Don N Page wrote:
> (...) the Big
> Bang is not significantly more evidence for the existence of God than
> many
> other elegant cosmological models would be if they were instead
> supported by
> the evidence. In other words, I reject the claim that a finite age of
> the
> universe helps the cosmological argument that there is a Creator.
Well, I'd like to ask for permission to say something on this subject.
I'm not a researcher in cosmology, and I think it is very why I'll get
such a simple point to comment on. I fully agree with the statment
above. "The creation itself testifies of the Creator"..... sth like
that. The problem is the way we look at creation. Science is a great
"validate" way, by which we try to survive in this world. So, anyway,
will, somehow take you to get testemony of the Creator from it. It's not
by accident that all primitive cultures connected the nature which
sorrrounded it to a god or to gods. The simple eye (simple in a sense of
"not trained", "free") is able to see a Creating hand beyond it. "We",
prepotent controllers of the variables, cannot addmit somehing or
someone that is not reproductable... not controllable. Yes, all right.
We can addmit, but it cannot be counted as a influencing of
participating subject (like in S. Hawking's text at the end of the
post). Science changes along the time, and the way people look at the
creation gets different. We must be able to see God along history, not
getting one theory at a point of time, an intelectual development of an
age, and use it as a remarkable and doubtless affirmation and
confirmation of God. And when human eyes change its point of view?
Remember when Adam and Eve had "opened their eyes"? Well, we have Adams
and Eves opening their eyes from different points of view, and if we
cannot be able to see God through it (if is considerated valid), we may
have the same consequences they had...: get far, and lose our solid
"Eden" soil below us....
As well as everything we humans produce... and claim to be true, finite
and infinite age, concerning to our Nature (it's not an ecologic term,
here - but origin, forge, principle) is simple speculation, and cannot
be taken as a validator to the question whether God exists or not, or if
he's got any use or not....
> By faith I would still accept the conclusion
> of the cosmological argument, that the existence of the universe
> depends upon a
> Creator.
Yeap. As you've said, it's His choice.
> Besides its logical incorrectness (at least as I see it), the
> view that
> God is needed if and only if the universe has finite age has the
> danger of
> suggesting that God does not exist if and when a scientific theory is
> accepted
> that says that after all the universe has infinite age.
:)
> Actually, Hawking's argument is not quite the same as the
> erroneous
> form of the cosmological argument that I have attacked above, which
> supposes
> that a universe with a finite age needs a Creator but one with
> infinite age
> does not.
I've started reading "Miracles", by C. S. Lewis, and in his arguments on
Nature and Supernature, he arguments on the subject of only one
"universe" or "Nature" or many "Natures/Realities" and a "Supernatural"
reality, in which a personal God, or a God with a independet
personality, has it's view/control/office...
Has any one read it?
CSL is not a astronomer (you may know him well), but he was good at such
"philosophical" subjects...
Concerning on evidences... Sometimes, I think how far can our so-called
evidences be evidences of God? I mean... we live by faith, we believe
him by faith... "Faith is being sure what we hope and certain of what we
cannot see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith, we
understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what
is seen was not made out of what was visible" (NIV, Hebrews 11:1-3).
Extending the meaning of "see", I can say that as far as our
knowledge/understanding "see" (reach), it's not enough to prove
anything. as it says at the begining of verse 3, BY FAITH WE
UNDERSTAND... Evidences do help us to think and understand, but do not
close the point.
Just some considerations...
I'm not a specialist, and also, might be talking of too simple
questions... I hope I do not brake the chain of discussions.
In Christ,
Andre Bressan