Had I not suspected as much, I’d not have dared to divulge even that tidbit of secret knowledge.
I’m not sure of this. If the creator showed up, how many would assume it was a trick by the devil, or some aliens with advanced technology, or a hallucination? I’m not sure it’s possible to ever convince 100% of people… perhaps that is why God doesn’t try it that way?
Perhaps, but note that your question implies that God cares whether we believe in him or not.
I suspect that those presupposed to disbelieve will always find a way to do so, as will those who are determined to believe. My arguments are only for those with open and curious minds, or the clearly undecided. People who are fully accepting of a belief in God should never read anything I write. .
greylorn:
It may be that any theory which addresses the beginning of things is stuck with the same constraint. Note that the, uh, “singularity,” which allegedly preceded the Big Bang is undefined and undefinable. No possible reason for it to blow up has been devised. Yet scientists and their followers accept, with the same fervor as a devout Catholic accepts almighty God, the belief that the mysterious “singularity” existed and that it made our universe for no reason whatsoever.
However, the singularity (which I personally don’t like as the model) is the theory most scientists think matches the given evidence. It wasn’t just thought up over some beers, a lot of work, math, and observation went into the theory… so saying it’s as devout as accepting God is a bit much. Especially considering with new information, most would (eventually) change their minds about it, just like what was done with general relativity, quantum mechanics, the existence of black holes (which are believed to be a singularity as well by the way), etc.
Quite a bit of my commentary is derived from personal experience which includes 15 years in astronomy. Not an astronomer, I did nonetheless publish a few papers in minor astronomy journals under the department chairman’s sponsorship, plus one on my own.
I worked in a support capacity, mostly computer work and engineering with one of two groups doing pioneer work in computer controlled telescopes and instrumentation. This required many late night observing sessions. Much of our work was done in conjunction with NASA, In the course of time, struggles, and travels, I got into many a late night discussion, because astronomy and metaphysics are closely linked. You would be amazed at how many excellent ideas are found amid informal discussions fueled with alcohol. I can tell anyone today exactly what each astronomer and Ph.d engineer drank as well as their preferred temperature.
Actually, the Big Bang theory is mostly what we commonly referred to as a “hand-waving analysis,” the kind of thing you’ll get on TV information channels. You are correct that a lot of mathematical work was applied to the problem, but it did not yield great results. They refer to the Big Bang’s precursor as a “singularity.” I’m confident that you know enough math to realize what that means— somewhere in the equations, somebody divided by something that turns out to be zero.
Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, black hole equations do not blow up. Therefore black holes are regarded as singularities only by people who don’t know that a singularity is just a meaningless mathematical abstraction which cannot, by its nature, apply to the real world. There are lots of those people. Please don’t be one of them!
Historically, science changes its collective mind, but only when current dogma accompanies enough individual scientists into retirement. I can make a fair case that the success of science is partly due to the early retirement of tenured professors.
Before you make any personal commitment to promote science’s willingness to scrap a bad theory in the light of contrary evidence, notice that when the first serious mathematical analysis of the Big Bang was performed a few years back, it showed that the theory failed. It could be made to work by temporarily suspending the idea that the speed of light is a constant, so that’s what cosmologists did (inflation theory).
Now you know how keen scientists are on claiming that good theories lead to verifiable predictions? Science puts a lot of its credibility on that line. Now note that Big Bang theory led to the prediction that the rate of expansion of the universe would be slowing down. Why didn’t the observation that it is actually speeding up (as the advanced physics section of my creation theory predicted 30 years ago) cause science to discard Big Bang theory?
The truth is that scientists are as easily hooked by dogmatic belief as any religionist, because beliefs are based upon agreement, and agreement is the only mechanism the human brain (note that I did not say “mind”) has for determining truth.
Completely agree with this, well said.
I really needed that today! Thank you.
