Atheistic Big Bang: Illogical?

[JAL]

Atheistic Big Bang: Illogical?

Any of you science-minded people care to defend atheism for a moment? It would help me understand atheistic cosmogony. Yes, I’m totally uneducated in science.

Because as of right now, an atheistic cosmogony seems illogical. Here’s why I say that.


If an infinite number of events had to transpire before I was born, I would never have been born. My birth would still be pending.

Therefore, only a finite number of events have occurred in cosmological history, in which case there was a first event in the sequence.

To me this seems to imply a transition from stasis to motion. (After all, if motions were already occurring ‘for eternity’ then we’d be back to the problem of an infinite number of events transpiring before my birth). Naturally, then, we are led to posit a big bang. So far so good.

But whence the impetus? The fundamental nature of existing substance shouldn’t change. That is to say, the matter we see all around us is classified by scientists as inert (as far as I know), which means that it isn’t self-propelling. If it’s at rest, it tends to stay at rest.

In other words, please don’t try to tell me that “matter used to be self-propelling but is no longer that; today it’s inert.” That’s absurdity, at least within an atheistic system, because it would be a miracle, to say the least, and they don’t believe in miracles.


Perhaps the Big Bang theory isn’t meant to address this question – maybe it’s only a description of what happened AFTER that initial motion. Fine. But nonetheless the atheist still needs to address this question if he claims to have a cosmogony as viable as creationism. (I’m an Old Earth Creationist).

So what am I missing here? How do they address the question as to the source of the impetus for that first motion?

 

[metherion]

To me this seems to imply a transition from stasis to motion. (After all, if motions were already occurring ‘for eternity’ then we’d be back to the problem of an infinite number of events transpiring before my birth). Naturally, then, we are led to posit a big bang.

A few things about this point. First, there WAS no 'time' as we know it until the Big Bang. So there was no time when there was stasis that had to transition to motion. When spacetime started it started expanding.

Also, the Big Bang isn't how it all started, it's how it expanded and is expanding. Not about what causing the thing that then expanded.

Perhaps the Big Bang theory isn’t meant to address this question – maybe it’s only a description of what happened AFTER that initial motion. Fine. But nonetheless the atheist still needs to address this question if he claims to have a cosmogony as viable as creationism. (I’m an Old Earth Creationist).

What do you mean by viable?

So what am I missing here? How do they address the question as to the source of the impetus for that first motion?

When time started it was pretty much in motion, as far as i understand it.

Also, remember that "We don't know" IS an acceptable answer in science. Just gonna throw that out there.

Metherion

 

[laconicstudent]

Yes, I’m totally uneducated in science.

Because as of right now, an atheistic cosmogony seems illogical.

Those two statements are linked. I think you should consider the nature of that link before you post diatribes attacking accepted scientific theory.

 

[JAL]

Those two statements are linked. I think you should consider the nature of that link before you post diatribes attacking accepted scientific theory.

Oh my God. Is this not a debate forum?

 

[JAL]

A few things about this point. First, there WAS no 'time' as we know it until the Big Bang. So there was no time when there was stasis that had to transition to motion. When spacetime started it started expandin...When time started it was pretty much in motion, as far as i understand it.

Agreed. If I implied time it wasn't intentional.

Also, the Big Bang isn't how it all started, it's how it expanded and is expanding. Not about what causing the thing that then expanded.

As I noted, I was aware that the Big Bang might be post-impetus in focus. But the impetus question needs to be addressed.

What do you mean by viable?

Ok, I just watched some YouTube videos where some very educated atheists trounced all over YECs for some (apparently) stupid positions they hold. The videos did everything in their power to imply that YECs are idiots and that religion is irrational. At the least, then, they need to provide a cosmogony that isn't self-contradictory and irrational. That's what I mean by viable. Clear?

Also, remember that "We don't know" IS an acceptable answer in science. Just gonna throw that out there.
Metherion

Doesn't look very acceptable in this case. The atheistic system seems to imply that "inert matter moved itself" which seem to be a self-contradictory statement. If that's what they're saying, it sounds to me even more idiotic than the YEC statements those videos were denouncing.

 

[laconicstudent]

Oh my God. Is this not a debate forum?

Actually it isn't. And frankly, your OP is a hodgepodge of philosophy, metaphysics that isn't applicable and therefore not considered in atheistic evolutionary theory, and is ignorant of how the scientific method operates.

Many Creationists accuse scientists of cowardice when they refuse to "debate" with them. In reality it isn't cowardice at all, it is just that the entire scientific community can clearly see the obvious factual errors, realizes that refuting them is beneath them, and that instead of a debate, Creationists should simply be directed to enroll in General Biology.

 

[JAL]

Actually it isn't. And frankly, your OP is a hodgepodge of philosophy, metaphysics that isn't applicable and therefore not considered in atheistic evolutionary theory, and is ignorant of how the scientific method operates.

Many Creationists accuse scientists of cowardice when they refuse to "debate" with them. In reality it isn't cowardice at all, it is just that the entire scientific community can clearly see the obvious factual errors, realizes that refuting them is beneath them, and that instead of a debate, Creationists should simply be directed to enroll in General Biology.

Ok, so you never debate any issues on this forum. Fine. Does anyone else around here ever do debates?

 

[laconicstudent]

Ok, so you never debate any issues on this forum. Fine. Does anyone else around here ever do debates?

You might try the Debate forum

Formal Debate - Christian Forums

 

[JAL]

You might try the Debate forum

Formal Debate - Christian Forums

Sorry to disappoint or offend you, but I've seen many people debate on these forums. So I'm going to keep the discussion right here. Thanks anyway.

 

[JAL]

As noted, this thread is a reaction to several atheists on YouTube who clearly insinuated, “Those YECs are complete idiots and religion is irrational.”

Atheists often claim, “There is no observable evidence for the existence of a soul.”

Ok, this statement seems to me almost as idiotic as an atheistic big bang. I’ll explain.

You imply free will if you believe that
(1) criminals could have freely chosen to live righteously.
(2) YECs could have freely chosen to practice better scholarship!
(3) I could have freely chosen not to start this thread.

So what does free will suggest? It suggests a soul. Here’s why. I’m looking at a sandwich. This matter is inert. I eat the sandwich and my digestive system transforms it into human protoplasm. Is this sandwich (which is currently protoplasm) still inert? Yes. It was inert before it became part of the human body so therefore (unless a miracle occurred) it is still inert.

So what can we say about inert objects? Suppose a rock falls on your head. Do you get angry at the rock? No, because it has no free will. The laws of physics predetermine its motion. It didn’t CHOOSE to move in your direction.

Now suppose I walk up and punch you in the face. Why do you get angry? Your anger betrays that, in your opinion, my hand is NOT acting (inertly) like the rock. In other words your anger implies that the power of choice self-propelled my hand. If ordinary physical impulses (viz. food combustion energy) were the chief impetus of my hand, you couldn’t rightly be angry at me. (You’d have to blame my metabolism). The movement of my hand isn’t “ordinary physics” at work, therefore. It’s a cognitively driven self-propulsion (a sort of telekinesis if you will).


How? This takes us back to the Big Bang issue. If all reality is inert, there could be no first motion, for lack of an impetus. The Christian maintains that God is not inert – He moves by the power of His free will. In other words, in a theistic view, free will is a force just as real as the force of gravity.

Again, I punched you in the face. You got angry. Why? Isn’t my hand just like the rock that fell on your head? Totally inert? Isn’t my brain totally inert? Isn’t my whole body totally inert? Yes, because it’s made up of inert sandwiches that I ate. So why did you get angry? Isn’t all this just ordinary physics at work? Do you get angry at gravity? Magnetism? Climate? Tectonics?

But the Christian can explain the anger. I have a soul (in my opinion, it’s a tangible substance). It moves by the power of choice. Thus when it freely chose to punch you in the face, this choice caused it to lunge toward you, dragging my inert hand toward your face. The body is inert, but the soul is self-propelling.

“But I’ve never seen a soul.” True. And I’ve never seen an atom. I believe in the atom based on the evidence of the atom’s existence (its observable effects upon material objects).

The observable evidence suggests that the human body has a soul inside it. The evidence suggests that the objects normally classified as non-living (such as sandwiches and rocks) do NOT have a self-propelling soul. Why is that? Is it by chance that humans have souls and rocks do not? Or is it perhaps because God put me in this human body. And given that I am self-propelling, why can’t I leave my body at will? Is it perhaps that God forcibly confines me in this tent until a judgment day of His choosing?

In sum, just as free will is the chief impetus in my bodily movements, so too the impetus launching the Big Bang was the power of God’s free will. At least that’s my position.

 

[philadiddle]

Atheistic Big Bang: Illogical?

To extend time backwards into eternity is not illogical. It is counter intuitive, but there are no internal inconsistencies. If you look at time as segments of finite event, then you can mathematically get from one point to another. We need to be somewhere in time, he happen to be here.

Just a thought.

 

[JAL]

To extend time backwards into eternity is not illogical. It is counter intuitive, but there are no internal inconsistencies. If you look at time as segments of finite event, then you can mathematically get from one point to another. We need to be somewhere in time, he happen to be here.

Just a thought.

Hm....I'm still inclined to think that an infinite past is illogical. As I said, if an infinite number of events had to transpire before my birth, then my birth would still be pending. Maybe I'm missing something here?

Also, this thread in large part is about whether the atheists who regard religion as idiocy can show themselves internally consistent. Most of these guys, I'm guessing, probably postulate a finite history, with time beginning at the big bang. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[JAL]

The most idiotic statement of all: "God doesn't exist." Not all atheists make this statement, I suppose, but some do.

The Bible seems to confirm the idiocy of this statement at Psalm 14:1, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God' "

There shouldn't be any hardcore atheists. They should rather be agnostics who say, "I doubt that God exists." That's a much wiser statement.

Now it's true that traditional definitions of God tend to be internally problemmatic. But that doesn't exempt the atheist from the charge of idiocy. He should at least admit the possibility that some kind of Creator exists.


On the other hand Christians are probably guilty too. I don't believe it's right to say, "God DEFINITELY exists" unless one is 100% certain. However, I think the Christian is less guilty than the atheist. Why so? Christianity says that belief is the result of an efficacious persusasion by the Holy Spirit who establishes a feeling of certainty that God exists (a certainty that we can't shake). We cannot in good conscience deny His existence. But we should admit that we don't yet have 100% certainty. We should rather say, "Of the two claims (God exists and doesn't exist) the first one is more certain in my mind."

Atheists don't have this excuse. They can't say their atheism was forced upon them. They claim to have REASONED their way to the conclusion, "God definitely doesn't exist." This claim is idiocy.

Again, if I'm missing something here, please apprise me.

 

[Willtor]

The most idiotic statement of all: "God doesn't exist." Not all atheists make this statement, I suppose, but some do.

The Bible seems to confirm the idiocy of this statement at Psalm 14:1, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God' "

As an aside, I think this is not a proper interpretation of this passage. At the time it was written, there were no philosophical atheists. Rather, I think it's talking about people who do evil and saying that they are implicitly denying God. Here's a larger snippet:

Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is no one who does good.
(Psalm 14:1, NRSV)

 

[metherion]

Agreed. If I implied time it wasn't intentional.

But it’s core to your argument. If it when it started it was expanding, there is no impetus to shift from non-motion to motion, there always was motion, and before there was motion, well, with no time there was no before. Not nothing-nonmotion-IMPETUS MISSING-motion.

But the impetus question needs to be addressed.

Not if there isn’t an impetus or a need for one, which is possible.

Also, even tho I’m not a cosmological physicist, what about this idea? It could answer your question.

Diffusion.

The universe expanded. It is currently expanding. This is known. Spacetime is not matter or energy, it’s the ‘fabric’ of the universe. So all of a sudden, the universe got bigger. IIRC, we know what happened from like 10^-35 or something seconds after the universe started. So if we go back to the time the universe started, the exact first instant, spacetime and everything in the universe would all occupy the same space. But as the universe itself expanded, there would be vacuum. everywhere there was not matter, so the matter would diffuse into the vacuum, a well understood principle. And as the universe got bigger, it would diffuse more and more and more. And voila... you have your impetus.

Of course, I could be WAYYYYY off base, so you should ask the cosmological physicists .

At the least, then, they need to provide a cosmogony that isn't self-contradictory and irrational.

So... because it has one question that you don’t know the answer to it’s self-contradictory and irrational? What other parts did this contradict? Are unknowns forbidden? Why are unknowns forbidden? I could go on for quite a while but I’ll start with those.

The atheistic system seems to imply that "inert matter moved itself" which seem to be a self-contradictory statement.

Not really. On the imply part, I mean. After all, who knows if it didn’t START in motion.

Metherion

 

[JAL]

As an aside, I think this is not a proper interpretation of this passage. At the time it was written, there were no philosophical atheists. Rather, I think it's talking about people who do evil and saying that they are implicitly denying God. Here's a larger snippet:

Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is no one who does good.
(Psalm 14:1, NRSV)

I guess I'm not understanding you. The translation you provide is close enough to the wording I gave. I see no difference of meaning. I quickly surveyed a few commentators who find atheism clearly implied here.

I can imagine a person who does evil justifying his behavior before men by telling them that no God exists (even though he believes it in his heart). But if he says even in his heart, "There is no God" he would seem to be an atheist.

You say there were no philosophical atheists at that time. Well, I'm not sure that we have enough publications from that time to be sure of that, and not all ideas are published. And sometimes people have things in their hearts which they never publish or proclaim aloud.

 

[Willtor]

I guess I'm not understanding you. The translation you provide is close enough to the wording I gave. I see no difference of meaning. I quickly surveyed a few commentators who find atheism clearly implied here.

I can imagine a person who does evil justifying his behavior before men by telling them that no God exists (even though he believes it in his heart). But if he says even in his heart, "There is no God" he would seem to be an atheist.

You say there were no philosophical atheists at that time. Well, I'm not sure that we have enough publications from that time to be sure of that, and not all ideas are published. And sometimes people have things in their hearts which they never publish or proclaim aloud.

My point is that it's the wrong emphasis. Today, we see the passage and we think "oh, yes. It's a passage about how atheists are immoral." But I think the original intention was to say that immoral people are atheists -- an insult rather than referencing a particular philosophy.

 

[JAL]

But it’s core to your argument. If when it started it was expanding, there is no impetus to shift from non-motion to motion, there always was motion, and before there was motion, well, with no time there was no before. Not nothing-nonmotion-IMPETUS MISSING-motion.

Time isn't an objective reality. Clocks and calendars only count movements (clock ticks). "Time" is just a term used to refer to movement (their sequence and total count). The first movement within our universe gives birth to time as we know it. Ultimately, the impetus for that movement must have been self-propelling.

The only way to fully clarify my view of time is to introduce my Doctrine of God. Imagine a mass of tangible substance much larger than our universe, in stasis. It is a soul-type substance (but still basically ignorant). Some of it self-propellingly begins to move. This first current of thought is God, and His first movement is, for Him, the begining of time (because "time" is just a term used to refer to the sequence and total count of movements).

Over innumerable aeons of time, He slowly ascended from ignorance to a state of consummate knowledge and understanding. But some of the Totality (this total mass of soul-type substance) never really "awoke" (at least not substantially). God formed the universe from this essentially dead substance still basically inert today. He awakened only a small portion of it (this sentient material is the source of our souls).

One might say, then, that God's Big Bang was the first, preceding the Big Bang of modern science (if there was one). Since this second Big Bang involved inert matter (at least atheists define it as inert), an impetus must be postulated. God is the likely impetus for that movement. This is the beginning of time AS WE KNOW IT (it was NOT the beginning of time as God knows it).

I produced this Doctrine of God to overcome several apparent contradictions in traditional theology. I can refer you to my audio lecture covering these charges of contradiction and my solutions.

Also, even tho I’m not a cosmological physicist, what about this idea? It could answer your question.

Diffusion.

The universe expanded. It is currently expanding. This is known. Spacetime is not matter or energy, it’s the ‘fabric’ of the universe. So all of a sudden, the universe got bigger. IIRC, we know what happened from like 10^-35 or something seconds after the universe started. So if we go back to the time the universe started, the exact first instant, spacetime and everything in the universe would all occupy the same space. But as the universe itself expanded, there would be vacuum. everywhere there was not matter, so the matter would diffuse into the vacuum, a well understood principle. And as the universe got bigger, it would diffuse more and more and more. And voila... you have your impetus.

Of course, I could be WAYYYYY off base, so you should ask the cosmological physicists .

Matter rushes into a vacuum as a result of pressure. If there were no pressure, the matter would not rush into the vacuum. So what causes pressure? Motion must already be in progress for this kind of pressure to occur, as this article asserts. The writer gives the example of a bicycle tire filled with air. Why is the tire firm to the touch? The resistance is caused by particles bombarding the walls of tire.

If motion(s) were already occurring “from eternity”, an infinite number of events would have to transpire before my birth (it would still be pending). There must be a first motion.

Motion is, after all, a sequence of events. Until an object moves from point B to point C, no motion has actually occurred. If it moves from point B to point C because it was continuing a motion that began at point A, we have to ask, why did it move from point A to point B? Reply: Perhaps because it was already in a state of motion from point –A toward point +A? And then we keep going infinitely back? Where then the start?

An infinite sequence stretching back isn’t coherent. What IS coherent is a first movement, a transition from rest to motion, self-propellingly.

So... because it has one question that you don’t know the answer to it’s self-contradictory and irrational? What other parts did this contradict? Are unknowns forbidden? Why are unknowns forbidden? I could go on for quite a while but I’ll start with those.

It’s irrational to state that inert matter moved itself.

After all, who knows if it didn’t START in motion.

Motion isn’t a start. See above. Perhaps what you mean is that the particles already had a momentum? But momentum is understood as mass*velocity so motion must already be occurring. That’s not a start.

 

[laconicstudent]

As noted, this thread is a reaction to several atheists on YouTube who clearly insinuated

You shouldn't be taking Youtube seriously.

Atheists often claim, “There is no observable evidence for the existence of a soul.”

That is completely correct.

So what does free will suggest? It suggests a soul.

No, it implies intelligence and the cognitive capacity to methodically consider one's actions.

Here’s why. I’m looking at a sandwich. This matter is inert. I eat the sandwich and my digestive system transforms it into human protoplasm. Is this sandwich (which is currently protoplasm) still inert? Yes. It was inert before it became part of the human body so therefore (unless a miracle occurred) it is still inert.

Correct.

So what can we say about inert objects? Suppose a rock falls on your head. Do you get angry at the rock? No, because it has no free will. The laws of physics predetermine its motion. It didn’t CHOOSE to move in your direction.

Correct

Now suppose I walk up and punch you in the face. Why do you get angry? Your anger betrays that, in your opinion, my hand is NOT acting (inertly) like the rock. In other words your anger implies that the power of choice self-propelled my hand. If ordinary physical impulses (viz. food combustion energy) were the chief impetus of my hand, you couldn’t rightly be angry at me. (You’d have to blame my metabolism). The movement of my hand isn’t “ordinary physics” at work, therefore. It’s a cognitively driven self-propulsion (a sort of telekinesis if you will).

Correct. You considered it, then your central nervous system sent electrical signals through the sympathetic nervous system to stimulate your musculature

How?

If you take an Anatomy or Animal Biology class, you'll learn the answer to that question.

Again, I punched you in the face. You got angry. Why? Isn’t my hand just like the rock that fell on your head? Totally inert? Isn’t my brain totally inert? Isn’t my whole body totally inert? Yes, because it’s made up of inert sandwiches that I ate. So why did you get angry? Isn’t all this just ordinary physics at work? Do you get angry at gravity? Magnetism? Climate? Tectonics?

No, because your brain has enough capacity to be self-referencing. Your neurons fire, and that is cognition. When someone is engaging in logical thinking there is increased neural activity in the frontal lobe of your Cerebrum, hence thought is physically based.

But the Christian can explain the anger.

So can modern neurology and psychology. Emotions have a physical basis.

"State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left-prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression."
Harmon-Jones, Eddie and Sigelman, Johnathan. U Wisconsin, Dept of Psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 80(5) May, 2001. pp. 797-803

I have a soul (in my opinion, it’s a tangible substance). It moves by the power of choice. Thus when it freely chose to punch you in the face, this choice caused it to lunge toward you, dragging my inert hand toward your face. The body is inert, but the soul is self-propelling.

The concept of a soul is philosophy, it doesn't have a basis in actual science.

“But I’ve never seen a soul.” True. And I’ve never seen an atom. I believe in the atom based on the evidence of the atom’s existence (its observable effects upon material objects).

But there isn't any evidence of the soul's existence. We have evidence of the atom's existence, however, because we can preform experiments that directly support the hypothesis of atomic theory.

The observable evidence suggests that the human body has a soul inside it.

You have empirical data from a scientific study that concludes that human function and cognition cannot be entirely supported by the physical structure of the brain?

The evidence suggests that the objects normally classified as non-living (such as sandwiches and rocks) do NOT have a self-propelling soul.

No. They aren't lifeforms, they don't have a nervous system. It is absurd to be comparing processed substances like sandwiches, which are nothing more then collections of organic molecules and rocks which are minerals in solid state to Biota.

Why is that? Is it by chance that humans have souls and rocks do not?

No. It is:
1. we are living organisms
2. We have a nervous system

Or is it perhaps because God put me in this human body.

No. It is because rock's are not alive. We are alive because of ongoing biochemical processes that perpetuate themselves. Rocks do not have those

And given that I am self-propelling, why can’t I leave my body at will?

It could possibly be because your personality is based entirely within your physical brain.

Is it perhaps that God forcibly confines me in this tent until a judgment day of His choosing?

Or because your personality and mind arise from the brain.

In sum, just as free will is the chief impetus in my bodily movements, so too the impetus launching the Big Bang was the power of God’s free will. At least that’s my position.

In summary, your philosophy is quite Platonic, but not scientific.

 

[JAL]

I said that motion is not a start. Maybe I could have explained it better like this. Infinity is not a discrete number. Therefore to say that an infinite number of events, or an infinite amount of time already passed is not even humanly intelligible and therefore doesn’t qualify as a theory about reality (although unintelligible theories often have pragmatic value in applied science).

Therefore we are looking for the beginning of time, a state of affairs where the concept of time doesn’t even apply. The only state of affairs where this can be true is a state of motionlessness. To transition from such to motion requires an external impetus or self-propelling substance. Inert substance cannot make this transition on its own.