[Aphotic Cosmos]

(Original post by 007pieman)
Atheist's call themselves rationalists but it is totally irrational to believe that the Big Bang was a random event. How could something come from nothing?

We don't entirely know.

But I'll tell you what didn't happen - someone in the image of a human creating all matter in six days and laying down the laws of physics, biology and chemistry, then waiting 13.7bn years before creating his magnum opus, letting them suffer horrifically for 99% of the existence of the species as hunter-gatherers, nearing extinction several times, before revealing his son to one group in the middle of the ****ing desert, who promptly went and got himself killed so that all of our "sins" are forgiven.

[Manzzzzz]

(Original post by RolyBholi)
Well then perhaps the big bang was uncreated.

So the universe began to exist (Big Bang), so this means the universe has a cause. What is the nature of this cause? If it created the universe it cant be part of the universe because if it's part of the universe then that would mean the universe would exist and not exist at the same time. It must be one, the most logical explanation, it must be all powerful, self sufficient and it must be uncreated.

[milkytea]

(Original post by 007pieman)
What's the other theory then?
It all comes down to the fact that the first ever 'thing' must have had a creator!

There is no "other theory" specifically. Most of the point of atheism is that we do not believe in a magical and extremely improbable theory, but rather are open-minded and accept that we do not currently fully understand the cause of the universe.

You're right that there must be some sort of ultimate cause, but we don't know anything about the nature of that cause. You say it must have had a creator - but how do we know for sure that's true? Why does the Big Bang have to be a result of intelligent design? It may have been, but we don't know. Hence the atheism.

[cl_steele]

if its irrational to believe the big bang came from nothing where did god come from?

[Wednesday Bass]

(Original post by 007pieman)
What's the other theory then?
It all comes down to the fact that the first ever 'thing' must have had a creator!

The thing tripping you up here is the word "theory". In the scientific community the word "theory" is defined as fact, it's been peer reviewed and is generally accepted as the answer to what happened. The way most people see the word theory is, in fact, a scientific hypothesis.

And as others have pointed out, the Big Bang does not describe the creation of every single atom in the universe, but where recorded time starts from.

[RolyBholi]

(Original post by Manzzzzz)
So the universe began to exist (Big Bang), so this means the universe has a cause. What is the nature of this cause? If it created the universe it cant be part of the universe because if it's part of the universe then that would mean the universe would exist and not exist at the same time. It must be one, the most logical explanation, it must be all powerful, self sufficient and it must be uncreated.

There is no 'must' about it. Illogical.

Please, please tell me you are not referring to theism as being logical?

[Bilco]

Only religion claims something came from nothing. Anyone with a basic understanding of the big bang knows this isn't the case.

[Manzzzzz]

(Original post by RolyBholi)
There is no 'must' about it. Illogical.

Please, please tell me you are not referring to theism as being logical?

Which makes more sense, the Big Bang was a random event or that it was under the control of a creator?

[Bilco]

(Original post by Manzzzzz)
So the universe began to exist (Big Bang), so this means the universe has a cause. What is the nature of this cause? If it created the universe it cant be part of the universe because if it's part of the universe then that would mean the universe would exist and not exist at the same time. It must be one, the most logical explanation, it must be all powerful, self sufficient and it must be uncreated.

Why do you think this argument applies to the start of the universe? Had William Lane Craig had the stones to discuss this topic with Lawrence Krauss he would have found out exactly why this argument doesn't work.

[Manzzzzz]

(Original post by Bilco)
Why do you think this argument applies to the start of the universe? Had William Lane Craig had the stones to discuss this topic with Lawrence Krauss he would have found out exactly why this argument doesn't work.

I'm not arguing that this was the creation of the universe, rather it's more about a creator.

[Bilco]

(Original post by Manzzzzz)
Which makes more sense, the Big Bang was a random event or that it was under the control of a creator?

How do you know the current state of the universe wasn't the only way the universe could have existed making this anything other than a random event? Or, more than likely, the universe exists in the state it does because that was the one that happened to have started. A large number of combinations could have existed just happens to be this one. So not a random event just an event.

EDIT: I should probably ask. What do you mean by 'random' here?

[Bilco]

(Original post by Manzzzzz)
I'm not arguing that this was the creation of the universe, rather it's more about a creator.

Its the 'what begins to exist has a cause' argument. Doesn't matter how you put it. The argument fails at its premise because it assumes this to be the case for the start of the universe. Krauss tried to explain this in the William Lane Craig debate, but Craig wanted to talk about Jesus......with a theoretical physicist.....typical Craig.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Manzzzzz)
Which makes more sense, the Big Bang was a random event or that it was under the control of a creator?

why aren't you a deist? That's where all these creator arguments lead me to (even though I'm not one)

[gateshipone]

(Original post by 007pieman)
Yes it's 2012 and challenging theories is the way society's knowledge and understanding progresses.

Yet you insist on basing your opinions and 'knowledge' of the creation of the universe on a 2000 year old book? (assuming you're Christian that is). If questioning and challenging the established theories was really what you were interested in then you'd have thrown away your holy book a long time ago.

[RolyBholi]

(Original post by Manzzzzz)
Which makes more sense, the Big Bang was a random event or that it was under the control of a creator?

You cannot bring sense into anything to do with god... If that's what you want to do: does it make sense that this creator has never appeared? Has never taken any metaphysical form? Apparently created the world in 7 days?

I have no patience for theists such as yourself; such a lack of logic and a stubborn unwillingness to even try to understand rationality and logic just gives me a headache. Fairwell, I'm off to take a nurofen.

[TheProfessional]

Interestingly, the word 'Atheism' means belief against a deity, that is to say they don't believe in any divinity, yet some Atheists claim that belief is foolish! Hang on, if belief is stupid, you're including yourself in this too! Sometimes they just need to take a look at their own logic.

That being said, everyone makes their own faith choice, and it is not for me to tell people they're wrong if the supposed existence of said deity cannot be proved. I would just add, however, that there is no absolute disproof either...

Atheists, this is my message to you: 'I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it' (Voltaire)

[TheProfessional]

And please, let's not try to insult people's beliefs on this forum, there are some people who take faith seriously.

There are gaps with either theory, what gets me really irritated is pretentious Atheists who claim that Theists can prove nothing, when they cannot disprove it.

How is it illogical to assume 'intelligent design'?

[Gofre]

(Original post by TheProfessional)
Interestingly, the word 'Atheism' means belief against a deity, that is to say they don't believe in any divinity, yet some Atheists claim that belief is foolish! Hang on, if belief is stupid, you're including yourself in this too! Sometimes they just need to take a look at their own logic.

That being said, everyone makes their own faith choice, and it is not for me to tell people they're wrong if the supposed existence of said deity cannot be proved. I would just add, however, that there is no absolute disproof either...

Atheists, this is my message to you: 'I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it' (Voltaire)

We don't simply say "belief is foolish" we say "belief in remarkably complex forms of deity with literally zero supporting evidence is foolish", there's a substantial difference.

[darkfang77]

Not another one of these again.

A.) Please show where a legit, reputable website says "the universe came from nothing"
B.) So God was never "not there" was he? In the start, there was God and nothing but God? God came from something or he came from nothing. The former is what theists are afraid of most so they hedge all their bets on the latter.
C.) Intelligent design? The world has been around for millions of years, millions of years of directed improvement and growth and adaptation. The Haley's Watch theorem is like picking up a watch that was only found in one gap of time which does not even represent a fraction of the time that was included in evolution.

[Gofre]

(Original post by TheProfessional)
And please, let's not try to insult people's beliefs on this forum, there are some people who take faith seriously.

There are gaps with either theory, what gets me really irritated is pretentious

Atheism is not necessarily a self contained theory, it's almost always rejection of your assertion. You can have positive atheists who explicitly claim there is no god, but most will simply reject any explicit assertion from either camp.

Atheists who claim that Theists can prove nothing, when they cannot disprove it.

Burden of proof lies with the party making the affirmative claim. Can you disprove the existence of invisible unicorns that rule the universe?

How is it illogical to assume 'intelligent design'?

Because there is literally no evidence for ID and it directly contradicts evolutionary biology, which is a field of biology proven beyond reasonable doubt.