atheists the burden of proof is on you.(this is long)?

Great point, I tried to express this before on here but I got crap answers as you are getting now. This is a question better asked to scientists in the higher ups of quantum physics. You are correct about the burden of proof though, belief in a God has been around for thousands of years, then someone made a claim more recently that a God does not exist. The burden of proof is on atheists. But only to the extent of a creator existing, the burden of proof is on theists of different denominations to prove THEIR God is the one who exists.

EDIT: To Jegged. Your beating all around the bush, also if you really can point out flaws then do so, I'm not going to take your word for it. The main point here is that for the universe to come into being from the big bang theory it would take and infinate amount of energy to expand. Also, the existence of a God has never been proven wrong. There has been "evidence" against a God, but there is also "evidence" for a God. Saying thay one has been disproven "Millions" of times is an exagerated statement often found in childrens responses. If you are not educated enough to understand what these higher ups are proposing then why try and interperate exactly what they mean?

EDIT again: To the guy below me. You should familiarize yourself with Münchhausen Trilemma, just because something is infinate does not mean it's a problem in the equation. Some things are simply infinate. For example, Pi. It goes on forever but it works just fine when using it with curved shapes, is Pi wrong? Your refering to philisophical problems in logic.

Oh, so so so many problems with your diatribe.

First, there was no "creation event." Don't make a show of discussing science and then use creationist terms in it, that's just silly.

Second, the "Big Bang" theory came from Georges LeMaitre, a catholic priest living in Belgium, as a mathematical construct based off of Einstein's General Relativity. Neither Hubble nor Einstein proposed the Big Bang theory. And it wasn't Hubble's photos that made Einstein realize he'd probably made a mistake with the cosmological constant...it was LeMaitre's mathematics. Hubble's red shift measurements (not his photographs) provided evidence to back up LeMaitre's theory.

Now, who says 13 billion years isn't enough time to "accomodate the origin of life?" (it wasn't random or chance, by the way) What evidence do you have to back that up? See, the ultimate evidence exists to prove it *is* enough time: you and I.

We don't know what the trigger was the started the expansion of space and time that is the Big Bang -- yet. However, whatever the trigger was, it does *not* need to be outside of space and time, that's an unwarranted assumption.

A collapsed star is *one* way a black hole can form -- there are lots of other ways. There is very good evidence that there are hundreds-of-millions-stellar-mass black holes at the center of every galaxy.

Real mathematics tells us that infinities are problems with our equations -- when the answer to any equation is an infinity, it means we're missing something. That means that rather than the "cause" of the Big Bang needing infinite energy (which is impossible), the way the math works out now tells us that we don't yet have all the information we need to correctly posit the "cause." But just because we don't know doesn't mean "god did it."

As for your electrostatic force nonsense -- it doesn't matter what it might have been, it only matters what it *is.* Of course it's an inverse-square value (just like any energy radiation, and gravity, are -- it's *geometry* that makes it so, not some magic number). If it were any different, you wouldn't be here to be asking about it.

There's plenty of evidence that the Big Bang actually happened. There's also a lot about it that we still don't know. People haven't even been studying it for 100 years, relax and let the scientists continue to work on it. We already know a lot more about it than we did 20 years ago.

And finally, as to "burden of proof": how's that evidence for your god coming? Got any yet? Gee, people have been trying to find evidence for a god for thousands of years, and have found none. We've only been working on the Big Bang for about 80 years, and there's a ton of evidence to support it...wonder which one is more likely?

Please go get some education.

Peace.

'Whatever caused the Big Bang must have had infinite energy.'

I disagree.

Why do you think this is the case when the known universe is finite? EDIT: sorry, I missed the bit before with your reasoning. The thing is, the laws of physics were not fused in the very early stages of the Big Bang. It isn't known exactly what conditions prevailed, so we CAN'T use general relativity to predict what state the singularity of the Big Bang was in. Precious little is known about the Planck epoch, but it is thought that all the four fundamental forces - electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravitation - all have the same strength: VERY, VERY DIFFERENT TO TODAY.

'...It also fails to get around the fact that the laws of physics seem tailor-made for life to exist.'

See the anthropic principle (in source below).

'...is as much an article of faith as believing in God.'

If you beleive this to be true, then why is the burden of proof on atheists and not equally split?

I don't understand how this places the burden of proof on the atheist. It's all well and good that you can reference some science and throw it together into a quasi-sensible passage, but the evidence you've given does not prove that there is a supreme being any more than it proves there is not.

Who is to say that some version of "life" could not have formed if the universe had formed with different materials, or with different laws of physics, etc? How could we possibly know that? To assume that just because life is so complex and (apparently) unlikely is fine, but to also assume that this somehow shifts the burden of proof in the direction of non-intelligent design is fairly simple-minded, if you ask me.

Well the reply is YES! But first allow me say that you've got an mistaken suggestion of what an atheist is and what God is. God is an ambiguous time period, actual. But once we say the phrase God we're truthfully announcing an English phrase. And England being a western ecu nation closely inspired by means of "Christian/Catholic" Theology. When anyone says the phrase God, nine/10 occasions they're speaking approximately the "Christian/Catholic" God. So whilst anyone says they're an Atheist, nine/10 occasions they're speaking approximately the Western God. A theists do not item to any viable perception that might exist approximately what God is or isn't. We simply item to the flagrant fouls. I do not care approximately the historical greek and roman gods and I am no longer going to waste time debating lifeless religions. Buddism doesnt quite have an suggestion of a God and not anything approximately the Hindue gods do I item to. I do not do not forget the Tao a god (and as an Atheist I do suppose in a kind of). I do not forget the Islamic and Jewish God's to be very nearly the identical suggestion because the Christian/Catholic God. Luckily for us Atheists, Protestants have followed most of the illogical educating approximately God from the Catholic church's dogma. So that's in which we will be able to begin. For example, if God is all loving, robust, and figuring out and evil has no significance (a catholic educating) then why is there evil. If he's all robust, why cant he create a global with out evil. If he's all figuring out, would not be in a position to grasp in which the evil is and do away with it? If he's all well, why does he enable us to preserve discomfort? There isn't any option to this obstacle. I have under no circumstances heard one. Because the educating that i'm describing is logically mistaken. It is one of the logically mistaken educating on God, which might be being taught particularly by means of the Catholic Church however more often than not followed by means of the Protestants. It is the identical as though a instructor have been educating that two+two=five and it's the nook stone of what I item to. How are you able to get this fallacious and be "infallible"? I recognize that Protestants do not say they're "infallible" however they definite do act adore it. Especially with regards to their possess inturpruations of the Bible. And "infallibilty" is what reasons or else Good humans to behave in essentially the most immoral approaches. Look on the Sept eleven top jackers. They have been constructive there's a God werent they?

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, theorized before its discovery, is your biggest confirmation of the Big Bang.

"Big Bang" was the detractors' misnomer for the theory. In fact, no BB theorist claims there was a bang or that it was big. The name just stuck. However, it is hubris of the first water that high energy physicists can describe the nuclear physics of the universe all the way back to the Planck time (10^-34 sec ATB).

Of course it's controversial. We are at the cutting edge of discovery here. But I can't name one sound scientific theory in the last 100 years that was shown to be absolutely false. These theories are improved, not discarded. It is not a question of "proving" the nucleogenesis of the universe, it is a question of refining our understanding. Einstein refined Newton's laws, he didn't overthrow them. Same here -- Big Bang theory is still alive and well, and if it eventually turns out that there is some other mechanism, it would still have to take into account the expansion of space, the physics as applied to the universe, especially quantum physics.

Your underlying premise here is that 13.7 billion years of time is not enough time to accommodate the origin of life by random chance or process. Sounds like a helluva long time to me. Granted, it doesn't explain the origin of life, but the prevalence of it everywhere on this planet tells me that life found a way.

You have proof - the background radiation. It's on your television and radio whenever a station goes off air. The other part of your question about what caused the big bang is no different to the question who created God. You believe God has always existed and nothing is going to change that view. I believe that there are answers to the existence of the universe that do not involve some omnipotent being. Neither of us are very likely to get either answer.

Your argument re the values of physical constants is meaningless. If they were substantially different then there would be nobody around to even pose the question.

The original singularity wasn't a black hole.

The big bang wasn't just particles flying out. Space in general expanded.

Life is tailor made for the existing laws of nature, not the other way around.

What do you mean neutrons have hydrogen?

The electro static force is naturally inversely proportional to distance squared. What possible explaination would result in it being inversely proportional to distance to the power 2.00001?

Talk to an astrophysicist about this. Do you really think you'll get an adequate description of the big bang from yahoo answers?

First of the Big Bang Theory is not purely an atheistic view, it is a scientific theory. There are Christians who accept the theory.

So don't ask Atheists about it; go to the science section and ask a cosmologist with a degree regarding this theory. I've read a few books about this subject and you're pretty inaccurate on it.

there are actually in scientists in spain studying a theory that time is slowing down giving the illusion of an expanding universe, but i personally feel that the big bang theory is true and was caused by dark matter (it pushes things away from it like the opposite of gravity) because if all the dark matter in the universe (estimated to be more then normal matter) was concentrated it would of course explode so if you still disagree with me and believe that god created the universe then i have 8 words for you "The law of conservation of energy and mass" stating that energy and mass can neither be created nor destroyed

The burden of proof is on the people who claim there is a god. No one sees or hears him, so prove it(and a 2,000 yr. old book isn't proof.) Evolution had been proven