The Big Bang Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pete_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does anyone know if Hawkings’ theories, especially imaginary time disprove any of Aquinas’ 5 proofs. I heard on another thread that all of Aquinas’ proofs can be disproved by modern science, is this true?
It’s more that Aquinas’s proofs are outdated. His way at looking at the world are not consistant and really bizzare with the way we realize the universe to be currently.

His argument from motion and the efficient cause, which are basically the same argument, are greatly put into questioning today by Quantum Physics, Stephen Hawkings’s various theories, as well as many others. They take away the old certainty of the reality of cause and effect. The Dual Slit Experiment is one experiement that has shown that at the quantum level, classical cause and effect really doesn’t apply, and at the Big Bang singularity, it is all at least as complicated or more as quantum physics.

The basis of the third argument, from possibility and necessity, is put into question by the First Law of Thermodynamics as well as today’s theories that are close to the “theory of everything.”

The fourth proof is really just logically false and any high schooler can disprove it. It basically assumes qualities, some that are obviously not real qualities, and says that there must be a perfect being which perfectly assumes all qualities from which lesser beings derive the degree of their qualities. It’s merely language gymnastics.

The fifth proof basically equates God with the laws of the universe such as gravity, which is the same as Stephen Hawkings’s God.
 
Thanks hubriss do you have any more information on cause and effect and the dual slit experiment?
 
Anyway, Hawking Confirmed some aspects of Einsteins theory, and I beleive he did come up with a model, in imagionary time, of the Big Bang theory that would not require one “sharp” starting point. I don’t really study physics any more so I can’t explain in very well.
And I think it’s worth noting that the BB is not something that only happened billions of years ago. It is something that is ongoing, unless someone is defining it differently. If someone is defining it differently they owe the discussion an explanation.

Another theory seldom mentioned is colliding branes
Despite its name, nothing goes bang in the Big Bang theory. The cataclysm it proposes wasn’t anything like a bomb exploding into preexisting space, since all space was contained inside the infant universe. Rather, the Big Bang refers to the event when the immense energy in the infant universe drove it to expand.
 
It’s more that Aquinas’s proofs are outdated.
Right, so far as I can tell this is a key point.

Aquinas was a brilliant man, however he was working on Airstotilian metaphysics and a 13th century understanding of the empericle world.

Given his context, that is if his understanding of the physical world and such were right, I think his proofs are fairly good. Like I said Anscombe raised some problems for firt cause(not that she was origional, she just puts it quite clearly, and has an interesting history with the argument) but even Kant put most of the traditional proofs for God to rest) but ultimatly the problem is that Aquinas proofs are based on empericle knoledge of his day, and they really loose their validity in light of a modern understanding of the empericle world.

Of course, science isin’t complete, who knows, perhapse Aquinas will prevail after all. His biggest problem are the logical/philosophical objections raised to his arguments.
 
Given his context, that is if his understanding of the physical world and such were right, I think his proofs are fairly good. Like I said Anscombe raised some problems for firt cause(not that she was origional, she just puts it quite clearly, and has an interesting history with the argument) but even Kant put most of the traditional proofs for God to rest)
Have you got any info on this?
 
I think the important thing to remember with Aquinas’ 5 proofs is that they are philosophical - and just about anything philosophical can be objected to, sometimes strongly, always weakly.

Highlighting the objections to the proofs is one thing, but in essence they are arguments, and I think it goes overboard to say they’re defeated. Science has come a long way since then, but where science is appropriate (the maximal proof isn’t, of course) what it mostly does is inform, not disprove.
 
I think the important thing to remember with Aquinas’ 5 proofs is that they are philosophical - and just about anything philosophical can be objected to, sometimes strongly, always weakly.

Highlighting the objections to the proofs is one thing, but in essence they are arguments, and I think it goes overboard to say they’re defeated. Science has come a long way since then, but where science is appropriate (the maximal proof isn’t, of course) what it mostly does is inform, not disprove.
It’s not just science though, philosophy is based largely on logic, and when Aquinas’s proofs are logically scrutinized, they are found to have holes and to make large assumptions. But science does help to discount those assumptions and correct people’s view of the world.
 
Have you got any info on this?
Well, as to them being good, I just mean that in the context of what was known in the field of logic and science at the times, his proofs were fairly good; however, in the current world, they seem to fall apart.

Immanuel Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reasone” contains his refutations of many arguments for God’s existence.

Anscombe’s is a brielf deal at the begining of her Introductory text to Tracticus Logico Philosophicus
 
It’s not just science though, philosophy is based largely on logic, and when Aquinas’s proofs are logically scrutinized, they are found to have holes and to make large assumptions. But science does help to discount those assumptions and correct people’s view of the world.
Probably so. But once the objection is raised, in comes a reply to the objection, and the argument continues. Casting Aquinas’ 5 proofs as defeated is what I object to - it’s simply not the case.

As far as science goes, before the Big Bang, the favored idea was that of an eternal universe. The very suggestion of there being a ‘start’ to the universe (even a start by something along the lines of a brane collision) was unthinkable, and the BB continued to be unthinkable for many for awhile thereafter, in QM style. I think it’s fair to say that someone could persuasively argue that that shored up a previous problem with one of Aquinas’ proofs.

I’m by no means a philosophical expert. But I do know that part of philosophy tends to be a certain amount of (no pun intended) hubris. Reading up on David Chalmers’ webpage, I always marvelled at how philosophers addressing a given question (in that case, philosophy of mind) could simultaneously all come to very different conclusions, and consider each person who objected to their conclusions as being flat wrong and refuted. The argument goes on.
 
“Critique of Pure Reasone” contains his refutations of many arguments for God’s existence.

Anscombe’s is a brielf deal at the begining of her Introductory text to Tracticus Logico Philosophicus
Thankyou, Kant’s book is too long for me to read it all online, could you direct me to specific pages or summarise his main arguments 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top