Aetheists, How did this world get here???

Question

An accident? I don't think so. Our universe is too complex. Big bang theory? I agree in a way, because it has been proved and I do beleive our earth came in a split second but I don't think it happened on it's own. impossible. And don't say science. Explain how.

Answer 1

Here you go...

"About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward.

Immediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after this, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist. As the universe first began to expand, this discrepancy grew larger. The particles which began to dominate were those of matter. They were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle.

As the universe expanded further, and thus cooled, common particles began to form. These particles are called baryons and include photons, neutrinos, electrons and quarks would become the building blocks of matter and life as we know it. During the baryon genesis period there were no recognizable heavy particles such as protons or neutrons because of the still intense heat. At this moment, there was only a quark soup. As the universe began to cool and expand even more, we begin to understand more clearly what exactly happened.

After the universe had cooled to about 3000 billion degrees Kelvin, a radical transition began which has been likened to the phase transition of water turning to ice. Composite particles such as protons and neutrons, called hadrons, became the common state of matter after this transition. Still, no matter more complex could form at these temperatures. Although lighter particles, called leptons, also existed, they were prohibited from reacting with the hadrons to form more complex states of matter. These leptons, which include electrons, neutrinos and photons, would soon be able to join their hadron kin in a union that would define present-day common matter.

After about one to three minutes had passed since the creation of the universe, protons and neutrons began to react with each other to form deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, soon collected another neutron to form tritium. Rapidly following this reaction was the addition of another proton which produced a helium nucleus. Scientists believe that there was one helium nucleus for every ten protons within the first three minutes of the universe. After further cooling, these excess protons would be able to capture an electron to create common hydrogen. Consequently, the universe today is observed to contain one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen."

Answer 2

The major reason (perhaps the only reason) you believe the universe is too complex to have formed according to existing well established scientific theories is that your own scientific education is so severely limited that it's virtually impossible to adequately comprehend the principles involved. Unless you've had math through calculus and differential equations, and have studied physics through special and general relativity, it really is quite impossible to adequately understand the the essential principles of the Big Bang. No matter what anyone says, you will remain unconvinced because you simply do not have the intellectual tools to properly understand anything but gross generalizations, which are unconvincing because they necessarily lack essential details. Please understand that "intellectual tools" is not so much about intelligence as it is about education.

First you should be a math whiz/science geek who got straight A's in high school. Then you have to get a BS from a University, as a physics/math major with a 4.0 GPA. Then you have to get into graduate school at a prestigeous school like Harvard or Cal Tech and be admitted to their cosmology program. After all that, you would be just barely qualified to begin your studies of how it's possible for a singularity to inflate into a universe with all the necessary matter and energy to form galaxies, solar systems, and planets. The reason you think all this is impossible is simply because you lack the necessary prerequisite education which is absolutely essential to understanding exactly how the Big Bang is actually possible. The truth is, much of the proof is abstract mathematics, which simply cannot be adequately explained in words.

Practically speaking, you have three choices:
1.) You could dedicate your life to becoming a world class theoretical physicist and actually understand the theoretical under-pinnings of the Big Bang.
2.) You could accept that there are people in this world who are far more qualified than you to consider this very difficult problem and accept their published peer-reviewed conclusions.
3.) You could obstinately insist that, since you personally don't understand the principles involved, the Big Bang is simply impossible.

There are probably a few thousand physicists in the world who are in catagory one. There are perhaps a few hundred million scientists who are in catagory two. World wide, there are a couple billion Christians who are in catagory three. Perhaps you can now appreciate why no one has been able to explain the Big Bang to your satisfaction.

Personally, I ask you to keep in mind that science itself didn't even begin until the late seventeenth century, when Newton's mechanics essentially proved that the physical realm was objectively real. The complete understanding of the nature of electromagnetism didn't happen until 1865. Einstein's two breakthrough papers on relativity were published in 1905 and 1915. The first hints that the universe is expanding were discovered in 1930. Confirming physical evidence of the Big Bang was discovered in 1964. Physical evidence supporting the existence of Black Holes was discovered in 1994. Considering the whole of human history, science has relatively recently begun to allow humanity to recover from the disasterous consequences of incorrectly assumming each person's subjective mental experiences are actually real. (See Solipsism.)

Edit: Rockin' Robin's explanation is a good non-mathematical, non-relativistic explanation you should try to wrap your mind around, if you're willing to accept a generalized explanation without proof. Checkout the link she provided.

Answer 3

Why is it impossible?

Simply saying "the universe is too complex" is not an answer or explanation.

How much complexity is too much to be an accident?

Have you ever tried cleaning up the broken glass from a shattered vase? Is the complexity of the forms and the distance that shards propagate from the epicenter of the disturbance too complex to be an accident?

How about the distribution of parts and chemicals following an airplane crash? Is that too complex?

Is there some threshold of accident-hood after which it must have been designed?

Or is it possible that thousands, even millions of accumulated tiny accidental events result in an outcome that looks 'designed'?

Chaos theory, and the infamous 'butterfly effect' tell us that it can.

BTW: What are aetheists? Is that like some archaic form of atheist? I like it. I think I'm going to use it from now on.

Answer 4

Most of us (atheists), generally, will make a commitment to not claim anything as "truth" until there is evidence. So you're probably not going to get a definite answer on this one. And if you do then it's a good indication that whoever is responding simply does not know what they're talking about. THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AGREES ON ONE THING AS FAR AS ORIGIN-STUDY IS CONCERNED: WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE. EVERYTHING, AT THIS POINT, IS THEORY.

But there are many good, well researched theories. Some of them have to do with the origin of the universe, some of them with the origin of life, etc.

There is the Panspermia theory. This theory says that life started elsewhere in the universe and in some forms of this theory life never had a point of origin... it just always existed.

Some believe there is no origin. This is quite a bit like the Christian theory that god has always existed, only instead of a deity, it's the universe. I've heard this tossed around a physics class or two.

There is also Cairns-Smith who wrote the Seven Clues to the Origin of Life. I'm not as familiar with him although I've been wanting to read his book. He has a "clay theory" which I admittedly know nothing else about but should be interesting.

Richard Dawkins, a very well known researcher in atheist circles, believes that autocatalysis are a potential explanation for the origin of life.

Some atheists cling to The Ecopoesis model. Some to the PAH world hypothesis. Some to The Polyphosphate model. Some to the "Deep-hot biosphere" model of Gold. Etc.

We need to progress in quantum mechanics, astronomy and genetics/epigenetics, as well as everything else in my opinion... I think progress in these fields will shed more light on the subject. I don't think I'd trust a single theory out there completely - to be honest. Not given the fact that we've only seen 1/1,000,000+th of the universe, have just discovered how epigenetics work and only truly grasp 3 out of the infinite quantities of dimension. Even Einstein said that origin-theory is a futile subject in our day and age. We're still in the baby-stages of discovery. Which is exciting. And I think we’ll discover a lot along the way even if origin-theory is our goal.

Just the same, I still see all of these alternatives as superior to creationism. Please don't think I'm being judgemental though. I'm truly not. Since it is still theory... who knows... you may be right and I may be wrong.

Answer 5

The universe is too complex? Since when? The universe follows some fairly simple laws. In this case gravity.

Snowflakes are made from water following very simple laws, but can be incredibly complex, as all things fractal can be.

The Earth did not come about in a split second. It took millions of years to form, and has been changing for billions of years since.

http://mediatheek.thinkquest.nl/~ll125/en/bigbang.htm


There are trillions of trillions of stars out there, with trillions of trillions of planets. Were they all planned?

Answer 6

"because it has been proved and I do beleive our earth came in a split second "

Nope, that's false. The Earth was formed over many millions of years.

You have a lot of catching up with science to do before you're in a position to be making statements about what is and is not possible. Perhaps making the effort to learn a little will teach you some humility at the same time.

Answer 7

The Never Ending Story or Shark Boy and Lava Girl theory it's all imaginary.

Answer 8

Before the Big Bang there is no proof. No one has any. It is a mystery, and all anyone does is guess which theory is right.
It is certainly no more impossible that it happened on it's own than that there is a God that happened on his own. Same amount of unbelievable stuff happening there.

Answer 9

So, complexity needs a more complex answer?

God: Complexity from complexity.

You just fell into your own trap. By your reasoning, God must have an answer for being so complex.

Answer 10

Heh. Looks like you already have your answer, so why waste the points asking? By the way, irreducible complexity is a crock.