Atheism: emotional hurts leading to case of pseudoscience?

[E.G]

[center]Is it possible that atheism is a product of emotional hurts leading to a case of pseudoscience? [/center]

The most intelligent and rational opening question to this discussion, and one of the main life endeavors that would service, externally well, the success and the future of every human, is the undertaking of an intellectual task to find an answer to this question: What if there is a God, is God Good, and what would I do about it?

As much as an atheist is uncertain about what was before the Big Bang, or what caused it, there is also uncertainty about God existence.

The universe had a start – who or what caused it?

The very fact that there have been, and remain ongoing attempts to deny God existence provide the first clue that God could exist, “There is no smoke without a fire�.

Some in the atheist community live under the cover of being the guardians of rationality and science. But how can they claim this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to answer legitimate questions such as, what, or who triggered the Big Bang?

Big Bang Theory (hypothesis assumes universe age is roughly 13.8 billion years):

The theory is that the Universe as we know was created in a massive explosion that not only created the majority of matter, but the physical laws that govern our ever-expanding cosmos. At this time, all matter was compacted into a very small ball with infinite density and intense heat called a Singularity. Suddenly, the Singularity began expanding and the universe as we know it began.

First scientific problem:

The earliest times of the Universe – the time when the universe was 10-43 second old, before which random energy fluctuations were so large that our current theories are powerless to describe what might have been happening. The uncertainties surrounding the Big Bang theory are the subject of extensive speculation.

Given that the laws of physics as we know them could not have existed at this time, it is difficult to fathom how the Universe could have been governed. What’s more, experiments that can create the kinds of energies involved have not yet been conducted.

Any theory or hypothesis that can’t be taken to the lab to be tested and produce results that can verify and validate the theory is considered a junk science.
Likewise, any theory or hypothesis that is missing a major link as a part of the systematic scientific and rational process leading to the formation of practical and applicable conclusions is considered a junk science as well.

Second major problem:

If the universe came about from a “Singularity� that suddenly began expanding and the universe as we know it began, let us take the case of our own solar system and ask these intelligent questions:

What if the earth was formed before the sun (after certain matters came together according to the hypothesis) , would it be possible to sustain life on earth, let alone, staring life?

At this point, if the reader chose to remain faithful to science (setting aside emotion for a moment), and we were to apply the probability concept to this argument, in other words, considering the massive universe that was formed after the Big Bang and the millions, or perhaps billions of moving plants and stars in different galaxies, we need to ask, what is the probability of the sun being formed before earth and also the moon, in order to create the most suitable conditions for life to begin and continue on Earth?
[center]One in a million? in a billion?, or perhaps in a trillion?[/center]

What if the sun was formed first then the earth, but no moon?, could life on earth survive? The gravity of the moon pulls the water in the oceans toward it. The gravitational attraction between Earth and the Moon also stabilised the tilt of Earth’s axis that gives Earth its predictable, fairly constant climate and its seasons.

We are all familiar with matters, they are around us and we deal with them every day, do they have a mind of their own or an ability to come up with an intelligent design on their own? As a researcher myself, and based on the premise of my argument, I feel comfortable to classify the Big Bang explanation as one of the most uncertain and weak theory that was ever presented by humans.

Therefore the question remains:

[center]What or who was behind this intelligent design of the universe?[/center]

[center]-------------[/center]

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by E.G]

Is it possible that atheism is a product of emotional hurts leading to a case of pseudoscience?

Yeah it is possible. It might not be a case that the science is incorrect in and of itself. Only how the science is interpreted in relation to the idea that no entity GOD created the universe.

What or who was behind this intelligent design of the universe?

One can only ascertain some kind of answer to this by examining the nature and forms of the universe.

One can examine the planet earth and come to some conclusions re the nature of an intelligent creative self conscious entity which may have created the life on the planet.

[TSGracchus]

Is it possible that atheism is a product of emotional hurts leading to a case of pseudoscience?

There is certainly enough hurt to lead to the pseudoscience of "apologetics".

I have the sense though, that atheism, in most cases, arises from the inability to live with the cognitive dissonances inherent in religion, and the lack of behavioral superiority of religious people over non-religious folk. In short, belief in a deity seems to be a matter of self-comfort in the face of inevitable misery and death.