Big Bang?

[jbor at bigpond.com]

>> The syllogism goes like this: the universe (experienced/perceived 
>> effect) exists, so there must have been a Big Bang (inferred cause).

On 30/09/2005 Cyrus wrote:

> Er, sorry, but this is a classic example of the "straw man" fallacy. 
> There never was any inferred cause here. The above syllogism is of 
> your own devise. The "big bang" theory is not the result of abstract 
> philosophizing, but a consequence of space observation.

No straw man. Scientists observe the effects (e.g. expanding universe) 
and infer the cause (Big Bang). As, for alternate First Causes, do 
theologians. The Salvos. Tribes in Irian Jaya. Children everywhere.

-------

>> [...] 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.

On 30/09/2005 Cyrus wrote:

> Actually, Physics (or anyone, for that matter) cannot conclude that 
> there is no God, because it is impossible to disprove an existential 
> claim.

Nor can anyone conclude there was no Big Bang, because it's similarly 
impossible to disprove an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Ergo, it seems, 
faith in the Big Bang and belief in a god are not incompatible 
positions to hold to.

> Therefore, atheism is not the "belief" or "faith" that there is no 
> God. Atheism is the absense of theism, i.e. the absense of a belief in 
> a god.

And nor does theism need to be the "belief" or "faith" that there was 
no Big Bang. And theism (and agnosticism) can just as easily be defined 
as the absence of atheism, i.e. the absence of a belief in godlessness.

best