D&D Religion's "Ask an Atheist/Agnostic" Thread

Anyway, the entire universe could easily be infinite in time and space, just as easily as it could not. I do not see why you suggest that there has to be a beginning? There seems to be no reason why there should be. It will probably always be impossible for humans to know.

Thank you! You see? That's the type of opinions I wanted. Not all atheists agree with each other, I was just interested in the different opinions between atheists.

It is impossible to know the size of the entire universe because information cannot travel faster than light, and it is widely accepted that the universe is larger than the observable universe, therefore I do not see how gamma rays can disprove this.

I am interested to know why you said "but I don't think so in space." What do you base that comment on? How can you possibly have the foggiest idea whether it is infinite or not in space? Your "thoughts" might as well just be a throw of a dice.

At what point did he deny that the univserse was expanding, or deny the use of redshift as being useful?

And how exactly does the fact that the observable universe is expanding suggest that it had a beginning?

Because of evidence. Look up Edwin Hubble, and more specifically, redshift. Whilst not providing conclusive proof (goes without saying since science uses the principle of induction) the redshift in gamma rays suggests that we may live in an expanding universe. Don't assume that because one method, such as the using light to get information, fails every method will fail, or else you wish to commit the fallacy of converse accident. (PS: I do believe the universe is much larger than the one we observe. Much evidence supports this.)

It is impossible to know the size of the entire universe because information cannot travel faster than light, and it is widely accepted that the universe is larger than the observable universe, therefore I do not see how gamma rays can disprove this.

The observable universe is expanding; we know nothing of the Universe which we cannot observe.

Rubbish. If inflation is correct, the universe is very, very close to the "critical density." There is no way to accurately measure the density of the universe this accurately, as you cannot observe all of it, which is a point that I made many posts ago.

However, recent experimental evidence (namely the observation of distant supernova as standard candles, and the well-resolved mapping of the cosmic microwave background) has—to considerable surprise—shown that the expansion of the universe is not being slowed down by gravity, but instead, accelerating, suggesting that the universe will not end with a Big Crunch, but will instead expand forever, though some scientists have contested this theory.[1] (The evidence of an accelerating universe has been considered conclusive by most cosmologists since 2002.)

In the framework of the field equations of the General Theory of Relativity, the simplest model of an accelerating expansion corresponds to a positive value of the cosmological constant, which can be attributed to the quantum vacuum itself exerting a force that repels gravitationally on large scales. More generally, the accelerating expansion is attributed to dark energy, which could be the cosmological constant, or a dynamical field with negative "pressure", leading to an effective cosmological constant that could be time-varying. In such cases, it is theoretically possible that the cosmological "constant" need not remain positive, leaving open the possibility of a Big Crunch as the ultimate fate of the universe. A Big Crunch is also still theoretically possible if Einstein's theory of general relativity were found not to apply on large scales. The current evidence neither favors nor rules out dark energy, or modifications of general relativity, of a form that could halt or reverse an eternal expansion; it does, however set lower bounds on the duration collapse (approximately 42 billion years from now, or more than 24 billion years at the 95% confidence level, according to one group led by Andrei Linde).

No foreseeable astronomical observations are going to be accurate enough to discover on which side (of the critical density) we lie

Faulty reasoning because of this: the observable universe could be a trillionth of the size of the entire universe. You are trying to induct the state of the entire universe from a trillionth of it? Are you saying that this is a suitable method?

No, but it is evidence which atheists have used to state that the universe is exapnding. Indeed some scientists still do today. My problem is with atheists who claim to know everything about how the earth was formed, but ignore that their are many problems with what they suggest (the whole idea of mass and energy distriution for example.)

You know there is a difference between an atheist and a scientist...

The fact that it is an official theory

What rigorous criteria must a theory be judged by in order to gain the more impressive title- official theory?

Yes. In fact I know a lot of devout Christian scientists. It just tends to be atheists who use science the most to back up their claims. [Generally...]