Feedback and Notes

 

Imagine No Religion

Latest Activity

Doone has Fremdschämen commented on A Former Member's group The Burgeoning Family Tree of Monkey Men and Women
3 hours ago
Doone has Fremdschämen commented on A Former Member's group The Burgeoning Family Tree of Monkey Men and Women
3 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on A Former Member's group The Burgeoning Family Tree of Monkey Men and Women
3 hours ago
Stephen commented on A Former Member's group The Burgeoning Family Tree of Monkey Men and Women
3 hours ago
Stephen commented on A Former Member's group The Burgeoning Family Tree of Monkey Men and Women
13 hours ago
Stephen commented on Doone has Fremdschämen's group Canada, Mexico most of the World and Some Nutty Country ruled by a Cockroach Rider News
22 hours ago
Stephen commented on A Former Member's group Animal | Vegetable | Mineral | Fungus or Scump
yesterday
Mrs.B commented on A Former Member's group Animal | Vegetable | Mineral | Fungus or Scump
yesterday
Doone has Fremdschämen commented on Doone has Fremdschämen's group Canada, Mexico most of the World and Some Nutty Country ruled by a Cockroach Rider News
yesterday
Doone has Fremdschämen commented on Doone has Fremdschämen's group Canada, Mexico most of the World and Some Nutty Country ruled by a Cockroach Rider News
yesterday
Doone has Fremdschämen commented on Doone has Fremdschämen's group Canada, Mexico most of the World and Some Nutty Country ruled by a Cockroach Rider News
yesterday
Doone has Fremdschämen commented on A Former Member's group The Burgeoning Family Tree of Monkey Men and Women
yesterday
Doone has Fremdschämen commented on A Former Member's group The Burgeoning Family Tree of Monkey Men and Women
yesterday
Doone has Fremdschämen commented on Doone has Fremdschämen's group Canada, Mexico most of the World and Some Nutty Country ruled by a Cockroach Rider News
yesterday
Doone has Fremdschämen commented on A Former Member's group Animal | Vegetable | Mineral | Fungus or Scump
yesterday
Stephen commented on Doone has Fremdschämen's group Canada, Mexico most of the World and Some Nutty Country ruled by a Cockroach Rider News
yesterday
Mrs.B commented on Doone has Fremdschämen's group Canada, Mexico most of the World and Some Nutty Country ruled by a Cockroach Rider News
yesterday
Stephen commented on Doone has Fremdschämen's group Canada, Mexico most of the World and Some Nutty Country ruled by a Cockroach Rider News
yesterday
Mrs.B commented on Doone has Fremdschämen's group Canada, Mexico most of the World and Some Nutty Country ruled by a Cockroach Rider News
yesterday
Stephen commented on Doone has Fremdschämen's group Canada, Mexico most of the World and Some Nutty Country ruled by a Cockroach Rider News
yesterday

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

You read it correctly.

There is no evidence supporting the BB story. There are only the mental meanderings of people capable of authoring award-winning science fiction.

Views: 136

Replies to This Discussion

I think there is more to it than the mental meanderings, there's plenty of what the lawyers would call circumstantial evidence. but you are right the big bang is just one of many theory's of the beginnings of the universe. But its a compelling one.  

Stephen, it's not compelling to people who require scientific evidence. Lawyers????

Many astronomers opposed it but for two reasons didn't challenge it.

1. They wanted to do astronomy, not battle the Genesis account.

2. Many states then banned teaching evolution in the schools.

When the Soviet Union in 1957 sent a man into orbit, the government realized that the same vehicle could take weapons into orbit.

The Cold War got warm and the spending ballooned. Bangers knew a lot about space and got the money.

To keep it coming they needed a story that would persuade politicians who feared the Soviet Union.

There is no evidence for inflation, black holes, strings, etc, etc, and etc.

The Bang story is a substitute for religion and a fraud.

Stephen, stop believing. Think.

..., there's plenty of what the lawyers would call circumstantial evidence.

Stephen, having nothing better to do for a few minutes...

Circumstantial evidence in Barron's Law Dictionary -- indirect evidence; secondary facts by which a principal fact may be rationally inferred.

Someday when you have nothing better to do for a few minutes, ...

There is plenty of evidence for the big bang. The cosmic microwave background radiation for a start.

John, don't just repeat the untested and untestable hypotheses the Bangers imagine and then claim is evidence. Do some research.
Perhaps start with: Did the entire universe once occupy a space smaller than a particle?
Radiation like the CMB can originate near bodies of water.

No evidence whatsoever. 

Quote Nathaniel Brandon...

"FIRST CAUSE" IS EXISTENCE, NOT GOD

by Nathaniel Branden

QUESTION: Since everything in the universe requires a cause,
must not the universe itself have a cause, which is god?


ANSWER: There are two basic fallacies in this argument. The
first is the assumption that, if the universe required a
causal explanation, the positing of a "god" would provide it.
To posit god as the creator of the universe is only to push
the problem back one step farther: Who then created god? Was
there a still earlier god who created the god in question? We
are thus led to an infinite regress -- the very dilemma that
the positing of a "god" was intended to solve. But if it is
argued that no one created god, that god does not require a
cause, that god has existed eternally -- then on what grounds
is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?


It is true that there cannot be an infinite series of
antecedent causes. But recognition of this fact should lead
one to reappraise the validity of the initial question, _not_
to attempt to answer it by stepping outside the universe into
some gratuitously invented supernatural dimension.


This leads to the second and more fundamental fallacy in
this argument: the assumption that the universe as a whole
_requires_ a causal explanation. It does not. The universe is
the total of that which exists. Within the universe, the
emergence of new entities can be explained in terms of the
actions of entities that already exist: The cause of a tree
is the seed of the parent tree; the cause of a machine is the
purposeful reshaping of matter by men. All actions presuppose
the existence of entities -- and all emergences of new
entities presuppose the existence of entities that caused
their emergence. All causality presupposes the existence of
_something_that_acts_as_a_cause. To demand a cause for all of
existence is to demand a contradiction: if the cause exists,
it is part of existence; if it does _not_ exist, it cannot be
a cause. _Nothing_cannot_be_the_cause_of_something._Nothing_
does not exist. Causality presupposes existence; existence
does not presuppose causality. There can be no cause
"outside" of existence or "anterior" to it. The _forms_ of
existence may change and evolve, but the _fact_ of existence
is the irreducible primary at the base of all causal chains.
Existence -- not "god" -- is the First Cause.


Just as the concept of a causality applies to events and
entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a
whole -- so the concept of time applies to events and
entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a
whole. The universe did not "begin" -- it did not, at some
point in time, "spring into being." Time is a measurement of
motion. Motion presupposes entities that move. If nothing
existed, there could be no time. Time is "in" the universe;
the universe is not "in" time.


The man who asks: "Where did existence come from?" or
"What caused it?" is the man who has never grasped that
_existence_exists._ This is the mentality of a savage or a
mystic who regards existence as some sort of incomprehensible
_miracle_ -- and seeks to "explain" it by reference to
_non_existence.


Existence is all that exists, the nonexistent does not
exist; there is nothing for existence to have come out of --
and _nothing_ means _nothing._ If you are tempted to ask:
"What's outside the universe?" -- recognize that you are
asking: "What's outside of existence?" and that the idea of
"something outside of existence" is a contradiction in terms;
_nothing_ is outside of existence, and "nothing" is not just
another kind of "something" -- it is _nothing._ Existence
exists; you cannot go outside it; you cannot get under it, on
top of it, or behind it. Existence exists -- and _only_
existence exists: _There_is_nowhere_else_to_go."

I offer this for you consideration.   Joey

RSS

© 2019   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service