What do athiest believe about the origins of our universe and life on our planet?

What do athiest believe about the origins of our universe and life on our planet? Athiest use "Common Sense" to establish what you believe or dont believe in. Our scientific theory on the formation of the entire universe lacks all common sense. "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. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation."-umich.edu Let me disect this statement. About 15 BILLION years...ok, give or take acouple HUNDRED MILLION. Some sources say 12, some 14. We only have about 8,000 years of recorded history. A billion years is alot to be "off." Can we be a TAD more accurate? A tremedous explosion: Have you EVER seen an explosion CREATE anything? If I blow up a car, I dont get a hundred tiny little motorcycles.... "All the matter in the universe was containted in one point"....a single point? Like a "only a few millimeters across" I think common sense and reason would argue that this is pure stupidity. "Prior to this event" Well if there was no "time" there was no "prior" I think common sense would say there was no event. "Pure Speculation" Yup, I agree there. All there is, is pure speculation. So...how did it happen according to an athiest?
Atheist Answer: 

Let's go through this very carefully.

- We have about 8,000 years of recorded human history. Humans are the only creatures who have ever deliberately recorded it. All time before that is referred to as PREhistory for a reason; the universe pre-dates recorded history. By about 15 billion years.

- The Big Bang was a sudden expansion of matter. It did not create any heat, because all heat was contained within it; it merely dispersed heat like it did matter. It did not necessarily create anything, since nothing stops the matter from having existed before the Bang. It did not destroy anything either, because there was probably nothing outside the Bang that it could destroy. Comparing the Big Bang to an explosive detonation is a gross oversimplification.

- Present-day black holes do contain vast amounts of matter compressed to a single point, or singularity. It happens when the gravity of an object is great enough to overcome the magnetic fields keeping the atoms apart. Current physics do allow for this.

- Even if time as we know it resulted from the Big Bang, it's not necessarily all the time there's ever been. What if another system of time and space existed, and the Big Bang spawned from this? Perhaps another universe?

An atheist doesn't know how the heck the Big Bang happened, because we haven't found enough evidence to make any theory remotely certain. I'm comfortable with that. If I adopted one hypothesis as the truth now, I'd have to fault every other theory out there without any support at all.

Finally, don't take offence but to assert beyond doubt that a God is responsible for something merely because of the absence of known alternatives is the very model of an argument from ignorance.

I won't cover abiogenesis (the origin of life) here, because neither has MrPeters.

- SmartLX


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

** it's the methodology, . . . **

Your question begs the question. Science is not a set of beliefs. It is not a faith-based (or faith-biased) inquiry.

Xianity, from the beginning, has been a religion given to "trust" (pistis=faith) and hope. That is, xianity is a swamp of wishful thinking, which will never be drained. It's too comfortable to hoping frogs. Haven't you ever read Kierkagaard? And, his "leap of faith."

In practice, what does science have to say about arrogant fundies:

With respect to science vs. western bible-based monotheism, the relationship is vastly asymmetrical in favor of science. Science is the arbiter of which statements about the world, empirical statements, are or are not “known” -- that is, are given the always provisional metalinguistic accolade, ‘is true.’

Such statements are ‘methodologically fit’ according to the relevant testing procedures within science itself. This is the meaning of ‘the scientific revolution’ -- in whom is power vested?, who shall decide what is true?, and by what criteria?

Neither ‘ethical fitness’ as in Heraclitus and his Stoic followers, nor ‘theological fitness’ as in Plato and his xian followers, is any longer considered a viable principle for assessing the truth of an empirical statement.

Methodologically, whenever so-called "sacred" writings make claims about the natural world, they are subject to exactly the same forces of potential refutation as any other empirical claim. There is no "executive privilege" for god.

In honour of the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth (2009), let’s say loudly that Evolutionary Biology has proven (far beyond a reasonable doubt) that the ID myth of animal and human creation is false. More importantly, Darwin solved the puzzle (for all species) : how can order arise from randomness.

Let's get the bottom line very, very clear:

Since evolution through natural selection is empirically true, then the genesis myth is empirically false. Period.

Biblical literalism is false. Period.

There are no innocent "believers in" intelligent design any longer. They died before 1901.
All subsequent IDers know this. Consequently, they lie as a matter of “principle”.

© 2008

Atheism is based on Faith and I will explain why!

I am an independent scientific researcher and I am a blood driven theist. I don't believe in no religions of this world and I don't have any religious documents to make me bias when I do scientific research. I have to say that you atheist are cowards to admit that you have a faith based belief system.

Faith - Belief in the un-seen (life spontaneously arising from non-living matter)

If you don't believe GOD created you than it's obvious you arose by un-intelligent causes. Chemical evolution has never been observed in this natural world and it is not science. This is only scientist assumptions. Since there is no evidence to prove that life spontaneously appeared on earth it takes ****faith**** to believe you spontaneously arose from non-living matter.

The atheism idea is based off of no logic, no evidence, or no reason. It’s just a title to hide behind to attack other people religions when In all reality you are religious your self.

You don’t have to believe in a god or gods to be considered a religion. Buddha don’t believe in god or gods and it’s a religion. All you need is an idea that you hold to be true with no evidence to back it up. You atheist have no proof that life spontaneously arose and to believe this is called faith. You atheist try and hide behind science but theist like me are not going to allow you to hide behind the origins of life because I‘m a scientific researcher that love doing what he does, and chemical evolution is not science it‘s only assumptions that have no kind of evidence to back it up. Atheism is identified as a religion!

Faith and religion is synonyms please refer to your thesaurus. I am religious because I do believe that there is an intelligent infinite force that created everything and the evidence I have to support this is observable in this natural world. That’s right, I have strong evidence to prove that life arose by intelligent causation and it’s called the Genetic code. I will post my evidence up after this post to prove that the origins of life started by intelligent causation. If you atheist don’t believe it takes faith to believe that life arose spontaneously without an intelligent cause I am asking for you to provide evidence to back it up. If you exercise Ad Hominem or dodge the question I am here to expose your religious concept to people in this forum. You have a faith based belief system and that’s a fact.

Moved to new question.

I've moved this to a new question here, Infinite.