But I liked the page you linked to. It gave me a chance to feel all smart and superior. — T Clark

Thanks! I barely understand it myself, but overall I'm a fan of Kelly Ross, and I thought it was worth airing a dissenting voice to the standard opinion on that matter.

Nevertheless, I also grudgingly admit that the OP has a point - the 'big bang theory' (an awful name, by the way) has many vast anomalies. And it's impossible to deny that it seems to converge with the idea of 'creation ex nihilo'. It has often been resisted by scientists because of this very fact. As I've often pointed out on this forum, in the Wikipedia entry on Georges Lemaître, it is noted that:

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.[34] However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[35] [36][16] Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[37] Lemaître was a devout Catholic, but opposed mixing science with religion,[37] although he held that the two fields were not in conflict.

Awakening from the scientific trance for a second, one has to say the universe could not expand then coalesce into the vast reality it has become from an infinitely small point Just not possible — Joe0082

You're right. It is impossible for anything inside an infinitely small point to expand into a vast world.

But the theory does NOT state what you ascribe to it. It says the matter in the universe that we know was concentrated in the volume of the size of a thimble. NOT INFINITELY SMALL. You ride on false assumptions, of course it is easy to prove something true wrong when the proof you use is wrong.

I also grudgingly admit that the OP has a point - the 'big bang theory' (an awful name, by the way) has many vast anomalies. And it's impossible to deny that it seems to converge with the idea of 'creation ex nihilo'. — Wayfarer

The bing bang theory (a kinder name) does not presuppose or state or claim that the world came from nothing. It says that all the matter existed in a volume the size of a thimble.

Sorry to correct you, but without this correction you seem to make sense, and we can't allow that. :-)

The bing bang theory (a kinder name) does not presuppose or state or claim that the world came from nothing. It says that all the matter existed in a volume the size of a thimble. — god must be atheist

An atom, actually. Although it is misleading to speak of ‘size’ because there could never be a point outside it to arrive at any judgement of ‘size’.

I’ll get to the point. Religious fundamentalists believe they can use science to prove God exists.

Scientific materialists believe they can use science to prove God doesn’t exist.

They’re both mistaken, in my view.

An atom, actually. — Wayfarer

No, Wayfarer, for the third time. It was the size of a thimble, not of an atom. Read my lips: thimble.

Go and look up the English translation of Georges LeMaitre’s original paper proposing the Big Bang.

I’ll get to the point. Religious fundamentalists believe they can use science to prove God exists.

Scientific materialists believe they can use science to prove God doesn’t exist.

They’re both mistaken, in my view. — Wayfarer

Scientific materialists will NEVER claim what you claim they claim. Science can't prove anything.

Religion is based on belief, so anything goes. They don't need proof.

No. I go by the standard that the scientific community accepted.

If you go to the origin, then we should believe Kepler's heliocentric world view, but we know the sun is not the centre of the world.

Maybe this is the source of your erroneous ways. You go back to the UNCORRECTED version of theories, the original ones. Time to dust off those Internet searches, and look for the updated, corrected versions of theories.

Scientific materialists will NEVER claim what you claim they claim. — god must be atheist

Richard Dawkins has written a number of books about exactly that - if not ‘proving’ that God does not exist, then strongly suggesting it:



As you haven’t bothered, the English translation of LeMaitre’s paper was generally referred to as the ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’.

As you haven’t bothered, the English translation of LeMaitre’s paper was generally referred to as the ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’. — Wayfarer

But it has been debunked. That does not seem to phase you at all. Your being impervious to facts is a GREAT armor in the field of philosophical discussion.

Bollocks. LeMaitra’s work was never ‘debunked’. It was elaborated, improved, refined - in exactly the same way as many other foundational papers in 20th C. Cosmology.

LeMaitra’s work was never ‘debunked’. It was elaborated, improved, refined - in exactly the same way as many other foundational papers in 20th C. Cosmology. — Wayfarer

True. One of the ways it was improved, was the correction of the size of the space that included the matter. You said it yourself here that LM's work was not accepted without refinement and improvements. Get with the times, Wayfarer, incorporate those improvements into your model of the Big Bang.

Nevertheless, I also grudgingly admit that the OP has a point - the 'big bang theory' (an awful name, by the way) has many vast anomalies. And it's impossible to deny that it seems to converge with the idea of 'creation ex nihilo'. It has often been resisted by scientists because of this very fact. — Wayfarer

I think I'm well aware of the limits of science. Even so, within those limits, and discounting the arrogance and narrow-minded of many scientists, it works pretty well.

As for creation from nothing, I remember getting in an argument with @apokrisis about virtual particles arising in the quantum vacuum. I said - Isn't that creation from nothing. He said - If it creates something, it's not nothing.

Apokrisis is a gun when it comes to this subject.

I'm also interested in Penrose's cyclical cosmology model. One big bang is creation ex nihilo, cyclic cosmology is the Bhagavad Gita ;-)

I said - Isn't that creation from nothing. He said - If it creates something, it's not nothing. — T Clark

I might have mentioned before David Albert's review of Lawrence Krauss' book Universe from Nothing which makes exactly this point. Krauss also talks a lot about quantum flunctuations and those topics, but his critics tore strips off him for saying that space was 'nothing'.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-metaphysical-muddle-of-lawrence-krauss-why-science-cant-get-/10100010

Virtual particles are described as temporary excitations of underlying quantum fields that appear in computations but are not detectable by experiment. It could be that they are examples of mathematics becoming reality. :chin:

I read the NYT article. Then fiddling around looking up the author of the review, I came across one of his books, "Quantum Mechanics and Experience," in a downloadable form. Thought you might be interested

http://www.rivercitymalone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/David-Albert-Quantum-Mechanics-Experience-1992.pdf

Thanks! I've heard of that book, I will certainly take a look.
:up:

...The inherent difficulties of the materialist theory of the atom, which had become apparent even in the ancient discussions about smallest particles, have also appeared very clearly in the development of physics during the present century.

This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers. Here, the development of quantum theory...has created a complete change in the situation. The mathematically formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts [of existence etc] cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles. All the words or concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects, such as 'position', 'velocity', 'color', 'size', and so on, become indefinite and problematic if we try to use then of elementary particles. I cannot enter here into the details of this problem, which has been discussed so frequently in recent years. But it is important to realize that, while the behavior of the smallest particles cannot be unambiguously described in ordinary language, the language of mathematics is still adequate for a clear-cut account of what is going on.

During the coming years, the high-energy accelerators will bring to light many further interesting details about the behavior of elementary particles. But I am inclined to think that the answer just considered to the old philosophical problems will turn out to be final. If this is so, does this answer confirm the views of Democritus or Plato?

I think that on this point modern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or—in Plato's sense—Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics. 1 — Werner Heisenberg, The Debate between Plato and Democritus

(Although he qualifies that further down in the speech when he says 'If modern science has something to contribute to this problem, it is not by deciding for or against one of these doctrines; for example, as was possibly believed in the nineteenth century, by coming down in favor of materialism and against the Christian philosophy, or, as I now believe, in favor of Plato's idealism and against the materialism of Democritus. On the contrary, the chief profit we can derive in these problems from the progress of modern science is to learn how cautious we have to be with language and with the meaning of words.')

Scientific materialists will NEVER claim what you claim they claim. Science can't prove anything.

Religion is based on belief, so anything goes. They don't need proof. — god must be atheist

I'm an atheist and I hold that (for now) methodological naturalism is our best source of reliable knowledge. There are people who hold philosophical naturalism who have an almost fundamentalist zeal for science's abilities to discern all that is true. (I prefer Laurence Krauss's no doubt cribbed definition of science facts as not being 'true', they are 'not false'.) And there are many religious believers who think of science as doing God's work and that the stories of the Bible, say, are allegories.

Plainly I'm not a physicist, nor do I find the subject particularly interesting. But it is clear that in the knowledge gaps prominent in physics, ideas are assumed by some about consciousness and matter. Speculation is rife and why would it not be? The quantum conundrums have provided an opportunity for a lot of contestable claims to flourish. And, as always, where there are gaps the fallacy from ignorance may bloom. As soon as someone can provide robust evidence (I am still hung up on this word) that our incomplete knowledge of physics definitely leads to, let's say non-dualism or a brave new world of higher consciousness, fine.

Religion is based on belief, so anything goes. They don't need proof. — god must be atheist

Not true. Religions are notorious for dictating what you're obliged to believe. In Christianity, that is the meaning of 'orthodox'. In times past if you promoted wrong belief the punishment was severe. So you can't believe anything you like, you must believe as you're told. (And of course there's no scientific evidence for those beliefs, but asking for scientific evidence misses the point. When the Dawkins of the world insist that there has to be scientific evidence for religious belief, the only people they're arguing against are those who insist on a literal reading of scriptures, namely, fundamentalists.)

When the Dawkins of the world insist that there has to be scientific evidence for religious belief, the only people they're arguing against are those who insist on a literal reading of scriptures, namely, fundamentalists.) — Wayfarer

I think that's largely true. I think I remember Dawkins saying somewhere that there wasn't much point arguing with progressive believers as their ideas don't do any harm. Somewhat patronizing and evasive, but I get what he means.

I always say 'fundamentalists argue with rocks'. What I mean is, when they take issue with carbon dating and other forms of empirical science then they're not facing reality. It's kind of tragic - if their beliefs can be derailed by straightforward empirical evidence, then they're based on a flawed reading of the Bible , in my view. (Not that I myself am particularly biblically-oriented.)

On the other hand - your appeals to ‘evidence’ kind of miss the point when it comes to the kinds of questions that are considered in these issues. When you say there’s no ‘evidence’ of divine creation, what this misses is that ‘evidence’ generally pertains to specific outcomes. What causes metal to rust? What causes continents to drift? Those are questions for which evidence can be adduced, because they’re specific questions. A question such as ‘is nature ordered, and if so, how?’ Is not that kind of question. We can all see the same evidence and present conflicting arguments as to why nature appears ordered and there’s no empirical way of differentiating them.

Have a look at this essay on the anthropic principle. It’s from a few years back, and I noticed that because at the end of the essay, which I just read, there’s a reference to the ‘forthcoming’ book - and I went to the book launch! I suspect, although he never says, that the author, Luke Barnes, belongs to a particular Christian type, called ‘muscular Christianity’, which is typical of a certain kind of Australian Anglicanism. BUT, he’s a bona fide PhD, and quite philosophically literate, he’s certainly no fundamentalist nor ID apologist. Nor does he engage in any Christian apologetics either here or in any of his writings that I’m familiar with, but he does seem to have a firm grasp of the so-called fine-tuning arguments.

On the other hand - your appeals to ‘evidence’ kind of miss the point when it comes to the kinds of questions that are considered in these issues. — Wayfarer

Yep, I am well aware of the... shall we call it contradiction? It's how I am. I am not a nimble thinker. Having hung around many mystics, Buddhists, yoga practitioners and earnest meditators for 20 years - people whose lives were all pretty much riddled with anxieties and status seeking (spiritual rather material) - I throw a jaundiced eye at the benefits of the contemplative life.

Thanks for the tip re Mr Barnes, W. I know Australian Anglicans pretty well as it happens. I enjoy a bit of muscular Christianity every now and then and consider myself, like most Westerners, marinated in the tradition.

The wayfarer,
Perceiving the pathway to truth,
Was struck with astonishment.
It was thickly grown with weeds.
"Ha," he said,
"I see that none has passed here
In a long time."
Later he saw that each weed
Was a singular knife.
"Well," he mumbled at last,
"Doubtless there are other roads."

Where's that from?

An image I have contemplated, although not turned into verse, is that of the discovery in some obscure alleyway, in some obscure ancient town, of a pile of rubble. The traveller catches a glimpse of light between the rocks, and so starts to paw them away. Behind, there is more light, and the smell of incense....

(ah, Stephen Crane. Isn't google amazing?)

Dr. Barnes.

Later he saw that each weed
Was a singular knife. — Tom Storm

Suddenly I get it. Exactly where I'm at right now. But I don't think there are other roads.

:pray:

So you can't believe anything you like, you must believe as you're told. — Wayfarer

Wrong. You believe anything you like. But if you advocate some beliefs, religion may frown at it. Nobody can tell you what to believe, and you are a perfect example of it (as am I).

Religions are still another stage of belief... that's the basic idea. Belief, not knowledge. So... what were you saying?