Big Bang?

[jbor at bigpond.com]

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).

> It doesn't
> address cause at all.

So it *is* rabbit out of a hat stuff? Voilà.

> It is simply a narrative of the history of the
> universe.

As is the Book of Genesis. Or any other Creation myth.

> 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.

I'm not suggesting that all physicists are atheists.

best

> On 9/28/05, jbor at bigpond.com <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
>> On 29/09/2005 David Casseres wrote:
>>
>>> The Big Bang hypothesis comes pretty simply from taking the available
>>> physical evidence and extrapolating back through time.
>>
>> Yes, I know. Inferring cause from effect. It's a logical fallacy.
>>
>>> Physics says,
>>> "Looks like it all goes back to a Big Bang."  Before the Big Bang?
>>> Physics says "Don't know."  Did God do it?  Physics says "Don't 
>>> know."
>>
>> This would be agnosticism rather than atheism. Wouldn't it?
>>
>> best
>>
>>
>