"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> As others have commented, it is interesting that one strong motivating
> factor for the proponents of the cyclic model was the fact that the
> inflationary model seemed not to have good competition to keep its
> proponents on their toes. Quite a noble approach, I'd say. Sign of a healthy
> state of science?
>
> It should also be pointed out that this particular questioning of the Big
> Bang provides no comfort whatsoever to persons wishing to find empirical
> support for a recent "exnihilation." The age of this particular universe
> might be 14 billion years, but the age of the more fundamental World of
> which this universe is but one cycle becomes effectively infinite. Of
> course, if the Ultimate Reality is God-and-a-World, as David Griffin and
> other process theologians suggest, then the cyclic model would seem quite
> reasonable.
I figured this card would be played fairly soon. In evaluating it note
1) There is no empirical support at all for a cyclic model.
2) The statement "the Ultimate Reality is God-and-World" goes well
beyond the claim that the world exists eternally in dependence upon God, which
is one way of interpreting _creatio ex nihilo_. It removes any qualitative
distinction between God and the world, and thus, among other things, is
fundamental conflict with the First Commandment.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 29 2002 - 22:21:08 EDT