English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Most prominent theoretical physicists and astronomers agree that if the Big Bang were any weaker or stronger no life of any kind would exist anywhere in the universe.
(Stephen Hawking lecture "The Theory of Everything")

How do atheists respond to this?

2007-06-01 06:25:40 · 25 answers · asked by Bebe 3 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

I suppose you're right, that if it hadn't been just right we wouldn't be here. But it is, so that's not really answering the question.

2007-06-01 06:30:17 · update #1

Correct me if I'm misrepresenting your point, but are you all saying, "It just happened to work by chance"?

2007-06-01 06:32:42 · update #2

25 answers

Hawking's theories have been proved wrong in the past, but on this question there is certainly room for possibility.

Assuming that the 'big bang' was the one and only 'bang' the universe ever experienced, (and I quite frankly do not believe this is the fact,) then life may have escaped a very, very near miss.

As for 'why' things have turned out as they have... Your question appears to presuppose that there was some reasoning imposed to measure the magnitude of the 'bang' event. Why would you assume something so preposterous? The whole thing was simply a matter of chance. Logically, how could it have been anything else?

[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.

2007-06-01 06:38:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because we know it must have happened the way it did or we wouldn't be here talking about it.

Those same theoretical physicists though have offered other suggestions, stuff about how universes (within the megaverse) "evolve" in a sense, creating new universes and eventually one of those new universes would be capable of support life.


The other interesting thing is that this universe is precisely the perfect universe you'd need to create black holes. If any constant or anything was slightly different it wouldn't be as good a black hole generator as what we have. When you take this and consider that 99.99999% of matter in the universe goes into producing black holes, and 99.99999% of the universe is radiation filled vaccuum absolutely lethal to life, then it becomes clear that IF there were a god, this universe was designed for black holes and not for us. It was also demonstrated that a perfect black hole generator would necessarily kick up specs of life as a by-product. So essentially we exist because the multiverse evolved a perfect black hole generator.

Or some physicists think that the universe as arranged may wind up being the only possibly way it could ever be.

2007-06-01 06:30:41 · answer #2 · answered by Mike K 5 · 0 0

Who knows how many universes life doesn't exist because the properties weren't correct?

Most prominent theoretical physicists also don't believe in a personal god. The amazing thing is that we actual can study origins of the universe back to this point. Think about how small our perspective of the universe is. We can see the universe from only one small planet and we are making predictions about the origins entire universe. Undoubtedly some of our assumptions are incorrect, but it is still quite incredible we can even began to grasp some of these forces. I think it's exciting.

Forget the statistics, soak up the knowledge.

2007-06-01 06:29:02 · answer #3 · answered by The Bog Nug 5 · 4 0

If the mean temperature of the earth was a few degrees hotter or colder then life on earth could not exist. If the atomic bond were infinitesimally stronger or weaker then no life could exist. There are about 12 million of those things you could bring up, but the bottom line is that the right combination worked. It proves nothing.

2007-06-01 06:30:17 · answer #4 · answered by bocasbeachbum 6 · 0 0

If it didn't happen the way it did then we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Simple as that. In some parralel universes, (which if you believe that Einstiens theory of gravity is right, and you also believe that quantum mechanics is pretty much on the money then you must take the parralel universe theory seriously according to string theory.) I'm sure it didn't happen like that. It doesn't prove the existance of god at all, it just proves that christians will sink to any petty, trivial nuance they might come across to reassure themselves.

2007-06-01 06:36:39 · answer #5 · answered by DjStabMasterArson 3 · 0 0

This reminds me of an open question that I have right now...

Why is the universe the size that it is?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070530224029AA7qiiX&r=w

If it were vastly different, we would not be here to ask and answer such questions, but we are in fact here. This wikipedia page may be of some help in seeing that we are not capable of being completely ojective about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Whether or not we accept the notion of there being a God, there was a time or point when we did not exist. Our existance now proves neither God's existance or nonexistance. We DO exist, that's all we can really say that we know.

2007-06-01 06:51:12 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Your failure to comprehend the trouble-free regulations of physics is not any reason to insult people who attempt to assist you recognize or to declare it proves god would desire to exist. the simplest thank you to comprehend the 2nd regulation is this. there is largely one thank you to resolve a jigsaw. If it modifications in any way then the possibility that that's then greater solved is under a million. in actuality the possibility is severe that that's far less solved. you should use the comparable sort of reasoning for any actual device. What you will desire to think of of in result's that there are extensive sort of conceivable configurations and states for each and all the debris in a given device, and that's at present in one such state. The possibility that, after some modifications interior the state of a few debris (eg that they flow), the device is interior the comparable state is under a million. you are able to analytically calculate the possibility of all conceivable states, and from this you are able to derive the 2nd regulation. What the 2nd regulation says is that the "illness" of a closed device (or sort of occupied microstates) can not decrease. in case you decide on the Earth-sunlight as your closed device (the Earth can't be a closed device because of the fact it has an exterior ability source - the sunlight) then the actuality that entropy domestically can exchange in the international arises because of the fact it has risen interior the sunlight. The sunlight emits streams of small numbers of severe ability photons with low entropy. The Earth radiates plenty bigger quantities of low ability photons. the 2nd regulation is completely happy. the comparable applies to any smaller closed device. that's each and every so often equivalently placed that the order of a device can basically advance with the enter of ability (as a result restoration desires intervention, existence desires a source of ability by way of respiration and finally the sunlight), however the vast photograph is as I defined. What this proves is that God can not exist in this type of device - he's thermodynamically impossible.

2016-10-09 06:28:25 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Well to be honest, not all physicists agree on that point.
Abiogenesis is a very new science, barely in it's infancy.
I know the point you're trying to make, but you're going about it the wrong way.
Sorry.

2007-06-01 06:29:21 · answer #8 · answered by Yoda Green 5 · 1 0

Your explanation is why universal laws allow life to exist. Because of the big bang happening exactly right.

2007-06-01 06:39:52 · answer #9 · answered by teh Diana 2 · 0 0

Ummm...I guess I do not care. Sorry, that isn't meant to be rude...what I mean is I don't care like I don't care what the weather is like in Burbank, CA at the moment. It doesn't affect my life, and since I'm not a trained scientist, it doesn't make me curious in the least.

If your question sparks someones brain into high gear, then great! I'd rather chuckle at disapproving rabbits.

2007-06-01 06:33:03 · answer #10 · answered by tombollocks 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers