Exciting times we live in!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-tegmark/good-morning-inflation-he_b_4976707.html

Those smarter than me may be interested in checking out the paper at: http://bicepkeck.org/b2_respap_arxiv_v1.pdf

If the universe suddenly burst into existence... what caused that sudden bursting? As an atheist, I don't believe in Big Bang theory purely because it explains in scientific terms how a creator did it.

There are lots of gravitational waves in the universe.... seems logical to me that eventually they would find a big one. I don't see why it has to mean it is left over from the birth of the universe. Just because we can't find an explanation for it doesn't mean we should make assumptions. Well I suppose that is what theoretical science does. It makes assumptions based off evidence.

At one time, based off observational evidence the world looked flat. That was because we were missing other evidence we could not possibly have any knowledge of. I see the same thing happening here.

^ Aroo? Until a working Theory of Everything, there are always gonna be holes for people to prop their gods up in. Heck, after a working Theory of Everything, people are just going to say their god designed it that way -- in a fashion akin to "Yes, there is evolution, but my god set it in motion."

And more power to 'em. I think the concept of god tends to align with the human experience of the universe. Some particular gods, I've got a problem with, but really that's a problem with people, anyway, since gods are personal.

My long-winded point being, I don't understand how atheism is seen here to necessitate disbelief in a theory that fails to actively discount god. But I would like to!

This is about (partly) the detection of Hawking radiation. Quantum gravity was the purely theoretical assumption that I think you find problematic, but this is experimental evidence, not theory.

I agree that there is evidence, I just lack faith that the evidence points to what they say it does. If the Big Bang is true, then by logical default the universe was created, we just cannot know by what. For me, that's quite a scary proposition.

Atheism originally speculated an infinite and eternal universe. It simply is and has always been. There is no room for a god in that theory.

New Atheism centres around belief in theoretical science, and it even idolises certain men like Dawkins and ol' Hitchslap (RIP... lol, the irony. But I do mean it). It's not that the theories could be wrong that is the problem, it's followers of these theories calling themselves atheists. It's fine to believe that the theory might be correct... but to go all the way and accept an assumption as truth crosses the line into religion, IMO.

Quoted from Heretic ... but this is experimental evidence, not theory.

I apologise for not addressing this in my last post, as it is quite an important point you've made and I don't want you to think it went over my head. All theories stem from evidence, even experimental evidence.

Big Bang theory, is still a theory no mater how much peer-reviewed evidence there is to back it up. The over all conclusion is still an assumption that the evidence appears to fit.

Like the world being flat theory. All of the evidence of the time showed the world to be flat. We're no better off today, relatively speaking... we can only know what the evidence appears to show us..  but what it appears to be and what it actually is could be very different... and going by history, it most likely is.

I don't see any difference between scientific theories and the theories of philosophers from 2000 years ago.

No I didn't think anything went over your head.

Can I clarify -- you're saying that Big Bang theory, like any scientific theory, is a best fit, not "true," that will probably be clarified, expanded, or outright disproven by later evidence (which still won't form a complete model); given this, and your philosophical rejection of Big Bang on the grounds that it inherently necessitates a god/creator/prime mover, you're not interested in evidence in its favour?

I'm not attaching a value judgement to that or saying that I disagree; just trying to clarify.

I'm not clear why Big Bang necessitates a creator in such a way that excludes atheist "belief." I can just as easily say "my god caused the Big Bang" as I can say "my god created and exists outside your 'infinite' universe," because gods get to be anywhere I can imagine them, regardless of logic.

I'm with Heretic on this. I don't hear Hawking seeing the need to bring God into it, so that's good enough for me.

Quoted from Heretic No I didn't think anything went over your head. Can I clarify -- you're saying that Big Bang theory, like any scientific theory, is a best fit, not "true," that will probably be clarified, expanded, or outright disproven by later evidence (which still won't form a complete model); given this, and your philosophical rejection of Big Bang on the grounds that it inherently necessitates a god/creator/prime mover, you're not interested in evidence in its favour?

Your clarification is correct. All theories are a best fit for the evidence. However, I'm not sure where you get that I am not interested in evidence in its favour. I'm interested in all evidence. Whether or not I choose to believe what that evidence proves is a different matter. I also didn't say that the Big Bang is wrong, just that I don't believe it... based on the logic of a created universe.

Quoted from Heretic I'm not clear why Big Bang necessitates a creator in such a way that excludes atheist "belief." I can just as easily say "my god caused the Big Bang" as I can say "my god created and exists outside your 'infinite' universe," because gods get to be anywhere I can imagine them, regardless of logic.

Where there was no universe before and suddenly there is one... means there was a catalyst of some type. The Big Bang gives the universe a beginning a middle and an end. Which also fits in way too conveniently with the human psyche.

Something that has a beginning needs something before it. It can't have all just came from nowhere. Whereas something that has always been does not need a creator. Sure you can invent one if you like but one isn't necessary for a universe that has always been and always is.

Quoted from rendevous I don't hear Hawking seeing the need to bring God into it, so that's good enough for me.

"An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" ~ Stephen Hawking