At the SETIcon II conference in Santa Clara CA this past weekend a panel of scientists concluded that no divine spark was necessary to initiate the Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. Per the article:
"The Big Bang could've occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there," said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. "With the laws of physics, you can get universes."
This underlined the same position very resoundedly taken by Stephen Hawking in his book, The Grand Design.
Thanks for this, John. First time I've seen this particular Universe Timeline and it is very good. Yep. No Invisible-Grandpa-Super-Sky-Guy needed for 'creation' as Professor Hawking so elegantly explained in his last book.
Kinda makes me wonder if the "Dark Money" from crank billionaires that's financing the disinformation contaminating my television screen is somehow related to ... Dark Energy?
Is Sheldon Adelson and his young(ish) wife a part of the mysterious force that's trying to pull the universe apart?
I remeber a video of Stephen Hawking...he picked up on the old saying' there's no such thing as a free lunch'...he said that its all free, no given to us, no offered and consigned! I must say I love it all, the history and drama of those who delved into cosmology and physics have become mentors for me and as an ex chistian I feel more awe and wonder about the big bang than I did about belief in god...this is real and we can approach it with our minds...thanks for the post John!
It is sad to hear people saying that science cannot prove or disprove the existsnce of god. It is obvious that these people want a test tube proof for the existance or otherwise of god. They are waiting for Godot. If no god was seen anywhere on the scene of the formation of the limitless universe, during last 13.7 billion years, if we find that he was not even needed, what more proof can be required for the non-existance of an entity? If no god ever partipated, or was seen to be interested in any manner, in the evolution of life on the earth during last 3.5 billion years, then can he be assumed to be existing? Any god not interested either in the formation of the universe nor in the evolution of life cannot be said to be existing. To say that some test tube proof is needed is a joke.
I wholeheartedly agree with you Madhukar except that the existence of god can be dis-proven if you are talking about the Biblical god. It is a little tricky but all credible logicians will admit that it can be done. The process is as follows:
1.) Assume the opposite of what is to be proven. That is, assume a Biblical type god exists.
2.) It must be perfect in goodness - By definition of a Biblical type god.
3.) It demands to be worshiped - By definition of a Biblical type god.
4.) Good beings don’t demand to be worshiped - By definition of good.
5.) Accordingly, the Biblical type god does not demand to be worshiped - From 2.) and 4.) above.
6.) Therefore, the Biblical type god both demands and does not demand to be worshiped - From 3.) and 5.) above.
7.) Consequently, the assumption that a Biblical type god exists leads to a self-contradictory proposition and, as such, a Biblical type god cannot exist in reality.
There can be a vast number of ways to disprove the biblical God ,just use logic and it will always lead to contradictions.
an interesting way is to pit the god of one people against that of others, it will lead to head on contradictions.
Atheism has existed for a long time. It existed even in ancient times when there was no science to aid logic. That is why, the logic was the mainstay was atheism. Today we are fortunate to have a great deal of help from science and relieve logic from a lot of burden. I therefore feel that we should take as much help from science as possible. Science aided by logic is the best weapon for an offensive against faith.
Besides, when we want to disprove existance of god, we hould not think of the Biblical god alone. Our attempt should to diisprove existance of any supernastural power. By this way, all kinds of faith can be demolished in one stroke.