Keith Devens .com

It's the religious folks that are suggesting that there is a problem with the universe being eternal and proposing a creator as being a solution to this problem. They then proceed to ignore their own proposed problem by not considering it as a problem for a creator.

I'd say it's exactly the other way around. Atheists such as yourself have no trouble believing in an eternal universe, but then turn around and ask "what created God?".

However, we know that the universe had a beginning, and I find it ironic that atheists have an essentially religious view about what that beginning was: All the matter in the universe was in a "single point" in a space that didn't then exist... a "singularity" in which the laws of physics don't apply. Then "it exploded" (whatever "it" is). (And how can something in which the laws of physics don't apply explode anyway?)

the world, being well stocked with narcissists, will always provide someone who will take you to the ropes over any argument. This is one of the classics. I went to a highly reputable intellectual university and would listen for hours as ID folks argued with Evolutionists argued with 7-day creationists. In the end, I just got sick of the whole thing.

All that to say, I loved this line

I find it ironic that atheists have an essentially religious view about what that beginning was

People will believe whatever they choose to believe, it is part of the makeup that makes us human. But in the end, whatever the arguments or debates, it is still a belief. Hidden behind science or logic, there is ALWAYS an ASSUMPTION. The question is how solid is the foundation of your faith?

The following are a couple of great quotes featured in Skeptic magazine:

All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike — and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
—Albert Einstein

I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.
—Baruch Spinoza

There are in fact many competing theories concerning the beginnings and nature of the universe. There is a review of Conflict in the Cosmos: Fred Hoyle’s Life in Science in this month's issue of Skeptic which is very interesting.

Claiming that "an essentially religious view" underlies every scientific theory relating to the creation of the universe or life on earth can be true if and only if you define a religious view as "a conclusion based on all available facts".

Claiming that "an essentially religious view" underlies every scientific theory relating to the creation of the universe or life on earth can be true if and only if you define a religious view as "a conclusion based on all available facts".

You're missing the point. Both sides look at the available facts and take a position based on their religious beliefs. We know the universe is expanding and that the universe had a beginning. I believe God started it. Atheists make some unscientific (and I believe, nonsensical) claim about an "infinitely dense point" containing all matter, or a "singularity" or some such. The way I've heard it, the big bang (which despite your reference to "every scientific theory" is the only theory I've ever heard from the scientific community) is defined as a condition in which the laws of physics don't apply -- that is, it's definititionally not open to science.

I just pointed you to a book that is about one of many other scientific theories concerning the origins of the universe. The big bang is probably the correct theory, though.

My point was that I'm only specifically arguing against the view based on the big bang, not old discredited theories that few hold to anymore. What I did find interesting upon research is that Hoyle, et al. appear to not have wanted to believe in the big bang because they didn't like the idea of a universe with a sudden, unexplained, supernatural beginning.

The Bing Bang is the dominant theory, which does not mean every other theory is automatically discredited. The original theory is credited to Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest, in the late 1920s.

But it really didn't get a lot of notice until Hubble produced evidence that all the galaxies are moving in directions, proportions and speeds that make them appear as if they are on the surface of one gigantic balloon that is inflating.

What you are actually arguing is that people cannot look at data and draw conclusions without having their religious beliefs influence those conclusions. That is absolutely not true.

If I sit down to read a book on astronomy, I could care less whether or not the information it presents would support or deny the existence of God.

...which does not mean every other theory is automatically discredited.

Of course, but the steady state theory is discredited.

What you are actually arguing is that people cannot look at data and draw conclusions without having their religious beliefs influence those conclusions.

I would actually argue that that's true in principle, but that's not what I'm arguing now (that's a more philosophical discussion for another time).

I think you're equivocating on "conclusions". The important sense of "conclusion" here is "valid scientific inference". Another sense that dictionary.com gives is "A judgment or decision reached after deliberation". When not a valid scientific inference, one's judgement after reviewing evidence can still be religious in nature. And, of course, I'm arguing that the big bang is a religious position, filled with unscientific assertions about an explosion in a space that didn't exist, from an "infinitely dense point" where the laws of physics don't apply. That's by definition a supernatural event. People even use religious sounding words like "singularity" which don't really explain anything, but merely serve to label something that we can't explain or understand. They could equally well call it "the miracle point" or some such.

Atheists make some unscientific (and I believe, nonsensical) claim about an "infinitely dense point" containing all matter, or a "singularity" or some such.

Speculation is fun. But the atheists I know, myself included, are powerfully agnostic about things for which no explanation exists.

This seems to be a fundamental philosophical split. In my view, the most telling difference between atheists and theists is evident in the explanations they give for these types of things: the theist guesses; I'm quite comfortable saying that I don't know.

I'm quite comfortable saying that I don't know.

Same here. I'm quite comfortable saying I don't know how God created the universe. I'm just trying to get across that both my belief that God created the universe and someone's belief in the big bang are equally religious viewpoints.

(Of course, I also think the big bang is a non-sensical religious viewpoint.)

I've heard and read any explainations of the big bang, but that if we take the maths and models we know and extrapolate backwards before before that point, things start to look as if they trail back into an infinitely dense, 0-dimensional "point". However, I don't think there's a scientist out there who thinks that this is anything more than pure conjecture and hypothesis, only stating that at that point it would be enorously dense and hot, which is quite a different matter. At a certain point in time, things become unknowable through science. Whether you attribute everything before this point to God or not is, in my mind, a matter of personal conscience.

Also, I think you're being a little inaccurate with the statement "where the laws of physics don't apply". What should be taken from this kind of thing is that the laws of physics are universal but fungible given extreme conditions, e.g. quantum mechanics rather than classical mechanics at subatomic scales. The point being that just because we don't know the physics of such scales doesn't mean the laws of physics don't apply to them.

Also, I think you're being a little inaccurate with the statement "where the laws of physics don't apply". What should be taken from this kind of thing is that the laws of physics are universal but fungible given extreme conditions, e.g. quantum mechanics rather than classical mechanics at subatomic scales. The point being that just because we don't know the physics of such scales doesn't mean the laws of physics don't apply to them.

That's a reasonable point. However, I always hear the Big Bang described as an explosion originating from an "infinitely dense" point. I think that's nonsensical, but if it were accurate I'd say that really would be an instance where the laws of physics mustn't apply. (That's how I remember hearing "singularity" described as well.) So, I'd say the fault of inaccuracy here lies mostly with the proponents of the Big Bang theory.

"We know the universe is expanding and that the universe had a beginning."
I have a question. Do we really know that the universe s expanding? We must have reached the end to know that it is expanding correct? I would imagine that there would be news that they found the end of the universe. I was just curious if there was actual reasoning for this, im really interested. Thanks. If you DO have an answer, please email me to inform me, because i will most likely not check this site. (cshotw1@lsu.edu)

Look up "red shift".

I believe that a point needs to be made. If you read your bible, then you will see that God likes keeping secrets, has a sense of humor, gets angry, and wants us to live by faith and faith alone. Do these qualities remind you of yourself? We are CREATED in his image.

For years archaeologists claim that there was no way that the furnace depicted in the bible "Shadrak, Meshak, and Abednigo" (hope these spellings are correct!) were thrown into could not exist. Yet it has been found exactly as described. Scientists have proven that all human DNA can be traced to one mother.

if anything science has proven the bible. The stories just don't get publicized. By the way, I'm a programmer, and think very logically, yet I have faith in things I can not see, touch or taste. However, when you are saved, you can feel the spirit of God within you, many times, if you are seeking him on a regular basis. Can I prove a feeling? of course not. I'm simply saying that God is Real, I have felt him, have been blessed by him, and talk to him on a regular basis. No one can take that away from me, despite what they feel, think or desire.