Just something I'm going to put out there....?

Question

I just want to put this out there.

I know I may not speak for all Atheists, but I've heard an argument over and over again-"What caused the big bang/what was there before the big bang" or something like that.

This is not an argument for god, or at least a good one. One of the things about Atheism is when something is unknown, we just don't go "God did it!". We don't know what happened before/caused the big bang, but just because we don't know doesn't mean god is the answer.

So if any theist is trying to make a point with "well you don't know everything about everything" we don't claim to! (if there is an atheist out there who does happen to claim that, then be all means point out to him/her that he/she doesn't!) We just don't think that god is the answer to everything we don't know and neither is your holy text. Remember way back when we god was the cause of rainbows? Now we know better.

Who knows, maybe eventually we'll have the answer for everything, maybe not.

You guys agree?

Fine, rainbows are a bad example considering God causes everything and its all part of his plan, including the phenomenon of light refracting off of water droplets.

Okay, how about the whole "demons cause mental diseases" thing? Doesn't medical science prove this isn't true? Like how depression is related to a chemical imbalance in the brain? Now for the idiots who are going to say "Well demons aren't God, durh, so that point is invalid"-well then you're missing the point. The point is Atheists don't tend to explain the unknown with supernatural forces (including God or demons). So there, theres my point, we may not know everything, but that doesn't mean a supernatural force did it.

Answer 1

you are absolutely right.rational thinking armed with scientific temper can answer any question if not now tomorrow. because science unlike religion is not a dogmatic tenet. it progresses.

Answer 2

Who said God used the "big bang "to create the universe?The reason the rainbow is a sign to man that God will newer completely flood the Earth again,is that the"Firmament" mentioned in Genesis 1 was a solid mass of water that orbitted the earth and when it came down,it began the process of evaporation and rain and the cycle continues,now there isn't enough concentration to flood again now that the waters are gathered in the seas etc,and the rainbow assures us that there is sun and rain and normal meterologic processes.It hadn't rained before the flood"but a mist came up and watered"

Answer 3

I am not quite sure what your question is, but this is what I think your looking for. I believe in God but I also believe in science and facts. I dont believe I know everything and anyone who does is living in the body of a fool. I think the best way to put this is God created the Big Bang.

Answer 4

>Remember way back when we god was
>the cause of rainbows? Now we know better.


So, which human causes the refraction of light in such a way as to show the component parts of light?

Answer 5

Remember way back when we god was the cause of rainbows? Now we know better. ????

Who knows better? better than what?

You havn't proved squat about rainbows.

Unless, you admit God does it. Right?
.

Answer 6

Good luck with that.

I often point out that if medicine and science had stopped before the germ theory or plate tectonics, we'd still be praying to stop disease and earthquakes... oops, never mind.

Answer 7

I suppose I could let you speak for me. Beautifully stated. Though there are still going to be some that will call you (and I) an idiot. Oh well, we just suck it up and be the better person.

Answer 8

Excellent. You stated that beautifully.

Answer 9

Bg bang has big problems.

Big Bang?

The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed, was based on three observations: the redshift of light from distant stars, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the universe. All three have been poorly understood.

Redshift. The redshift of starlight is usually interpreted as a Doppler effect; that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself supposedly expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere. Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all scientific laws.

Conservation of energy is violated in another important way. If there was a big bang, distant galaxies should not just be receding from us, they should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating from us.

Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with other objects of low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and remain connected for long. For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts. Sometimes, quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas. Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory.

Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values. Much remains to be learned about redshifts.

CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.

Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see. Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not generate the CMB.

Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium. Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars) and the presence of boron and beryllium in “older” stars contradicts the big bang theory.

A big bang, for all practical purposes, would produce only hydrogen and helium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist of only hydrogen and helium. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none has been found.

Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. A big bang should not produce highly concentrated or rotating bodies. Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce galaxies with the spacings among them that are actually observed. Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.

If a big bang occurred, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been made. For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge. (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.

If a big bang occurred, what caused the bang? Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could anything escape trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe’s mass in a “cosmic egg” that existed before a big bang?

If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect. All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred.

Dark Thoughts

For decades, big bang theorists said that the amount of mass in a rapidly expanding universe must be enough to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter could not come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass always fell far short of that minimum amount. This “missing mass” is often called “dark matter,” because no one could see it or even detect it. Actually, “missing mass” had to be “created” to preserve the big bang theory. The media’s frequent reference to “dark matter” enshrined it in the public’s consciousness, much like the supposed “missing link” between apes and man.

The big bang has struck again. The big bang theory also predicts that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown up must slow as it moves away from the Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. The shocking result is now in—and the answer has been rechecked in many ways. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating! To preserve the theory, something must again be invented. Some energy source that overcomes gravity must continuously accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. This energy, naturally enough, is called “dark energy.”

Neither “dark matter” (created to hold the universe together) nor “dark energy” (created to push the universe apart) can be seen, measured, or tested. We are told that “most of the universe is composed of invisible dark matter and dark energy.” Few realize that both mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory.

Rather than cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with statements about things for which no objective evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang is faulty? Of course. But big bang theorists want to preserve their reputations, careers, and world view. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists.