- Oct 16, 2004
- 10,777
- 928
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
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, Im totally uneducated in science.
Because as of right now, an atheistic cosmogony seems illogical. Heres 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 wed 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 shouldnt 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 isnt self-propelling. If its at rest, it tends to stay at rest.
In other words, please dont try to tell me that matter used to be self-propelling but is no longer that; today its inert. Thats absurdity, at least within an atheistic system, because it would be a miracle, to say the least, and they dont believe in miracles.
Perhaps the Big Bang theory isnt meant to address this question maybe its 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. (Im 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?
Any of you science-minded people care to defend atheism for a moment? It would help me understand atheistic cosmogony. Yes, Im totally uneducated in science.
Because as of right now, an atheistic cosmogony seems illogical. Heres 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 wed 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 shouldnt 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 isnt self-propelling. If its at rest, it tends to stay at rest.
In other words, please dont try to tell me that matter used to be self-propelling but is no longer that; today its inert. Thats absurdity, at least within an atheistic system, because it would be a miracle, to say the least, and they dont believe in miracles.
Perhaps the Big Bang theory isnt meant to address this question maybe its 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. (Im 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?