Russel M. Nelson comments on big bang theory and evolution

[_mikwut]

Hello Samantabhadra:

I enjoyed that article but its treatment of a cyclical universe was cursory. The "big crunch" model is perhaps the most common although hardly the only possibility.

Saul Perlmutter's work on super nova discovered that the universe is expanding not at a constant but at an accelerating rate. Some force in the universe not only counteracts gravity but pushes the universe apart ever faster. This discovery, confirming the infinite expansion hypothesis, makes a collapse most unlikely and is currently the scientific consensus, combined with what I mentioned to EAllusion any cyclic proposal would also have to overcome the radiation paradox, the buildup of entropy, Tolman's limit, and Carroll's paradox of extreme fine-tuning for no apparent reason. So, overcome them and publish it.

Additionally, the BGV theorem simply assumes that expansion rates will always be greater than 0,

This is correct.

but they have absolutely no evidence (mathematical or otherwise) to support that assumption.

Other than the evidence of the standard model which isn't trivial but the entirety of our current empirical evidence.

And in that paper, they themselves admit that increasing entropy over successive cycles is only a "potential" problem, however there are any number of ways around it; for starters, their position requires assuming that the entropy of singularities is like the entropy of a classical thermodynamical system, which is just about certainly false. In cyclical "big crunch" models the collapse into a singularity essentially hits a giant cosmic reset button on global entropy. And remember, "volume" is a term that is dependent on space, but space itself manifests from the Big Bang, so the idea that the volume of the universe would increase over successive cycles, as a way of avoiding the ("potential") problem with respect to entropy, is.... quaint.

See above regarding Perlmutter, these problems are imaginative, and I don't mean that pejoritively that is what science does and will continue to do, but currently they don't overcome the probability of a beginning to the universe. The scientific basis allows me to added the metaphysical assumption of from nothing nothing comes into a most probable and best explanation that I offered.

I have a feeling your idealistic (which I don't disfavor) metaphysics don't have to rely on scientific realism, for that I can offer at least consistency that the criticism of weak atheists I made earlier wouldn't allow for.

my regards, mikwut

my regards, mikwut

[_EAllusion]

I assume for you to make the above statement you have on offer an explanation with greater explanatory power, give it then.

A mysterious nonpersonal object - let's call it mikwutum - has the same causal power to bring about the existence of acausal "begun" universes that you have attributed to God. The fact that the universe exists shows that mikwitum exists.

This explanation has no useful explanatory power, but then again, neither does deity. If you want to make an argument for personal causation being uniquely meaningful, you could, but you aren't and there's a lot of missing - and rather intractable - steps in doing so.

My dialogue is with you presently.

No it's not. You insisted that I was beyond help if I cannot see how a physical beginning to the universe shows God exists. Given the ghetto status of the Kalaam, it's not just me that's beyond your condescending "help." I read this no differently than if you were to assert that science has shown cellular life is intricately complex therefore atheists are in opposition to science for not concluding life was designed. And if you accept the former and don't conclude the latter, then you are beyond help. I'm sorry, but there's nothing left to respond to point out your conclusion doesn't follow and to roll one's eyes.

Thomas Aquinas or Al Ghazali perhaps was not at all familiar with Mr. Morriston's and your musings?

Heh. The fact that the cosmological argument is some of the very best theology can offer says something about the rationality of believing in God, doesn't it? And please don't pretend that rejection of the Kalaam is some outlier view held by Dr. Morriston and myself.

Trolling? Oh brother.

You're perfectly well aware that the status of cosmological arguments in philosophy does not warrant the condescending pose that atheists are simply in willfully ignorant opposition to the status of science for having rejected them. Given that you are aware of this, why do you act as though atheists are akin to global warming deniers? I'm calling that pose borderline trolling. That answers your question.

[_mikwut]

Hello EAllusion,

You insisted that I was beyond help if I cannot see how a physical beginning to the universe shows God exists.

That is obviously where we got off track. I have discussed things with you before, I know your knowledge to some degree and that your aware of the basic assumptions that went into that statement. But, your words that began the conversation:

The Big Bang does not support the existence of a god creating the universe.

I responded to your univocal and general statement that it does. I am not taking the position that it definitively "shows [or proves] god exists", I am taking the position that it provides evident support for of course a greater framework of explanatory power, which it does. I took what your saying to be the equivalent of it is altogether irrelevant, providing no implication or support whatsoever, hence my historical analogy. I am assuming a difference between "shows God exists" and provides support for that possibility. That is why I mentioned the weak and strong atheist contradiction.

Here is what I said in response:

If you don't see implications for God (your words "support") once the scientific evidence establishes a very probable beginning I can't help you

You seem to be shifting my words to something different. You also seem to imply (I could be wrong) that providing other possibilities whether scientific or philosophically possible is equivalent to an actual defeater for my position - when it is rather another hypothetical possibility. But that is a big difference from an actual defeater (which you implied in pointing to your paper cited). I think this shows that your taking offense from a position you assume that I am making that I am not. But your position is the one with a little to rigid application of the evidence.

I asked you for an example with greater explanatory power and you responded:

A mysterious nonpersonal object - let's call it mikwutum - has the same causal power to bring about the existence of acausal "begun" universes that you have attributed to God. The fact that the universe exists shows that mikwitum exists.

This explanation has no useful explanatory power, but then again, neither does deity. If you want to make an argument for personal causation being uniquely meaningful, you could, but you aren't and there's a lot of missing - and rather intractable - steps in doing so.

I have no problem with names. If you simply want to apply a different name to the same referent I use for God that is fine, but that isn't an argument against what I have said its just calling God something else. You admit that your appeal to something we just haven't thought of yet that is a impersonal cause (admittedly by you) has no merit as an alternative explanation because we don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. But that would insist the same is true of God and we are then at a positivistic place I find troublesome for your position. A necessary being for example isn't wholly "without explanatory power", a very powerful being that could cause the universe and space and time to be created isn't without any explanatory power. Those aren't empty words and phrases (even though they remain as of right now in this dialogue still very general), yours are admittedly empty words.

I again note that your sort of reasoning could be allowed to dumb down any offered explanation. We could apply your unknown mikwutum to solve any crime or any scientific hypothesis.

This explanation has no useful explanatory power, but then again, neither does deity. If you want to make an argument for personal causation being uniquely meaningful, you could, but you aren't and there's a lot of missing - and rather intractable - steps in doing so.

That's simply poisoning the well.

Given the ghetto status of the Kalaam, it's not just me that's beyond your condescending "help." I read this no differently than if you were to assert that science has shown cellular life is intricately complex therefore atheists are in opposition to science for not concluding life was designed. And if you accept the former and don't conclude the latter, then you are beyond help. I'm sorry, but there's nothing left to respond to point out your conclusion doesn't follow and to roll one's eyes.

Now who's being condescending? But regardless, I wouldn't disagree and wouldn't find the offense you do either. The rolling of the eyes goes both ways, that is unavoidable in these dialogues. What is ironic is that you believe your attitude towards your opposition is somehow indicative of the strength or weakness of the evidence. It is not. Your rhetoric of trolling or the above paragraph could be stated just as aptly by the opposing view, it is empty. All your saying is I don't believe that. Well no kidding but that doesn't make me troll for my beliefs that I am actually attempting to provide substance and evidence for.

Heh. The fact that the cosmological argument is some of the very best theology can offer says something about the rationality of believing in God, doesn't it? And please don't pretend that rejection of the Kalaam is some outlier view held by Dr. Morriston and myself.

I don't find it the very best, that is your addition. I find the confluence of it along with other evidence rational and satisfying. My point was historically the atheist position has been almost unanimously the universe itself can serve as the necessary being. With science providing evidence of a beginning the universe is therefore contingent - that means the cause or creator of the universe must be necessary and not contingent and not the universe itself. That isn't trivial as you attempting to gloss it as.

You're perfectly well aware that the status of cosmological arguments in philosophy does not warrant the condescending pose that atheists are simply in willfully ignorant opposition to the status of science for having rejected them. Given that you are aware of this, why do you act as though atheists are akin to global warming deniers? I'm calling that pose borderline trolling. That answers your question.

Your again misreading me. My position is that it clearly is evidence - how weak or strong that evidence is I would be willing to discuss further, but you can just roll eyes again if you think you can just rhetorically state it is irrelevant altogether and then call me a deceiver for a rather balanced position. It seems a weak atheist position would at least concede the historical reality of denying a beginning because of the implications it has and that allowing for the categorization to be one of at least an evident assumption to be rationally found in a greater edifice or framework of compelling beliefs and evidence.

mikwut

[Guest]

I am really enjoying the conversation here between mikwut and EAllusion. I had the same kneejerk reaction to tis comment from mikwut about atheists ignoring the implications of the Big Bang on the question of the existence of God:

The atheists accept the big bang which gives the clearest evidence from science for a beginning and hence a creator, yet science and evidence is the path they are beckoned to follow?????

I sympathize with many of the points EAllusion has made in response, but find mikwut's latest retort thought-provoking. However, mikwut, I think I followed your argument right up to this last sentence. Can you please rephrase and unpack it a little for me? Thanks.

It seems a weak atheist position would at least concede the historical reality of denying a beginning because of the implications it has and that allowing for the categorization to be one of at least an evident assumption to be rationally found in a greater edifice or framework of compelling beliefs and evidence.

[_EAllusion]

If you simply want to apply a different name to the same referent I use for God that is fine

If our object of causation isn't a personal entity, then it lacks the bare minimum traits necessary to call it a deity. Then your argument isn't establishing that god, as the term is normally understood and used in actual cosmological arguments, exists. You might as well as define the universe as "god," point out the universe exists, then conclude a god exists. The upshot is that you've established god exists. The downside is that this isn't what people mean by the term and the same trick could be applied to anything. If I define God as a pencil, then the fact that I'm holding a pencil in my hand proves God exists. Yay!

The problem with mikwitum is precisely that it could be applied to any situation because it tailor-defines itself to have the power to bring about whatever observation it is we are seeking to explain and thus trivializes the problem. There are real life historical examples of mikwitums. Design arguments work that way. God is a mikwitum in theistic arguments, usually. And if you tailor define God to bring about lightning, volcanoes, and morality too, that doesn't help the problem. It compounds it. Even if we grant that the universe requires a metaphysical cause, which is not a point I would grant, what you need to do establish that a personal object is more likely to be the case than a nonpersonal one. Otherwise, you've done nothing to support the existence of a deity. You fall into the simple special pleading trap that early cosmological arguments do where God, and God alone, is excepted from the causal rules the argument sets up for no good reason in particular.

[_EAllusion]

Regarding the necessity of the universe:

The idea behind the argument Mikwut is using is that anything that's contingent (not necessary, could be otherwise) has an explanation for its existence. Since the universe's existence is contingent, it has an explanation for it being the case. God is that explanation.

However, if you want to end the regress of explanation with some necessary fact, like the existence of God, you have a problem. If something is a necessary fact, then insofar as it's a sufficient explanation for some other fact, that fact too has to be necessary.

In other words, if it's necessarily true that god exists with the nature he has, then it's also necessarily true that he created the universe as it is, and therefore necessarily true that the universe exists. All this gets us is that there are no contingent truths, which undermines the point of the argument.

This is pointed out by a rather famous theist philosopher who, at times, is an apologist in his own right. 5 points if you can name him. Then Mikwut can lament that Thomas Aquinas hasn't heard of my, Dr. Morriston's, and mysterious Dr. X's "musings."

[_gdemetz]

Mikwut, I don't think it's fair to say that Mormons don't accept the big bang as a general statement. I think, in general, it is fair to say that we don't believe that everything that exists now is a result of a big bang.

[_ludwigm]

Mikwut, I don't think it's fair to say that Mormons don't accept the big bang as a general statement. I think, in general, it is fair to say that we don't believe that everything that exists now is a result of a big bang.

I don't know if we teach it. (c) GBH.


Please present something new revelation, if I may ask...

Monson? Counselors? The Twelve?

[_mikwut]

Hello Equality,

I sympathize with many of the points EAllusion has made in response, but find mikwut's latest retort thought-provoking. However, mikwut, I think I followed your argument right up to this last sentence. Can you please rephrase and unpack it a little for me? Thanks.
mikwut wrote:
It seems a weak atheist position would at least concede the historical reality of denying a beginning because of the implications it has and that allowing for the categorization to be one of at least an evident assumption to be rationally found in a greater edifice or framework of compelling beliefs and evidence.

There are many sophisticated reasons from Aquinas to today that have been offered in denial of the infinite regress - or that the universe had a beginning. The first objection to the cosmological argument has historically been that the universe is eternal or denying that an infinite regress is impossible. Aquinas knew this and formulated part of his cosmological argument without the need for that question to be answered instead our being itself or our contingency itself needs to be sustained. The nearly consensus atheist position has been that the universe itself can supply all the needed ingredients that the result from the cosmological argument can supply. This is a consistent position for an atheist that contends he is without evidence to maintain because it is proposed as equal in explanatory force. But, if science shows that the universe is contingent and had a beginning it is no longer equal in explanatory force because the universe itself is within the set of contingency.

My point above, which I agree is worded poorly, is that the least an atheist could offer is just that, a previously common refutation is no longer available. Rather than to wave the hand and pretend it was never important anyway. Implied by the answer that the universe supplies the characteristics of a necessary being is that the alternative is a personal being. I am pointing out that the weak atheist is shifting from weak to strong when it suits them but doing behind a curtain.

regards, mikwut

[Guest]

Hello gdemetz,

Mikwut, I don't think it's fair to say that Mormons don't accept the big bang as a general statement. I think, in general, it is fair to say that we don't believe that everything that exists now is a result of a big bang.

Oh I understand I was born and raised a Mormon and practiced for most of my adult life. But arguing in the manner you are is inconsistent with the evidence and that was my point.

mikwut