Why do atheists believe they can find an answer to "The Big Bang"?

Question

Seriously. How are they suppose to find out how the universe was created? that's exactly where they are, and can't escape it.

Brant I disagree with you. Why are you bringing God into this? Anyway, most Atheists do believe there is an explanation to the big bang, and they say that "scientists are working on figuring out the explanation" yeah right, like that will ever happen.

Answer 1

You're right. No atheist can tell you what caused the Universe. But what we will not do is make up some God as an excuse for our lack of knowledge. This is something that can never be known. It is fundamental to the nature of the Universe. The only explanation worse than, "We can't say what caused it," is "God did it."

So I would fairly ask you where did God come from? If you say he came from nothing or is eternal, you have done no better in explaining the Universe. The atheist does not feel compelled to accept a supernatural explanation for which there is no evidence.

Edit: I didn't bring God into the discussion. You did when you specifically asked about atheist views. Atheist beliefs as opposed to what, then?

Soadfan, again, you're skepticism is justified. Scientists are scrambling around with M theory, multiple Universes, superstring theory, and other things which do not compel belief any better than God does. I think these theories are acts of desperation and headed nowhere. So I don't think they will find an answer, either.

Answer 2

1. The Big Bang theory is silent about creation. It describes the evolution of the universe AFTER it was in a state of unbounded temperature or energy density.

2. The information given to scientists by the universe is the same for all, whether the scientist is atheist, agnostic, believer or pagan. A lot of scientists are working on the explanation. The biggest problem right now is not the registered religion (or lack thereof) of the scientists but the fact that our understanding of physics cannot take us further back than the Planck Time (look it up -- it is a very, very short time AFTER time zero).

3. The Big Bang theory comes from a hypothesis formulated by a Christian priest. The concurrent theory at the time, the Steady State theory, was formulated by atheists.

All scientists still believe that we can understand how the universe started off. Some of these scientists are atheists and there is no reason why they should not feel the same way as the rest of us.

Answer 3

Belief is an excuse the weak minded resort to when they don´t feel like thinking. Scientists are always thinking and aren´t weak minded. Thus belief is never an issue. Scientists study facts and data gathered from a wide range of sources and then make their conclusions. If all the data points to the same conclusion then you have yourself a new fact. Everything is pointing towards a dramatic expansion, aka the big bang, being the origin of the universe. But due to another scientific doctrine called Planck time we can never see back to a time frame less than 10^-46 seconds after the expansion began. There was no time before the beginning and so we can never know what exactly caused the big bang. And that is another scientific fact.

Answer 4

This questions presumes its own conclusion. In order to put the question to a rigorous and even-handed examination, it must be broken down into its constituent premises: 1) Atheists believe that they can find an answer to the big bang -- true or false? and 2) Given premise #1 is true, what is the reason behind it?

Furthermore, the phrase "believe that they can find an answer to the big bang" is vague, but your subsequent explanation indicates that what you really mean is "believe they can determine the ultimate origin of the universe".

So let's rephrase the question in a way that is not rhetorically unfounded or syllogistically false:

If atheists believe they can determine the ultimate origin of the universe, what gives them the reason to think they CAN determine the ultimate origin of the universe.

The first one can be determined by statistically sampling atheists in a well-designed survey instrument that avoids bias: for instance, asking 100 or 1000 (or however many represent a valid sample size) the question: "Do you believe that the ultimate origin of the universe can be scientifically determined?", in both a positive- and negative-leaning way ("Do you agree with the statement that the ultimate origin of the universe cannot be scientifically determined?"), using language that has been designed to provoke the smallest possible emotional reaction, unless you are trying to measure emotional reaction, or provoking an emotional reaction is part of the experiment.

Second, sample the respondents who indicated that they DO feel the origin of the universe can be scientifically determined, and ask them why they believe this is so. To keep this question open ended (since your original question was "why?") it needs to be some kind of fill-in-the-blank question, as giving people a list of options presumes that one of the responses is valid, and responses not in the last aren't valid, which is not known for certain.

The last portion, tabulating and classifying the responses to the second question, involves a certain amount of subjectivity. This can be minimized by having multiple people read and categorize the same responses. Following this, the compiled classifications can be correlated to measure "internal validity" of the measurement instrument.

That's IF you weren't using the rhetorical device of begging the question (sort of like asking someone when they stopped beating their wife). Now let me ask: were you? And if so, why?

Answer 5

wow, why is it that atheists always get attacked for not believing in a god.

ok lets look at this.

first the church said that the earth is flat and its at the center of the universe. science proved the earth was round.

the church said ok, but the earth is still the center of the universe. science disproved that.

that went on and on until we couldnt prove the big bang. it happened almost 14 billion years ago, obviously is gonna be hard to prove.

what makes this any different, what makes you think that we wont prove that the big bang happened like we have done with everything else, what makes you think IN ANY WAY that the big bang is wrong. give me one piece of evidence that the big bang theory is wrong, and ill give u a few that prove its right.

creationists fall back on god, gods the answer to everything. how retarded is that? once u cant figure out something u immediately go "well the obvious answer is that, instead of proven science, there must be an all powerful being that has always existed and can speak a word and that item gets created". what makes god so different. where did god come from? if you say hes always been there your no better than any scientist who believe in the big bang.

go die

Answer 6

I am an atheist and I can answer this question. There are many theories that expalin the Big Bang and one of the most plausible (however we cannot gather as much evidence as needed to make a fact, however it si a theory is because we do not have the technology to even experiment) is called M Theory. Check it out on Wikipedia.

Answer 7

this doesn't necessarily have to do with the question
but if you believe in God, why is it so impossible to believe in the Big Bang theory?
I believe that you just have to keep an open mind about things. While I believe in God myself and do not necessarily whole heartedly think that the Big Bang happened, I don't deny that it happened just because I believe that God created the universe.

There is in fact, many evidence to support the theory.

Answer 8

I must admit that I am baffled by your question. Most atheists consider the Big Bang to be the answer. Why would they have to find another answer? I do not consider myself an atheist, but I certainly think that the Big Bang is the best explanation for the data that we have at this time. Do you have a better explanation (I hesitate to ask)?

Answer 9

Not everyone who accepts the Big Bang theory is an atheist. And those who do accept it as the most plausible theory of the origins of the universe accept the fact that as of now we can only go as far back as 3 seconds after the Big Bang.

Answer 10

I think the answer is simply that inquiries into puzzles of the past bore fruit. Science has succeeded brilliantly in uncovering other facets of nature, so why not apply it to the question of the origin of everything?

The trouble is that it's really hard to test something in a regime that we cannot access. We have to try to deduce consequences at our level of different ideas we have about the Big Bang and try to detect those to see which are really happening.

It bothers me when some folks try to dismiss certain questions by saying "it's a question science can't answer." There are questions of that sort, but that's no reason not to ask them and ponder them.