For Atheists: How do you explain where the matter used in the big bang came from as well as how life began?

Question

1. Use the rules of science to answer. We know that you can't get something from nothing.
2. Science has tried to prove spontaneous generation could happen with no success. Even the simplest of creatures is far more complex than Darwin dared to imagine.

Answer 1

the word of God says that the fool has said in his heart there is no God,, how many fools are there in the world? the word of the lord says there will be few that go to heaven, hell is full of fools who never chose to accept the lord and his salvation, the word of God says that hell has enlarged itself because to make room for more fools. man one thing i will say at the end of this my statements please don't be a fool.. and in up where all these atheist end up .. their theory are nothing but foolish crap .. God made it all right down to the flea and the bees , he new what the world needed to have and made it. i don't know how he did it just that he did...

Answer 2

I'm not so sure about the first (the big bang is a rather confusing theory to me, and I'm currently in the process of reading up on it), but the second has a relatively simple answer to it (however, I must warn that this is something that I read about in passing with little further detail):

Life was created when a certain chemical reaction spontaneously occurred, which resulted in the first strand of genetic material (most likely RNA, for it is less complex than DNA). This genetic material then began the first single-celled organism, which then asexually reproduced to create more of itself, and the species eventually split into separate ones as evolution occurred. And, from there on out, life began to grow increasingly complex until multi-cellular organisms and sexual reproduction came into the picture, both of which increased the level of evolution to reach what is has today so quickly.

But, then again, it's not like I'm an expert on the subject. If you really want to get detailed explanations, I'd suggest you go to the science section. People there will most likely be able to explain it much better than a random atheist could.

Answer 3

The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.

The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.

The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.

The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.

The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

There are still unresolved observations. For example, we do not understand why the expansion of the universe seems to be speeding up. However, the big bang has enough supporting evidence behind it that it is likely that new discoveries will add to it, not overthrow it.

Answer 4

Of course, they are too lazy to pick up a text book so they ask lay people instead, and when they cannot provide an expert, detailed account they think that somehow invalidates the whole theory of evolution. I actually am a physicist so when i do try to explain the big bang (at least what we know about it so far) the problem is that they don't accept the answer because they can't wrap their heads around it, neither can i though the concepts are just too counter intuitive, it really just becomes mathematics, but again they think that because they cant understand it, it must be false. very frustrating

Answer 5

You *can* get something from nothing. This is a known fact of quantum mechanics. In a pure vacuum, there is the continual creation of matching pairs of matter & antimatter particles. The vast majority of time, these pairs immediately annihilate, and where there was nothing, there is again nothing. But sometimes, rarely, they don't annihilate, and the universe has two new particles. Note that small black holes "evaporate" due to this phenomena.

M-Theory (a variant of String Theory) postulates that the Big Bang came from the collision of two different m-brane manifolds of space-time. The collision would have released a tremendous amount of energy in the form of matching pairs of matter & anti-matter. This may have resulted in a huge amount of matter being released into our universe, and a matching amount of anti-matter released into a parallel universe.

As for life beginning, the best theories today are that very simple organic molecules with some self-replicating ability formed more than 3 billion years ago. These simple molecules where precursors to the RNA and DNA we see common in all life. They were no doubt much simpler than even the RNA and DNA we see in viruses today. At least at first, they probably were naked molecules, without the benefit of any kind of cell wall. There was likely at billion years or more of evolution of these simple molecules before the first primitive cells appeared. Please note I said a Billion years, not a Million. A Billion is a thousand Million, and even a Million years is very long compared to the history of homo sapiens.

The objections you cite are mostly propaganda from creationists, and are not considered to be serious objections in either branch of science. We don't yet have definitive answers to either question, but that does not mean that we can't find definitive naturalistic explanations. Anyone who gives up and claims that the only possible answer is that "God did it" is simply asserting that they have lost faith in mankind, and prefers to put their faith in fantasy instead.

Answer 6

In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space in accord with the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity, as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle.

Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity.

The term Big Bang is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began — calculated to be 13.7 billion (1.37 × 1010) years ago (± 2%) — and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and expansion of the universe, as well as the composition of primordial matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted by the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory.[1]

From this model, George Gamow was able to predict in 1948 the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).[2] The CMB was discovered in 1964[3] and corroborated the Big Bang theory, giving it more credence over its chief rival, the steady state theory.


Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to hypotheses about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis). Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began. If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis. If test results provide sufficient support for acceptance, then that is the point at which it would become a theory.

Answer 7

The matter from the big bang may have been from a previous Big Crunch. And, since you say everything should come from something, where'd god come from? I wonder.
Life began I think with evolution. It makes more sense than a god that can do anything creating life out of thin air.

Answer 8

1. It was always there. It didn't come from anything.
2. People create organic compounds (the precursors of life) at high school science frairs all the time. Additionally, we've already been able to create bacterial life artificially.

Answer 9

1. How is it that you "know" that you can't get something from nothing? I'm serious about this...how do you know this?
(on a side note, do you believe your god got something from nothing....or were there already materials around which he used to create everything.....which might be an oxymoron.)

2. abiogenesis isn't cosmology. Darwin has little to do with either.

Answer 10

Most of us don't claim to know...that doesn't mean that because we don't know that we should give up trying to find out and just say "oh, it was magic". I think that all humans are searching for answers, but I'm just not going to settle on an unproven "god" as the answer.

Answer 11

Use your rules to prove God, then we can talk about how the Big Bang came about.