• Wayfarer
    6.2k
    That’s not how I read it at all. Actually I think the very idea of the Big Bang is extremely mystical. When LeMaitre first published his theory, it was resisted by many scientists exactly because it sounded far too much like the Creation.
  • Wayfarer
    6.2k
    'While having no argument with the Lemaître theory (later confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

    Wikipedia entry on Sir Fred Hoyle

    'While many of us may be OK with the idea of the Big Bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God,” Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.;

    Why Physicists can't Avoid a Creation Event, New Scientist.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Certain cosmological arguments favored by Protestant natural theologians like William Lane Craig seem to employ the premise that "nothing" existed "before" the Big Bang, since time began with the Big Bang. There are a number of problems with this. One is that it misunderstands the nature of the Big Bang, which is technically a singularity, a term physicists use to describe the breakdown of their equations. The Big Bang is therefore the accepted term for our ignorance of cosmic origins, not our certitude about them, and doesn't permit one to conclude that there was "nothing" before the Big Bang or that time began with it or anything else.

    What such cosmological arguments ultimately attempt to prove is a God of the gaps. We don't know what caused the Big Bang, therefore God did it. Any argument premised on certain contingent scientific theories, however, is easily falsified when those theories are modified or abandoned, which the history of science attests is not out of the ordinary. It could well be that an infinite multiverse exists and that two colliding bubble universes caused the Big Bang. Well, then, so much for the apparent "nothingness" that made it seem as though the Big Bang pointed to creation! Classical cosmological arguments, such as those given by Aquinas, begin with basic concepts like motion, not with contingent scientific theories. This is why they are still lively debated today: they cannot be falsified by any scientific theory.
  • Wayfarer
    6.2k
    Sure. Far be it from me to argue for the existence of God based on science. But if you wanted a slam-dunk case for the non-existence of God based on science, then Big Bang cosmology isn't going to give it to you. Hence the quote from Hawkings. My understanding is that the very fact that a meaningful universe arose from the singularity, and not simply chaos, is a general argument in favour of natural theology. A lot of people aren't going to like that, simply because of today's entrenched anti-religious animus, but I think those who argue it (I'm thinking of Alisdair McGrath and Keith Ward, rather than Craig) have a perfectly reasonable case.

    Furthermore, such arguments ought not to be regarded as scientific hypotheses - they're metaphysical conjecture made on the basis of abductive inference. I can't see why those kinds of arguments are necessarily in conflict with the Thomistic-Aristotelian arguments.
  • Jamie
    15
    Morality is man-made. Things are now permitted that were once not morally correct.
    It was once immoral to divorce someone. It was once immoral to have children if you were not married. It was once immoral to be homosexual.
    Who decided that these once immoral things were now acceptable? God or mankind? Has God grown more tolerant and accepting or has mankind?
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    All of those things could still be immoral. Such changing cultural mores prove neither moral relativism nor some version of moral realism to be true.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    But if you wanted a slam-dunk case for the non-existence of God based on science, then Big Bang cosmology isn't going to give it to you.Wayfarer

    True, it works both ways. The atheist ought not to employ contingent scientific theories to prove his atheism just as much as the theist ought not to employ them to prove theism. Alas, the majority on both sides don't seem to heed this advice.

    I can't see why those kinds of arguments are necessarily in conflict with the Thomistic-Aristotelian arguments.Wayfarer

    I'm not saying they're in conflict. I'm saying they're a different kind of argument, since they're based on different premises, and I think such arguments are bad for the reason I gave. Aquinas's cosmological argument is going to be of perennial relevance, whereas some Kalam cosmological argument predicated on the Big Bang is likely not and, unlike the former, ends up with a God of the gaps.
  • Wayfarer
    6.2k
    The gaps keep getting bigger, if you ask me. :-d
  • Henri
    87
    Slam dunk case for the non-existence of God?

    Within reality we can reach, it is impossible to calculate less than 50/50 probability that God exists.

    But it is possible to calculate almost 100% chance that God exists based on available measurements. The more measurements about our reality one uses in calculation, the closer to 100% chance that God exists it gets. It's ironic.

    At the same time, issue about evidence for God, case for God, proof for God, is either honestly mistaken one or purposefully misleading one, since no human can provide an evidence that God exists to another human.
  • Maw
    764


    A formal fallacy, viz., affirming the consequent.
  • darthbarracuda
    2.8k
    (1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    (2) Objective moral values and duties exist.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.
    cincPhil

    Premise (1) is doubtful. Why is the existence of God necessary for there to be objective morals and values? Why has naturalism been ignored (not saying I'm a big fan of naturalism), and why does non-naturalism require the existence of God to be coherent?
  • Sapientia
    5.6k
    The first premise is false, so the argument is unsound. The second premise is also possibly false, and lacks sufficient reason to be accepted as true.
  • VagabondSpectre
    999


    It's a valid argument. See:Modus Tollens.

    P1 defines the existence of god as necessary for the existence of objective morals, and since P2 states that they exist, we can deduce that God also must exist.

    The argument is valid, but the premises themselves are terrible. Neither God nor objective morals are defined, and using various mixes of definitions for these two concepts, I cannot find any appealing or persuasive combination that makes the premise seem intuitively or otherwise true.

    Premise two is an extension of the assumptions made in premise one (in addition to not being defined whatsoever). If we're going to just assume that objective morals exist why don't we just also assume that god exists and not bother with these supposedly useful deductive arguments for it's existence?

    Why not assume God exists and use then modus ponens form to deduce that objective morals exist instead?

    Maybe objective morals exist but God does not, or maybe objective morals do not exist but God does. Why is God required for "objective morality" (what's that?) again?

    If you can define and substantiate your premises with evidence, that would go a long way to making your argument more persuasive, but proving that "objective morals" require a "god", or that "objective morals" exist is quite the tall order. As it rests your argument is too facile to be taken seriously and hence is unpersuasive to almost everyone.
  • Sapientia
    5.6k
    From what I gather, the argument missing from the opening post is something like:

    Lions are not murderers, and I have some very strong moral beliefs. Therefore, objective morality. Therefore, God.

    It's still not very convincing.
  • VagabondSpectre
    999
    From what I gather, the argument missing from the opening post is something like:

    Lions are not murderers, and I have some very strong moral beliefs. Therefore, objective morality. Therefore, God.

    It's still not very convincing.
    Sapientia

    I got pretty much the same impression: "I can see no objective moral source for my strong and herein un-examined beliefs other than God".

    Next he will be deducing the various attributes of god using his own objective moral positions as a starting point...
1234Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.