• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

I also believe that if more atheists found out about all this, and then took some time to dwell on it, it would effect the beliefs of some.

It may well cause some atheists to change their mind -- that kind of thing doesn't always require a well-crafted argument. So far, it seems that you have changed the mind of no-one in this thread.

btw,
Atheism is more common amongst working scientists than amongst the public in general.
 
Due to the well thought-out nature of her posts, and agreement with what I want to say but in a more erudite manner, I'd appreciate it if people could just mentally add, "plus what Fiona said" at the end of my posts.

Thanks.
 
DOC - let me re-iterate my offer. One copy each of Climbing Mount Improbable and The Big Bang to you if you'll promise to read them and post your reviews here. They are both readable, comprehensive and accessible summaries of the basics of the two theories you have so much problem with.

What have you got to lose? You'll learn what the things you are so convinced are wrong actually say, the better to arm yourself against these kinds of threads. All you'll be doing is preventing yourself arguing against strawmen.
 
Actually my personal opinion is that most atheists (and theists also) don't know that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe and that they all came from a thing smaller than a single atom according to mainline scientific "theory". They might have heard of the big bang, but they know what that entails.

On what do you base this opinion, if I may ask?

I also believe that if more atheists found out about all this, and then took some time to dwell on it, it would effect the beliefs of some.

Why? I've told literally thousands of people about this exact thing, and the reactions I have seen generally range from "so what" through to "pretty cool" and "how do we know?"
 
If anything, I suspect that this whole argument, as with the previous one, is backwards.

So it would be :

Many theists do not understand the scientific principles of abiogenesis or the big bang, and if they did, it would affect the beliefs of some.

Maybe. That's clearly a massive generalisation and probably unfair to many theists, but it's probably more accurate than the previous incarnation.
 
Last edited:
I want my money back. Just read through the entire thread, and right there, on the previous page (page 5), DOC more or less re-posts his OP. Completely ignoring almost everything that has been written in-between.
 
Since he's a fictional character, I guess you could say whatever you want; doesn't make him any more real.
Santa Claus isn't subjected to time either. That's why he can visit the houses of all the good little boys and girls in the time it would take less fictional characters to make a ham sandwich.
 
Maybe Doc has heard that gravitational/electromagnetic forces didn't exist immediately after the BB. I can't think of a reasonable quote which wouldn't mentioned unified forces, but maybe he heard something unreasonable.

So he asks: if these natural forces weren't shaping the BB, what did? Some other natural force? Or a supernatural force?

The given answer is the union of the natural forces.

I don't remember if the Singh book mentions unificiation of forces. And it's not something I understand.
His refusal to answer the question is clear, don't you think? Doesn't matter what he "heard". Only what his argument is.
If you heat up water to high enough temperatures, then the water molecules break up. I can imagine something similar for atoms, or even subatomic particles. But conditions so extreme that the forces join up? How does a force unify with another? What does it even mean?
Actually, the molecules don't break up when water turns to stream. The molecules stay in tact. What occurs is as you add heat (increase the enthalpy of the water), the kinetic energy of each individual molecule exceeds the cohesive intermolecular forces resulting in the escape of the water molecule from the liquid state to the gas state. The tendency of the escape to occur is determined by the water's fugacity.
Maybe it's time to go over to the science forum....
We all can stand to learn.

ETA: I know the analogy of water you give was to describe the events with high heat. I wanted to refer to what my original question to DOC was and know why HE (not you, not anyone else) felt his questions were logical.
 
Last edited:
You asked if atheists do not care about the origin of the universe: well surprising as it may be to you that is exactly where I find myself. I couldn't give a toss, frankly. What science is telling us is interesting but it does not impinge on my life at all and my interests (as in what I really pay attention to) are elsewhere.
That's kind of my position too. When asked "How did it all begin?" I give Bogart's (Marlowe's) answer: "I can't remember that far back." It's not as though the answer is likely to change my life -- "if the big bang is correct, I will kick the puppy, but if the evidence favors the steady state, I will eat the baby." As an atheist, it's a given that I will kick the puppy AND eat the baby, and the musings of physicists and cosmologists are powerless to change that.

I'll readily admit that I don't really "understand" the science underpinning BB theory (vast numbers of galaxies expanding from something the size of a BB, I hear) any more than I "understand" quantum mechanics (electrons go from here to there, and never occupy the space between? Maybe THEY'RE Santa Claus...)

Even though some of the claims of science may be incredible enough to make me incredulous, I can't see myself EVER making the illogical leap to "That stuff can't possibly be true, therefore we'll live forever and an undetectable all-powerful all-knowing benevolent spirit governs us all." I'm willing to grant that "that stuff" may be shown to be incorrect some day, either in minor details or in major concepts, but the world's too big and complicated, and my time and abilities are too limited to understand or even to expose myself to all of it. I'll worry about how to get this piece of code to do what it's supposed to do, and let others worry about what happened in a critical sub-second span more than 13 billion years ago.
 
Actually, the molecules don't break up when water turns to stream. The molecules stay in tact.
I expect if you heat the steam enough, the molecular bonds will break as well, which is how I read the original statement. I could be wrong about both the intended meaning of the original statement and the hypothesis that if you make it hot enough, water will break into hydrogen and oxygen. I know the "standard" method of splitting water molecules is electrolysis, which doesn't depend on heat.
 
God is an eternal Spirit according to mainline Christianity (although this is not true in the Mormon faith). God being an eternal Spirit can dwell in the universe but not in any way be subjected to or influenced by time. (Unless He chose to for some reason)
And this eternal, "outside of time" spirit* expects his worshipers to practice symbolic, ritualistic canabalism? I think if more people knew what christinanity said, then perhaps we'd have less christians.


*Defining something which has never been observed as being outside of time is like defining the color of something invisible.
 
I expect if you heat the steam enough, the molecular bonds will break as well, which is how I read the original statement. I could be wrong about both the intended meaning of the original statement and the hypothesis that if you make it hot enough, water will break into hydrogen and oxygen. I know the "standard" method of splitting water molecules is electrolysis, which doesn't depend on heat.
Yes, that is true, but I wasa refering to the original question I was posing to DOC, which firegarden seemed to be referring to. Again, DOC claimed these were obeying natural forces (which he later called natural physical laws). I know the laws at play, but was not (and still not) convinced that DOC does.
 
Or have faith to believe something you don't understand is true.
Not blind faith. I understand the scientific method, logic, reason, experimentation, publishing, peer review, replication and the predictive power of theory. I understand that theoretical physicists make prediction and then test them and other scientists try to tear those theories apart. Further I don't simply wallow in ignorance and argue based on my incredulity. I make sincere attempts to try and understand. I've read A Brief History of Time and The Elegant Universe and I will read the books recommended by Volatile.

Don't compare me to you. My faith is borne of something far greater than the blind devotion that has given us thousands of gods. It's based on reason and logic.
 
For our Christian friends lurking in this thread who are scratching their heads about the problem of compressing matter to extremely small volumes, I offer a little lecture. Some people have already touched on these things, but I’d like to make it tidy. Most posters here can skip this. Here goes...

The matter that was compressed in the Big Bang was not in the form of stars, planets, galaxies, dirt, or even atoms as we know them today. The closer you get to the hypothetical Point of Origin -- the Big Bang -- the weirder matter gets.

At a certain point in time, the universe was nothing but hydrogen atoms (mostly, to be precise). As you go backwards in time, getting closer to the BB, there’s not a hydrogen atom to be found, only baryons -- protons and neutrons. Keep going and there are no baryons any more, only a kind of quark-gluon plasma. Keep going and you pass the inflationary period where even the quarks disappear. Some theories have a universe entirely made of strings, from the infamous superstring theory. Keep going, and who knows what you get. At his point, we simply don’t. However, there’s nothing to say we can’t. Eventually.

In fact, we know that at each point along the way, matter becomes increasingly compressible. We even have evidence of this from the real world, such as with neutron starsWP:

A typical neutron star has a mass between 1.35 and about 2.1 solar masses, with a corresponding radius between 20 and 10 km,[1] respectively—in contrast, the Sun is 30,000 to 70,000 times larger. Thus, neutron stars have overall densities of 8.4 × 1016 to 1 × 1018 kg/m³,[2] which compares with the approximate density of an atomic nucleus of 3 × 1017 kg/m³.[3] The neutron star's density varies from below 1 × 109 kg/m³ in the crust increasing with depth to above 6 or 8 × 1017 kg/m³ deeper inside.[4]


This relates to the Chandrasekhar limit discussed above. It’s roughly the dividing line between a normal star (down to a white dwarf) and a neutron star. After that, you’re looking at the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, which defines the line between a neutron star, and what would be a quark star (if they exist). The densities correspondingly increase. That is, matter becomes increasingly compressible.

But that’s not the whole story. As has been mentioned, even the five forces get weird the closer you get to the BB. The strong and weak nuclear forces become indistinguishable from each other, and that force merges with electromagnetism, and eventually even gravity joins the fray until you’re left with only one single superforce.

But even that’s not all. The distinction between force and force carrier blurs at some point. The difference between force and force carrier, and spacetime itself eventually blurs.

In short, the higher your energy density, the more exotic the universe becomes. At some stage you’re no longer talking about compressing “matter” at all, as we generally think of it.

In fact, The mystery isn’t really that this highly weird, exotic and anti-intuitive universe can become increasingly compressed the closer you get to the BB. The real mystery is that we can actually model what’s happening mathematically. That we can, in some sense, understand it.

How do we do that? Ah, yes... they call it “science.” Wonderful stuff, that.

Okay, class dismissed.
 
In The Beginning there was...

Something.

What this something was, Scientists aren't really sure, but they have a lot of really good ideas, though sometimes this resulted in food fights.

Technically, this Something was nowhere. Or everywhere was in the same place. Or.. Something.

Then Something caused this Something to suddenly expand. What were the somethings? Well, no-one knows, but there were more food fights.

Moments after Something caused the Something to expand, we start to understand. The Something is Hydrogen. Lots of it. A great deal of it.

The Hydrogen , via Gravity, bound together, forming stars. The Stars compressed the hydrogen in other forms of matter, such as Oxygen, Iron, Chemicals, People, Conspiracy Theorists, and Theists.

Thats right. Everything. You me, rocks, computers, planets, is made of Star Dust. Left-over remnants from ancient dead stars and supernovas. No food fights were involved this time.

There is evidence for this. There is the 'fossilized' remants of the Big Bang (Horrendous Space Kablooie!) called the cosmic Background Radiation.

Of course, there is still some more confusion. The Universe is still expanding, and getting faster at it. This is where the concepts of Dark Matter, and Dark Energy come into play. Possibly more food fights as well.

In a nutshell? We have evidence for the Big Bang, but we don't know what was there BEFORE the Big Bang We're doing our darnest to find out. Ain't science grand?
 
I want my money back. Just read through the entire thread, and right there, on the previous page (page 5), DOC more or less re-posts his OP. Completely ignoring almost everything that has been written in-between.

And this surprised you?
 
And this surprised you?

Hope dies last. No, I'm afraid it didn't surprise me. In fact, it makes me feel rather sad.

Look at all the brain power in this forum. There are smart and very educated people in just about any field here. And yet, some folks reading their posts seem to be completely ignorant of simple facts, well-known logical fallacies and general style in discussion.

A good example might be the pea/point issue in this thread regarding the "size" of the universe right before the BB. Let's say you didn't know about that before reading this thread. Now, after reading the thread, you should realize it was a gazillion times smaller than a pea. In fact, you should realize that the term "size" as we use it in everyday conversation does not apply at all. Even a microscope won't help you here. You should realize that this is not about some ultra super squeezing machine compressing matter to levels beyond imagination. You should instead realize that you have entered the realm of (theoretical) physics, where silly comparisons and pseudo-questions won't be of any help.

Yet, some people in some threads fail to do so, or fail to admit it. And it does not require a degree. Just common sense and basic reading comprehension, imho.
 
The amusing part is my mistake doesn't at all effect the signifigance of the question that I asked on the first page of this thread. The question that has remained unanswered.

Oh well, I think your avatar is quite appropriate for this thread though. Proof that the big bang occured, isn't it?

Yes, the 2.7 K COBE image. It has always been very impressive to me because of the difficulty involved in acquiring it.
 

Back
Top Bottom