Why Atheism is fundamentally flawed

[Colin]

Firstly i suggest watching this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtnZa...elated&search=

Personally i think this guy takes it too far and he is narrow in his beliefs but he makes a good point about the Big Bang.

NOBODY, i repeat NOBODY, has once, EVER put up as much as a credible theory as to how the Big Bang initiated. I.E. Where did all the 'matter' come from? Or hydrogen if thats what is it. Where did it come from? Science suggests 'nothing' basically, but yet havent came EVEN CLOSE to making any sense of this, even by its own standards. Here science fails dramatically, and i would guess it will ALWAYS fall short.

That means, the atheism belief of the big bang etc, and no God in existance, carries with it THE BIGGEST ASSUMPTION OF THE LOT. That all this 'matter' somehow came from nothing.


Ingenious eh.


I personally believe in evolution, the big bang and God all together [with the big bang theory the most questionable]. I know i cant bring them all together perfectly, nor can anyone, but i would assert they sure arent mutually exclusive. At worst, it could be said God is behind the big bang.

For an Atheist to say 'no i dont believe God exists' but yet avoid the glaring question of how the big bang ever came around (ie-where did the matter ever come from?) is ridiculoulsy niavve and ignorant. Altleast Christians try and answer such a question - atheists ignore it!!

So the big bang theory itself only provides 1% of the answer, the real questin of where it all came from is surely the most fundamental in deciding where everything REALLY came from.

Bottom line: For atheists to believe that the 'matter' came from nothing, is a belief that is atleast, and id say far more unfounded, than the belief in God. As this belief goes against just about everything we've ever had proof off - ie. that everything has a creator.


I would love to see some balanced and informed answers here..

[Three Gun Fish]

I don't have an answer to whatever question you were asking, but I've got a question of my own:

So what if there is a God? What's the big fuss?

[RichC123]

Believing in the Big Bang and believing in God are to totally seperate things.

You are the first person I have seen directly correlate the Big Bang to Atheism.

Atheism: (from Webster's Dictionary)

-a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Doesn't say anything about the Big Bang, does it?

Proving the Big Bang Theory false in no way proves the existance of God. It would just mean that the Big Bang is false, regardless if there is a god or not.

[JMax]

Bottom line: For atheists to believe that the 'matter' came from nothing, is a belief that is atleast, and id say far more unfounded, than the belief in God. As this belief goes against just about everything we've ever had proof off - ie. that everything has a creator.

The current thought on matter is that it was already there before the big bang. Matter did not "come from nothing" it was just there. i.e. There was no creation of matter. You also claim that everything has a creator, but what creates the clouds or the mountains? Are you asserting that there was an intelligence behind the formation of the rockies?

[Colin]

Originally Posted by JMax

The current thought on matter is that it was already there before the big bang. Matter did not "come from nothing" it was just there. i.e. There was no creation of matter. You also claim that everything has a creator, but what creates the clouds or the mountains? Are you asserting that there was an intelligence behind the formation of the rockies?

exactly. the matter 'was already there'. How? Magically? Surely it came from somewhere? I just think the assumption that the matter 'just happened to be there' completely explanatory and is itself based on belief.

Believing something just happened to be there out of nothing is no less hard to conceptualize as is to imagine a supreme being in existence!!


-------------------

as for correlating the big bang to atheism, i think there is logic in this. Atheists basically don't believe in anything without evidence. Well, by that very definition no one is truly an atheist as there is no evidence on where the all important matter originated from. Atheists almost always use the big bang, and more so evolution, as a foundation for argument to disprove God. I'm simply pointing out the fundamental flaw that neither disproves God, they aren't mutually exclusive at all!!

I guess im targeting those specific atheists actually.

[Three Gun Fish]

Don't you think if you're demanding balance and information from your "opponents," oughtn't you be balanced and informed as well?

It's not that atheists don't believe in anything without evidence -- I've always taken atheism to be religion-centric. Atheists don't believe in God; not "anything."

If you're going to say atheism is flat-out wrong, that's legitimate. It's just that you're not making things easier on yourself by tackling the Big Bang theory. Two reasons, and both of which you've cited yourself. Big Bang theory is about as provable as it is nonprovable, which is about where God stands.

Which brings me back to my original question: What difference does it make whatsoever?

Philosophically, we could be here all night, but we could discuss the philosophy of nipple hair all night as well. Doesn't mean we should. One thing I do know: we definitely won't get anywhere, as a discussion or as a society, if we keep selling each other short when it comes to beliefs and methodologies. Instead of cutting at the kneecaps and ridicule, maybe we should simply accept and let live.

[Reaper Man]

From Bertrand Russell, one of the greatest logicians and epistemologists ever to live, and his essay "Why I am not a Christian".

"The First-cause Argument
Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause. "

[Three Gun Fish]

I've always liked Stephen King's wrinkle to that story, where an old lady says shrewdly, "You can't fool me! It's turtles, turtles, turtles. All the way down."

[Reaper Man]

Originally Posted by Three Gun Fish

I've always liked Stephen King's wrinkle to that story, where an old lady says shrewdly, "You can't fool me! It's turtles, turtles, turtles. All the way down."

A lot of people say that was Bertrand Russell giving that lecture.

[Sinister]

Atheism is fundamentally flawed because it's every bit as assumptive as Christianity or any other doctrine. Saying there is nothing, is just as bad as saying there is something. The truth? No one knows, and apparently no one should given the way people act when they even THINK they know.