Dennis Ingolfsland's blind appeal to the Big Bang

This is my reply to an article by Dennis Ingolfsland entitled

Not enough faith to be an atheist

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Some fascinating facts:

    "The expansion rate of the Big Bang had to be accurate to within one part in [10 followed by 55 zeros--The actual quotes use scientific notation but as far as I know, that's not possible in blogger]. Any slower and the universe would have collapsed. Any faster and there would be no stars or planetary systems. In either case, life would not be possible."

 The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is composed of Christians who have advanced degrees in scientific fields, and they push biblical creationism, yet they also declare that the big bang is both biblically untenable and scientifically false.  See "The Big Bang Theory Collapses", here.  Answers in Genesis is another Christan creationist organization that considers the Big Bang to be a naturalistic invention that is contrary to biblical teaching.  See here. 

See also

Christian apologists should abandon the big bang 

Jonathan F. Henry 

Some prominent Christian apologists claim that the big bang was God’s method of creation. Another common view is that the big bang is an apologetic for biblical creation. By this reasoning, Genesis 1:1 says that there was a beginning, and the big bang was also the beginning of the universe. Thus the big bang is an evidence for creation, not evolution. This is a mistaken conclusion. The ministries of the Christian apologists named in this paper, as well as others that could be named, generally take a high view of Scripture which strengthens Christian faith. The critique

That was from JOURNAL OF CREATION 23(3) 2009, link to pdf here.

Is it reasonable for the unbeliever to ask whether Christianity's internal disagreements on the big bang indicate that there is no god of truth guiding either side?  Sure, anything's possible: maybe God wants young-earthers to be wrong in their view of the BB "for the sake of a greater good", but is that speculation remotely near "compelling" upon the unbeliever?  No.  Then we can be rationally warranted and reasonable to dismiss Christian efforts to use the BB to prove god, just like we cite to the several different interpretations of quantum mechanics to justify turning away from the absurd sophistry put out by the Copenhagen school.

    "The force of gravity had to be accurate to within on part in [10 followed by 40 zeros]. Otherwise, stars could not form, and life would be impossible."

 Take a cup full of pennies, toss them onto the carpet.  Take extensive notes about how each coin landed, its proximity to other coins, and which exact carpet fibers were implicated.  If the power of your toss, the shape of the cup, the design of the carpet or the movement of air through the room had been different at the time of the toss, the resulting pattern would have been very different than the one you recorded. 

So obviously the pattern you recorded could not have been the result of randomly throwing coins on the floor, but only the result of intelligent design.  Yeah right.  The pattern exhibits what could be viewed as "specified complexity", yet we also know the design appeared without intelligent intervention or purpose, as a similarly complex design would have emerged if such a cup of pennies had been knocked over during an earthquake.

    "The mass density of the universe had to be accurate to within on part in [10 followed by 60 zeros]. Otherwise, life-sustaining stars could not have formed."

 Same answer.

This comes from The Making of an Atheist by philosopher James S. Spiegel (pg 46), quoting from former atheist philosopher Antony Flew.

 Anthony Flew was a dipshit who seems to have avoided doing his best to combat Christian theism.  Your use of Flew to "show what atheists argue" is akin to me using the WestBoro Baptist church to "show what Christians do".

And all of this was just for conditions for the development of life to be theoretically possible! (Antony Flew was influenced by MIT scientist Gerald Schroeder). The actual appearance of life is much more problematic:

    "...two scientists, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, calculated the odds of life emerging from non-living matter to be on in [10 followed by 40,000 zeros]." To put this enormous figure in perspectice, consider that the number of atoms in the known universe is [10 followed by 80 zeros]--a paltry sum by comparison. Moreover, consider the fact that statisticians, as a general rule, consider any 'possibility' less than on in [10 followed by 50 zeros] to be impossible" (Spiegel, 48).

Dr. Ingolfsland, come on:  Do you seriously think the average Christian reading this stuff has the first fucking clue about its actual mathematical basis?  If you have a Ph.d, you need to rise above the "prove-by-anecdote" fallacy and shape up. 

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

 The faith required to be an atheist is far less blind than the faith it takes to believe that 2,000 year old  reports of unknown provenance and authorship, which speak about a resurrected man, are "reliable".  At least atheists are dealing with things that can be empirically detected.  Their theories about how the visible world works might be wrong, but at least they are dealing with matters that are clearly part of reality (excluding the idiots who push "dark matter" and other such nonsense).  But Christians posit an invisible immaterial deity that lives "outside of time" and "beyond the natural", concepts that are incoherent.

Clearly the Christian view is a faith more blind than the atheist viewpoint I argue for.

And I don't worship deities that cause men to rape women, that's why I say the Christian god, if he exists, is nothing but a demon:

 13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger.
 14 And it will be that like a hunted gazelle, Or like sheep with none to gather them, They will each turn to his own people, And each one flee to his own land.
 15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
 16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.
 17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold.
 18 And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children. (Isa. 13:13-18 NAU)

 Lest you mistake your quick dismissal of my "interpretation" for the very presence of God, yes, there are conservative evangelical Christian scholars who admit that this text means exactly what it says:

17–18 As the macabre scene resulting from the cosmic quake passes, the finger points to historical movement. Yahweh calls attention to stirrings among the feared Medes for which he claims responsibility.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 24: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 1-33.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 198). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 If interpreting this part of Isaiah was so "clearly" wrong, how likely is it that OT Christian scholar J.D.W. Watts would have missed it?  Can you really blame the atheist bible critic who agrees with Christian scholars that God is taking responsibility for causing some men to rape women here?

What Isaiah is talking about are standard atrocities that were a known part of real ANE warfare.