(August 17, 2012 at 5:00 am)apophenia Wrote:
While I wholly agree that theist "something from nothing" arguments are pathetic and tiresome, let's not rush to embrace one fable to displace a more odious one. At present, the science is still unsettled. We don't know how the universe began, if it began and why. I'd say however, that in the same way that Dawkins referred to Darwin making it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, modern physics and cosmology provide plausible alternatives to this apologetic chestnut. And I dare say, the alternatives that science posits make use of demonstrable mechanisms; the GodDidit hypothesis does not.
One minor point. Some physicists, like Hawking, do not postulate a singularity, as when the universe was below the Planck length, our physics simply no longer apply.
Agree with you. Perhaps this thread should be in the life sciences section.
I am just fed up with Xtians saying to me "What happened before the Big Bang then?" or equating BBT with Genesis and declaring "Look, even your beloved science agrees with the bible".
The other one that irritates me is when apologists start mentioning the 2nd law of thermodynamics to "prove" that an agency must have had a hand in the creation of complex stuff. I find that asking them to state the 2nd law usually puts that one to bed.
Regards
Grimesy
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Edward Gibbon
