so you have a problem with how the universe came into being. that's nice, but there is no need to ascribe a God to the answer. [/QUOTE}
You don't kow that.
Yes, BB is the reigning theory. Ekpyrotic is challenging aspects of it, since ekpyrotic is described as a "big splat" and not a "big bang".
However, both ekpyrotic and BB are explanation of HOW the universe came into existence, not WHY.
However, for the question: "why does the universe exist?", the hypothesis "God created it" is as viable at this point as any other.
You too are stating your beliefs as fact and confusing arguments over particular theories as arguing over theism vs atheism, with you gleefully accepting the same logical error as creationists: if God didn't create in this way, then God did not create.
However, embedded in all your posts is your own statement of faith: natural = without God. That is, if you have a material, natural explanation then that excludes God. There is NOTHING in science to justify this. In fact, methodological materialism specifically FORBIDS you from making this statement as fact.
Lucaspa,
I think my most basic disagreement with you revolves around the notion that comes from some of your statements. I realize I may be misunderstanding your position but this is the risk we all take as we attempt to understand one another's mind from their words and this is precisely why we should talk. I suspect from all you've said so far that you are a Christian, either working in the field of science or having a close association with it, maybe in your studies? At times your statements seem to make you agnostic so you will have to reveal more clearly your position relative to your faith.
My greatest argument with your position I think concerns how you see the whole. As for me I understand that what we know theologically trumps all scientific knowledge but not necessarily in the way a Christian fundamentalist would conceive this. From the statement you made above to Jet Black you seem to disconnect the two in such a way as to never see scientific and theological knowledge converge. If I'm wrong I will accept correction but this is the standard position within our cultural view of reality that is steeped in what is called materialism. As I've said before materialism comes out of the atheistic position that finds no need for a supernatural realm and it has unfortunately impregnated itself in many Christian minds, I think, due to poor philosophical teaching. While this is true there are many, including my teachers, who see this perspective and reject it finding it to not be a traditional mindset. I don't agree with the slogan today that says anything new is good and whatever comes out of tradition must therefore be bad. Traditional thought is considered to be archaic, authoritarian and contrary to the welfare of individuals while the new social and moral ideas are considered refreshing and nevert to be criticized. I believe ideas traditional and contemporary can be considered true but only when they conform to reality. I reject neither and believe truth is thus built upon itself and does not change accept in areas of knowledge that pertain to the changeableness of being itself (IE what science studies).
When I say theology "trumps all scientific knowledge" I mean it sets up limits that our scientific understanding must remain within because it's source of knowledge is divine and is thus without error (God cannot lie or make mistakes in understanding). Of course since revelation comes through fallible human beings it is possible for it to be distorted either in translation or interpretation. The way I get around this is to accept the reality that God gave the world a Church which in the process of handing us doctrine is infallible (this makes certain persons in office infallible) and this assures us of obtaining truth concerning faith and morals. Of course some say this is not possible, it cannot be true that some men are infallible, even that it is arrogant of them to suggest this, but I consider this position naive and in some who hold it, a form of pride. God can and does ascertain us truth and if He does not then we are all in trouble. The kind of thinking that doubts truth can be passed on with integrity has lead to skepticism and nihilism in modern philosophers to the detriment of scientific enterprise and society as well as individuals. It simply takes an act of humility to accept there is someone who knows better than me and this Being is able to confer knowledge of reality upon anyone who would open themselves to it. As this unfolds in time it would mean there are many men who also have a degree of infallibility, at least in certain areas of knowledge, which does not make them arrogant but rather guardians of truth. Otherwise the fallibility of men would make any certainty of knowledge impossible and therefore science itself a waste of time since we could be certain of nothing it gives us. On the contrary not only is God capable of sharing His omniscience with fallible men in an infallible way but human nature as such was created for this power. Human beings were created to know and do so with certainty. We fail because of what the Christian church terms sin. Human transgression is found not only in an act but fundamentally resides in the intellect (primarily our will) since thought is the principle of all acts and therefore the cause of physical actions in the rational creatures.
So when you say "you don't know that" in connection with the statement that "there is no need to ascribe a God to the answer" it leads me to believe science is your only means to knowledge. It is not! Nor do I accept the idea that since the scientific method cannot give us direct knowledge of God that science does not point to God. It does because all that science tells us begs for a cause that is infinitely more substantial than any being we study with it's method. The perfections found in being must come from another that has these same perfections ad infinitum. This is true since none of these beings can be found to be self-sufficient. Nothing we study in this universe can account for itself as though it's own cause and sustanence are within.
Along this line of thought I'd add that I've looked at your thread on the different possibilities for a first cause other than God and can say they are not scientific propositions. The proposition that there is a first Cause, which can be shown to coincide with the theological notion of God, is inherently philosophical. The other propositions you've laid out are also philosophical because ideas about quantum fluctuations and membranes have to do with the essence of being and as such are ontological in nature. Likewise, as I've pointed out before, mathematics (and dimensions) cannot describe essential being because it only concerns itself with quantity which is not a substantial category of being. Therefore science cannot aid in the discernment of whether these ideas are true or not while mathematical propositions have little to do with first cause. You can see what I'm saying in statements like "you get a universe that doesn't have a beginning and therefore was never "created". It just IS." There is no scientific or mathematical test to demonstrate something "...just IS!" So no matter how sincere Hawkin's or your motive is this kind of "evidence" has nothing to do with the physical science you say is agnostic. If you insist scientific evidence is the only means to knowledge of God or being itself and then submit these kinds of metaphysical proposals then you make the error of scienticism, which in reality is to step outside the area of scientifc competence and yet claim it is where your proofs come from (and mine must also). It's intellectual and scientific dishonesty. I've talked about the idea of quantum theory before but let's look a little closer at what it proposes. One way to explain the quantum effect is by means of the double slit experiment where the results show an atomic "particle" is found to have the dual properties of wave and particle. Yet in visible nature we find no such being! Another aspect of quantum behavior is that either velocity or direction can be predicted but not both. Again where in the visible world do we find such quantum strangeness? So in light of testing Einstein's theoritical predictions we find ourselves having to give up a Newtonian view of our world as absolute law. Down at this minute level of nature where scientific conjecture says "particles of matter" exist we find these particles don't behave as visible particles do, like rocks for instance. So in an effort to explain this radical behavior scientists have come up with hypothesis that are steeped in paradoxical notions (shall I say "mystery") which apply only to subatomic levels. It seems that the "fact" based world of science becomes uncertain at this level so that we cannot trust our own senses. In reality no one has ever seen a subatomic particle except by the traces they leave in test chambers and so what we are faced with is the mystery of nature that begs for a metaphysical explanation. And this is exactly what we are getting albeit in the name of science, an explanation called "quantum" conjuring up ideas involving different "dimensions" and parallel universes and dark and antimatter, etc., etc.. and all kinds of other mathematical absurdities. The problem is we've left the realm of science when these ideas are being proposed and entertain ontological questions dealing with the nature of being. What is always assumed here is, as I've said before, that matter begets matter. The idea that all there is is matter and/or energy and everything, including the deepest nature of being must be explained within that framework. Thus, materialism is at root here, yet not in a scientific but rather a scientistic or philosophic world view done under the guise of science. It's a pretense not true to nature and begs to be exposed just as true science begs to speak to us of God behind it's subject.
"We know completely how genes and DNA have the power to do what they do, it is simple. but arriving at a soul is just an ad hoc assumption,
A soul is a HYPOTHESIS based on personal experiences of people. An ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis devised to save a theory from falsification. However, the hypothesis of a soul was inherent in theism from the beginning, not something thrown in later."
To Jet Black I say if you "know completely how genes and DNA have the power to do what they do" then by all means please explain? And to Lucaspa, if the "soul is a HYPOTHESIS based on personal experience" and by your definition "ALL knowledge is personal experience" and your assertion that "Science deals with a SUBSET of personal experience," then it seems science can know "soul." But I've never said science can know it directly because science is only a tool useful in obtaining direct knowledge of the material realm. It must be used in the hands of a person who has the ability to know "soul." The reality of the idea of soul can be known by anyone because it is by reason we arrive at this idea. I've mentioned before and I'll mention again that Plato and Aristotle had these notions yet they were not Christian. The idea of soul is as pagan as it is a theistic and as such proves both pagans and Christians can be rational in their thinking. Unfortunately atheism truncates this knowledge a priori while fundamentalist Christians distort the concept with "triunity" of the human person. Neither has ground to stand on for the only firm rock is found in reason enlightened by faith... NOT one to the exclusion of the other as either group maintains.
Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)