We’re not doing this just because it makes atheists mad. Honest. It’s instructive:
Atheists are just as likely as anyone to resist research findings that challenge their views. Here’s the romp in four short posts:
The “I hate the Big Bang” Cosmology Club
Cosmologist Christopher Isham:
Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists.
Still under construction: A No Big Bang Universe
Stephen Hawking has been arguing against the Big Bang at recent public appearances, and has himself proposed various alternatives. (He has also made his atheist leanings quite clear in recent years.)
The Big Bang: Are the fireworks still on despite the downpour?
The Big Bang is not direct proof of God’s existence, but if God exists and did create the universe, we might expect something like that. And something like the ensuing reaction of world-famous atheists in science as well. They have put a great deal of effort into developing alternative models that would point away from God. The problem is that for sixty years and more, the evidence has favored the Big Bang.
Manufacturing doubts about the Big Bang
Here’s a sample from the news desk of Nature, which gives some idea of the available no-Big Bang fare in the light of recent results from particle physics: In “Higgs data could spell trouble for leading Big Bang theory,” we learn first that the most recent research, as of March of this year in fact, “was seen as in line, for the most part, with the standard theory of cosmology” (the Big Bang). That’s probably why we didn’t hear much about it.
But, we are also told, “a controversial analysis,” putting together different data streams, “paints the prevailing theory in a dim light.” That striking news deflates, a paragraph later, to the fact that a paper was posted the previous week by an astronomer who “is no novice when it comes to making controversial cosmic claims.”
I find it very interesting that the materialistic belief of the universe being stable, and infinite in duration, was so deeply rooted in scientific thought that Albert Einstein (1879-1955), when he was shown his general relativity equation indicated a universe that was unstable and would ‘draw together’ under its own gravity,,,
,, added a cosmological constant to his equation to reflect a stable universe rather than entertain the thought that the universe had a beginning. Einstein finally ended up calling the cosmological constant, he had added to his equation, ‘the biggest blunder of his life.’
But then again mathematically speaking, Einstein’s ‘fudge factor’ was not so much of a blunder after all. A number of observations including the discovery of cosmic acceleration in 1998 have revived the cosmological constant.
In the late 1990’s a highly modified cosmological constant, a constant which is termed ‘Dark Energy’, was reintroduced into general relativity equations to account for the accelerated expansion of the universe, and (I believe) to help explain the discrepancy between the ages of the oldest stars in the Milky Way galaxy and the age of the universe. Far from providing a materialistic solution, which would have enabled the universe to be stable and infinite as Einstein had originally envisioned, the finely-tuned cosmological constant, finely-tuned to 1 part in 10^120, has, upon refinement, turned into one of the most powerful evidences of the design of the universe for life. The most finely tuned constant, from many finely-tuned universal constants of the universe, which are necessary to be almost precisely as they are in order for biological life to be possible anywhere in the universe.
And this quote-unquote “‘worst problem’ of fine tuning in physics” shows no signs of ever letting materialists have any room to try to ‘explain it away’:
Also of note, this was not the last time Einstein’s base materialistic philosophy had severely misled him. He was also severely misled in the Bohr–Einstein debates in which he was repeatedly proven wrong in challenging the ‘spooky action at a distance’ postulations of the then emerging field of quantum mechanics. This following video highlights the Bohr/Einstein debate and the decades long struggle to ‘scientifically’ resolve the disagreement between them over quantum mechanics:
My feeling is that Bohr might have found the following experimental proof from quantum mechanics ‘crazy enough to have a chance of being correct’.
Perhaps atheistic materialists should start some of these taking basic Theistic propositions, propositions such as God creating the universe and sustaining the universe, more seriously than they have in the past?
Music and verse:
Here’s a radio recording of Fred Hoyle disparagingly naming the creation event of the universe as ‘The Big Bang’: (He personally favored the ‘steady state model)
History of the Big Bang – Simon Singh, PhD – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....2g#t=2340s
The ‘Big Bang’ is really a wrong word picture for capturing what went on at the creation event of the universe, for the creation of the universe was certainly not anything like we would normally envision an ordinary explosion to be like:
In addittion to the above examples in the early sisties reading books on astronomy they all talked about the 2 models, big bang and steady state as if they had an equal likely hood of being correct. Also one got the distinct impression that the steady state was more likely. This inspite of the fact that the big bang was inaccord with general relativity and Hubble has produced a great deal of empiricle evidence. The steady state model was an ad hoc proposal. In 1967 the discovery of the black body radiation, now referred to as the background radiation unseated the steady state model. Almost immediatly an ossillating universe model was propossed and gained widespread advocacy among many scientists. When the evidence for an accelerating expansion ended the ossillating idea, The notion of multiple universes took over. This has the advantage of being irrefutable, which as Popper pointed out makes it extremely scientific.
Many lump Eddington in with the atheists. That’s historically inaccurate:
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/…..85363.html
Eddington supposedly didn’t like big displays of God’s power. Not that I’m saying his view is logical, but he was not an atheist by most accounts.
If theists and atheists want to banish big bang (since it promotes both atheism and theism), then why does the big bang still exists?
Quote of note;
George Ellis was a colleague of Stephen Hawking and mathematician Roger Penrose. As a team, Hawking, Penrose, and Ellis were instrumental in refining General Relativity to a point to reveal that not only did mass-energy have a absolute (singular) beginning in the Big Bang, but that space and time also had an absolute (singular) beginning:
Here is someone from the Discovery Institute who might be part of the I hate the Big Bang club:
Was There a Big Bang by David Berlinski.
JW@6: I haven’t seen too many theists who want to abolish the Big Bang theory, as it could be construed as pointing to a creator (think about Genesis 1:1). It’s still around because it’s currently the best explanation for why the universe exists.
You will if you hang out with some of the UD folks at conferences like this one:
http://creationicc.org/
There were 4 UD participants at the last conference:
me, johnnyb, bevets, and Walter ReMine — even Jason Rosenhouse of PandasThumb was there!
although Walter really is neutral on the topic of the Big Bang. I’m somewhat negative on the Big Bang, but I could fit in the ultra-skeptical neutral camp.
I don’t think any one the planet can successfully make a case one way or another.
One prominent theist/scientist that rejects the Big Bang:
John Hartnett
He asked me to consider being his student. On reflection I decided I couldn’t leave the USA to have the privilege of studying under his guidance.
Hmm, Lead off talk at that conference?
7:00 PM to 8:30 PM
Genesis, Biblical Authority & the Age of the Earth
Ken Ham
http://creationicc.org/iccschedule.php
Here is a debate where one can judge for themselves who has the better grasp of the facts. Both theological facts and scientific facts:
Hugh Ross vs Ken Ham – TBN Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM
To me Hugh Ross is logical, rational, and patient, whereas Ken Ham is,, errrr, well judge for yourself what Ken Ham was like.
I’m skipping that talk, waste of time. 🙂