And gravitational collapse can be looked upon as how God starts galaxies. But it seems you don't look on it that way; to you, if a scientific explanation exists, then God is eliminated.
Absolultely not! I'm not talking about "a scientific explanation" in general. I'm talking about
these 2 specific theories.
Why can't an infinite, eternal God create an infinite, eternal universe?
You want the scientific or theological answer first? Scientifically, the data indicates that the universe cannot be infinitely old. That the night sky is dark instead of white is one piece of data falsifying an infinitely old universe.
"In the
beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." That negates an infinite, eternal universe.
Neither theory says anything about the ultimate reason for the existence of the universe, so I fail to see how they tell us anything about whether God is responsible for it or not.
Both do say things about the ultimate reason for the existence of the universe. No Boundary says there is no such "ultimate reason"; the universe is self-contained and just IS. Ekpyrotic has the ultimate reason for the universe being the collision of 2 4D 'branes. The 5D 'brane, like God, doesn't need a reason to exist.
Right. So if you were using God as an explanatory entity in a scientific theory, you're out of luck. As it is, you've already got God backed into a tiny corner -- he started the Big Bang and apparently hasn't been doing anything since then -- and it's just one more small step to eliminate him entirely.
sfs, you have extrapolated way too much from the little I've written. And I'm sorry to say, what you extrapolated is in error. I would have thought the screen name would have indicated that I would not back God into a tiny corner. Guess not.
In science, there are still 2 questions where we can use
direct action by God as a hypothesis:
1. Why does the universe exist at all? God created it.
2. Why does the universe have the order it does instead of some other order? God chose the order.
Now, science remains agnostic because there are alternative hypotheses to God for each of those questions. So far, there is insufficient data to choose between the alternative hypotheses. It may be that there will
always be insufficient data, in which case science will always be agnostic.
Now,
after the universe gets here, then we are dealing with secondary causes. As you say, God creates galaxies by gravity. God creates the diversity of life by evolution.
Think for a minute about a novel set in an ekpyrotic universe. Would it be fair for a character in the novel to conclude from the eternal nature of the universe that his world had no creator?
Well, the "creator" would be a 5 D 'brane. So there would be a "creator", but no God. I think you are assuming that creator must always = God.
No, your theism is still viable for that reason. Do not generalize so much.
You haven't given me anything but assertions that theism would be viable under ekpyrotic. Walk us thru what you think God as Creator would be doing. Thanks.
(And what empirical trouble do you see string theory facing? Other than the complete lack of empirical evidence, of course.)
String Theory is facing some contradictory empirical evidence: 5. Kaku M, Testing string theory. Discover August 2005 Read thru the article and you will find tests ST has failed. So far, ST is remaining viable by invoking ad hoc hypotheses about the size of the rolled up dimensions.
Those aren't questions I ask or answer, because I do not, in fact, think it likely that questions about the ultimate nature of reality can be answered empirically. So yes, I really do think that neither the existence nor the nonexistence of God can be falsified. While I have a high regard for the validity and usefulness of science, I seem to have a much less expansive view of its reach than you do.
Look, in an objective sense, God exists independent of any belief or disbelief. Either God created the universe or It did not. Now, I notice you never argued against what I said about how we falsify entities. Or the effect on God if it turns out God is not Creator.
Science cannot directly test for the superintendence of God in nature. That limitation is called "Methodological Naturalism" and arises from how we do experiments. However, I cannot but conclude that ekpyrotic, if correct, would eliminate God as Creator. If you can walk me thru, in detail, how that would not happen, I am very interested to hear it. And I do mean in detail. Assertions that Aquinas had no problem with an eternal universe isn't detail. It's an Appeal to Authority.
BTW, ekpyrotic says it predicts different gravity waves than Big Bang. No one has a detector for gravity waves, however.
1. C Seife, Big bangs's new rival debuts with a splash. Science 292: 189-190, Apr 13, 2001. "Ekpyrotic" model. 11 dimensions, 6 rolled up and safely ignored. In perfectly flat 5D space float 2-4D membranes. One is our universe, the other a hidden "parallel" universe. Random fluctuations cause hidden universe to shed membrane that floats to our universe with quantum fluctuations. Some of energy of collision becomes matter and energy in our universe. Removes need for inflation. Removes singularity of big bang, instead is a "platelike splash". Big bang and ekpyrotic have different gravity waves. If another membrane peels off of hidden universe, then would destroy ours on impact.
arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5515
wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/
