| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michael Ejercito" |
| Date: |
29 Sep 2006 05:12:26 PM |
| Object: |
Cosmology: The Collapse of the Concept of An Eternal |
http://www.riseofislam.com/rise_of_faith_02.html
Cosmology: The Collapse of the Concept of An Eternal
Universe and the Discovery of Creation
The first blow to atheism from twentieth-century science was in the
field of cosmology. The idea that the universe had existed forever was
discounted, for scientists discovered that it had a beginning. In other
words, they proved scientifically that the universe had been created
from nothing.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804; above) proposed that the universe was
eternal, a claim that is strongly defended by materialists.
This idea of an eternal universe came to the Western world, along with
materialist philosophy, from classical Greek civilization. It stated
that only matter exists, and that the universe comes from eternity and
goes to eternity. In the Middle Ages, when the Catholic church
dominated Western thought, materialism was forgotten. However, in the
modern period Western scientists and philosophers became consumed with
curiosity about these classical Greek origins and revived an interest
in materialism.
The first person to propose a materialist understanding of the universe
was the renowned German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), even
though he was not a materialist in the philosophical sense of the word.
Kant proposed that the universe was eternal and that every possibility
could be realized only within this eternity. With the coming of the
nineteenth century, it became widely accepted that the universe had no
beginning and that there had been no moment of creation. Adopted
passionately by such dialectical materialists as Marx and Engels, this
idea found its way into the twentieth century.
This idea has always been compatible with atheism, for accepting that
the universe had a beginning would mean that God had created it. Thus
the only way to counter this idea was to claim that the universe was
eternal, even though science did not support such a claim. Georges
Politzer (1903-42), a dogged proponent of this claim, became widely
known as a supporter of materialism and Marxism in the first half of
the twentieth century through his book Principes Fondamentaux de
Philosophie (The Fundamental Principles of Philosophy). Assuming the
"eternal universe" model to be valid, he opposed the idea of creation:
The universe was not a created object. If it were, then it would
have to be created instantaneously by God and brought into existence
from nothing. To admit creation, one has to admit, in the first place,
the existence of a moment when the universe did not exist, and that
something came out of nothingness. This is something to which science
cannot accede.4
In the picture above we see Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1820-95) at
an 1847 meeting in London defending their atheist views.
By supporting the idea of an eternal universe, Politzer thought that
science was on his side. However, very soon thereafter, the fact that
he had alluded to by saying "if it is so, we must accept the existence
of a creator," that is, that the universe had a beginning, was proven.
This proof came as a result of the "Big Bang" theory, perhaps the most
important concept of twentieth-century astronomy.
The Big Bang theory was formulated after a series of discoveries. In
1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) noticed that the
galaxies were continually moving away from each other and that the
universe was expanding. If the flow of time in an expanding universe
were reversed, the whole universe must have come from a single point.
While assessing the validity of Hubble's discovery, astronomers were
faced with the fact that this single point was a "metaphysical" state
of reality in which there was an infinite gravitational attraction with
no mass. Matter and time came into being through the explosion of this
mass-less point. In other words, the universe was created from nothing.
On the one hand, some die-hard materialist astronomers have tried to
resist the Big Bang theory and maintain the idea of an eternal
universe. Arthur Eddington (1882-1944), a renowned materialist
physicist, summed up their view quite well when he said:
"Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present
order of Nature is repugnant to me."5 Despite this repugnance, however,
the Big Bang theory continues to be corroborated by concrete scientific
discoveries. In their observations made in the 1960s, Arno Penzias and
Robert Wilson detected radioactive remains of the explosion (cosmic
background radiation). These observations were verified in the 1990s by
the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite.
The materialists' claim that the "universe is eternal" was disproved by
Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) discovery that the universe began from one
point as the result of a great explosion.
Confronted with all of these facts, atheists have been squeezed into a
corner. Anthony Flew, an atheist professor of philosophy at the
University of Reading and author of Atheistic Humanism, makes this
interesting confession:
Notoriously, confession is good for the soul. I will therefore begin by
confessing that the Stratonician atheist has to be embarrassed by the
contemporary cosmological consensus. For it seems that the cosmologists
are providing a scientific proof of what St. Thomas contended could not
be proved philosophically; namely, that the universe had a beginning.
So long as the universe can be comfortably thought of as being not only
without end but also without beginning, it remains easy to urge that
its brute existence, and whatever are found to be its most fundamental
features, should be accepted as the explanatory ultimates. Although I
believe that it remains still correct, it certainly is neither easy nor
comfortable to maintain this position in the face of the Big Bang
story.6
An example of the atheists' reaction to the Big Bang theory is seen in
a 1989 article by John Maddox, editor of Nature, one of the best-known
materialist-scientific journals. In his article, entitled "Down with
the Big Bang," Maddox wrote that the Big Bang is "philosophically
unacceptable," because "creationists and those of similar persuasions
.... have ample justification in the doctrine of the Big Bang." He also
predicted that it "is unlikely to survive the decade ahead."7
However, despite Maddox' hopes, the Big Bang theory continues to gain
credence, and new discoveries continue to prove that the universe was
created.
Some materialists have a relatively logical view of this issue. For
example, the English materialist physicist H. P. Lipton "unwillingly"
accepts the scientific fact of creation. He writes:
I think ... that we must ... admit that the only acceptable explanation
is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it
is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the
experimental evidence supports it.8
Thus, modern astronomy proves and states that time and matter were
brought into being by an eternally powerful Creator, Who is independent
of both of them. The eternal power that created the universe in which
we live is God, the possessor of infinite might, knowledge, and wisdom.
.
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology: The Collapse of the Concept of An Eternal |
29 Sep 2006 08:48:11 PM |
|
|
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<long, confused dissertation snipped>
The Big Bang has nothing to do with divine creation. The universe (not,
perhaps as we know it, but a universe nevertheless) may have had a
infinite number of bangs, expansions then collapses. In any event, the
Big Bang doesn't obviate atheism. Rather, it supports it.
Wexford
.
|
|
|
| User: "Trancendo" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology: The Collapse of the Concept of An Eternal |
29 Sep 2006 09:54:04 PM |
|
|
t1gercat wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<long, confused dissertation snipped>
The Big Bang has nothing to do with divine creation. The universe (not,
perhaps as we know it, but a universe nevertheless) may have had a
infinite number of bangs, expansions then collapses. In any event, the
Big Bang doesn't obviate atheism. Rather, it supports it.
Wexford
Another giant blind athiestic leap to a completely unsupported
conclusion. The big bang neither supports nor detracts from the
probability that either athiesm or theism is true. In other words the
big bang does not contradict theism, and it does not contradict athiesm.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology: The Collapse of the Concept of An Eternal |
29 Sep 2006 10:39:01 PM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2006 14:54:04 -0700, "Trancendo" <barrett@gpatents.com>
wrote:
t1gercat wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<long, confused dissertation snipped>
The Big Bang has nothing to do with divine creation. The universe (not,
perhaps as we know it, but a universe nevertheless) may have had a
infinite number of bangs, expansions then collapses. In any event, the
Big Bang doesn't obviate atheism. Rather, it supports it.
Wexford
Another giant blind athiestic leap to a completely unsupported
conclusion. The big bang neither supports nor detracts from the
probability that either athiesm or theism is true. In other words the
big bang does not contradict theism, and it does not contradict athiesm.
Another lie by a theist. The big bang reduces the gaps that your
pretend friend can hide in.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology: The Collapse of the Concept of An Eternal |
29 Sep 2006 11:10:38 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 14:54:04 -0700, "Trancendo" <barrett@gpatents.com>
wrote:
t1gercat wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<long, confused dissertation snipped>
The Big Bang has nothing to do with divine creation. The universe (not,
perhaps as we know it, but a universe nevertheless) may have had a
infinite number of bangs, expansions then collapses. In any event, the
Big Bang doesn't obviate atheism. Rather, it supports it.
Wexford
Another giant blind athiestic leap to a completely unsupported
conclusion. The big bang neither supports nor detracts from the
probability that either athiesm or theism is true. In other words the
big bang does not contradict theism, and it does not contradict athiesm.
Another lie by a theist. The big bang reduces the gaps that your
pretend friend can hide in.
This one (Mikey Ejercito) is either a loki, or should be institionalised
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology: The Collapse of the Concept of An Eternal |
30 Sep 2006 02:57:42 AM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2006 16:10:38 -0700, "Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1159571438.202565.126760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 14:54:04 -0700, "Trancendo" <barrett@gpatents.com>
wrote:
t1gercat wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<long, confused dissertation snipped>
The Big Bang has nothing to do with divine creation. The universe (not,
perhaps as we know it, but a universe nevertheless) may have had a
infinite number of bangs, expansions then collapses. In any event, the
Big Bang doesn't obviate atheism. Rather, it supports it.
Wexford
Another giant blind athiestic leap to a completely unsupported
conclusion. The big bang neither supports nor detracts from the
probability that either athiesm or theism is true. In other words the
big bang does not contradict theism, and it does not contradict athiesm.
Another lie by a theist. The big bang reduces the gaps that your
pretend friend can hide in.
This one (Mikey Ejercito) is either a loki, or should be institionalised
If he is a Loki, then he's a very consistent stylised one.
I say he is actually an all too real, and very dangerous head-case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Trancendo" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology: The Collapse of the Concept of An Eternal |
03 Oct 2006 04:08:10 AM |
|
|
If he is a Loki, then he's a very consistent stylised one.
I say he is actually an all too real, and very dangerous head-case.
What is a Loki? Why do you say that I am dangerous? You don't like
all the hospitals, universities, constitutional rights, charitable
organizations, etc... that have been started by theists?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology: The Collapse of the Concept of An Eternal |
29 Sep 2006 10:35:32 PM |
|
|
Trancendo wrote:
t1gercat wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<long, confused dissertation snipped>
The Big Bang has nothing to do with divine creation. The universe (not,
perhaps as we know it, but a universe nevertheless) may have had a
infinite number of bangs, expansions then collapses. In any event, the
Big Bang doesn't obviate atheism. Rather, it supports it.
Wexford
Another giant blind athiestic leap to a completely unsupported
conclusion. The big bang neither supports nor detracts from the
probability that either athiesm or theism is true. In other words the
big bang does not contradict theism, and it does not contradict athiesm.
It does not contradict theism as such, just most current flavours of
theism.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology: The Collapse of the Concept of An Eternal |
30 Sep 2006 03:39:45 AM |
|
|
Trancendo wrote:
t1gercat wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<long, confused dissertation snipped>
The Big Bang has nothing to do with divine creation. The universe (not,
perhaps as we know it, but a universe nevertheless) may have had a
infinite number of bangs, expansions then collapses. In any event, the
Big Bang doesn't obviate atheism. Rather, it supports it.
Wexford
Another giant blind athiestic leap to a completely unsupported
conclusion. The big bang neither supports nor detracts from the
probability that either athiesm or theism is true. In other words the
big bang does not contradict theism, and it does not contradict athiesm.
The first problem -- there is no rational basis for Theism. Virtually
everything in life refutes it. The second -- nothing in any religion
with which I'm acquainted describes a creation event that even remotely
resembles the big bang. One would think that if there were a God and he
did chose to communicate with his creation it would be with more
precision than is revealed in Genesis. If there is an unsupported leap,
it's that of the theist who tries to support his religious beliefs with
an awkward fit from modern physics.
Wexford
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology: The Collapse of the Concept of An Eternal |
30 Sep 2006 10:53:16 AM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2006 20:39:45 -0700, "t1gercat" <wexford1778@yahoo.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1159587585.177223.269690@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Trancendo wrote:
t1gercat wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<long, confused dissertation snipped>
The Big Bang has nothing to do with divine creation. The universe (not,
perhaps as we know it, but a universe nevertheless) may have had a
infinite number of bangs, expansions then collapses. In any event, the
Big Bang doesn't obviate atheism. Rather, it supports it.
Wexford
Another giant blind athiestic leap to a completely unsupported
conclusion. The big bang neither supports nor detracts from the
probability that either athiesm or theism is true. In other words the
big bang does not contradict theism, and it does not contradict athiesm.
The first problem -- there is no rational basis for Theism. Virtually
You make the mistake of assuming that Miss Trancendo actually seeks
rationality.
everything in life refutes it. The second -- nothing in any religion
with which I'm acquainted describes a creation event that even remotely
resembles the big bang. One would think that if there were a God and he
did chose to communicate with his creation it would be with more
precision than is revealed in Genesis. If there is an unsupported leap,
it's that of the theist who tries to support his religious beliefs with
an awkward fit from modern physics.
Wexford
.
|
|
|
| User: "Trancendo" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology: The Collapse of the Concept of An Eternal |
03 Oct 2006 04:05:20 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 29 Sep 2006 20:39:45 -0700, "t1gercat" <wexford1778@yahoo.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1159587585.177223.269690@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Trancendo wrote:
t1gercat wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<long, confused dissertation snipped>
The Big Bang has nothing to do with divine creation. The universe (not,
perhaps as we know it, but a universe nevertheless) may have had a
infinite number of bangs, expansions then collapses. In any event, the
Big Bang doesn't obviate atheism. Rather, it supports it.
Wexford
Another giant blind athiestic leap to a completely unsupported
conclusion. The big bang neither supports nor detracts from the
probability that either athiesm or theism is true. In other words the
big bang does not contradict theism, and it does not contradict athiesm.
The first problem -- there is no rational basis for Theism. Virtually
You make the mistake of assuming that Miss Trancendo actually seeks
rationality.
Interesting comment. What exactly is rationality in an atheistic
framework?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Trancendo" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology: The Collapse of the Concept of An Eternal |
03 Oct 2006 04:03:21 AM |
|
|
t1gercat wrote:
Trancendo wrote:
t1gercat wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<long, confused dissertation snipped>
The Big Bang has nothing to do with divine creation. The universe (not,
perhaps as we know it, but a universe nevertheless) may have had a
infinite number of bangs, expansions then collapses. In any event, the
Big Bang doesn't obviate atheism. Rather, it supports it.
Wexford
Another giant blind athiestic leap to a completely unsupported
conclusion. The big bang neither supports nor detracts from the
probability that either athiesm or theism is true. In other words the
big bang does not contradict theism, and it does not contradict athiesm.
The first problem -- there is no rational basis for Theism.
Gee, there sure are a lot of rational people who would differ with you.
What is the rational basis for athiesm.
Virtually
everything in life refutes it.
Brilliant approach. Answer my accusation of a big blind athiestic leap
with another big blind leap. Is this like the proverbial monkey with a
type writer -- enough blind leaps and you'll eventually get there?
The second -- nothing in any religion
with which I'm acquainted describes a creation event that even remotely
resembles the big bang.
One would think that if there were a God and he
did chose to communicate with his creation it would be with more
precision than is revealed in Genesis.
Your point is a reasonable one, and I don't have a great answer to why
God didn't give a more scientific explanation of the universe. Perhaps
it was because he was talking to prehistoric people who couldn't have
understood it. However, I don't think this fact entails a conclusion
that there is no God. All we get from it is that if there is a God, he
didn't do some things the way we think he should have. But then, that
is also what we would expect if there is a God, i.e., that his superior
and different intellect might lead to decisions or approaches that are
different from what we would expect.
If there is an unsupported leap,
it's that of the theist who tries to support his religious beliefs with
an awkward fit from modern physics.
I actually wasn't doing arguing that the big bang supports theism --
all I said was that the big bang doesn't contradict theism or athiesm.
However, I do suspect that there is support for theism in modern
physics. Read John Polkinghorne -- fellow and retired president of
Queens' College, Cambridge. Winner of the 2002 Templeton Prize, he is
both a quantum physicist and an Anglican priest.
..
Wexford
.
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology: The Collapse of the Concept of An Eternal |
03 Oct 2006 10:18:38 PM |
|
|
Trancendo wrote:
t1gercat wrote:
Trancendo wrote:
t1gercat wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
<long, confused dissertation snipped>
The Big Bang has nothing to do with divine creation. The universe (not,
perhaps as we know it, but a universe nevertheless) may have had a
infinite number of bangs, expansions then collapses. In any event, the
Big Bang doesn't obviate atheism. Rather, it supports it.
Wexford
Interesting
Another giant blind athiestic leap to a completely unsupported
conclusion. The big bang neither supports nor detracts from the
probability that either athiesm or theism is true. In other words the
big bang does not contradict theism, and it does not contradict athiesm.
The first problem -- there is no rational basis for Theism.
Gee, there sure are a lot of rational people who would differ with you.
What is the rational basis for athiesm.
Virtually
everything in life refutes it.
Brilliant approach. Answer my accusation of a big blind athiestic leap
with another big blind leap. Is this like the proverbial monkey with a
type writer -- enough blind leaps and you'll eventually get there?
Blind leap? No. There is nothing in existence -- at least to our
collective experience -- that supports the concept of an eternal,
all-powerful god. The "leap" is the "leap of faith" needed to believe
in god or gods, since no god can be percieved. If you know differently,
if you can find one shred of physical evidence pointing to a god, let
us know.
The second -- nothing in any religion
with which I'm acquainted describes a creation event that even remotely
resembles the big bang.
One would think that if there were a God and he
did chose to communicate with his creation it would be with more
precision than is revealed in Genesis.
Your point is a reasonable one, and I don't have a great answer to why
God didn't give a more scientific explanation of the universe. Perhaps
it was because he was talking to prehistoric people who couldn't have
understood it. However, I don't think this fact entails a conclusion
that there is no God. All we get from it is that if there is a God, he
didn't do some things the way we think he should have. But then, that
is also what we would expect if there is a God, i.e., that his superior
and different intellect might lead to decisions or approaches that are
different from what we would expect.
If there is an unsupported leap,
it's that of the theist who tries to support his religious beliefs with
an awkward fit from modern physics.
I actually wasn't doing arguing that the big bang supports theism --
all I said was that the big bang doesn't contradict theism or athiesm.
However, I do suspect that there is support for theism in modern
physics. Read John Polkinghorne -- fellow and retired president of
Queens' College, Cambridge. Winner of the 2002 Templeton Prize, he is
both a quantum physicist and an Anglican priest.
OK. I've heard Polkinghorne speak and I know of his reputation. Look,
I have no argument with faith. If one believes, one believes. I do
think that any attempt to support that belief by invoking modern
physics will only result in frustration. My opinion, only.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Cosmology: The Collapse of the Concept of An Eternal |
29 Sep 2006 07:18:01 PM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2006 10:12:26 -0700, "Michael Ejercito"
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
You thought this was so cool you had to post it twice, eh?
Imbecile.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
