Big Bang?

[David Casseres]

On 9/29/05, jbor at bigpond.com <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
> On 30/09/2005, at 3:51 AM, David Casseres wrote:
>
> > The Big Bang hypothesis doesn't infer cause from effect.
>
> The syllogism goes like this: the universe (experienced/perceived
> effect) exists, so there must have been a Big Bang (inferred cause).

Not a cause, just an origin.

> > It doesn't
> > address cause at all.
>
> So it *is* rabbit out of a hat stuff? Voilà.

No, the hypothesis doesn't mention a hat, it just tells the story of the rabbit.

> > It is simply a narrative of the history of the
> > universe.
>
> As is the Book of Genesis. Or any other Creation myth.

If you like.  However the Big Bang hypothesis emerges from observed
evidence, not from the words of the forefathers.

> > And it is neither atheism nor agnosticism.  It is just science, which
> > you insist on conflating with atheism.
>
> In the terms of your little allegory, if "Physics" concluded "There is
> no God", then that'd be atheism. Atheism is the belief, or faith, that
> there is no God. But when "Physics" says "I don't know whether there
> is/was a God", that's agnosticism.

Have it  your way.  I guess it's "agnosticism," but that's a category
invented by deists.  It means nothing to science.



Here's something I need to say:

It is monstrous that the antiscience movement has gathered so much
momentum that it shows up, in its most destructive form, on the
Pynchon list of all places.  The attack on science is an attack on
humanity, by way of attacking one of humanity's highest achievements. 
As well attack literature itself, or philosophy, or music, or any of
the arts.  I fear for the culture that gave me birth, education, and a
lifetime of experience.