Justin Bieber shoots down the Big Bang Theory

It is typically intriguing of Justin Bieber to choose cosmology for his first foray into scientific debunking, when many feel he could provide a more elegant rebuke to Darwinism. Either way, it’s bad news for Cern as Justin finally starts using his power for good – in this case, to explain how ludicrous the so-called origins of the universe are.

“I’m the type of dude who always wants to figure it out,” explains the What Do U Mean hitmaker. “Science makes a lot of sense,” he concedes. Or does he? “Then I start thinking — wait, the ‘big bang’. For a ‘big bang’ to create all this is more wild to think about than thinking about there being a God. Imagine putting a bunch of gold into a box, shaking up the box, and out comes a Rolex. It’s so preposterous once people start saying it.”

Word. I think I read somewhere that the watchmaker was blind, but maybe we need to accept that he was just wearing really limited-edition Wayfarers...

[Full article]

Views: 1028

Comment by Jake LaFort on October 6, 2015 at 12:56am

Pope Beanie, am thinking cosmologists would beg to differ...

Comment by Pope Beanie on October 6, 2015 at 1:20am

Sure, there's a minority of noisy ones, but even they would never claim they could prove there is no God.

Comment by Davis Goodman on October 6, 2015 at 7:26am

@Pope

1. Yes...there are those who claim they could prove there is no God. Intellectuals lacking basic critical thinking/logic skills or who claim they don't apply to supernatural fiction.

Examples are:herehere and even Hawkins (sort of),

2. Science has a lot to say about God creating the universe. The arguments go:

  • There is zero evidence
  • It is extremely unlikely that convoluted narrative x is true because of the lack of evidence and the outlandish nature of the claim (it is not to be taken seriously).

You wouldn't say that "science has nothing to say about 500 polkadot hippopotamuses orbiting around Alpha Centauri". Science can say quite a bit about that claim.

We make these assumptions (science has nothing to say about God and x) because we are still stuck in this mentality that religion is special and super natural phenomena is beyond our reach. That is simply not true (at least to the degree many of us say it is).

By the way...those hippos reverse the dirrection of orbit whenever one of them hic-ups. It's really adorable.

Comment by Unseen on October 6, 2015 at 11:57am

If it was the Big Fart Theory, the moron would love it.

Comment by Pope Beanie on October 6, 2015 at 3:31pm

You wouldn't say that "science has nothing to say about 500 polkadot hippopotamuses orbiting around Alpha Centauri". Science can say quite a bit about that claim.

We make these assumptions (science has nothing to say about God and x) because we are still stuck in this mentality that religion is special and super natural phenomena is beyond our reach. That is simply not true (at least to the degree many of us say it is).

You and I understand this, but I wish to point out an important nuance wrt the kinds of claims that scientists make. There are an infinite number of other crazy claims that could exist and that science is not expected to prove impossible. The only time science is put on the spot wrt God or polkadotted hippopotami is when the belief in such things are intentionally put to science as a challenge.

In other words, just as atheism is most useful as a response to overbearing theism, science is only against religion when religion insists on invading its space, or in the case of cosmology, when religion insists that God did it and there's no more to be discovered or said about it. Whether God made something happen or not, science is and should only be concerned with how it can be measured, explained, and how it can eventually predict things like how the universe will continue to expand, or whatever.

I've just finished some research on a Parkinson's Disease (PD) project, and it's amazing how much we've learned about it, yet do not have a cure. It's "theory", even when science and medicine has discovered and implemented ways to decrease its devastation. The wonderfully useful treatments we've come up with were once more theory than reliable practice.

Whether God has anything to do with PD or not, we succeed best when not asking for God's help, but when science digs into the microbiology with new tools and fresh theory that can be tested, and "grand theory" can be scientifically sculpted finer and finer... whether God designed everything to start with, or not.

Comment by Pope Beanie on October 6, 2015 at 3:51pm

I might as JB this: Did science/medicine make this Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) treatment possible for PD, or was it just from praying to God? Watch this guy turn his symptoms off with a remote control! And this is only one example of science and medicine has made possible, and aims to do in the future.

Comment by Davis Goodman on October 6, 2015 at 4:27pm

@Pope...I see what you are saying.

One thing to be careful about is linking atheism to usefulness. Atheism has no intended use, no platform, no goals, no anything. That's why when people say "atheism isn't useful" they clearly cannot comprehend what a negative belief in an unproven phenomena is. It is the lack of belief in a sky god (or the rejection of such claims). 

Humanism is useful, new-atheism is somewhat useful, secularism is useful. Atheism is not.

Comment by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on October 6, 2015 at 4:55pm

Thanks Peter.

Comment by Pope Beanie on October 6, 2015 at 5:08pm

Humanism is useful, new-atheism is somewhat useful, secularism is useful. Atheism is not.

Atheism is useful as an ism in the sense that it raises awareness of many theists to an option they would otherwise not even consider. Also, it's enables a/our community to have a place to bitch and moan about being marginalized. I feel these are desirable uses of atheism.

Give that, it seems we then agree that atheism probably has no further use.

Comment by Jake LaFort on October 6, 2015 at 5:25pm

Atheism is also useful in providing a clarion call to rationalism and to question the ethics of theism. Atheism in failing to assert anything except in the negative belies its actual value to civilization. If and when humanity progresses beyond mere science and technology it will be in no small measure a result of a zeitgeist enabled by the leap to atheism.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service