Another Atheist

- #atheist #atheism -

The cosmological argument for god seems to be quite popular amongst theists. I guess if you’re going to conjure a proof for god, it’s hard to beat finding one that occurred about 14 bn years in the past. Because all that evidence is so clear cut now right…

Okay, so clearly you’re an expert on cosmology and have a solid grasp of the nature of space-time, quantum-mechanics and general relativity.  I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven’t learned all your physics of some creationist website.  You’re not going to make elementary errors like assuming that time is an absolute metric. Or tell me that the big-bang is an explosion. Because that just means I can dismiss your claim based on your transparent ignorance.

So, here’s what I need you to do to make your claim the universe was created by your god credible:

Question 1: How many dimensions are there to the universe?

Ok, this should be easy.  The creator god exists in some dimension outside space-time of this universe.  Clearly you have information on the nature of the universe that has baffled physicists for decades.  So, tell me how many dimensions there are, which one your god is located in, and the scientific proof you have for this number. 

Question 2: When was the universe created?

Again, this should be simple.  Clearly you have been able to solve the Hawking-Hartle no-boundary condition and can identify the exact moment the universe was created.  Please tell me when that was and the scientific proof you have used.

Question 3: Elimination of natural causes

A quantum-fluctuation (a pertubation to the quark/antiquark balance in a singularity) is recognised as a feasible and natural mechanism by which a universe could start a big-bang expansion. Please supply your proof of why this is actually impossible.

Question 4: Elimination of alternatives

Expansion of a big-bang singularity is not the only explanation we have for the universe.  There are also ekpyrotic models which describe endless cycles.  As physics has not been able to eliminate these alternative models, please supply the scientific proof that has so far eluded all of these cosmologists.

#atheist #atheism

-

Sometimes I get this argument popping up. It’s an argument from analogy. Kind of, because we know houses were designed and built, and a house is like the universe, it must be that the universe was designed and built by a creator.

Like most arguments from analogy, it is a weak argument*. It is not an appeal to evidence. It is an appeal to all sorts of hidden assumptions and presumptions that get attached to it. It fails simply because those assumptions aren’t shared by others.

We can test the claim that houses are designed objects. This is based on the following traits:

• Observations: we actually see houses getting built by human agents. So far, nobody has observed a universe being built by an external agent.
• Objective: a house has a specific objective. It provides shelter etc for the occupants. It is this use to which it is purposely built that tells us its designed. Nobody has proved that the universe has a like-objective. The universe appears entirely indifferent to our existence. It was around about 14bn years before we turned up, and will continue long after our solar-system dies.
• Efficiency: this relatives to objective. Objects that are designed try to meet their objectives in efficient ways- needless redundancy, wastage of materials, inflated risks- all invalidate the idea of design. A vast universe that hurtles deadly space rocks at us, and bathes us in deadly UV radiation, could do with some tweaks.
• Economy: designed artifacts are constrained by the resources available for their use. The decision to use one input over another, is driven by a conscious and deliberate observable decision. We don’t observe these substitutions occurring in the universe.

-

* Indeed, if you have to make an argument based on an analogy that cannot be supported by evidence, chances are it’s fatally flawed. Please stop.

#atheist #atheism

-

Often, some science-impaired devil-dodger will equate evolution with both big-bang cosmology and abiogenesis (the origin of life on earth).

Let’s be clear. Evolution has no relation to the origins of the universe. It wouldn’t matter if the universe was eternal, or generated from the expansion of a big-bang singularity or was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure*. Evolution would still be an observable biological phenomenon of this planet.

Life on this planet could have originated from aliens planting it here or meteorites bringing in the necessary amino-acids, or by abiogenesis**. Evolution would still be an observable biological phenomenon of this planet.

Evolution defined- http://anotheratheist.tumblr.com/post/3300094252

If you think evolution has anything to do with the origin of the universe or how life started on this planet, then you are totally and completely full of shit.

——-

* With deference to Douglas Adams and the Jatravartid people.

** I’m still going with abiogenesis

While so often now the devil-dodgers insist that ‘it wot God wot started the Big-Bang’ it seems strange that Jesus thought the stars were small lights in the sky capable of falling to earth (Matthew 24:29). You’d think the creator of the universe would have the inkling that stars were really massive balls of plasma scattered by the trillions through the vast unimaginable distances of space.