Cosmology: Latest theories of everything (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, August 07, 2017, 09:48 (2665 days ago) @ John Kalber

BBella: I truly appreciate the simplicity and logic of your posts and agree with the majority of what you say. Thanks so very much for bringing your time and view to the table.
reblak: Thank you BBella. [...] you have cheered me up when I was beginning to think that no-one would understand what I am trying so hard to make clear!

I must also thank both you and BBella, as I fear my own welcome may have seemed a little ungracious. I also agree with a lot of what you say, but on this forum we all tend to focus on matters where there is disagreement. This should never be taken personally, and sometimes it does lead to greater clarity even if not to agreement. That may be the best we can hope for!

dhw: Forgive my intrusion, but firstly I don’t see why we must choose (what happened to open-mindedness?), and secondly I don’t see why the existence of God and the language of physics should be a “one or the other” choice: if God exists, could he/would he not have used the language of physics, chemistry and biology his “wonders” to perform?

Reblak: My answers are:
The question of choice must always be a personal decision. However – ‘sitting on the fence’ has little appeal for me – one gets stabbed by too many unwanted metaphorical splinters that way! I take the view that, from any standpoint, where in the course of research one avenue seems more likely than the other/s, my mental energy is going to be concentrated more on the one than any other. Note that I say ‘more’- not entirely.
The alternative is to sit back and wait upon the views of others. I do that as well! Choice!

Undoubtedly choice is a personal decision. Once you have taken your choice (atheism), of course you will concentrate your energy more on proving that your choice was right. David, one of our theists, follows the same principle, but I’m pleased to note that like him you are prepared to consider the views of others.

Reblak: Your second point:
“... if God exists, could he/would he not have used the language of physics, chemistry and biology his “wonders” to perform?” In my post I made very clear my position on this. I wrote:
For your better understanding, I would say, (were I religious) that God created the Universe just as it is, with its own logic and knew that humanity would eventually emerge.

You also wrote that our ignorance of how life came about “gives no credence to engaging some sort of magic (God) as being the solution", and that we must choose between “the unquestionable will/act of God” and a full explanation in the language of physics”. (My bold.) I don’t see why you can’t have both (no magic involved) since they are perfectly reconcilable. Forgive me, but your views on what a possible God may have done, or known in advance, is hardly an answer.

Reblak: I mentioned somewhere else that if God created the Universe, it is - must be - perfect. I have no belief (in this regard) other than in the efficacy of Mother Nature [...]

I see no difference between God creating perfection and Mother Nature creating perfection. A pantheist is still a theist. (I wonder what the criteria are for perfect universes, but let that pass.) The split occurs if you tell us Mother Nature is an impersonal and unconscious force which works automatically according to the laws of matter. David bombards us with articles describing the complexities of our biology (there are two more today), you have admitted that “there is nothing that we know of that can explain how life came about”, and I have pointed out that despite our own conscious intellect, we still cannot create a living being from scratch. And yet you believe that living beings can be produced by an impersonal and unconscious force which works automatically. That, in my view, requires a great deal of faith (which I define as strong belief without evidence, and hence irrational), and it is a major reason why I continue to sit on my fence, which I can assure you is not at all painful!

Reblak: Its very perfection precludes – in my perception of logic – any ‘previous configuration’ at all. The Universe functions entirely within its 'rules of engagement' and these particular 'rules of engagement' are all embracing and cannot be modified or disregarded in any manner.

Most theists would probably agree with the last part of this statement but would argue that the “rules”, just like biological complexity, denote design. I don’t have a problem with atheist arguments concerning faith in some supernatural being, but I do have a problem with faith in the astonishing inventive powers of an unconscious Mother Nature. You have not yet commented on the third, panpsychist hypothesis I have proposed.

You have devoted the rest of your post to once more debunking the Big Bang theory, and as I myself am sceptical about it and take very seriously both your own and Tony’s (balancemaintained) scientific arguments, I shan’t make any further comment. Tony, incidentally, is a theist, so the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with the question of whether there is or isn’t a God.