Replies

... they were talking about more and more scientists, Arno Penzias among them, dismantling the Big Bang theory to the point where they are openly saying there was no Big Bang after all.

And so does this mean that you believe everything you hear without checking it out first? You are happy to rely on "rumors," even "rumors of rumors?"

That's probably not exactly it. For you write:

But, modern science is (once again) beginning to challenge the idea of ex nihilo creation dogma. What makes it significant is that among them are the very people who created that dogma. [Do you mean, e.g., Penrose? Note: He wasn't doing "dogma" before or later; he wasn't arguing for an ex nihilo creation. He and Stephen Hawking did a mathematical study of the Big Bang hypothesis, and found it statistically highly probable. That's all.] Unfortunately, what they have to offer is no better than the Big Bang. Whether it is a new universe being created in each black hole, or the eternal filament theory, it all ends up in one big speculation, where there is distinction without a difference. For that matter, the defunct Steady State theory was as good as any other. :) They are all nice stories.

I think your point may be: "Who cares? They're all just 'nice stories' anyway." Conclusion: One's as good or as bad as any other. Therefore, they are equally worthless and not worth my time to understand what these "nice stories" actually say. After all, you can't prove any of them anyway.

I don't want to belabor that point here. But I'd like to note a brief comment. The scientific community in general, and cosmological physicists in particular, are dedicated to finding only "naturalistic causes" of natural phenomena, in this case the origin (or non-origin) and order of the Universe. The Big Bang theory has bothered them from the very first, for it seems eerily similar to the description of the origin of the Universe given in Genesis 1. God is not a "naturalistic cause" for these people. Rather, He is a "supernatural entity," and this sort of thing is absolutely banished from modern science. Therefore, the scientific "mission" becomes: Find an "explanation" of the Universe that has no recourse to a Creator God. (Jeepers, Isaac Newton didn't do that!)

However, scientific cosmologists who turn a blind eye to Big Bang theory because it allows a "divine foot"" into the Universe are in an interesting position, it seems to me. For Big Bang theory also well harmonizes with Aristotle's Laws of Causation, not to mention Aristotelian logic. And these are the very foundations of modern science.

FWIW, IMHO.

I dunno, dear kosta, sometimes I think you believe the Universe is unknowable in principle. I do not agree with you on that point.

Just because we can't know "everything" doesn't mean we can know "nothing at all."

Likewise for *scientific theories*.

At the end of the day, *scientists* have no more to hang their hat on than they criticize Bible believers for.

If what Scripture says is not authoritative for whatever reason they give, then neither is what they have to say authoritative.

What it gets down to is they believe what they believe as a matter of preference, no matter what they say contrary.

The Big Bang theory has bothered them from the very first, for it seems eerily similar to the description of the origin of the Universe given in Genesis 1

I doubt that most scientists go around trying to disprove God. They simply don't deal with God because, as you say, God is not a "naturalistic cause". God is simply not their bread and butter, if you know what I mean.

I dunno, dear kosta, sometimes I think you believe the Universe is unknowable in principle. I do not agree with you on that point. Just because we can't know "everything" doesn't mean we can know "nothing at all."

The Universe is unknowable because of its sheer (1) size and (2) in principle.

(1) In size, because we simply cannot gather all the information there is; we cannot reach beyond our little niche here on earth. We are like little busy bees who manage to wonder out of the hive and go around it several times and call it a "discovery". But the chance these bees will get to know the whole earth they live on is exactly nil. So, like the bees, we live and die like the bees, in a world proportional to our makeup.

(2) In principle because out brain is not capable of conceptualizing, integrating and storing everything there is to know. We simply cannot know everything, so we can know only something, but not everything. Considering the vastness of the Universe, knowing something about it is as good as not knowing anything about it. So we create gods to fill the void (gods of the gaps), be it scientific gods or spiritual gods.