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

[elipse]

Although I don't think he is, just in case Doc is really serious about finding out whether athiests know about the big bang, here are my answers.

I have a layman's knowledge of the big bang
and
it does not affect my athiest views in any way.

You seem to be under a few false impressions, Doc:
*Since the theory of the big bang is incomprehensible for you, it must be incomprehensible to everyone (or most)
*That there are only two options: the big bang, or the story of genesis from the bible
*That the incomprehensibility of the big bang makes the story of genesis somehow more comprehensible, ie, that those who doubt the plausibility of the big bang will somehow find the story of a magic power suddenly poofing the world (universe?) into existance, (but doing so in such a way that this power left no evidence whatsoever of his/her/its existance, and indeed left false evidence that the universe was instead created and expanded by natural means), more plausible

Put another way: Whether or not I personally find the leading scientific theory for the origin of the universe plausible or comprehensible has nothing to do with whether the genesis myth is plausible or comprehesible. If scientists scrapped the big bang theory tomorrow and said instead that the universe was created from the unholy union of rabid space weasels, I would doubt it, but neither their theory nor my doubt of it would lend an ounce of credence to the origin myth of the bible. The entire scientific community could espouse the Rabid Space Weasel theory, and I STILL wouldn't believe in god. The entire scientific community could (and frequently does) say "We have no idea!", and I still wouldn't (and don't) believe in god. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

 

[articulett]

Plus the Gregorian calendar didn't start when this Jesus fellow was born, and every one said, "hey, "It's year 0... The year numbering system for the Common Era was devised by the monk Dionysius Exiguus in the year 525. That's right... he made it up 525 years after the supposed blessed event. Jeez. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

Even if he was a real person... that's like trying to guess the year Columbus' middle child was born... (with the presumption that he had children and middle child)-- and then deciding that year was year 0, and then insisting everyone date the years forward accordingly.

And what Elipse said... I'm sure that is true of Every atheist I know--and probably the vast majority of the ones I don't know either. There is no more evidence for your biblical fairytale (which shows amazing ignorance about the nature of our universe--heck, even first grader's know that our sun is just a star) than all the other crazy beliefs people have had through the eons.

Think DOC.

 

[zooterkin]

Your implication that I thought Einstein live to be 100 was incorrect.

So, what does the following exchange mean?

Please name just one of these centenarian scientists.

Einstein for one.

 

[FireGarden]

And if what you said about Einstein is true, why did he say using the constant {aka fudge factor} was the biggest regret of his career.

If Einstein had been a bit braver, he could have predicted the expansion of the universe.

Einstein did, indeed, believe the the universe to be static until he was shown he was wrong. His own theorem wasn't enough to convince him he was wrong. There's actually a lesson there. I'm not sure what it is entirely.

 

[FireGarden]

That's not why I asked you to look up the decay of atoms. There is no known cause for why atoms decay. Does this cause scientists to riot in the streets? No.

There are some who do look at such things as cause and effect.

Jastrow is still wrong, because plenty of scientists were willing to give up on cause and effect. But Sol Invictus hasn't:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120671

I don't know his qualifications, but he knows enough to convince me he knows more than me.

 

[Worm]

This PhD. says the universe will burn out. If he can say it I should be able to say it without being attacked.

http://www.drtruth.org/Infinity2b.html

DOC, that page is possibly one of the worst sources you have quoted.

The fact that the guy is apparently a PhD is irrelevant (and is probably totally pointless - it depends what his PhD is in..)

There is simply so much wrong with a lot of what he says that using it to support your viewpoint is simply hurting you rather than helping you.

 

[volatile]

Volatile, thought you'd like to know one lurker has gone out and bought "Big Bang". I learned more in the first 2 chapters than I have for a very long and am looking forward to finding the time to finish it. Thank you for the recommendation.

Oooh, great news. It's a shame DOC isn't so bold. I can't fathom what's so scary about knowledge...

 

[Mashuna]

The fact that the guy is apparently a PhD is irrelevant (and is probably totally pointless - it depends what his PhD is in..).

You have to believe Dr Truth. He's got a PhD in Truthology.

 

[Aitch]

Oooh, great news. It's a shame DOC isn't so bold. I can't fathom what's so scary about knowledge...

I've just gone and ordered a copy via Amazon, too. At this rate we're going to need to open a branch of Big-Bang Anonymous.

"Hi, my name is Steve and I own a copy of Simon Singh's Big Bang".

 

[Mark Felt]

There are some who do look at such things as cause and effect.

Jastrow is still wrong, because plenty of scientists were willing to give up on cause and effect. But Sol Invictus hasn't:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120671

I don't know his qualifications, but he knows enough to convince me he knows more than me.

Hey, if it's figured out, great. I want my jetpack.

I like the idea of random atom decay, though. It kills the idea of determinism for me.

 

[Hokulele]

You have to believe Dr Truth. He's got a PhD in Truthology.

I will give DOC some credit, as Dr Truth does have a PhD in Astronomy, and most of the basic physics is correct. What he does with the basic physics ...

And you should read his "About Me" section and his rant regarding aliens. Apparently before he got all Christy, he was a UFO researcher. The website is a hoot and a half!

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I still maintain time had a beginning according to science.

According to what science? Please specify.

There are numerous variations of the Big Bang theory out there. Not one of them is complete enough to get us to within the Plank dimensions. This includes the dimension of time.

It’s possible some future theory will espouse a definitive beginning. At present, no such theory exists. So I ask again: time had a beginning according to what science? Please be specific.

And if what you said about Einstein is true, why did he say using the constant {aka fudge factor} was the biggest regret of his career.

FireGarden touched on this. Einstein’s equations for General Relativity in their original derivation implied a non-static universe. At the time they were derived, there wasn’t a jot of evidence for such a ridiculous monster. He added a term to ensure it was static, as everyone "knew" it be.

Had he not added that term, he would’ve made possibly the greatest -- certainly the boldest -- prediction in the entire history of science. His regret was in flubbing such a golden opportunity.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Actually Norman Geisler's clear description of the concept of the big bang in his book "I Don't Have the Faith to be an Atheist" was the reason I understood... etc., etc...

Well, I just googled Geisler. Turns out...

He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University and is the co-founder and long-time Dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary, in Charlotte, North Carolina.

http://www.normangeisler.net/

DOC, getting all your science info from religious apologists with an agenda to grind isn’t going to cut it. Imagine the following conversation...

Atheist: Did you know Jesus told his apostles to go home and beat their wives?

Christian: Hogwash. The Bible says no such thing.

A: Does, too.

C: Where is it in the Bible? Show me.

A: Atheist Bob told me. He wrote a whole book!

C: Tell you what. I’ll give you a free copy of the Bible. You read it, and tell me where it says that.

A: Pfff. Like I’m gonna read the Bible.

C: You can’t make assertions about the Bible if you've never read it.

A: Atheist Bob’s got a Ph.D. in Russian Lit!

C: So what? Read the original. It tells you all you need to know.

A: Why waste my time?

C: Because you’ll learn you’re wrong.

A: Not only did Jesus tell his apostles to beat their wives. He also told them to kick kitty cats!

C: Oy. Remind me why I'm wasting my time with you?



If you don’t get the point, DOC, I’ll be happy to elaborate.

 

[DOC]

According to what science? Please specify.

There are numerous variations of the Big Bang theory out there. Not one of them is complete enough to get us to within the Plank dimensions. This includes the dimension of time.

It’s possible some future theory will espouse a definitive beginning. At present, no such theory exists. So I ask again: time had a beginning according to what science? Please be specific.



FireGarden touched on this. Einstein’s equations for General Relativity in their original derivation implied a non-static universe. At the time they were derived, there wasn’t a jot of evidence for such a ridiculous monster. He added a term to ensure it was static, as everyone "knew" it be.

Had he not added that term, he would’ve made possibly the greatest -- certainly the boldest -- prediction in the entire history of science. His regret was in flubbing such a golden opportunity.

Here is an excerpt from the book "I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek (pg. 73):

"It was 1916 and Albert Einstein didn't like where his calculations were leading him. If his theory of General Relativity was true , it meant that the universe was not eternal but had a beginning. Einstein's calculations indeed were revealing a definite beginning to all time , all matter, and all space. This flew in the face of his belief that the universe was static and eternal. Einstein later called his discovery "irritating". He wanted the universe to be self existent-not reliant on any outside cause- but the universe appeared to be one giant effect. In fact, Einstein so disliked the implications of General Relativity-a theory that is now proven accurate to five decimal places- that he introduced a cosmological constant (which some have since call a "fudge factor") into his equations in order to show that the universe is static and to avoid an absolute beginning.

But Einstein's fudge factor didn't fudge for long. In 1919, British cosmologist Arthur Eddington conducted an experiment during a solar eclipse which confirmed that General Relativity was indeed true- the universe wasn't static but had a beginning. Like Einstein, Eddington wasn't happy with the implications. He later wrote, "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me... I should like to find a genuine loophole."

 

[FireGarden]

"It was 1916 and Albert Einstein didn't like where his calculations were leading him. If his theory of General Relativity was true , it meant that the universe was not eternal but had a beginning. Einstein's calculations indeed were revealing a definite beginning to all time , all matter, and all space.

Einsteins calculations implied that the universe was expanding. Such expansion does not imply a beginning. Relativity on its own won't rule out the steady state theorem. As the wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-steady_state_cosmology

states, Hoyle's theory fell from favour after the microwave background radiation was discovered. This radiation was predicted on the grounds that the universe would have been very hot for a while after the Big Bang. (The radiation actually represents the moment the universe became transparent).

The reason Einstein didn't like the idea of expansion was that nobody had noticed such a thing. As has been said, it would have been a wonderful prediction. But Einstein chose to back current dogma.

But Einstein's fudge factor didn't fudge for long. In 1919, British cosmologist Arthur Eddington conducted an experiment during a solar eclipse which confirmed that General Relativity was indeed true- the universe wasn't static but had a beginning.

Eddington's experiment backed up relativity as a theory of gravity -- not as a cosmological theory.

Eddington measured the amount by which light is bent when it passes close to the surface of the sun. Einstein's prediction was different to Newton's. The experiment backed Einstein.

It was Hubble who indicated that the Universe was expanding. He did this by constructing a graph of distance against red-shift of galaxies. He found that the more distant galaxies had a larger red-shift, and so were moving away from us more quickly.

When Einstein heard this he kicked himself and shook Hubble's hand.

Like Einstein, Eddington wasn't happy with the implications. He later wrote, "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me... I should like to find a genuine loophole."

I'll have to look that up.
Eddington certainly knew that his solar exclipse experiment was consistent with relativity as Einstein had chosen to describe it.

 

[DOC]

DOC, getting all your science info from religious apologists with an agenda to grind isn’t going to cut it.

Making a false statement like this, can make one think you're the one with an agenda.

 

[FireGarden]

Eddington made the above quote in 1931:
http://darwiniana.com/2007/04/27/eddington-anti-chance/

The article was called "The end of the world: from the standpoint of mathematical physics". And he's talking about "end" as in boundary. (you can read the first page of the article here:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3606671 )

Hubble stated his law in 1929:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble#Redshift_increases_with_distance

Eddington was saying that we can't see what is happening at the beginning of the universe. This is a problem, he says, because physical laws describe things in terms of boundary conditions. That is the dilemma he wants to solve.

A way out of the dilemma has been proposed which seems to have found favour with a number of scientific workers. I oppose it because I think it is untenable, not because of any desire to retain the present dilemma, I should like to find a genuine loophole. But that does not alter my conviction that the loophole that is at present being advocated is a blind alley.

So he's saying that some scientists have an answer to the dilemma of not being able to see how things were at the beginning. He rejects the solution. He would like to find a solution he can accept.


Although Eddington accepted General Relativity as true, he did not accept a beginning to the universe. He was a steady stater of some sort or other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Stanley_Eddington#Cosmology

However, he never accepted the argument that an expanding universe required a beginning. He rejected what would later be known as Big Bang cosmologies as 'too unaesthetically abrupt.' He felt the cosmical constant must have played the crucial role in the universe's evolution from an Einsteinian steady state to its current expanding state, and most of his cosmological investigations focused on the constant's significance and characteristics.

He died in 1944, before the discovery of the microwave background radiation. It was that data which, in the opinion of Stephen Hawking, was the nail in the coffin of steady state. Eddington's solar eclipse experiment was a test of relativity's predictions as a theory of gravity.


btw,
The title of one of Eddington's books:
"Why I Believe in God: Science and Religion, as a Scientist Sees It"

So any talk of Eddington being reluctant to accept a beginning to the universe should not claim that his reluctance was based on a fear of admitting that God exists.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Here is an excerpt from the book "I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek (pg. 73):

"It was 1916 and Albert Einstein didn't like where his calculations were leading him. If his theory of General Relativity was true , it meant that the universe was not eternal but had a beginning.

Again, your source is misleading you. The equations of relativity implied a non-static universe -- it could’ve been expanding or contracting. In fact, Einstein was initially concerned that an otherwise static universe would contract -- which is why he added the constant.

Einstein included the cosmological constant as a term in his field equations for general relativity because he was dissatisfied that otherwise his equations did not allow, apparently, for a static universe: gravity would cause a universe which was initially at dynamic equilibrium to contract. To counteract this possibility, Einstein added the cosmological constant.

wiki

A contracting universe implies an end, not necessarily a beginning. It wasn’t until the red shift data came in that people realized it was expanding.

Einstein's calculations indeed were revealing a definite beginning to all time , all matter, and all space.

You can repeat this ad naseum, use all the evangelical “experts” you have, it won’t make it true.

But Einstein's fudge factor didn't fudge for long. In 1919, British cosmologist Arthur Eddington conducted an experiment during a solar eclipse which confirmed that General Relativity was indeed true- the universe wasn't static but had a beginning.

“Not static” isn't the same as “had a beginning.”

Making a false statement like this, can make one think you're the one with an agenda.

I’d be happy to be proven false. So what resources on physics do you use that weren’t written by people with a religious agenda? So far, you’ve relied heavily on Geisler -- an evangelical with a degree in philosophy -- for your understanding of the Big Bang, with a little “Dr. Truth” -- another religious agenda -- thrown in*.

And while we’re at it, what’s my agenda, DOC? And what do you base your guess on?



*Dr. Truth’s religious agenda on parade:

C. The Universe is Not the First Cause, God is!

Therefore, the universe is not the self-existent first cause of all other things. There must be some other first cause, which is the cause of everything, including the universe, and which continues to be the first cause of everything that happens today. And we assert that it is reasonable (by the ordinary definition of the word) to call this first cause of all things God. Therefore, there is a God who/that made the universe.

 

[arthwollipot]

Here is an excerpt from the book "I Don't have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek (pg. 73):

A nice, unbiased source then.

 

[FireGarden]

Again, your source is misleading you. The equations of relativity implied a non-static universe -- it could’ve been expanding or contracting. In fact, Einstein was initially concerned that an otherwise static universe would contract -- which is why he added the constant.

You're correct.
I was wrong in my above posts to limit things to expansion.

In retrospect, given the old theories that the universe would collapse if there was enough matter, this should have been obvious to me.