Difference between pages "Singularity" and "Essay: God rained on the depressing "Reason Rally""

From Conservapedia
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Bible and origins: internal link)
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
In physical realms the '''singularity''' is an event that due to its nature is assumed to only happened once<ref name="LENNOX">{{cite book
+
[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg‎ |thumb|center|200px|God caused it to rain during the Reason Rally and only several thousand people gathered at the event.[http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/24/atheist-rally-continues-in-spite-of-rain-students-highlighted-throughout/] Plus, I can't answer [[Shockofgod's question]] and the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] of the [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign].
|author=John C. Lennox
+
<br />
|title=God's undertaker. Has science buried God?
+
<br />
|publisher=Lion Hudson
+
Please see: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Global atheism|Global atheism is shrinking]] ]]
|location=Oxford, England
+
|year=2009
+
|pages=67-69, 186, 204
+
|url=
+
|isbn=978-0-7459-5371-7
+
|quote=Apart from the obvious fact that no one observed [the origin of the universe], scientists think of the Big Bang as a singularity in the past, an unrepeatable event;...}}</ref> and that has no ''natural'' explanation. Most frequently the term is used in connection with the origin of the [[universe]] and it is subject of study by [[origin science]]. When scientific principles were first being developed into the [[scientific method]], scientists like [[Francis Bacon]], [[Johannes Kepler]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin|William Kelvin]] distinguished between primary and [[Natural causes|secondary (''natural'') causes]]. A ''primary cause'' was meant to be a ''first cause'' to explain singularities.<ref name="skeptics">{{Cite book
+
  | author = Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
+
  | year=1990
+
  | title = When Skeptics Ask
+
  | chapter = 10. Questions about Science and Evolution
+
  |pages = 213-215
+
  | isbn = 978-0-8010-7164-5
+
  | url = http://books.google.no/books?id=hF24HwAACAAJ&dq=when+skeptics+ask&hl=en&sa=X&ei=imcgT7foFpPU4QS1m5yIDw&redir_esc=y
+
  | accessdate = 25.1.2012
+
  | publisher = Victor Books, Baker Books
+
}}</ref> [[Thomas Aquinas]] in his [[Summa Theologica]] argued that when it comes to [[Cause and effect|''causes'']], it is not possible to go to [[Infinity|''infinity'']] (either there is a first cause or there is no cause at all) and he referred to the first cause as the ''ultimate cause''. He identified it with God, because at least in one respect, a first cause exhibits an important property of the divine: It is ''uncaused''. According to David Berlinski this is a weak (Aquinas's conclusion might not be definitively confirmed as true or false){{#tag:ref|cf."The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man." ''The Book of Job: An introduction'' ([[G.K. Chesterton]], 1907)|group=note}} but not absurd argument that is frequently met with inept objections.<ref name="Devils"/> Berlinski also argues that the concept of singularity belongs ''essentially'' to mathematics and singularities are not ''experimentally'' accessible objects that could be weighted, measured, assessed, replicated, balanced, or seen by any modality of the senses.<ref name="DeniableDarwin">{{cite book
+
|author=David Berlinski
+
|title=The Deniable Darwin
+
|publisher=Discovery Institute Press (reprinted from ''Commentary'' February 1998 by permission)
+
|location=Seattle, USA
+
|year=2009
+
|pages=226-228
+
|chapter=Was there a Big Bang?
+
|isbn=978-0-9790141-2-3
+
|url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/deniable-darwin/about.php
+
|quote=}}</ref>
+
  
On the other hand, when contemporary physicists refer to a singularity, they are generally referring to an event, situation or point in which one or more physical quantities (like temperature or density) approach [[infinity|''infinite'']] value<ref name="WhomadeGod">{{cite book
+
== The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally" ==
|author=Edgar Anrews
+
[[File:Gloomy.jpg|250px|right]]
|title= Who made God? Searching for a theory of everything.
+
[[God]] humbles the "Reason Rally", a national [[atheist]] rally in [[America]], via a rainy day. [http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/24/atheist-rally-continues-in-spite-of-rain-students-highlighted-throughout/]
|publisher= EP Books
+
The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it?
|location= Carlisle, PA, USA
+
|year= 2010
+
|pages=93-94, 101, 121
+
|isbn=978-0-85234-707-2
+
|url=
+
|quote= }}</ref> as another parameter goes to zero. There is however a problem how to interpret such terms as an infinite temperature, infinite mass, infinite energy or infinite force in the realms of physics. That's why [[Naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] physicists who [[Reductionism|reduce]] their explanations of physical reality to ''secondary (natural) causes'' assume that there is some new set of physical laws<ref name="Guth">{{cite web
+
|title=ALAN GUTH, Victor F. Weisskopf Professor of Physics
+
|publisher=MIT department of physics
+
|url=http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/faculty/guth_alan.html
+
|access date=08.03.2012
+
|quote=Recently Guth has worked with Alex Vilenkin (Tufts) and Arvind Borde (Southampton College) to show that the inflating region of spacetime must have a past boundary, and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it.}}</ref> or some new way of looking at the problem needed to make the apparent singularity go away.<ref name="PhysLink">{{cite web
+
|title=What is singularity and why do all laws of physics break down at singularity?
+
|publisher=PhysLink.com
+
|url=http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm
+
|quote=You can imagine the problems though -- how do we interpret an infinite mass or infinite energy or infinite force? Usually we assume that there is some new set of laws or some new way of looking at the problem that makes the apparent singularity go away. ...Most people worry about singularities involving general relativity: two examples being a black hole and the singularity that classical general relativity predicts was our universe at the moment it began. If you try to apply the laws of general relativity in these situations you will inevitably find the same 1/x singularities I've been talking about. How are we going to resolve these singularities? We expect quantum mechanics to do the job, since it is the theory that correctly describes physics at small distance scales. Unfortunately, while we have good theories of atomic physics, we don't real have a good theory of quantum gravity. Many of us think string theory will ultimately provide the resolution to these problems.
+
In short then, a singularity represents an infinity and we generally don't think nature is infinite. The problem arises from not having some kind of 'floor' built into a theory that keeps you from taking the limit of 1/x as x goes to zero. The way out is to apply a new theory that has such a floor, such as quantum mechanics or string theory (quantum gravity).}}}</ref> According to C.J.S. Clarke, no final satisfactory statement emerges of what a singularity really is like.<ref>{{cite book
+
|author=C.J.S. Clarke|title=The Analysis of Space-Time Singularities|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge, UK|year=1993|page=152|pages=175|isbn=0-521-43796-2|url=http://books.google.no/books?ei=Mh9sT9moNM-Sswa6g5XQAg&id=aeUADsSiC1QC&dq=Clarke+The+analysis+of+space-time+singularities&q=final+satisfactory+statement#v=snippet&q=final%20satisfactory%20statement&f=false|quote=It is perhaps one of the disappointments of the subject of time-space singularities, as it was established by the definitive work of Hawking and Penrose in the early 1970s, that no final satisfactory statement emerges of what a singularity really is like.}}</ref>   
+
  
== The big bang singularity ==
+
The rally was billed as "the largest gathering of the secular movement in world history", but only several thousand people gathered during the rainy day for the event.[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/24/reason-rally-is-coming-out-party-for-secular-movement][http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/atheists-others-to-gather-at-reason-rally/2012/03/23/gIQAvqY2WS_story.html?tid=pm_local_pop]
'''The [[Big Bang theory|big bang]] singularity''' or '''the cosmic singularity''' refers to a conjectured state at ''the beginning of the universe'' in which material particles were at no distance from one another and the temperature, density, and curvature of the universe were ''infinite''. The inference to this state is based on the evidence that the universe is expanding and thus it has established a clear path into the past. If expanding things (the large scale structure of the universe) are now far apart, they must at one point have been close together. At the singularity itself, a great many ''physical parameters'' zoom to infinity. This posts however a great problem for attempts for naturalistic explanations of the beginning of the universe since as the astronomer Joseph Silk observed, an indefinitely dense universe is where ''the laws of physics'', and even space and time, break down.<ref name="Devils">{{Cite book
+
{{clear}}
| author = David Berlinski
+
| title = The Devil’s Delusion
+
| publisher = Basic Books, New York, 2009
+
| isbn = 978-0-465-01937-3
+
| pages = 74, 79-82
+
|chapter = The Cause
+
| url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/devils-delusion/about.php
+
| quote = }}</ref> He further asserts that a state of infinite density is completely unacceptable as a physical description of the universe.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> According to [[Alan Guth]], "In spite of the fact that we call it the Big Bang [[theory]] it really says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang. It doesn't tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn't even describe, doesn't really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this bang." {{#tag:ref|Scientific organizations dominated by [[atheistic]] scientists who usurp the right to call themselves "mainstream" routinely describe this 'bang' as following: "A huge explosion, known as the Big Bang, then sent matter and energy expanding in all directions."<ref name="NAS">{{cite web |author=National Academy of Sciences(NAS)|title=Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences|chapter=The Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life|publisher=The Nationals Academies Press|year=1999|pages=48|url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=3|quote=Hubble's hypothesis of an expanding universe leads to certain deductions. One is that the universe was more condensed at a previous time. From this deduction came the suggestion that all the currently observed matter and energy in the universe were initially condensed in a very small and ''infinitely hot'' mass.}}</ref>|group=note}} Michio Kaku from City University of New York adds that "at the instant of the Big Bang ... we have the centrepiece of the Universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law".<ref name="BBC">{{cite web
+
|title=Parallel Universes
+
|series=Science & Nature; TV Program Horizon
+
|date= 14 February 2002
+
|publisher=BBC
+
|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml
+
|quote=NARRATOR: If everything in the Universe was to be explained then String Theory and the Big Bang would now seamlessly merge and they'd complement each other perfectly. After all, one concerned the birth of the Universe and the other all the matter in it. It was surely a foregone conclusion. Physics seemed to be on the edge of glory, but it all went terribly wrong. Try as they might they just couldn't get the two ideas to merge and then, after 10 years of struggling, something even worse happened: their two pet theories now began to self-destruct. The first problem appeared with the Big Bang. The cosmologists had assumed that as they worked backwards in time they would eventually work their way back all the way to the beginning of the Big Bang. There would be no awkward gaps, but after years of end-less refinement there was one gap which refused to disappear, the most important one of all.
+
ALAN GUTH: In spite of the fact that we call it the Big Bang Theory it really says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang. It doesn't tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn't even describe, doesn't really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this bang.
+
MICHIO KAKU: The fundamental problem of cosmology is that the laws of physics as we know them break down at the instant of the Big Bang. Well some people say what's wrong with that, what's wrong with having the laws of physics collapse? Well for a physicist this is a disaster. All our lives we've dedicated to the proposition that the Universe obeys knowable laws, laws that can be written down in the language of mathematics and here we have the centrepiece of the Universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law.
+
NARRATOR: The very beginning of the Big Bang was the single biggest mystery in all of cosmology. It was called the singularity.
+
PAUL STEINHARDT: When you extrapolate Einstein's general Theory of Relativity back to the beginning you discover what we call a singularity, a cosmic singularity, which is to say that the equations blow up.}}</ref>
+
  
Many naturalistic scientists are trying to escape the inescapable fact that the universe really did begin by proposing speculative theories including imaginary time (cf. [[Stephen Hawking]]:"Only if we could picture the universe in terms of ''imaginary time'' would there be no singularities...When we go back to the ''real time'' in which we live, however, there will still be ''singularities''")<ref name="Hawking">{{cite book
+
== See also ==
|author=Stephen Hawking
+
|title=A brief history of time
+
|publisher=Buntam books
+
|year=1996
+
|pages=135
+
|isbn=0-553-10953-7
+
|url=}}</ref>, [[string theory]], prior universe beyond the reach of observation<ref name="ESA">{{cite web
+
|title= Is the Universe finite or infinite? An interview with Joseph Silk
+
|publisher= ESA, European Space Agency
+
|date= 2 May 2001
+
|url= http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_people_0_iv.html
+
|access date= 09.03.2012
+
|quote= ESA: We seem to agree that the Big Bang started with an 'inflation', a short period of high-speed expansion. But what happened before that?
+
Joseph Silk: Maybe long before inflation there was a Universe that was collapsing near a singularity, which then inflated again, so there was already a history before the Big Bang. Some people think there was a 'pre-Big Bang'. One possibility is that this pre-Big Bang, ''if there was such a place'', would have made lots of entropy (the amount of disorder in the Universe). And the Universe we live in does have huge amounts of entropy. That's one theory. But ''we have no understanding of how to change from collapsing to expanding. There's no physical way to explain that transition.'' Some people believe that they have explanations the pre-Big Bang, so it's a respectable theory.}}</ref> (cf. [[Victor J. Stenger]]: "In the scenario I presented, our universe is described as having "tunneled" through the chaos ...from ''prior universe'' that existed for all previous time")<ref name="WhomadeGod"/>, or put their hope to [[quantum mechanics]]<ref name="PhysLink"/><ref name="DismantlingBB">{{cite book|author=Alex Williams, John Hartnett|title=Dismantling the Big Bang|publisher=Master Books|location=Green Forest, AR, USA|year=2005|page=101|pages=346|isbn=978-0-89051-437-5|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=FR7basoxkSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hartnett+dismantling+the+big+bang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvNwT_6nJJOP4gTP6fG_Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hartnett%20dismantling%20the%20big%20bang&f=false|quote=It is simply assumed that space was expanding right from the beginning and the substance of the universe "went along for the ride", and was thereby carried out of the singular state. No one can explain how, so they place their hope for an explanation in quantum gravity...At this stage it is still in the realm of speculation.}}</ref>. Some resort to the assertion that the world was ''uncaused'' (cf. [[Carl Sagan]]: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be")<ref name="skeptics"/> while other dismiss the question of the first cause altogether (cf. Hawking: "To ask what happened before the universe began is like asking for a point on the Earth at 91 degrees north latitude. Instead of talking about the universe being created, and maybe coming to and end, one should just say: the universe is.")<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>.
+
  
== The hot big bang singularity ==
+
*[[Atheism and depression]]
The big bang singularity is sometimes named '''the ''hot'' big bang singularity''' to emphasize the fact <ref name="WhomadeGod"/> that while going back in the time towards the origin of the universe, all matter and ''energy'' in the universe gets squeezed together into a "pinhead" - a process that would make it "very, very, very ''hot''".<ref name="WhomadeGod"/><ref name="NAS"/> Hot Big Bang singularity appears to be in violation of [[The First Law of Thermodynamics|the first law of thermodynamics]] since the global energy needed to run universe has come from nowhere and the principles of nineteenth-century physics require that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Thus, the hot Big Bang singularity remains beyond any [[cause and effect|causal]] scheme and the creation of the universe is still unexplained by any force, field, power, potency, influence or instrumentality known to physics or humankind.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> The [hot] big bang singularity does not represent a physical concept, because it cannot be accommodated by a physical theory. It is a point at which physical theories give the way.<ref name="Devils"/>
+
*[[Atheism and suicide]]
 +
*[[Atheism and health]]
 +
*[[Essay: The benefits of atheism]]
 +
*[[Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]]
 +
*[[Atheism and marriageability]]
 +
*[[Atheism and mass murder]]
 +
*[[Atheism and uncharitableness]]
 +
*[[Atheism and morality]]  
  
== Antipathy to the idea of beginning ==
+
Essays:
J.C. Lennox points out that the supporters of various schools of materialism let their worldview to play a role in their antipathy to the idea of beginning. Among them are [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]] (cf. "Did the God created the world, or has the world been in existence eternally?"), [[Stephen Hawking]] (cf."the idea that the time has beginning...smacks of divine intervention") and Sir John Maddox, a former editor of ''Nature'' (cf. "ultimite origin of our world [gave creationists] ample justification [for their beliefs]").<ref name="LENNOX"/>
+
  
== The naked singularity ==
+
*[[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline|Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]]
'''The naked singularity''' is referred to as "a troublesome sibling" of the [[black hole]], which is then considered one of the strangest ideas the modern science ever introduced. Both terms pertain to fate of a massive star that reached the end of its life. [[Naturalism|Naturalistic]] scientists believe large star eventually collapses to a black hole or suggest it might instead become a so-called naked singularity. Sorting out what actually happens<ref name="HKU">{{cite web
+
*[[Essay: Will American atheism be cut by at least 50%?]]
|title=Nature of the Universe
+
*[[Essay: The meat grinder of atheism and evolutionism|The meat grinder of atheism and evolutionism]]
|chapter=17:Black holes
+
*[[Essay: Misfortune sparks the turbocharging of creation evangelism|Misfortune sparks the turbocharging of creation evangelism]]  
|publisher=The University of Hong Kong, Department of Physics; Hong Kong Space Museum
+
|url=http://www.physics.hku.hk/~nature/CD/regular_e/lectures/chap17.html
+
|access date=09.03.2012
+
|quote=We call the center of a black hole a singularity. Naively, it has zero radius and infinite density. However, a more accurate statement is that we do not know the physical laws that govern the singularity and we have no idea what happens there.}}</ref> is declared one of the most important ''unresolved'' problems in astrophysics. The speculations about undiscovered naked singularities are part of the quest for a unified theory of physics and they do not provide any direct observational tests of such a theory.<ref>{{cite web
+
|author=Pankaj S. Joshi
+
|title=Do Naked Singularities Break the Rules of Physics?
+
|publisher=Scientific American Magazine (February 2009)
+
|date=January 21, 2009
+
|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=naked-singularities
+
|access date=08.03.2012
+
|quote=A black hole has two parts. At its core is a singularity, the infinitesimal point into which all the matter of the star gets crushed. Surrounding the singularity is the region of space from which escape is impossible, the perimeter of which is called the event horizon. Once something enters the event horizon, it loses all hope of exiting. Whatever light the falling body gives off is trapped, too, so an outside observer never sees it again. It ultimately crashes into the singularity. Conventional wisdom has it that a large star eventually collapses to a black hole, but some theoretical models suggest it might instead become a so-called naked singularity. Sorting out what happens is one of the most important unresolved problems in astrophysics.The discovery of naked singularities would transform the search for a unified theory of physics, not least by providing direct observational tests of such a theory.}}</ref> Berlinski writes with irony that until recently, great physicists have attempted with dignity to respect the distinction between what is known and what is not. He continues that contemporary cosmologists compromised their scrupulousness and feel free to say anything that pops into their heads, uncorrected by any criticism beyond the trivial.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>{{#tag:ref|cf."When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything."<ref>{{cite book|author=Don Bierle|title=Surprised by Faith|chapter=3|publisher=FaithSearch International (www.faithsearch.org)|location=Chaska, MN, USA|year=2004|page=67|pages=143|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=iP7tAQAACAAJ&dq=DonBierle+Surprised+by+faith&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z5FnT4rkLqOo4gTRl9D6Bw&redir_esc=y|isbn=978-0-9714-1008-4|quote=}}</ref> (paraphrased G.K. Chesterton) or more precisely attributed: "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense." ([[G.K. Chesterton]]) "The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything" (É.L. Cammaerts)<ref>{{cite journal|author=Nigel Rees |title=First things|year=1997|issue=69-74|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=NuQnAAAAYAAJ&q=%22The+first+effect+of+not+believing+in+God+is+to+believe+in+anything%22|quote=}}</ref>|group=note}}
+
  
== Einstein on singularity ==
+
Other resources:
 
+
Some scientists argue that when Einstein's [[General theory of relativity]] is extrapolated back to the beginning [of universe] it is discovered the equations blow up in the region of singularity or a [[Singularity#The_big_bang_singularity|cosmic singularity]], respectively.<ref name="BBC"/> Einstein himself however expressed his following views on this matter: "One may not therefore assume the validity of the [field] equation for very high density of the field and of the matter and one may not conclude that the beginning of the expansion must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions."<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>
+
 
+
== Bible and origins ==
+
 
+
Scientists who are biblical Christians believe that a creation model of the biblical kind clearly predicted a beginning [of the world]<ref name="LENNOX"/> and thus this can be considered as successful testable prediction giving the credit to predictive power of Biblical message. They warn against the danger of being seduced by speculation masquerading as science and they consider cosmic singularity to be compatible with creation of space, time, matter and energy ''ex nihilo'' (i.e. out of nothing) and often cite Arno Penzias, astrophysicist and Nobel laureate who stated in 1978 for [[The New York Times]] that "The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang) are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."<ref name="WhomadeGod"/> The [[New Atheism|New Atheists]] object to God as a final explanation for ''ultimate cause'', yet they themselves have no explanation for the existence of the mass/energy of which the universe is formed and thus must regard it essentially as a ''brute fact''. Due to [[law of causality]], [[explanation in science]], if it is to avoid [[infinite regress]], always leads to certain things that are regarded as ''ultimate''.<ref name="LENNOX"/> American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist Robert Jastrow closes his book ''God and the Astronomers'' with these words: "At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the ''power of reason'', the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."<ref>{{cite book
+
|author=Robert Jastrow
+
|title=God and the Astronomers
+
|location=New York
+
|publisher= W. W. Norton
+
|year=1992
+
|page=107
+
|isbn=978-0-393-85006-2
+
|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=1IfLYHv5pyUC&dq=inauthor:%22Robert+Jastrow%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cF9aT6TIMcPe4QSK77jeDw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA}}</ref>
+
 
+
== Notes ==
+
<references group=note/>
+
== References ==
+
{{Reflist}}
+
== See also ==
+
*[[Origins debate]]
+
*[[Atheism and the suppression of science#Rejection of the Big Bang|Atheism and the Rejection of the Big Bang]]
+
  
== External links ==
+
*[[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pP8ENlWfRk&feature=related ''The Case for a Creator'']: [[Lee Strobel]] & [[William Lane Craig]] on the [[Big Bang]] and the [[Cosmological_argument#Cosmological_arguments|Kalam Cosmological Argument]]
+
*[[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]  
  
[[Category:Cosmology]]
+
[[Category: Atheism]]
[[Category:Science]]
+
[[Category: Essays]]
[[Category:Philosophy of science]]
+
[[Category: Humor]]
[[Category:Physics]]
+
[[Category: Satire]]
 +
Categories: Atheism | Essays | Humor | Satire

Revision as of 17:01, 26 March 2012

God caused it to rain during the Reason Rally and only several thousand people gathered at the event.[1] Plus, I can't answer Shockofgod's question and the 15 questions of the Question evolution! campaign.

Please see: Atheism and depression and Global atheism is shrinking

The Almighty caused it to rain on the "Reason Rally"

Gloomy.jpg

God humbles the "Reason Rally", a national atheist rally in America, via a rainy day. [2] The Almighty rained on your parade atheists. What are you going to do about it?

The rally was billed as "the largest gathering of the secular movement in world history", but only several thousand people gathered during the rainy day for the event.[3][4]

See also

Essays:

Other resources:

Categories: Atheism | Essays | Humor | Satire