Theories of Our Origins: All equally Absurd?

[JWW]

To atheists, the idea of intelligent design is an absurd notion hardly worth their time for discussion. But we are then left with "How did the universe come to exist?" Several theories have emerged over the years, the most prominent of which seems to be the idea of a "BIg-Bang." That is, the idea of quantum fluctuations resulting in the spontaneous 'creation' of the universe we exist in. But is this theory not just as equally absurd as the intelligent design theory that their exists a "god" who created the universe and all life within it? It all boils down to two seemingly, equally far-fetched (to use this lightly) ideas:

A) Big-Bang- Principally, something came from nothing (illogical), and from this something, life emerged through evolution, continued to evolve and has led to where we are today.
or...
B) Intelligent design- A God created all things in the universe, including man, and endowed us with reason, knowledge and all of the qualities that define him.

Both theories are perfectly illogical and equally unprovable, so- why then do we choose one over the other and base our entire beliefs and often world-views on them? If your unaware, I am a christian and therefore a believer in Intelligent design. I will do a follow up containing my reasons for this, hopefully tomorrow, and explain my logic as best I can. Thank-you!

 

[Aught3]

Let's agree that both hypotheses are equally unreasonable in terms of facts and evidence. Atheism would still be preferred over theism on the grounds of making less assumptions.

God created the universe
God somehow exists

Remove the theistic assumptions (red) which, as you say, don't actually offer a good explanation and you're left with the single atheistic assumption.

 

[Blood Wraith]

First of all, your understanding of the Big Bang is extremely limited and you're overlooking two crucial aspects of the theory:

1. The theory does not state that the Big Bang came from "nothing." It does not attempt to address the origin of the cosmic expansion of the universe.
2. It's not unprovable, mostly because it's a fundamental component of our current understanding of cosmology.

Second, Intelligent Design and the Big Bang theory are nowhere near on the same level in terms of absurdity. The latter has been the most accepted explanation that takes red-shifting galaxies, hubble's law, obler's paradox, and CMB radiation into account, and it has been accepted since the mid-20th century. The former is nothing more than a hypothesis that is incapable of being evaluated since there's no metric of 'design', and has been proven to be nothing more than a rehashed version of creationism in a supreme court ruling.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

If your unaware, I am a christian and therefore a believer in Intelligent design.

We could tell by the bad grammar and the illogical claims. You didn't have to point it out further. :lol:

Here's a riddle for you:

Let's say you have a sealed jar with an unknown amount of jelly beans in it. for the sake of argument, let's say that the jar is 14 inches high and the radius of the jar is about 4 inches. It is a pretty big jar. I say that we can guess the approximate number of jelly beans in the jar by using the measurements of the jar and an average jelly bean and figuring out about how many jelly beans a jar that size can hold. Someone else says that they have an identical jar, and they can weight the empty jar, weigh the full jar, and weigh a single jelly bean and approximate the number of jelly beans that way. Then you walk up, say that your preacher claims that there are seven jelly beans in the jar, and since no one can say for 100% certainty what the exact number is there's no reason that "seven" isn't just as reasonable as any other answer.

Do you see the flaw in your reasoning yet?

 

[Laurens]

Intelligent design has no foundations whatsoever, no evidence and is simply a thinly veiled attempt to get creationism taught in the class room. It is not science (that has been ruled in the US supreme court) it's religion badly dressed as science.

Big bang theory is based upon observation; the big bang happened, we know that. How or why it happened is still up for contention, but the hypotheses about what caused the big bang are based upon reason and what we already know about quantum physics etc.

Scientists who study the big bang are not content to say that "it was magic" -- and that is exactly the absurdity of ID...

 

[Andiferous]

Yes, there is choice C. (Probably just a rewriting of other responses):

C. 1) It is reasonable to suppose that none of us were present to observe the beginning of the universe, thus any answer to this question could only be theory, analysis and /or supposition, or divinely imparted.
C. 2) There is no physical evidence to suppose the universe was created by a god. One would have to go beyond physical proofs to argue this thesis effectively. Here I assume we're arguing for physical evidence.
C 3) There is no way to know if god has divinely imparted an answer to us; and in doing so we'd have to assume there was a god anyway. So testimony isn't useful - to us, anyway.
C. 4) There is more physical evidence for creation offered by scientific theory than by religious text. Religious text seems to offer an allegory or symbolic representation anyway, and this can only be fueled and tested (by us) using physical means.
C. 5) So perhaps the physical and more tested theory is more true.

 

[Proteus]

To atheists, the idea of intelligent design is an absurd notion hardly worth their time for discussion. But we are then left with "How did the universe come to exist?" Several theories have emerged over the years, the most prominent of which seems to be the idea of a "BIg-Bang."....A) Big-Bang- Principally, something came from nothing (illogical), and from this something, life emerged through evolution, continued to evolve and has led to where we are today.

Are you serious? The big bang doesn't say that "everything came from nothing", but that the universe (literally everything) has continually expanded for about fourteen billion years from a singularity. As everyone else has mentioned above this theory can be and has been tested and mathematically proven which is why it is the only accepted theory which explains our universe in its current state.

B) Intelligent design- A God created all things in the universe, including man, and endowed us with reason, knowledge and all of the qualities that define him.

And why is it that you assert all of this? And how did this designer/god create all of this out of nothing? Are you going to tell us what method was used, and since you're invoking a "who", are you going to explain why this nebulous designer/god did all this?

Also since you claim that this god/designer programed us with his defining qualities, would it be fair to say that curiosity, rage, ambition, jealousy, love, lust, rebellion, spite, and greed are gods other qualities as well?

Both theories are perfectly illogical and equally unprovable...

No saying "magic man dun it" is illogical, unscientific and - by definition - unprovable.

...so- why then do we choose one over the other and base our entire beliefs and often world-views on them? If your unaware, I am a christian and therefore a believer in Intelligent design.

So are you under that illusion that all Christian's believe in ID creationism as well? And by the way my world view is not greatly affected by what physicists have shown to be certainly true about the origins of the universe.

I will do a follow up containing my reasons for this, hopefully tomorrow, and explain my logic as best I can. Thank-you!

Considering how well the topic of the origin of the universe has been covered on this site as well as some of the moderators on youtube, I suspect that you are a troll.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

I will do a follow up containing my reasons for this, hopefully tomorrow, and explain my logic as best I can. Thank-you!

Considering how well the topic of the origin of the universe has been covered on this site as well as some of the moderators on youtube, I suspect that you are a troll.

Oh, don't do that. Let him present his argument.

 

[mirandansa]

To atheists, the idea of intelligent design is an absurd notion hardly worth their time for discussion. But we are then left with "How did the universe come to exist?" Several theories have emerged over the years, the most prominent of which seems to be the idea of a "BIg-Bang." That is, the idea of quantum fluctuations resulting in the spontaneous 'creation' of the universe we exist in. But is this theory not just as equally absurd as the intelligent design theory that their exists a "god" who created the universe and all life within it?

As far as science is concerned, the sense of absurdity should be offset by the actual observed evidence. The Big Bang theory has plenty of such offsetting components. The Intelligent Design has none.

A) Big-Bang- Principally, something came from nothing (illogical), and from this something, life emerged through evolution, continued to evolve and has led to where we are today.

The Big Bang theory does not claim something came from nothing. The singularity -- the origin of the expansion of spacetime -- is not nothing.

In addition to that, i hold the view that everything exists with nothing. "What is not" defines "what is". You cannot have something without nothing. An apple cannot be somewhere without not existing elsewhere. In this sense, i could say "something comes from nothing and nothing comes from something". The two classes are inseparable.

B) Intelligent design- A God created all things in the universe, including man, and endowed us with reason, knowledge and all of the qualities that define him.

Both theories are perfectly illogical and equally unprovable

The Big Bang theory is quite provable. What are not yet as much provable in the interest of cosmology are the theories that describe the state prior to the Big Bang, such as the M-theory.

If your unaware, I am a christian and therefore a believer in Intelligent design.

In what sense? Ken Miller is a Christian and does not believe in what is commonly known as "Intelligent Design".

 

[Netheralian]

Then you walk up, say that your preacher claims that there are seven jelly beans in the jar, and since no one can say for 100% certainty what the exact number is there's no reason that "seven" isn't just as reasonable as any other answer.

Putting it into the correct context he would be saying that the preacher claims there is an African elephant, a piece of toast and a big blue wobbly thing...

 

[mirandansa]

Let's agree that both hypotheses are equally unreasonable in terms of facts and evidence. Atheism would still be preferred over theism on the grounds of making less assumptions.

God created the universe
God somehow exists

Remove the theistic assumptions (red) which, as you say, don't actually offer a good explanation and you're left with the single atheistic assumption.

I'm afraid that doesn't seem accurate. Can atheists avoid these assumptions:

Energy created the universe.
Energy somehow exists.

It's the same amount (at least lexically) of assumptions as what you posited above for allegedly "theism".

You should have compared it to something like this:

God created the universe with a plan.
God somehow exists and intentionally interacts with the universe by supernatural means.

That would be more assumptions than necessary. And that wouldn't be as much theism per se as monotheism & polytheism.

 

[MRaverz]

Let's agree that both hypotheses are equally unreasonable in terms of facts and evidence. Atheism would still be preferred over theism on the grounds of making less assumptions.

God created the universe
God somehow exists

Remove the theistic assumptions (red) which, as you say, don't actually offer a good explanation and you're left with the single atheistic assumption.

I'm afraid that doesn't seem accurate. Can atheists avoid these assumptions:

Energy created the universe.
Energy somehow exists.

It's the same amount (at least lexically) of assumptions as what you posited above for allegedly "theism".

You should have compared it to something like this:

God created the universe with a plan.
God somehow exists and intentionally interacts with the universe by supernatural means.

That would be more assumptions than necessary. And that wouldn't be as much theism per se as monotheism & polytheism.

Energy is the potential to do work, it didn't create the universe.

 

[Giliell]

I have a question for you in return:

Do you understand the evidence, physics, maths and calculations that currently support the big bang theory?

If yes, why do you coinsider them absurd?

If no, why do you feel qualified to call them absurd?

 

[lrkun]

To atheists, the idea of intelligent design is an absurd notion hardly worth their time for discussion. But we are then left with "How did the universe come to exist?" Several theories have emerged over the years, the most prominent of which seems to be the idea of a "BIg-Bang." That is, the idea of quantum fluctuations resulting in the spontaneous 'creation' of the universe we exist in. But is this theory not just as equally absurd as the intelligent design theory that their exists a "god" who created the universe and all life within it? It all boils down to two seemingly, equally far-fetched (to use this lightly) ideas:

A) Big-Bang- Principally, something came from nothing (illogical), and from this something, life emerged through evolution, continued to evolve and has led to where we are today.
or...
B) Intelligent design- A God created all things in the universe, including man, and endowed us with reason, knowledge and all of the qualities that define him.

Both theories are perfectly illogical and equally unprovable, so- why then do we choose one over the other and base our entire beliefs and often world-views on them? If your unaware, I am a christian and therefore a believer in Intelligent design. I will do a follow up containing my reasons for this, hopefully tomorrow, and explain my logic as best I can. Thank-you!

Big-bang is not far fetched nor illogical. Intelligent design is not a theory, which is illogical and absurd.

Basic information about the big bang. An overview.

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.

Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations"¦.For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations"¦.You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.

Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question:


Footnotes:

1. Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.
2. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.
3. Mark Eastman, Chuck Missler, The Creator: Beyond Time and Space, (1996) p. 11.
4. W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.
5. See http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-022.pdf
6. See http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-rosetta.pdf and http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-021.pdf; see also http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-redshift.pdf and http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-affirmed.pdf

 

[mirandansa]

Energy is the potential to do work, it didn't create the universe.

"to do work"... What does work?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Putting it into the correct context he would be saying that the preacher claims there is an African elephant, a piece of toast and a big blue wobbly thing...

True, or that the answer is "yellow" or some other non sequitur.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Energy is the potential to do work, it didn't create the universe.

"to do work"... What does work?

The universe before it was the universe as we know it.

Look, your whole argument about "Energy somehow exists" being the same as "God somehow exists" in terms of assumptions is ridiculous in the first place. We know energy exists - that's not an assumption. The "intelligent designer"-character is purely, 100%, unequivocal assumption. That was the point.

 

[lrkun]

What if we take away the element of time. Time maybe a factor only in the point of view of man. Instead think about the concept of conservation of energy or the concept of timelessness.

Concept of conservation of energy - According to Kaku, these molecules could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.

* Michio Kaku. Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension.

P.s. Please correct my information. TY.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

To atheists, the idea of intelligent design is an absurd notion hardly worth their time for discussion. But we are then left with "How did the universe come to exist?" Several theories have emerged over the years, the most prominent of which seems to be the idea of a "BIg-Bang." That is, the idea of quantum fluctuations resulting in the spontaneous 'creation' of the universe we exist in. But is this theory not just as equally absurd as the intelligent design theory that their exists a "god" who created the universe and all life within it?

No. The reason being is that the Big Bang theory has evidence behind it (e.g. the background radiation and red shifting galaxies), whereas Intelligent Design (ID) has none. The Big Bang theory is not just speculation; there are testable models and predictions that can be made based on it. Furthermore, ID is one of the only hypotheses creationists have created that can be tested, but when put to the test it is falsified. In science, once a hypothesis is shown to be wrong it is abandoned.
Moreover, you have created a false dichotomy out of the real dichotomy. First off, the Big Bang theory does not claim something from nothing; it only explains the beginning of the universe as we see it today. We do not know if the Big Bang was the first cause (i.e. something from nothing). However, claiming a god as a designer only begs the question of who created the designer. The true dichotomy is that either something came from nothing or something has always existed. Nevertheless, in order to claim that a god(s) had a role in the origins of the universe you must first show evidence that there is such a thing as a god(s). After, you can claim that this god(s) had always been or came out of nothing.

If your unaware, I am a christian and therefore a believer in Intelligent design.

Just because you are a christian, does not mean you have to accept ID. Many theists accept the Big Bang theory for the simple fact that there is evidence to support it.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I am a christian and therefore a believer in Intelligent design.

As others have pointed out, this is complete - and you will of course excuse me for being crude here, but I believe it adds to the message - horseshit.

You have just, at the very least, insulted every catholic in existence; that's the largest single Christian denomination right there. You have also insulted many liberal churches, a fair number of Orthodox believers (the second largest denomination), and quite a few moderates.

In fact, I'd be willing to go so far as to say that the only group you're likely to have on your side on this one are right-wing evangelicals and their ilk.