Thread: Big Bang theorists, atheists or agnostics?

What exactly are you getting at? I know Christians and Muslims who know about the Big Bang theory (notice I didn't use the word "believe").

Accepting Big Bang doesn't make you atheist, or agnostic, or anything else except a rational person.

I believe the big bang theory has nothing to do with religion. It is simply an explanation for the furthest back we can track our universe's history and for why the universe is expanding.

I don't really like this distinction you are making between agnostics and atheists either...

"Are some Agnostic, thinking there is a higher power which created it? Or are they Atheists, one day a little spec of space appeared and began growing?"

Agnostic ~
1. Claims that he or she does not know if there is a God
2. Claims that he or she can not know if there is a God.

In both cases the individual does not "think there is a higher power which created," instead they lack a belief in a deity stating that they can not know about such things or do not know about such things.

Atheist ~
1. Lacks belief in a deity.
2. Believes there are in fact no deities.

In both cases there is a lack of belief in a deity, the only difference is that when you say atheist it leaves ambiguity enough to allow for the possibility that you believe there are in fact no Deities.

I can't imagine any case of an agnostic person who is not an atheist. Perhaps if they "believe" it but don't "know it." Of course most religions require that you believe at the level of knowledge in order for you to be allowed to call yourself a practitioner.

Another thing to take note of is that atheism, agnosticism, theism, etc. Each of these terms require specifics as to what you are atheist/agnostic/theistic about.

I, for example, am a theist when it comes to the spaghetti monster, but am an atheist when it comes to the Yahweh.

Please, it is Good Friday.

Leave R/S alone.

Or are they Atheists, one day a little spec of space appeared and began growing?

No, they would be "Atheists who look at the evidence and accept that the Universe appeared to have formed in the Big Bang but currently hold no beliefs on what caused it because science does not yet have that answer". Believing something in the absence of knowledge is not something that atheists tend to do.

People who believe in the big bang, are they Atheists or Agnostics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist, or that rejects theism

Tell me, how is being agnostic, and being an atheist mutually exclusive?

Originally Posted by Reality_is_a_Dream

Please, it is Good Friday.

Leave R/S alone.

Right, and we're going to recognize Christian holidays.

sarcasm, meet sarcasm!

Cosmology and religion only come together when you talk about the consequences of a certain cosmological theory being confirmed. You ask yourself what the implications of a big bang having occured are in comparison to their religious beliefs. However, because it is a scientific theory, it can be viewed free from the religious realm. You can say "yes, there was a big bang" and respond to the question "what does that mean to my religion?" with "absolutely nothing".

In my opinion, once it has been established that one is not theist, whether or not they are atheist or agnostic is just quibbling over semantics. I don't see it as a very useful distinction to make.

God was created by the big bang.

...
Many Christians believe in the big bang. They believe God created it, though.

You can go ahead and lock this if you want, I really don't know what I was thinking sorry. Darn private school teachers.

Originally Posted by hellohihello

You can go ahead and lock this if you want, I really don't know what I was thinking sorry. Darn private school teachers.

I think you asked a perfectly legitimate question.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think you asked a perfectly legitimate question.

Well it seems the others didn't.

For the record, the "Big Bang" is a derisive term used to describe the fact that the universe is expanding. It doesn't say anything about the actual "Bang" part, it only implies it. (Though, if I recall correctly, the singularity bit HAS been proven.) So, yeah. There's my clarification.
{/peanut_gallery}

Originally Posted by Reality_is_a_Dream

Please, it is Good Friday.

Leave R/S alone.

Lol...The big bang is when god killed himself imo.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Lol...The big bang is when god killed himself imo.

LMAO I can imagine it now...

wait wait I'm God! So...I can create a five sided square.. ok.. four sides..now lets just add another weird dimension onto thi...BOOOOOOOM

People who believe in the bible, are they Blonds or Left-handed? I ask this because I am curious on how they believe that stuff the bible says. Are some Blonds, thinking there is a higher power which created them? Or are they Left-handed, one day a god made them? Would you be so kind, and shed some light? I tried to research this but didn't find anything. I probably used the wrong words though.
-
This might need to go in Philosophy but I really am not sure.

...what meteor?

Religion, like it always does, will adapt to the new findings. It may take it a while but it'll get there. Religion and the big bang are not contradictory, the question still remains "what was before the big bang?" and of course where science admits it doesn't know religion is more than happy to fill in the gaps because uncertainty is scary, right?

The only people who are really putting up a fight are those damn creationists but they're still swinging at evolution to try and even comprehend the big bang.

Originally Posted by Lord Bennington

For the record, the "Big Bang" is a derisive term used to describe the fact that the universe is expanding.

Doesn't the big bang theorize a singularity and beginning of the universe and the Friedmann models discuss expansion?

For the record, the "Big Bang" is a derisive term used to describe the fact that the universe is expanding.

Uh.

Religion, like it always does, will adapt to the new findings. It may take it a while but it'll get there. Religion and the big bang are not contradictory, the question still remains "what was before the big bang?" and of course where science admits it doesn't know religion is more than happy to fill in the gaps because uncertainty is scary, right?

Time started at the Big Bang, so the question 'what was before the Big Bang' is actually totally meaningless.

It's not as if there was blackness for some indeterminate time span, and then the universe appeared; the universe appearing was simply the first ever moment.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's not as if there was blackness for some indeterminate time span, and then the universe appeared; the universe appearing was simply the first ever moment.

Not necessarily, we don't know what was before the big bang or if there was anything. We can't test for it so we have to accept everything as a possibility, even a God or supernatural force.

I don't think you understand... there was no 'before' the Big Bang. 'Before' refers to any moment which preceded the stated moment; you can't apply it to the Big Bang because the Big Bang was the first ever moment: there were no preceding moments.

I believe this is backed up by general relativity actually... I'm pretty sure Hawking says that in A Brief History.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't think you understand... there was no 'before' the Big Bang. 'Before' refers to any moment which preceded the stated moment; you can't apply it to the Big Bang because the Big Bang was the first ever moment: there were no preceding moments.

I get what you're saying but any claims we make or tests we do are subject to the laws of the universe which obviously weren't a problem pre-big bang (if there is such a thing). What I'm saying is that if we don't know we can't make assumptions.

I believe this is backed up by general relativity actually...

Which is a law of this universe

I'm pretty sure Hawking says that in A Brief History.

I'm reading it at the moment so I'll be sure to keep an eye out.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't think you understand... there was no 'before' the Big Bang. 'Before' refers to any moment which preceded the stated moment; you can't apply it to the Big Bang because the Big Bang was the first ever moment: there were no preceding moments.

I believe this is backed up by general relativity actually... I'm pretty sure Hawking says that in A Brief History.

I think that's right, but I also think there would have to be some kind of dimensional transcendent causation behind the big bang. That would be a matter of what is beyond the big bang even though it could not have been "before" the big bang on its particular time line. It would be causation from outside of this time line. I don't believe in uncaused events. Something of some kind of nature has existence at the root of the big bang.

The Big Bang generally refers to Hubble's discovery of expansion, unless I'm confusing my facts.

And, yeah, it doesn't make sense to ask what happened before time, Hawking discussed it in one of his books, I don't recall which. Though I think Hawking admits that you CAN place God before the Big Bang if you want, because he's God. I personally believe it makes perfect sense for the universe to simply appear, if there is no universe with parameters saying things can't just appear.