In most or all of the God debates that I have seen there is a common use by the theist side of the Kalam argument reinforced by a reference to the Big Bang Theory. I will not be debunking the Kalam argument here. That can be found in an earlier post. With this post I will be showing you how theist debaters have been misusing science, specifically the Big Bang Theory.
Most erroneously, these theist debaters claim that the Big Bang has been scientifically proven to be an act of creation or at least was the moment of creation. This is not true. What we know conclusively through science is only that the universe was once in a much denser and hotter state and expanded into its current form. The farthest we can get to the ‘beginning’ is the Plank epoch up to 10–43 seconds after the Big Bang, a period which is still very fuzzy.
All theories about the early universe are speculative at best. This is because without empirical evidence (that will hopefully be found by particle accelerators) the only measure of validity for these theories is internal mathematical consistency. Basically, if the math behind the theory works out then it is a possible explanation of the universe’s cosmogony or ‘beginning’.
There are many of these kinds of theories which are all theoretically possible. Some of them include self-creating universes, universes created from the collision of branes, finite spherical universes with no beginning, the list goes on.
So the question is why do these theist debaters only hold onto an account which allows for a beginning (if only they had the same level of confidence for evolution). Well, this is so that they can argue for a ‘creation’ event and therefore, the existence of God. They will even go as far as to quote mine physicists who believe in opposing theories. This is a perfect example of confirmation bias and the overall close-mindedness of the religious.
![[del.icio.us]](http://thearmchairantichrist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png "Big Bust Cosmology")
![[Digg]](http://thearmchairantichrist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png "Big Bust Cosmology")
![[Facebook]](http://thearmchairantichrist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png "Big Bust Cosmology")
![[Google]](http://thearmchairantichrist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png "Big Bust Cosmology")
![[Reddit]](http://thearmchairantichrist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png "Big Bust Cosmology")
![[StumbleUpon]](http://thearmchairantichrist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png "Big Bust Cosmology")
![[Twitter]](http://thearmchairantichrist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png "Big Bust Cosmology")
![[Yahoo!]](http://thearmchairantichrist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png "Big Bust Cosmology")
![[Email]](http://thearmchairantichrist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png "Big Bust Cosmology")
Related posts:
NULL
NULL
NULL
NULL
NULL
(http://mojoey
New Blog Post, Big Bust Cosmology – http://bit.ly/bRr00p (http://bit NULL.ly/bRr00p)
“The farthest we can get to the ‘beginning’ is the Plank epoch…”
How coincidental! I was just thinking on this earlier today.
RT @taantichrist: Big Bust Cosmology | The Armchair Antichrist http://bit.ly/9imafs (http://bit NULL.ly/9imafs)
Deepak Chopra probably has someone bullshit quantum explanation for that.
Anyways, thanks for stopping by.
Interesting! I've met the same situation when discussing the topic of evolution with a Muslim friend. While she kept on denying evolution (and kept on using refuted a thousand time tactics), she said that the Big Bang was true. Why? Because the Quran said that got created the Universe in 6 ages, and the Big Bang can be separated into 6 periods. Argh.
It just shows they aren't interested in finding the truth. They are only interested preserving their preconceived beliefs.
Yes. Such a mentality is only typical of theists, who are lovers of quote mining and cherry-picking theories to suit their needs. I regret for not asking her: “Well then, since you judge scientific theories based on the Quran, why not just skip science?”
One of the most troubling aspects of the religious arguments against science is that the conflicting theories they love to point out as weaknesses are actually the *strength* of science. The presence of active intellectual debate is what drives human knowledge forward. How is a stifling, static understanding of the world/universe around us positive in any way?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Larro, Andrew Chai. Andrew Chai said: New Blog Post, Big Bust Cosmology – http://bit.ly/bRr00p (http://bit NULL.ly/bRr00p) [...]
One of the most troubling aspects of the religious arguments against science is that the conflicting theories they love to point out as weaknesses are actually the *strength* of science. The presence of active intellectual debate is what drives human knowledge forward. How is a stifling, static understanding of the world/universe around us positive in any way?