Debating the big bang & the Kalam argument -Dr Jeff Zweerink vs Skydivephil
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
Has the Big Bang Gone Bust? A new theory claims to overturn classical big bang cosmology. Skydivephil and Dr Jeff Zweerink (of Reasons to Believe) were invited to on to the Unbelievable podcast hosted by Justin Brierley at Premiere Christian radio to debate the issues surrounding the big bang, God and the Kalam argument. Phil's position is the we dont know if the universe had a beginning or not and even if it did that does not prove God. Jeff represents Reasons to Believe, who argue the big bang established the beginning of the universe and hence provides powerful evidence of God. There is a typo at the into, the father of string theory is Gabriele Veneziano.
Comments
-
Phil, Debate William lane Craig.......I would love to see this.....
-
read the jewish/christian creation myth. It is so backwards and primitive and I don't see how a big bang supports it?
-
As a Christian theist, I have no reservation at all saying that these are very well thought out points made by Phil. I thought that the beginning of the universe was a scientific slam dunk, but I didn't look at what the other side was arguing. Now I'm not sure that it is scientifically established, especially after watching this vid and another of Roger Penrose about Aeons before the big bang. Well done sir!!!
-
Thank you, Phil. Well done.
One thing that fascinates me, when talking about the point of singularity, is that when T=0 neither causality nor the concept of "beginning" seem to make any sense. How can one claim a causal relation when there is no prior time in which cause precedes effect? How can anything "begin" (a temporal concept) when there is no time?
It seems that apologists like Dr. Zweerink not only bring an infinitely elastic theistic conclusion into the premise of the cosmological argument, but also hold on like a pit bull to a God of the gaps. Zweerink also seemed to be anticipating how he might revise his theology to fit new data if/when a past infinite universe won scientific consensus, rather than ever considering simply abandoning his theological presupposition.
It's also astounding that apologists like WLC attempt to support the notion of causality at the origin of the universe by appealing to intuition... intuition is the last thing we should rely on at the quantum level. -
Silly theory . . . . Big Bang !!! and just WHO pulled the trigger . . . . ??
-
Sadly it just boils down to the Kalam cosmological fallacy, which is just an assumption that there's a god.
-
Great discussion!
-
Venezinao? I thought it was Veneziano
-
Great job Phil.
-
glad you explained the difference between big bang phase and big bang singularity - believers and non believers dont seem to understand that - the term "big bang" seems synonymous with singularity for most people
-
ha - hello "sky dance phil" - you waltzed your way through this one
-
The big bang lool.
-
This was beyond expectations. They actually both did a good job of explaining some of the science and unusually enough the religious person wasn´t just trying to push some agenda and instead was quite humble and willing to admit that there was not enough evidence yet to pin anything down.
-
That was one of the most boring pro-kalam supporter ever. He was basically saying that you can believe whatever you want because the data is inconclusive.
Even if he was right, I think that the prudent thing to do is put into practice the good old Occam's razor and adopt the alternative with one less entity, until said entity is demonstrated to exist.
0m 0sLenght
63Rating