Why the big Bang singularity does not help the Kal M cosmological argument for theism

Abstract
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)
DOI 10.1093/bjps/axn032
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,106
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
A Critical Look at Inflationary Cosmology.John Earman & Jesus Mosterin - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (1):1-49.
Refusing the Devil's Bargain: What Kind of Underdetermination Should We Take Seriously?P. Kyle Stanford - 2001 - Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S1-.
Absolute Objects and Counterexamples: Jones–Geroch Dust, Torretti Constant Curvature, Tetrad-Spinor, and Scalar Density.J. Brian Pitts - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 37 (2):347-371.

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Underdetermination in Cosmology: An Invitation.Jeremy Butterfield - 2012 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 86 (1):1-18.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Theism and Physical Cosmology.Hans Halvorson - forthcoming - In Charles Taliaferro, Victoria Harrison & Stewart Goetz (eds.), Routledge Companion to Theism.
The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe.Quentin Smith - 1988 - Philosophy of Science 55 (1):39-57.
Simplicity and Why the Universe Exists.Quentin Smith - 1997 - Philosophy 72 (279):125 - 132.
Should We Believe in the Big Bang?: A Critique of the Integrity of Modern Cosmology.Graeme Rhook & Mark Zangari - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:228 - 237.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

68 ( #77,532 of 2,171,703 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #326,424 of 2,171,703 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums