Cosmologic philosophy: Big Bang or not? (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, March 07, 2022, 15:10 (992 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmic philosophy: inflation or not?

QUOTE: “Physicists have proposed many other theories for the early universe, for example cyclic cosmology, and those can also explain observations. And maybe in the end one of those other theories will be the better explanation."

DAVID: so her point is inflation is pure theory, not fact. And for that matter the Big Bang is also pure theory, not fact. But the BB has religious and philosophic implications. See the next entry

Cosmic philosophy: Big Bang or not?
QUOTE: The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem states that any universe that has been expanding, on average, throughout its history must have had an absolute beginning. This constraint applies to inflationary, string landscape, and any other plausible model that could possibly generate our universe.

We have discussed this in great detail. The first entry casts doubt on inflation and the Big Bang, so clearly neither theory is universally accepted by the scientific world. The BGV theorem would be true if inflation and the BB were facts, but as you finally agreed after much humming and hawing, even that cannot be taken to mean the BB did not have a cause, i.e. something must have existed before it.

QUOTE: The theorem’s conclusiveness was best explained by Vilenkin:
"With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. (DAVID’s bold)

Clearly the proof is not in place, and equally clearly – as above – even if the BB did happen, we have no way of knowing what preceded it. It could have been one BB in a whole history of BBs that have taken place in an infinite and eternal cosmos. We have no way of knowing.

QUOTE: "The cause of the universe must have existed before the beginning of matter, energy, space, and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial, timeless, and immensely powerful."

A huge leap. If you can believe in an eternal, immaterial mind, why can’t you believe in an eternal cosmos of ever changing energy and matter?

DAVID: Note the bold: I'm with Vilenkin. This is pure ID philosophy. Note how so-called scientists fudge equations to get rid of God.

How can you possibly be with the bolded Vilenkin if you believe in a past-eternal God who could have created countless universes?