Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The “big bounce” theory is, according to a Scientific American article that I read about a year or so ago, also getting consideration these days; so the cosmology is far from settled.
Not true.
Alternative theories propounded by scientists result directly from the attempt at falsifying the prevailing Big Bang Model, they are not compe heir hearts are stirred by the Holy Spirit to believe, who otherwise would not.[/b]
Like old times, eh Epi!! ๐ By the way, I meant to say earlier that I know quite well that these arguments are for you done in the spirit of inquiry, and not dogmatism. I sometimes get so caught up in the arguments themselves that it might seem as if I fail to realize that. (And I’m a bit rusty since I take part here so little these days.)
I’ll keep this brief as we lost power and phone (w/ internet connection) last night in storms. I’m out briefly where I can connect.
I still think we’re mixing metaphysics and physics rather glibly (see my post after the one you responded to). I am likely not as up on the current physics as you are, however I think you put too much “faith” in the notion of scientific “orthodoxy”—recent discussions in the Science thread can be found here:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=101961&page=1
The reference to the Scientific American article is here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce
Here are two more references:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
I am not qualified to debate the merits of various theories of physics; but clearly the interpretations are less settled than you imply. Your comment about not saying that all being stands in need of a cause goes to my discussion of contingent being versus non-contingent being. I think that we likely also have some differences of definition, viz:
I understand “universe” to mean “all that is”, the “whole of being”. (I can adjust the language for manifold-universes theory quite easily.) You seem to take “universe” to mean “all contingent being”; non-contingent being is “god”. Once again we are at the dualist/non-dualist divide. I do not dismiss physics certainly, but I am less willing than you seem to be to play the “god of the gaps” game—in my case, a “non-dualism of the gaps”. I think my post restricting itself to metaphysical (philosophical) language shows that, logically, the Kalam argument devolves into a tautology—since contingent being by definition would be caused being.
EDIT:
Unless you wish to posit a past-eternal universe, you must accept a beginning to space-time.
Space-time is not a necessary manifestation of being-itself; it is a contingent manifestation. That is not to say that there is such a thing as contingent being-itself—as opposed to either
nihil or non-contingent being-itself. This is where the language of physics and that of metaphysics get all mixed and muddied. Physics does not make a claim about contingent versus non-contingent being-itself; it does make claims about how being-as-such (if it makes any sense to talk that way; I’m not sure it does) is manifest, but studies the manifestation (including process).
In gestaltic terms: physics studies the figures/forms/manifestations as they are related against the ground. Physics has to acknowledge the reality of ground, but the ground is always implicate, never explicate. Figure and ground are logically nonseparable. The notion of the whole gestalt being contingent begs the question: contingent vis-à-vis
what? (See below; this is just another angle on the question, and I know that I have a tendency to provide too many angles&hellip๐
What is "magical" is something coming into being uncaused.
No, what is “magical” is any
generatio ex nihilo; to think that is somehow “solved” by positing a non-contingent being as cause shows that you are not grasping the radicality of the idea of
nihil as absolute non-being (think: even the concept of “emptiness” requires the concept of “space”—the
nihil is not just emptiness-of-infinite-extension).
Similarly, one cannot talk sensibly of "cause" without assuming time already. So the notion of a pre-time causal agent is technically senseless.
To start with
nihil is to start with what I suggest cannot be conceptualized at all by the human intellect, and to pretend otherwise is self-deception. I am entertaining the notion—emphasis on “entertaining”, as opposed to (yet) asserting—that to speak of metaphysical
nihil is itself an absurdity.