as long as you are willing to admit that everything requires a cause and effect. But here is the point where supposed free will breaks down. If everything has a cause and effect then this must be a deterministic Universe. If everything is predetermined based on this cause and effect then the concept of free will becomes useless. I hope my point was clear and easy to follow. I won't go into the moral aspect of free will unless someone else makes a debate centered around that nor will I argue against the religions that believe in determinism. My argument was based on my own logic and only deals with those religions that believe we live in a Universe based on free will.
"The proof is in the theoriticaly philosophical and/or cosmological pudding....i guess." by RobotKen (9)
First off, the Big Bang is pretty much proven. Whether or not God exists and caused it is an entirely different argument. Scientist have proven that the universe is expanding away from it's center at an accelerated rate, in such a way that we can actually measure it, and therefore we can date it. So the fact that everything expanded from a single super-dense singularity is nearly indisputable. Even the static on your television is proof- radio waves left over from after the Big Bang.
Evolution has also been proven. It's been proven that despite the views of Creationist, the Earth is not 6000 years old, there is no "firmament" in the sky or "Waters above the floodgate" as mentioned in the Bible. The Earth is indeed round, despite the 4 or 5 bible verses which say otherwise. So, despite the logical impossibility of proving a negative (ie prove God does not exist) it has been effectively proven that the theories of creation, at least as they are mentioned in the Bible, are false.
Now- the philosophical angle. If the energy of the Big Bang required a source (God), then it also fits logically that the energy of God would require a source as well. The classic "If God created the universe, then what created God?" argument. So, the tautology you are dealing with actually works against their core monotheistic beliefs (unless of course they are willing to dismiss logic, in which case you shouldn't waste your time debating with them anyway, right?)
If God does exist, it would be an injustice to him/her if we didn't use the brains he supposedly gave us to their full potential. That means not accepting the simplest answer, asking the tough questions, and following the theory that does more to "explain" than the theory that does more to "assume".
"Christian response" by Ronws23 (16)
What you guys don't understand is that there is so much knowledge in the universe that even if you can prove that animals adapt, doesn't prove there isn't a God that made the first animals.
Now I don't take everything in the Bible literally, some parts I believe are just metaphors to show how we can improve our relationship with God. Take Job for example, I honestly doubt that happened, but it's included in the Bible because it shows how one can still have faith in God even when an innocent is suffering.
Also, think of it like this: Think of all the knowledge in the universe. Math, Science, geography, everything. Now tell me how much we actually know. If you want to be stubborn and say we know a lot, that still will probably only get us 5% of all the knowledge in the universe. So you are saying in the 95% humans have no clue about, you are saying there can't be anything there that supports the belief in a God?
"Burden of proof" by JamesBufkin (25)
First off I want to clarify that your comment, Ronws23, has practically nothing to do with my original argument. And to say right off the bat that we don't understand that there is more knowledge to be had about the Universe is being ignorant of our position. Now on to your statements. Saying that we are refusing to believe in God based on lack of evidence is true. But saying that we say there will never be any proof is wrong. Based on the information that the human race has collected and the amazing amount of evidence that supports all kinds of scientific theories, especially Evolution, as an Atheist I have come to the conclusion that the Universe and everything in it has a natural origin, not a supernatural one. That being said, I am open to new lines of evidence that support opposing views, but I have yet to hear of such irrefutable, empirical, and scientific proof that supports the existence of a christian god or any god for that matter. All the evidence we have, which is all we can base our conclusions on points to an all natural Universe. I want to close by saying that I am offended by the fact that you wish to place a number on top of human knowledge. Anyone who claims to guess how much the human race knows or doesn't know is arrogant indeed.
"Undecided Response" by ronc994 (13)
I concider myself a Christian, but do not go to any church. I have a hard time understanding how all this could have just happened, without some form of guidance.
People can believe the Universe just happened, from a big bang, yet not believe it could have been created.
We have scientists now, that can create things, they can grow a kidney, they can clone a lamb, they can create all kinds of different products, yet we cannot believe that something, or someone created all this?
How far have we come in the last 200 years, and the discoveries we have made. Things believed as Gospel 100 years ago have been proven wrong, how can someone just steadfastly say there is or is not a creator.
I do not know, I believe what I believe because it seems the RIGHT thing to believe, and it makes more sense to me. Life just seems way to complicated to have just evolved from an omeba. Nature is a complicated thing, remove one aspect, remove one species, and the whole thing changes, usually for the worse.
"Flawed statements and logical fallacies." by JamesBufkin (25)
Ronc994, I'm unsure about how your second and third paragraphs help your position, they seem more supportive of science and understanding the natural world. Just because Scientists can things doesn't make a good analogy for an all powerful being having the ability to create the universe. Because scientists do understand the natural world and how things work they are able to do amazing things, it's not magic or something supernatural. Also you state that things in the bible have been disproved and then you leap to a statement that makes very little sense, saying that it's difficult not to believe in a god, although you just stated that specific things in the book that supposedly chronicle it's existence are wrong. I find this confusing, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you incidentally mistyped your arguments.
Your statement about removing one species is also incorrect. 99% of all species of living things that have lived on Earth have become extinct and his has allowed for more forms of life to come into existence. Saying that the world changes for the worse is wrong, not because life has to change and adapt, which does make it harder(in effect "worse" for a time), but because worse is very subjective and in the grand scheme of things the removal of one species on our insignificant planet hardly effects the Universe at all.
You also commit a logical fallacy by stating that you don't know and then going on to make a statement about that which you think you don't know. This is called "Argument from Ignorance", and any time you make a supposition about a subject you don't understand you close your mind off to the possibility it may be true though you haven't yet learned about it.
Evolution is a complex process that many citizens of the U.S. do no fully understand. You say that life is too complicated to have evolved from an amoeba and you're correct but in the wrong way. Life didn't evolve from an amoeba, in fact all forms of life had to come from much less complicated and more diversifiable organisms. Amoebas are a type of Protists, Protists branched off from Eubacteria which are related to Archaebacteria. These Protists also had some branches that led to Animals, Plants, and Fungi. No living thing today is evolved from any exact living species of this same time period. I'm not saying that some things aren't still alive that are very close in genetic makeup to their ancestor species, but I am saying that Human's did not evolve from Chimpanzees and that instead have a COMMON ANCESTOR. This is a very important term and is one basis of taxonomy based on evolution. I hope this was a good lesson and that you understand Evolutionary Theory a little better. You might want to research it more before you discount it as too complicated, it works over long periods of time, like erosion, and is an ever changing process.
Also one last note, believing what you believe because you believe that it is right doesn't mean that it is and shows that you require some actual basis for your belief. Perhaps you should look for evidence and then make an educated decision. Opinions are fine and dandy but if you lack evidence your argument lacks in power and persuasion.
"Big Bang : What went bang ?" by mrmeangenes (23)
Acknowledging a "big bang" occurred-(and is in fact still occurring) - non-existent matter, energy, or what-have-you can hardly "explode" into existence spontaneously-because nothing: added to, subtracted from,or spun in ever-decreasing concentric circles will still be...nothing !
Was a form of matter there all along - or was it formed by some external agency that was there all along ?
"This went Bang" by BassemElghetany (12)
mrmeangenes, your statement is interesting, and goes straight to the core of this discussion. I doubt that we can answer that in the near future, since not everyone believes in a god/gods. I'm not sure, but it seems similar to spontaneous combustion. (I'm not an expert, don't yell at me if I'm wrong!)
And if we live in a causal universe, with causes and effects, what if an infinitesimally dense point is the cause, and something inside, perhaps, changed, leading to the expansion of all matter that the universe is created from? Would that count for an explanation?
"If a tree...." by mrmeangenes (23)
This is a bit like the " If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it, does it make a sound ? " question : something never intended to be answered.
( So saith the extra half glass of wine I had tonight - unless.....I am being divinely inspired.)
To me, there is no problem with "First Causes":
either some form of Universe always existed-or some form of Universe was created - by a Force we call a Deity, whose nature and intent are far beyond our feeble comprehension.
We don't like being in such a situation, so, IMHO, we have produced texts - and have proclaimed them to be divinely inspired.
Perhaps they are; perhaps they are not.
I doubt it makes the slightest difference, as long as we follow the ethical outlines most societies develop.
"Well, if we're going to use logic then..." by aexyl93 (8)
Here's something that kind of fits this conversation.. maybe...
Suppose there's a 50/50 chance of god existing.
You can either choose to believe or not believe.
Here are the four possible results.
1. You correctly choose to believe in god and you live for eternity with eternal happiness. (infinite gain)
2. You incorrectly choose to believe in god you lose nothing and gain nothing. (zero gain)
3. You correctly choose to not believe in god you lose nothing and gain nothing. (zero gain)
4. You incorrectly choose to not believe in god, you then suffer eternal damnation. (infinite loss)
So in conclusion it is infinitely better to believe in a god. Though I wouldn't start blindly following all the rules and stuff and taking every word in the bible literally and damning anyone who opposes you and/or your point of view. That would just be stupid :)
Here's a quote from Albert Einstein!
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
So I don't see why you can't believe in god and in science. If god is truly all-powerful as is proclaimed to be then god can do anything right? Whether magically giving birth to the universe or giving the universe simple laws to abide by. Such as evolution, it's an (sort of) simplistic design that's resilient and can adapt to changes. Also it would be a bit of an injustice to say what has been scientifically proven is not true because they believe god exists. That's the same as saying that god wouldn't do that. How could you possibly know or understand what god would and wouldn't do? So as to the big bang it's been proven. As to the cause of it that's is yet (if ever) to be known.
"ah, pascal's wager" by Gaelin (211)
an issue with pascal's wager is that there are dozens of religions all claiming to have the true god/s and all claiming damnation to those who do not believe, so really your argument only works if you ASSUME that Christianity is the only true religion. Have fun convincing the Muslims of that. so really if you look at it the chance of correctly guessing the correct religion and ending up in heaven it would probably be less than 10%. or you could just recognize that most likely none of them are right, after all we are both atheists I just believe in one less god than you do. when you understand why you reject all other possible gods you will understand why I reject yours. Also the idea that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe is just one big assumption: all we know is that the observable universe was at one time very close together but has been moving apart since. this doesn't mean the entire universe was very close, as there may be billions more galaxies too far away to observe. this also doesn't mean that the beginning of expansion was the beginning of the universe, perhaps it existed before but had ended up sucked into very high density. the point is that all religious people are doing is making assumptions to back up their assumptions. Religion is just what happens when people can't accept mystery: they don't know the answer so they latch on to the first one they hear.
""The Evolution Theory"" by Merkljen (10)
Why does there seem to be a lack of science supporting the evolution THEORY? If evolution is true what did the following animals evolve from bats, giraffes, peacocks, turtles, snails, beavers, and platypuses? You've got White men and black men if you believe in evolution surly one must have emerged first, which do you believe to be the dominate ethnic type? Evolution is in my opionon made up to try to justify racism. If you have evidence that the evolution theory is correct I would like to see it, but do keep in mind circular reasoning is not evidence. I am willing to debate it, but do keep in mind I am a 14 year old little girl.
"@Merkljen" by Alexanerdable (47)
Gahh That post practically blew my mind. And not in a positive way. So much frustration and pressure filled my skull as I read that. But I'll try to piece it all together for you.
1. Yes, evolution is a theory. So is the theory of gravity. And the theory that the earth is round. And the theory or general relativity. Heliocentric theory, cell theory, atomic theory. All of these, we have proven to a point without doubt.
2. Asking what those specific animals evolved from is quite a loaded question, to say the least. You can't expect any one of us on here to know the detailed history of the platypus as we are not experts in the field. And to say that there is a lack of science supporting evolution is just... it's just illogical. I think if anyone is actually considering the scientific evidence, they usually learn more about evolution. You seem to have no comprehension of evolution, and haven't sought out for the evidence. Although I don't believe in God, I still read the bible to see where people are coming from.
3. Ok, this whole 'evolution was created as a means for jutifying racism' is absolutely nonsensical. We know for a fact that the human race originated from Africa, and therefore, had dark skin. As the human race migrated further and further north, their bodies adapted. See, dark skin is great to have in Africa's hot climate because it gives protection to the hot sun. But dark skin is not desirable in the north because not enough Vitamin D can be absorbed through the skin. That's how the color of the human race's skin started to differ. I don't see how you can expect us to choose a 'dominate ethnic type' since there is NO SUCH THING. Yes, one was first, but that doesn't mean it is dominate!
4. You want evidence? How about you simply just look it up! It seems to me that you are shielding yourself away from evidence because you have already decided that evolution is false. But I'll get you started anyway.
Palaeontology: With these studies, we have been able to confirm evolution. It is, put simply, the study of fossils and they correlate to each other and to historical Earth. Fossils from the same time period differ much the same to today's fossils. Ancient fossils can be compared to today's organisms, and we have found dozens of transitional fossils for many species that shows exactly how some species evolved. Additionally, we do not find any species in a time period before their decided ancestor.
Biogeography: The study of how different species can be traced back to different places and time periods. Species that are deemed as similar can be traced back to a similar place and time. When a species is separated by a barrier, the two separated groups start to become more and more different as they adapt to their environment. This has actually been studied in modern species. There was an underground transportation system that was barricaded and closed up to the above ground world. A population of mosquitoes were trapped both above ground and below ground. Decades later, when the species was studied again, they showed to have adapted so much differently, that they actually became two separate species with different skeletal and biological systems.
Genetics: We are able to group species together by their similar genetic structure. The really great thing about evolution is that we've been able to use it kind of like a formula. Input some variables, and you can find the unknown. We have been able to correctly predict the existence of species BEFORE we've actually ever discovered them. Similarly, we've been able to predict genetic similarities, geographical relations (etc.) before finding the evidence. And mind you, we have found these cases of evidence now. But many decades ago, we were able to predict things that we have only proven in this last decade.
Of course, I am definitely no expert when it comes to evolution. In fact, I'm far from being the most knowledgeable person here. However, I know what I know because of RESEARCH. Just Google your questions and you can find the answers. You want to know the evidence for evolution? Google it. You want to find the arguments AGAINST evolution? Google it. Whatever you do, don't argue against something without knowing the other perspective. You say that there is no valid evidence, yet you haven't really read up about evolution in depth, have you?
You are young, and so am I. In fact, I'm almost as young as you. We both have much to learn about the world. But you can't learn without the desire to learn.