Replies

Is there a possibility that extant cosmological models could be wrong?

Of course. None completely satisfy, none are firmly proven scientifically (or complete in data, e.g., amount of dark matter.) Heck we still don't know why matter exists.

But we are still limited in discussion to some guidelines: staying in category, logic, using the best known 'facts' etc.

The point being that just because it works it doesn't have to be true…Cosmological theories have been radically revised… to balance out the equation.

Yeah. To paraphrase Einstein, we really don't know very much.

So, I am not just a theological skeptic, but a skeptic of human nature. After all, theology is something man-made just as cosmology is.

In addition to the observer problem, yeah, it all adds up to a lot of minuses.

So when you say that time/space had to be created because (supposedly) they didn't exist, that's a theory. We don't know that.

It's a theory based on current science. New science was discovered supporting a "beginning and end." You can reject it, but if you're arguing science, you have to find the scientific fault (or logic fault). It's not enough to say: "we don't know that."

Well, not and be arguing effectively. We don't know, but based on the best evidence, the theory follows. If you disagree, what do you do with the evidence that contradicts you and what evidence do you have to support you?

I should be clear that I'm using the First Cause argument because Bennet used it, perhaps unaware, and I jumped in with it - to show his error of course. :)

But, yeah, even Aquinas never intended his argument from causation to be firm solid proof. It's an "argument." It relies on assumptions, some capacity for reason resulting in conclusions. It has been used and debated as a cornerstone for discussion on the question "Why is there anything at all?" for a long, long time. (Aquinas revised it from Aristotle.)

This is what humans do. We alone, as far as we are aware, know that we exist. And in those interested in this type of knowledge, there is an unceasing desire to explore, "Why?"

We love mysteries. Chesterton (who wrote mysteries) said:

"All science, even the divine science, is a sublime detective story. Only it is not set to detect why a man is dead; but the darker secret of why he is alive."

You are correct that the whole standard model, etc., could be turned on its head tomorrow. It is a likely bet that if not tomorrow, eventually.

Perhaps our language is not capable of expressing some concepts, but when I define "eternal" as without a beginning or end, which is an acceptable definition, that's what I mean by it. If we can accept that something we call "deity" has no beginning and no end, why not space and time?

Because, eternal when used in proper orthodox theology means outside time. "Beginning" and "ending" are non sequiturs when speaking of the deity. You can use them, but you're not in agreement with terms with those making the arguments you are participating in.

You're correct that the word can be used the way you do, but a requirement for productive argument is agreement of terms.

That is what I mean by being stuck in the box. It doesn't require it. Time/space can exists without beginning or end, uncaused,

That's pretty close to Bertram Russell's objection to the causation argument: "No, it just is."

I think this appeals to you, other objections appeal to me. Neither is hard proof. We argue our points as we examine the mystery from our own view and experience.

just as a presumed deity can be imagined to exist without cause. How do we know the Creator was not caused?

Once again it's a definition thing. Forget God for a second and just use "First Cause." The causation argument is an argument that a first cause must exist because events happen and there is cause and effect.

In this argument, if you follow its premises - the first cause cannot have a cause - that's what the argument concludes: there must be an uncaused first cause.

IMHO, it has it good points and its weaknesses. Here, I've been trying to argue it accurately, reject objections that are not effective, recognize those that are.

If we substitute god/deity with A and Space/Time as B, we can't say one is without cause and the other requires it based on logic alone.

Same answer. It is required based on the logic. The objections have to attack the logic - many have. You can attack the premise that cause and effect is false, an illusion caused by a web of simultaneous events. Etc. etc.

Aquinas wrote four cosmological arguments. They were in the form of logic. If you say x is not true, the requirement is to demonstrate why the logic fails.

Again, none of these fulfill the strict requirements of formal logic for absolute proof.

Seeking for the betterment is fine, as long as we keep in mind that we don't know or understand everything.

The best always have shared your philosophy here.

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. And in knowing that you know nothing, that makes you the smartest of all.
- Socrates
We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of school children. The real nature of things we shall never know.
- Albert Einstein
As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more mysterious.
- Albert Schweitzer

Maybe curiosity is its own end and the reward is both knowledge and humility.

thanks very much for your reply and discussion, I enjoy it immensely - the ants must envy us this pleasure, yes?

It's a theory based on current science. New science was discovered supporting a "beginning and end."

The Big Bang is not axiomatically the beginning, except in the minds of Intelligent Design crowd, a man-made rationalization. The science obtained evidence that an event took place but not necessarily the first of its kind.

Likewise there is no evidence of the "end." The universe is not slowing down as it should be, but is actually accelerating...and expanding. Maybe the "end" will be a super giant black whole that will chow down everything and then cough it all up in another spectacular Big Bang, starting the process anew as it may have eternally.

How can we know for sure when, compared to the clock of the universe, our existence is less than that of a microbe on earth. What's a whole aeon to mankind is not even a millisecond to the Universe.

On the other hand, the ID crowd may be right: God created the world just as the Bible says. But no one really knows for sure who is right, do we? My opposition to a creationist theory is not so much the knowledge that it is "wrong" as much as it is an opposition to human extremism.

It's one thing to speculate and muse over these things as mind-boggling uncertainties and possibilities and possibilities; it's an altogether different thing when some groups monopolize one theory and turn it into "official truth."

The best always have shared your philosophy here. True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. And in knowing that you know nothing, that makes you the smartest of all. - Socrates; We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of school children. The real nature of things we shall never know. - Albert Einstein; As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more mysterious. - Albert Schweitzer

Thank you for beginning this up. Knowledge is the greatest human "humulifier".