Zadok001

Slightly off-topic question.

The start of Genesis 1 refers to water, and wind blowing against God's face. How on EARTH does the literalist explain those statements in conjunction with "there was nothing?" Wind requires air...

malookiemaloo

Thanks to all who responded to my question.

Zadok 001 you are right. Genesis one does not commence at the ABSOLUTE beginning only the creation of life . Genesis does record that before then the earth was formless and empty. I suppose anything earlier than this does not really concern human beings.


M

Oxymoron

Just some notes on the steady-state theory.

It assumes an infinitely old universe. As space expands, matter is created to "fill the gaps" (otherwise there would be nothing now, because an infinite time would have elapsed). Imagine a big bang going on for ever in slo-mo. The creation of matter in SS is just as mysterious as that in the BB. Except for the fact that it violates conservation of mass/energy all the time, of course. Because of this, SS is no better a model than BB when it comes to awkward questions.

However, SS [b]is[/i] testable. First of all, it has a tough time reconciling the cosmic microwave background, a cool radiation field that has exactly the spectral characteristics predicted by a BB model. There was a time, 13 billion years or so ago, when the universe was very different - hot and dense. This is incompatible with an infinitely old SS universe, which is unchanging by definition.

Another problem with SS is the percentages of synthesisable elements observed in the universe. In the early hot universe there was lots of energetic stuff going on, creating and destroying deuterium, helium and other elements that are generally hard to manufacture under low-energy regimes. BB gets the figures broadly correct, SS is way off.

Hope that helps.

malookiemaloo

Tim Thompson

The original steady state cosmology had too many problems and was eventually abandoned. It has been replaced with what is called Quasi Steady State Cosmology (QSSC), the brainchild of Sir Fred Hoyle (who helped developed the original steady state theory), and his students, notably Chandra Wickramasinghe and Jayant Narlikar. Although Big Bang cosmology is by far the most widely accepted cosmological principle, I would say that QSSC is the only really serious alternative (MOND, for instance, is an alternative form of gravity to general relativity, but is still operable within the Big Bang).

Unfortunately, there are no decent webpages about QSSC that I am aware of. But there are old fashioned paper resources that can be of value in learning about QSSC. Here are a couple.

• Standard Cosmology and Alternatives: A Critical Appraisal, Jayant V. Narlikar & T. Padmanabhan, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 39: 211-248, 2001. Even Narlikar admits that the Big Bang is more compatible with current observations, but points out where it might be weak, and where future observations might still refute the idea (though it seems unlikely).
• An Introduction to Cosmology, Jayant V. Narlikar, Cambridge University Press 2002 (3rd edition). While opposed to Big Bang cosmology, Narlikar has nevertheless studied it deeply, and produced a popular and well used text book on cosmology. The book covers standard cosmology exhaustively, but also covers QSSC. The book is designed for advanced undergraduate or graduate students; definitely not intended for popular consumption.
• Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models (the best webpage is Ned Wright's explanation of why QSSC is wrong).

Standard cosmology is better represented on the web, in formats more geared towards less mathematically sophisticated readership.

• Cosmology: The Study of the Universe (from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe mission).
• Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial (Wright is Prof of Astronomy at UCLA).
• Max Tegmark's webpage (Tegmark is prof of Physics at U of Pennsylvania).
• Cosmology Tutorial (from Observational Cosmology Group, U of Wisconsin).
• Cambridge Cosmology (from Relativity and Gravitation group at u of Cambridge).

One other thing to remember. The Big Bang could be a unique true beginning, or it could be one part of a (possibly infinite) repeating cycle. It is usually viewed as a true beginning only because general relativity cannot see it in any other way. But quantized general relativity does not suffer from this limitation. Hence, pre Big Bang cosmology and Cyclic universe cosmology offer alternatives with no beginning that are in all other ways compatible with observational Big Bang cosmology.

Cosmology is a very busy field!

malookiemaloo

Phew!

Thanks Tim.


m

Nowhere357

I agree with these views. I also think there is a signal getting lost in the noise. A large part of the power of religion comes from the fact that thiesm portends to answer the folks who wonder "who am I?". It's a human thing to go on a "spiritual quest". Freethinkers know that thiesm is a worse than lousy guide to reality, but the personal need still exists.

The word "spirituality" seems to automatically imply "supernatural", which of course directly implies "non-existence". I believe that is a faulty interpretation. The human need for spiritual fulfillment is very real, and we need a non-thiestic way of dealing with it. Philosophy is there, of course, though whether or not that is enough is debatable.
My point I guess is that more progress would be made vs theism, if the spiritual need were not rejected out-of-hand. Defeating theistic brain-washing is hard enough already!

That's way off thread. I think as we approach the big-bang singularity, physical laws seem to change, and looking further becomes problematic. (Insert favorite theory here; I like circularity.)

ekorczynski

FWIW, I tend to agree with Nowhere357 regarding some sort of a human drive for something that is often termed "sprituality", but that the mess of conceptual associations with this word limits it's real ability to communicate (i.e., it seems nearly everyone has a different concept, and most are weakly defined at best).

In the translations of some of the original Skeptic writings (~2000 years ago), one point of emphasis is that a "state of quietude" arises within the experience of a Skeptic once the constraints of all belief-systems are abandoned. This experience IMHO is best represented in the English language by the word "Transcendent."

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
Main Entry: tran·scen·dent
Pronunciation: -d&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin transcendent-, transcendens, present participle of
transcendere
Date: 1598
1 a : exceeding usual limits : SURPASSING b : extending or lying
beyond the limits of ordinary experience c in Kantian philosophy :
being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
2 : being beyond comprehension
3 : transcending the universe or material existence

IMHO, one must strive toward Transcendence (or at least acknowledge the possibility and value of the experience) to really claim to hold a Skeptic perspective. Lacking transcendence seems to transform a Skeptic into either a Nihilist or a dogmatic Atheist.

Perhaps this should be a new thread?

Your Transcendent Skeptic friend,
edo