It is predictable that any scientific debate with a remotely intelligent religious person will whittle down to the question of the origin of the universe. It is the last area of reality in which they can stage their defense. Until now.
In my previous posts, I've demonstrated how the cursory knowledge of a few basic concepts (namely: evolution, the chaos theory, and the black swan effect... with perhaps some cosmology basics) can prepare one with enough knowledge to understand the world, from a moment after the Big Bang until now, without needing to include god in the picture. So, when you demonstrate that you know enough to refute any religious arguments, the discussion ALWAYS turns to the one place that scientists have said that they know nothing about: the moment of the big bang.
How did matter come to exist in the first place? How did the universe and the laws of physics come about? Surely, this is the work of god. This is essentially the ultimate "god of the gaps" fallacy. Until now, my response has been that I don't know and neither does anyone else. Today, I am changing that answer.
Do you have an hour? This is a talk given by Lawrence Krauss at the AAI convention this last year. It basically explains how the universe is shaped and what that means for the matter involved, its origins, and its future. Find the time and watch it, at least up to the Q&A.
The basic gist of it is this: Looking at the evidence of the big bang, we can determine that the universe is flat, allowing for a zero-sum of energy and mass. This means that the universe could have come into existence without a creator through quantum fluctuations. The juicy bits are between 33:00 and 41:00.
Krauss goes on to explain how the universe is changing and expanding. Because of this, our understanding of the universe is unique to our time. If we had existed 5 billion years in the past, our vision of the universe would be completely different. Likewise, if we existed 100 billion years in the future, our best observations of the universe would fail to produce a correct result because there would be no evidence in observable range to make the same determinations.
Don't you feel justified because you reserved judgment and waited until the information came along?
0 nibbles:
Post a Comment