This reeks of many things—none of them good.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
Origins, Part Deux.
After my previous post about the origin of the Universe, my friend posited:
"I'm not sure that the "beginning" of our universe is necessarily the beginning of "creation" as many cosmologists believe that there may be many equivalents to our "universe" (despite its "uni-" name) and that some of these exist concurrent to our own and some predated it.
This, then, does not necessarily mandate a creator for this particular time-space existence."
I have heard similar lines of argumentation before--supposing that there are many universes and so even if there was a divine creator of this universe, that it doesn't explain the origin of other universes. While this sounds sophisticated, it merely kicks the philosophical question down the road. Namely: even if we were to agree that this universe is one of may that exists in a Uber-verse (if I may coin or borrow a term), then it still begs the question, 'where did the uber-verse come from?' This is not unlike Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA) speculating on the alien origins of DNA on earth. The obvious question is "where did the aliens come from?"
I grow weary of the intellectual position that dismissis a supernatural (i.e. divine) origin of the universe a priori, and then pretend that we're having an honest conversation. The intellectual tosses down the gauntlet: "I challenge you to describe the origin of the universe, but you can't attribute it to a diety." This is the intellectual equivalent of challening a man to a race, but demanding that he must remain seated during the entire race--it is simply not fair, nor is the 'victory' at the end honest.
"I'm not sure that the "beginning" of our universe is necessarily the beginning of "creation" as many cosmologists believe that there may be many equivalents to our "universe" (despite its "uni-" name) and that some of these exist concurrent to our own and some predated it.
This, then, does not necessarily mandate a creator for this particular time-space existence."
I have heard similar lines of argumentation before--supposing that there are many universes and so even if there was a divine creator of this universe, that it doesn't explain the origin of other universes. While this sounds sophisticated, it merely kicks the philosophical question down the road. Namely: even if we were to agree that this universe is one of may that exists in a Uber-verse (if I may coin or borrow a term), then it still begs the question, 'where did the uber-verse come from?' This is not unlike Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA) speculating on the alien origins of DNA on earth. The obvious question is "where did the aliens come from?"
I grow weary of the intellectual position that dismissis a supernatural (i.e. divine) origin of the universe a priori, and then pretend that we're having an honest conversation. The intellectual tosses down the gauntlet: "I challenge you to describe the origin of the universe, but you can't attribute it to a diety." This is the intellectual equivalent of challening a man to a race, but demanding that he must remain seated during the entire race--it is simply not fair, nor is the 'victory' at the end honest.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Origins
My thought-provoking friend sent me this recent seed for thought:
"My latest tweet is a little "highbrow" but deserves a spot in the consciousness of people who wish to think of themselves as intellectuals:
"My latest tweet is a little "highbrow" but deserves a spot in the consciousness of people who wish to think of themselves as intellectuals:
'Universe from Nothing': Big Bang was a bargain
Here is my response:
Let's be really honest: Which is a more plausible explanation for the origin of the universe (points for concept, not eloquence of words):
Option A: ""Given a big enough emptiness, enough virtual particles can pop into existence, for free, to trigger a Big Bang and start a universe. "Nothing is doing something, and not only that. It has to do something," Krauss says. " Gordon's version: if you put enough 'nothing' in one place, suddenly, it becomes 'everything'.
Option B: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Gordon's version: some being beyond the laws of physics caused somethign out of nothing.
Can't we at least be honest enough to admit that Krauss's explanation really is no more 'rational' that Option B? On the one hand, you must pre-suppose a omnipotent force outside the bounds or laws of nature---on the other hand you pre-suppose an omnipotent force outside the bounds or laws of nature.
It's interesting that not that long ago, some philosophers liked to start with the supposition that the universe had always existed. If there wasn't a beginning, then they didn't need to explain a beginning. Now, virtually everyone acknowledges that the universe had a beginning, which put us back in the same intellectual boat we were in before, namely, 'if there is a beginning, how did the beginning happen?'
Interestingly, the best they can come up with is this idea that enough of 'nothing' is eventually 'everything.' And these same people are the ones who would accuse people believing in an omnipotent Diety to be credulous. Seriously? It's as if the intellectual elite are sitting high in their ivory tower sneering at the unwashed masses as they declare, "Those silly prebians, still believing that the moon is made of green cheese. Every intelligent person knows that the moon is clearly made of marshmallow fluff." They sneer at people who believe in a diety, yet the best counter argument they can offer is some theoretical mumbo-jumbo about nothing becomming something. (I still do not know how if all this nothingness suddenly produced everything, it doesn't just as quickly jump back to nothingness.......)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)