The Big Bang Disproves Atheism

Buffoon Award

We’ve observed before that creationists have a limited répertoire. Their “scientific” arguments all boil down to two oldie-goldies: (1) William Paley’s watchmaker analogy — if something looks designed, then by golly it is designed; and (2) the God of the gaps — anything not yet fully understood is “best” explained by a supernatural agency. Other than that, they rely on character attacks, claiming that scientists, especially those accursed evolutionists, are immoral atheists, doomed to spend eternity in the Lake of Fire.

So when another example of this appeared at the website of WorldNetDaily (WND), we weren’t impressed. As you know, WND was an early Buffoon Award Winner. We’ve described them as a flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. It’s in their honor that our jolly Buffoon logo adorns this post.

Here’s what WND recently posted — and they proudly label it as an EXCLUSIVE: Why atheists are ‘fools’. The thing has attracted over 460 comments. The article was written by Matt Barber — probably not the British actor with the same name, because another website that published the same “exclusive” article described this Matt Barber as: “an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war.”

When we first saw it, we scanned the beginning:

They say there are no atheists in the foxhole. Even fewer when death is certain. None once the final curtain falls. God’s Word declares, “The fool hath said in his heart ‘there is no God’” (Psalm 14).

At that point, having seen the same sort of thing hundreds of times before, we clicked away and continued searching for more entertaining material. But then it started showing up at other websites, and our clandestine operatives were urging us to blog about it. So we took another look, and yes — as long and goofy as it is, the article has its moments. So here are some additional excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

In my experience it is something common among atheists: an inexplicable, incongruent and visceral hatred for the very God they imagine does not exist. Indeed, Romans 1:20 notes, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” Yet excuses they make.

Nothing new, right? But it gets better. Let’s read on:

Psalm 19:1 likewise observes: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” The manifest intentionality and fine-tuning of all creation reveals design of breathtaking complexity. The Creator is of incalculable intelligence and infinite splendor. As I see it, atheism provides a case study in willful suspension of disbelief – all to escape, as the God-denier imagines it, accountability for massaging the libertine impulse.

It’s all about your libertine impulses, dear reader. Barber continues:

In the case of the atheist, or the “freethinker,” as they paradoxically prefer, that which is unbelievable is that somehow everything came from nothing – that there is no uncaused first cause; that God does not exist, even as knowledge of His being is indelibly written on every human heart and proved by all He has made.

Be they theist, atheist or anti-theist, on this nearly all scientists agree: In the beginning there was nothing. There was no time, space or matter. There wasn’t even emptiness, only nothingness. Well, nothing natural anyway.

Does that describe how anyone with a scientific education thinks about the Big Bang theory? No, of course not — but it’s how creationists imagine we think. Here’s more:

Then: bang! Everything. Nonexistence became existence. Nothing became, in less than an instant, our inconceivably vast and finely tuned universe governed by what mankind would later call – after we, too, popped into existence from nowhere, fully armed with conscious awareness and the ability to think, communicate and observe – “natural law” or “physics.” Time, space, earth, life and, finally, human life were not. And then they were.

Then he quotes from a creationist who describes the “impossible” fine tuning of the physical laws of the universe, and alleges that it had to be by divine intention. Assuming that such is The Truth, he criticizes those who don’t agree:

Secular materialists claim it can’t be – that such explanation is a “God of the gaps” explanation and, therefore, must be banished from the realm of scientific inquiry. They demand that anything beyond the known natural is off-limits. Atheists attribute all of existence to, well, nothing. It just kind of happened.

When we think about the creationists’ “God of the gaps” approach to things, we should keep in mind that it’s always their first and only “explanation” for everything. Yet, over the centuries, that “explanation” has failed as a rational cause for the rising and setting of the Sun, the regularity of the seasons, the diversity of the biosphere, the occurrence of disease, and everything else to which it has been applied. At this point, all they’ve got left is the universe itself, and they’re beating that drum incessantly. But why would an “explanation” that has always failed in every other instance somehow be correct this time? They don’t say, they just preach.

Okay, moving along, Barber tells us:

And so, they have “reasoned” themselves into a corner. These same materialists acknowledge that, prior to the moment of singularity – the Big Bang – there was no “natural.” They admit that there was an unnatural time and place before natural time and space – that something, sometime, somewhere preceded the material universe. That which preceded the natural was, necessarily, “beyond the natural” and, therefore, was, is and forever shall be “supernatural.” Reader, meet God. In short: the Big Bang blows atheism sky high.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The article goes on and on. There’s lots of quote-mining too. Click over there to enjoy the whole thing. It’s a textbook example of creationist thinking. Their “explanation” has always been silly and unnecessary, but this time they know it’s right. And you, dear reader, are a hell-bound fool!

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

10 responses to “The Big Bang Disproves Atheism

  1. The evidence is overwhelming that the alleged sky fairy, if there is one, does absolutely nothing. Oh, yeah, I forgot. He/she/it took time out from watching celestial sit-coms to turn Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt.

  2. It sounds like Matt has been playing a punching bag for much too long. Whatever’s left inside his Homer Simpson like head is a rather large vacuum with a little gray matter bouncing back and forth.

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    Barber is such a nutty screw job that even Right Wing Watch seems to have given up writing about him. Dive into his website of barbwire.com only if you dare.

  4. Tugs N. McCowan

    To be fair. I read some of the comments on the article. Those believers are in their own world divorced from reality.

  5. Derek Freyberg

    “Why atheists are ‘fools'”
    OK, so what is it, Mr. Barber – are we fools, or are we some strange class of people that you can describe only by putting scare quotes around ‘fools’? Is it something like being a fool for love? Or did you have something else in mind? I like to think of myself as a fool for science.

  6. In the case of the atheist, or the “freethinker,” as they paradoxically prefer, that which is unbelievable is that somehow everything came from nothing – that there is no uncaused first cause; that God does not exist, even as knowledge of His being is indelibly written on every human heart and proved by all He has made.

    The question these people never address is why, if an “uncaused first cause” can exist at all, it has to be God and not the natural laws of the universe acting on matter and energy.

    And so, they have “reasoned” themselves into a corner. These same materialists acknowledge that, prior to the moment of singularity – the Big Bang – there was no “natural.” They admit that there was an unnatural time and place before natural time and space – that something, sometime, somewhere preceded the material universe. That which preceded the natural was, necessarily, “beyond the natural” and, therefore, was, is and forever shall be “supernatural.” Reader, meet God. In short: the Big Bang blows atheism sky high.

    But don’t creationists deny the Big Bang ever happened?

    And assuming God created the universe just as they say, what was He doing before then? (St. Augustine is supposed to have replied, “Creating Hell for people who ask such questions!”)

    Scientists at least have some hope of answering their question, especially since not all of them do believe the universe popped out of absolutely nothing at the moment of the Big Bang. Creationists can’t answer their own, because the Bible saith not.

  7. Dave Luckett

    @ Eric Lipps:

    “But don’t creationists deny the Big Bang ever happened?”

    Some creationists deny the Big Bang. Some use it to argue that since its cause is unknown, the cause was God. (Mr Barber is apparently uneasily aware of the obvious hole in that deduction, for he spends some words in denying it, to no effect.)

    But to suppose that creationists believe either one or the other, denial or acceptance, is to suppose that their positions are internally coherent. They are not.

    They think either, neither, or both, as the nonce requires. Most see the obvious problem for them in a Universe that began with an unthinkably huge outpouring of raw energy which took millions of years to condense and cool sufficiently to form the first elements, and then millions more to contract under gravity to form the first stars… and so on. Well, that isn’t Genesis, is it?

    Mr Barber, however, doesn’t get that far. His ignorance extends to idiotic assertions like: “Nothing became, in less than an instant, our inconceivably vast and finely tuned universe…” Labouring under a delusion that extreme, it isn’t surprising that he likes the idea of the Big Bang.

    Somebody from AiG perhaps, should warn him of the pitfalls.

  8. Richard Bond

    The big bang as a singularity is a prediction of general relativity, for a universe that contains matter, radiation or both. Physicists have known for decades that this could not be quite right, as it conflicts with quantum mechanics. Now that it is fairly certain that ¾ of the universe is dark energy, calculations including it rule out a singularity, and point to a possibly infinite timeless past. The big bang is now taken to be the state of the universe as far back as established physics can take us: essentially at the end of inflation. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/02/04/the-two-big-bangs/#6676657a2d09

    Creationists are incoherent: they despise science, then cherry-pick some aspect of it that suits their purpose, than take that as solid fact while failing to appreciate that leading-edge science is always a work in process. No wonder that they are so consistently wrong.

  9. I am not a scientist or mathematician, but my understanding is that the concept of a singularity is unwelcome to general relativity. That a singularity could not be quite right as a consequence of general relativity is not just a conflict with quantum mechanics, but because it means a break-down of the equations.
    I am posting this because I would welcome corrections on this layman’s understanding.

  10. Richard Bond

    I am not a specialist in GR (far from it!) but I understand that the breakdown of GR theory as a singularity is approached is because the curvature of space becomes infinite. I think that the problems from quantum theory set in long before that.