David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4):675-708 (2008)
The cosmic singularity provides negligible evidence for creation in the finite past, and hence theism. A physical theory might have no metric or multiple metrics, so a ‘beginning’ must involve a first moment, not just finite age. Whether one dismisses singularities or takes them seriously, physics licenses no first moment. The analogy between the Big Bang and stellar gravitational collapse indicates that a Creator is required in the first case only if a Destroyer is needed in the second. The need for and progress in quantum gravity and the underdetermination of theories by data make it difficult to take singularities seriously. The singularity exemplifies the sort of gap that is likely to be closed by scientific progress, obviating special divine action. The apparent irrelevance of cardinality to practices of counting infinite sets in classical field theory and Fourier analysis is noted. Introduction The Doctrine of Creation and Its Warrant Cardinality and Sizes of Infinity Modern Cosmology and Creation Tolerance or Intolerance toward Singularities? Leibniz against Incompetent Watchmaker? Induction from Earlier Theories' Breakdown? Stellar Collapse Implies Theistic Destroyer Stacking the Deck for GTR Quantum Gravity Tends to Resolve Singularities Vicious God-of-the-Gaps Character Fluctuating or Inaccessible Warrant Big Bang Cosmology Not Especially Congenial to Faith CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
John Earman & Jesus Mosterin (1999). A Critical Look at Inflationary Cosmology. Philosophy of Science 66 (1):1-49.
Larry Laudan, Arthur Donovan, Rachel Laudan, Peter Barker, Harold Brown, Jarrett Leplin, Paul Thagard & Steve Wykstra (1986). Scientific Change: Philosophical Models and Historical Research. Synthese 69 (2):141 - 223.
P. Kyle Stanford (2001). Refusing the Devil's Bargain: What Kind of Underdetermination Should We Take Seriously? Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S1-.
Gordon McCabe (2004). The Structure and Interpretation of Cosmology: Part I—General Relativistic Cosmology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 35 (4):549-595.
Citations of this work BETA
Jeremy Butterfield (2012). Underdetermination in Cosmology: An Invitation. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 86 (1):1-18.
Similar books and articles
Hans Halvorson (forthcoming). Theism and Physical Cosmology. In Charles Taliaferro, Victoria Harrison & Stewart Goetz (eds.), Routledge Companion to Theism.
Quentin Smith (1997). Simplicity and Why the Universe Exists. Philosophy 72 (279):125 - 132.
William Lane Craig & Quentin Smith (1993). Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology. Oxford University Press.
Theodore Schick Jr (1998). The 'Big Bang' Argument for the Existence of God. Philo 1 (1):95-104.
Quentin Smith (1988). The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe. Philosophy of Science 55 (1):39-57.
Wes Morriston (2002). Creation Ex Nihilo and the Big Bang. Philo 5 (1):23-33.
Graeme Rhook & Mark Zangari (1994). Should We Believe in the Big Bang?: A Critique of the Integrity of Modern Cosmology. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:228 - 237.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads68 ( #70,729 of 1,902,527 )
Recent downloads (6 months)14 ( #61,830 of 1,902,527 )
How can I increase my downloads?