A few days ago I came about a Christian apologetic website, not exactly the fire & brimstone kind, but a LOVE site. The presupposition being, of course, the flawedness of all human nature. now the interesting thing about that feller is that he is absolutely preoccupied with the idea that the big bang proves that Jesus was right. Goes like this:
(1) There are cosmological hypotheses which posit that the universe had a beginning (Vilenkin et al). These are right.
(2) If the universe had a beginning, then something must have caused it.
(3) That must have been my god, who is eternal and outside of space-time.
(4) Therefore Jesus.
It's the crude form of the Kalam argument developed by Muslim anti-rationalist Al-Ghazzali in the 12th century, the very influential inquisitor who ended the short blossom of Neo-Platonism, science and free thought in Islamic science.
Interesting enough his argument is based on Aristotle's "prime mover" argument, which shows that some concepts that zig-
zag through the devout scene over the centuries are just too attractive.
William Lane Craig adapted this kind of reasoning with a few original additions and misinterpretations.
Wes Morriston provided a very careful refutation of the philosophic parts.
I'll add just a few unsorted addenda.
(1) The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem does indeed posit a begin of the big bang. It does, however, not say that at the begin of the big bang there was "Nothing". That is a strange misinterpretation by interested parties - after all, the authors are physicists trying to understand a process of space expansion, and know enough about Xeno's paradox to avoid such intuitive simplification. All three have published about quantum fluctuations and such as possible pre-singularity states. The paper calls for a new physics, not for Theologians.
Even if BGV posits a zero point, it is by far not the standard cosmological model. It is one of a few dozen competing theories - a first introduction to the multitude is here. For further references, see here It is one of those situations where many physical explanations are thinkable, but none requires a theistic or deistic creator.
(2) Now, as H.L. Mencken once remarked," for every complex problem, there is a solution that is clear, simple, and... wrong". The idea of space itself expanding is pretty counter-intuitive, yet it's an established fact. And the first microseconds, with the whole universe the size of a grapefruit and less are especially strange - and do not lead themselves to simplistic explanations derived from observation of objects in Euclidean space. Quantum mechanics raises its Gorgon head. There is progress being made by better and better understanding of quantum phenomena. Not, however, by ignoring them and returning to the Aristolelian notion of motion, potentiality, and the mover.
The "law" of causality - as everyday thinking implies it - is something not inherent in quantum physics. Have a look at vacuum energy or the uncertainty principle, and weep. Following the process of inflation back in time, traditional 19th century physics, even Einsteinian relativity is soon not sufficient to explain the astronomic observations. That's why the idea of a "simple" Aristotelian causation, derived from the observation of objects in euclidean space, is such a mess. We positively know it's much more complicated than that.
(3) Even if such shortcuts were, for some unknown reason, legitimate, what would follow of it? A prime cause, and nothing more. Could be a property of matter, a recurrent process with frequent inflation/deflation cycles, a unique act by something not understood, a deistic principle, or a theistic god. Now,the "Kalam/prime mover" argument has been used to argue for the Olympic gods, YHV, the Christian trinity, Allah. Its structure is open, fill in Brahma, Baal, Mithras, or Ahura Mazda - they all fit. The arguments for whatever deity is claimed to be in charge are of a theological nature - they only work inside a faith community, some only inside a special congregation. Compare Al-Ghazzali and Aquinas, all they can say that they know who that prime mover is, because they presuppose him. That's not something to write QED behind...
(4) Finally, the problem of accepting the findings of science in relation to the big bang's intricacies, which are in open dissent to all that primitive Genesis stuff, is a slippery slope. If all the mechanical erection of a sky-tent to keep the waters above out is not to be read literally, why should paradise, the fall, and god's curses be true in a literal way? Not to speak of virgin birth, resurrection, and trans-substantiation.
Anyway, I was on my way from the 7/11 market around the corner, a net full of green mangoes by my side, thinking about Giordano Bruno's "Atomism" that cost his life because it was in open dissent to substance theory favored by the Church of his time, when I heard that scooter brake, tyres screeching, and the universe went out in a big bang. I awoke amid a kilo of shattered sticky green mango pieces, mixed with sugar and a few onions.
And blood oozing from a head wound. Someone handed me a towel, and without further contemplation as to what that towel might have been used for, I stopped the bleeding. Limbs were OK. The scooter driver even sent a kid to the 7/11 to get me fresh mango. We had a soup together, while volunteer mechanics fixed the bent scooter casing. The soup woman put some mystery fluid on the wound, and got me a sticking plaster, which was sufficient after the bleeding stopped. I handed back the towel, and proceeded to our apartment.
Where I lost conscience again. Pranee phoned a doctor, who decided I had a light contusion, so it's the deck chair on the balcony, deep in the shade, for the next two days.
Ah, and green mango salad, Yam Mam Muang, served by the most beautiful woman in the world.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen