Cosmologetics: Apologists using Cosmology

[Archaeopteryx]

Let me preface this post by inviting anyone with a physics background (looking at you Wiccan Child) to correct any over-simplifications or misconceptions that may be floating around in what I've written. Obviously I'm not writing from the vantage point of a cosmologist, but from the perspective of someone who is nonetheless interested in how cosmology plays a part in the arguments of religious apologists.

Apologists often argue that the findings and theories of contemporary cosmology align with their arguments for the existence of a necessary supernatural being that brings the universe into existence from nothing. The Big Bang, they say, represents the absolute beginning for all energy, matter and spacetime itself. Prior to this, there was no energy, no space and no time - there was nothing. It was all created in that singular moment, which marks the beginning of everything.

This understanding of the Big Bang, as the creation of everything from nothing, is seemingly popular, but is it an accurate depiction of what the theory is actually about?

Far from being an everything-from-nothing event, the Big Bang describes the expansion of the universe from an extremely hot and dense state, which began 13.7 billion years ago. Crucially, the starting point for this expansion is not nothing, but a cosmological singularity of infinite density and temperature.

The Big Bang theory explains the development of the universe from the initial singularity onward. Since the singularity itself consisted of energy, the theory does not claim that the universe as we know it has its origins in nothing. The theory does not advance a hypothesis regarding the origin of the singularity itself.

Where did the singularity come from? Quite simply, we don't know. At present, we can't see beyond that horizon.

 

[Resha Caner]

Apologists often argue that the findings and theories of contemporary cosmology align with their arguments for the existence of a necessary supernatural being that brings the universe into existence from nothing.

Well, I'm not a professional physicist nor a professional apologist. So maybe I don't count for your question. But, I'm not doing any of what you say.

I do have a master of science degree and have studied extensively beyond that, so I consider myself a well-read amateur physicist. The same goes for my apologetics.

I take science for what it is. It's not an absolute truth. In particular with respect to cosmology there is quite a bit of extrapolation. Data is data, but extrapolation is quite another thing. So, while Big Bang ideas do bear some similarities to the accounts in Genesis, I don't feel any compulsion to appropriate science to justify Genesis.

[edit] I forgot to add that I think you're right. I don't think current cosmology necessitates a "something from nothing" idea. With that said, that's not really my theological view either.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, I'm not a professional physicist nor a professional apologist. So maybe I don't count for your question. But, I'm not doing any of what you say.

I do have a master of science degree and have studied extensively beyond that, so I consider myself a well-read amateur physicist. The same goes for my apologetics.

I take science for what it is. It's not an absolute truth. In particular with respect to cosmology there is quite a bit of extrapolation. Data is data, but extrapolation is quite another thing. So, while Big Bang ideas do bear some similarities to the accounts in Genesis, I don't feel any compulsion to appropriate science to justify Genesis.

I respect that. My comments were directed mainly at religious apologists who argue from what I regard as a mistaken understanding of the Big Bang theory and what it ultimately tells us.

 

[Resha Caner]

I respect that. My comments were directed mainly at religious apologists who argue from what I regard as a mistaken understanding of the Big Bang theory and what it ultimately tells us.

I made a late edit to my post, so you might not have seen it. I think you're right about the position of current cosmology. And, as I said, my theology doesn't really encompass ex nihilo.

[edit]Though I will say that Wiccan tried to argue a "something from nothing" idea with me at one point. Sorry for all the late edits, I'm rushing too much because I have to run off to an appointment.

 

[Elioenai26]

Far from being an everything-from-nothing event, the Big Bang describes the expansion of the universe from an extremely hot and dense state, which began 13.7 billion years ago. Crucially, the starting point for this expansion is not nothing, but a cosmological singularity of infinite density and temperature.

The Big Bang theory explains the development of the universe from the initial singularity onward. Since the singularity itself consisted of energy, the theory does not claim that the universe as we know it has its origins in nothing. The theory does not advance a hypothesis regarding the origin of the singularity itself.

Where did the singularity come from? Quite simply, we don't know. At present, we can't see beyond that horizon.

I take issue with the above. So to begin with, I will ask you to supply me with the references and sources from the cosmologists that hold the position that the big bang is what you have described it to be.

 

[multidaytim]

The 'Big Bang' as it s called does account for the beginning of our universe and is similar to what you described.

it does not state what set it off, but as scientists investigate what could have happened, they are finding incredible things.

They are finding Inflationary theory to be consistent to the law of the conservation of energy; when you add up all energy, negative energy, spin, charge, they find our universe has zero total energy, zero total spin, and zero total charge.

They find empty space is unstable, and where nothing is, things pop in and out of existence from nowhere.

They have surmised that it is at least plausible that our universe came into existence from nothing without breaking natural law.
As they study more, we will learn more and always be open to new evidence without beginning with the conclusion.

 

[Resha Caner]

They find empty space is unstable, and where nothing is, things pop in and out of existence from nowhere.

Are you sure this is right? As I understood it, the "space" we know of is not empty, but filled with a quantum foam. Within this current space we see things that pop in and out of existence without a known cause.

I didn't think that had been extrapolated to "empty" space. As I mentioned, Wiccan and I had a previous exchange where he was postulating a possibility that empty space would be unstable, and things would pop in and out in the same manner as we see in current space. But I thought it was no more than that - speculation.

The problem of empty space becomes a very thorny one. If space is empty, we can know nothing about it. If we intrude into that space to measure something, well, it's not empty anymore. It's similar to an uncertainty principle as best I can tell. It's a question that has no answer.

 

[multidaytim]

true to a point...
A vacuum is not truly nothing but is full of virtual particles winking in and out of existence.
Under certain conditions the virtual particles can even become real photons.

Scientists are limited in their ability to study nothingness because these things are always popping up, and if you had true nothingness, your presence in studying it would make it nothingness no longer.

The 'nothingness' that they are able to study is in fact a space of as little energy and matter as they can possibly create, and from this they can view virtual particles and sometimes real photons coming into existence.

Quantum physicist Pasi Lähteenmäki at Aalto University in Finland and his colleagues revealed that by varying the speed at which light can travel, they can make light appear from nothing!

and then there is the Caismir Effect in which when two mirrors are placed facing each other in a vacuum, more virtual photons can exist around the outside of the mirrors than between them, generating a seemingly mysterious force that pushes the mirrors together.

 

[Resha Caner]

Scientists are limited in their ability to study nothingness because these things are always popping up, and if you had true nothingness, your presence in studying it would make it nothingness no longer.

Right, that's what I said. So I don't think current cosmology has much to say about the cosmos springing from nothing.

Quantum physicist Pasi Lähteenmäki at Aalto University in Finland and his colleagues revealed that by varying the speed at which light can travel, they can make light appear from nothing!

This sounds curious. Do you have a reference a layman could decipher?

It sounds cool, but I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing" based on what you just said, or even what you mean by "varying the speed of light". If the light isn't there (the nothing you speak of), what is varied? And do you mean it varies without changes to the medium? Is this a math model or an experiment?

 

[multidaytim]

it was detailed in the February 11th '13 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, but it was also covered less in depth in Scientific American.

my rep isn't high enough to post links, so if you wish, search "Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light" a scientific american article By Charles Q. Choi

 

[Resha Caner]

Thanks.

 

[Davian]

I take issue with the above. So to begin with, I will ask you to supply me with the references and sources from the cosmologists that hold the position that the big bang is what you have described it to be.

Does his description not mesh with the scientific findings detailed at reasonablefaith.org?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

it was detailed in the February 11th '13 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, but it was also covered less in depth in Scientific American.

my rep isn't high enough to post links, so if you wish, search "Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light" a scientific american article By Charles Q. Choi

Here you are:
Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light: Scientific American

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I take issue with the above. So to begin with, I will ask you to supply me with the references and sources from the cosmologists that hold the position that the big bang is what you have described it to be.

It is based on my own understanding of the theory.

The Big Bang traces the origins of the universe back to an incomprehensibly hot and dense singularity, but it does not advance a hypothesis on the origins of that singularity. At present, we can't see beyond that horizon, so there is no data available to inform or test a hypothesis regarding where the singularity came from.

 

[Elioenai26]

It is based on my own understanding of the theory.

The Big Bang traces the origins of the universe back to an incomprehensibly hot and dense singularity, but it does not advance a hypothesis on the origins of that singularity. At present, we can't see beyond that horizon, so there is no data available to inform or test a hypothesis regarding where the singularity came from.

Since you can only offer your "understanding" of the model, I will choose to accept the research and conclusions of cosmologists and astrophysicists which state that the model requires an absolute beginning of all matter energy and spacetime itself rather than "your understanding".

 

[HitchSlap]

Krauss '09: "A Universe From Nothing" - YouTube

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Since you can only offer your "understanding" of the model, I will choose to accept the research and conclusions of cosmologists and astrophysicists which state that the model requires an absolute beginning of all matter energy and spacetime itself rather than "your understanding".

That is your misunderstanding. The theory doesn't posit you claim it does.

What is your understanding based on? Reasonablefaith.org

 

[HitchSlap]

That is your misunderstanding. The theory doesn't posit you claim it does.

I have a standing rule I try to live by: Never accept at face value what creationists say about science. They're always wrong about it, and not just marginally.

 

[Elioenai26]

I have a standing rule I try to live by: Never accept at face value what creationists about science. They're always wrong about it, and not just marginally.

No one that I reference with regards to the big bang and its implications is a creationist. They are either agnostic or atheistic cosmologists and physicists

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No one that I reference with regards to the big bang and its implications is a creationist. They are either agnostic or atheistic cosmologists and physicists

That you've quoted secondarily, and out of context, from Reasonable Faith.