Typhon

Several models of the origin of the universe exist, including those held to be *currently* interesting to researchers in physics and cosmology. Most scientists now believe that the universe started out incredibly small, dense, and hot, and that a considerable time ago, on the order of 13-17 billion years ago (correct me if new data has changed this, anyone), underwent a very dramatic event at the beginning, called the Big Bang.

Now this is a pretty much accepted state of affairs for modern science. It is supported by the reams of data we've collected, and fits our best expectations based upon the evidence.

That said, what happened *exactly* at the moment of the Big Bang, and even more speculative, the state of the universe before the moment of the Big Bang (was there anything at all, was this just one of a series of quantum fluctuations, etc.), remains hotly and widely debated.

There are some very interesting models for what might have precipitated the Big Bang, how things were before it, and what this says about the nature of the universe. However, to the best of my knowledge, we're a *long* way from there being a single, agreed upon theory put forth by modern science at the moment.

So, yes and no to your question. Some models of the universe include very interesting events giving rise to the Big Bang, such as a multiplicity of universes that fluctuate randomly or regularly out of an underlying substrate. Others involve quantum fluctuation itself to give rise to the universe. Even more recent efforts to unravel the mystery of the universe before the Big Bang, involve string theory.

I'm particularly intrigued by a version of this called M-theory.

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1270000/1270726.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1270000/1270726.stm</a>

Note that in the article it is acknowledged that:

It is interesting to note however, that if a model such as M-theory is correct, the universe *existed* before the Big Bang, but in a state vastly different from how it is today, or even how it was immediately after this event.

This is a complicated but exciting and vibrant field. I suggest you read up on as much as your math can handle, from better sources than this simple news story (I thought it was a good, concise example for the purposes of this discussion).

Well, as noted, even science is unsure of the state of the universe before the Big Bang. There is little one could say authoritatively about it, certainly if you're not in one (or several) of the fields of highly complex and rigorous science which is attempting to unravel these earliest origins.

Need I also point out that simply because one is an atheist, one doesn't need to agree with science on anything or everything. Most Christians certainly don't. Atheism is again, just lack of god-belief.

Also, as shown above, there is currently no reason to be certain, or even consider it more likely than anything else, that the universe before the Big Bang did not exist, in some shape or form. Admittedly, it does not look like it existed as it did after the Big Bang, but then the universe differs greatly today from how it was mere fractions of a second after this event as well.

It is difficult and purely speculative, to say much about what might have caused the Big Bang, or what the state of the universe was before it. I personally leave that to much smarter and more studious folks than myself, and am for now, content to await their interesting periodic reports and hopefully, their eventual (if ever) consensus. As an atheist, I have no opinion about where the universe came from before the Big Bang, it might have always been for all I know, and likewise, I have no set opinion about what triggered the Big Bang, which may well be random and a natural occurrence, or something else. I don't personally think any gods were involved, but again, that's because I'm an atheist, and there is no credible evidence or reason to suspect that such entities exist, here and now.

Well, most cretinists respond by saying that the fossil record is there, but means something else. But then most cretinists are only a few degrees more rational and intelligent than your average mud-skipper. However, to take your hook, some in fact do say this. Yes, this is a dodge, or at least, a weak defense.

The fossil record is something that is present, well understood (a lot better for example, than the cosmology of the universe before the Big Bang and even, immediately after), eminently testable and verifiable. Thus when cretinists try to dodge the plentiful and well-explored fossil record with its many transitional fossils, they are doing much the intellectual equivalent of poking their fingers in their ears and going "nah-nah-nah-nah."

I hope my points about what science does understand and is able to say about the origins of the universe, and what it can not (which is a lot), shows how this comparison is flawed. Aside from this, it is still perfectly valid for an atheist to hold no opinion about the origins of the universe, or about the Big Bang. A theist does not necessarily hold an opinion about evolution or creationism. It certainly isn't a requirement.

This statement is untrue of course. As demonstrated, the universe may or may not have existed in a different shape or state, prior to the Big Bang. What one can or can not say about it is very dependent upon the state of scientific consensus about it. Currently, there isn't any, so I for one justifiably do not have a definite opinion on it.

For your second question, let's first look at two definitions from the Cambridge International Dictionary of English:

belief
noun
the feeling of certainty that something exists or is true

disbelief
noun
the refusal to believe that something is true

Now, I lack the certainty that god or gods exist or are true. I have never been presented with or encountered credible evidence for their existence. Those examples which I have had exposure to, specific gods such as Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Sobek, etc., are clearly, using logic, reason, and common sense, the historical creation of human beings. Even the need for god, present in many of our species, makes perfect sense as a behavioral and evolutionary expression of certain naturally occurring fears, delusions, and desires. Most god-models are furthermore illogical, antiquated in their thinking, morality, and science, and fall apart on even a casual examination of their supposed self-consistent characteristics. Thus, I have no belief in god or gods.

On the other hand, if a god made itself known in a convincing and verifiable manner, or had even bothered to leave its clear footprint in the substrate of our physical universe, and this was proven by good science and independently to be true, my disbelief would constitute refusal to believe in god, even though that something was true. I personally doubt that any god could be proven to be true, this would be very difficult to do IMO, but I'm using this for the sake of our hypothetical example.

So you can see, that lack of belief and disbelief are two different things when applied to gods and god-beliefs.

I hope this clears up your confusion.

.T.

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

luvluv

So you're saying that a strong atheist would continue to disbelieve in God even if presented with strong evidence for God's existence?

Goliath

Luvluv,

In a word: not really (well, ok, that's two words). There are several theories concerning the origin of the universe. Even if the Big Bang theory is correct, it says nothing whatsoever about what happened before the Big Bang.

Yes, it is. But, as usual, you are making a false analogy in the fact that evolution makes no claims whatsoever about the supernatural. Therefore the scientific method applies and the fossil record counts as evidence.

My deconversion story is actually quite a boring one, especially compared to some of the testimonies of the infidels here.

I was raised Lutheran. When I was about 12 years old, I started asking questions (ie who was Cain's wife, why did Jesus have to die, et al), and I got no quality answers. So, I simply lost my faith.

Because it is the name that we give for a lack of belief in the existence of any god whatsoever.

It is not a position, per se. This is because given any two weak atheists, the only thing that they are guaranteed to agree on is that they lack belief in the existence of any god. In other words: there are many positions that one can hold as a weak atheist. That is why weak atheism is not, in and of itself, a position.

No.

Strawman (see above).

What is it that you don't understand? What confuses you? I'm honestly bewildered as to how anyone above the age of 10 could have any difficulty understanding the difference between weak and strong atheism.

Why do I not believe you?

Simple: one who disbelieves that any god exists (ie one who believes that no gods exist) makes a logical claim about the existence of gods. One who does not believe that any god exists makes no such claim.

Illustration #2:

Xian: Do you believe that God exists?

Strong Atheist: No.

Weak Atheist: No.

Xian: Oooohhhkay, do you believe that God doesn't exist?

Strong Atheist: Yes.

Weak Atheist: No.

Illustration #3: Here is a complete and total list of things that I believe regarding the supernatural:

Nothing.

Illustration #4: Here is a complete and total list of claims that I make regarding anything supernatural whatsoever:

Nothing.

Now, if you have any more questions about weak atheism vs. strong atheism, please, PLEASE be specific about what is confusing you. Ok?

Sincerely,

Goliath

St. Robert

Many times man is very ineffective at proving things that do exist.

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]</p>

Philosoft

If you speak of God, how about starting with a thinkable concept?

St. Robert

Man cannot provide enough evidence to prove to man beyond any doubt that God exists.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Women, however, are not so unfortunate.

Vorkosigan

Writer@Large

luvluv: I'd like to try to help you with that distinction. Do you mind answering a few questions, as honestly as possible?

Do you believe in aliens? Why or why not?

Do you believe that aliens visit the Earth in their starships? Why or why not?

Do you believe that humans get abducted by UFOs? Why or why not?

Do you believe that a UFO crashed in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947? Why or why not?

Do you believe in the Loch Ness monster? Why or why not?

What about Champy, the Lake Champlain monster? Why or why not?

How about ghosts, in the sense of "there's a ghost haunting that house"? Why or why not?

Santa Claus? Why or why not?

The Easter Bunny? Why or why not?

What about the possibility of alien life?

What about the possibility of ghosts?

What about the possibility of lake monsters?

What about the possibility of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?

--W@L

Vorkosigan

Like what? The strong atheist would hopefully be open to evidence and argument. Being a strong atheist, I can only speak for myself, but that is how I see the matter. It would have to be pretty strong evidence.

Vorkosigan

Philosoft

No kidding. He can't even do that for his own existence.

Earth to St. Robert: this is epistemology not mathematics.