Cosmological Science: An Unbiblical Worldview

Just under seven years ago, astronomers using the Hubble space telescope presented results they hoped would help answer one of the most contentious issues in astronomy of the 20th century – the question of the distance scale of the universe. But there was some unease when the result was announced. According to the report, other galaxies were close enough that, extrapolating backwards from their current rate of recession and making adjustments for the influence of gravity, they all would have been together (that is, the Big Bang would have occurred) as recently as 8 billion years ago. Unfortunately, there was strong evidence already in place that some stars were at least 12-15

Neil Degrasse Tyson points out in his article “Cosmic Perspective”, first published in the Natural Magazine in 2007, that if every human were to truly comprehend how stupendous and interraled the universe is to us, our perspective on humanity would shift from a focus on our distinctions to our connections. Tyson explores through many examples of the “cosmic perspective” to prove just how closely associated we are with the universe.

Since the beginning of time, most humans have always believed that there existed an independent being. That we all descended from this independent being and that we could not exist otherwise. Though, some could argue that they did not descend from some independent being and that they arrived here by evolution. Depending on what one might believe in, each individual will see the Cosmological Argument differently. Overall, the Cosmological Argument argues that dependent beings (ourselves) came from an independent being.

For example, the Christian myth about the Garden of Eden, Adam, Eve, and the forbidden tree could once have been seen as factually true. With modern science as an ally, we are no longer confined to that story as an explanation to our beginnings. The cosmological function however is meant to do just that, narrate a divine story that explains that which inexplicable at the time the story was created.

There are some weak points in cosmological arguments, however. One major weakness is that there is no way to prove the existence of the universe has a cause. For example, David Hume believes that if we are capable of imagining a universe without cause, then it is possible that the universe could have begun without reason (Davies 50). Another argument states that the universe is infinite, and if that is the case, then every event has a predecessor. This would mean that there was no beginning of the universe (Davies 53).

Besides proving god’s existence, the cosmological argument’s fundamental function is to negate the possibility of an infinite regress, which means that things just keep going backwards in time forever without any definitive beginning. The cosmological argument consists of two precedents and one conclusion: (1) Everything that exists has a cause, (2) the universe exists (and therefore must have a cause), (3) ergo, god exists because he is what caused the universe. During Flanagan’s assessment of the argument, he indicates the logical fallacies that cause the argument’s downfall. First of all, the argument is, as Bertrand Russell put it, “flagrantly inconsistent” in nature because it, “…insists first that everything has a cause and then denies that everything that exists has a cause on the grounds that this would require believing in an infinite regress” which is exactly what the argument hopes to avoid. In other words, the fallacy is that the argument states that while everything in existence has a cause, god himself, who exists, is

The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument which intends to prove that there is an intelligent being that exists; the being is distinct from the universe, explains the existence of the universe, and is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. The basic notion of cosmological arguments is that the world and everything in it is dependent on something other than itself for its existence. It explains that everything has a cause, that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused.

The ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments collectively strive to prove one point, the existence of God. Ontological arguments lean on reasoning to prove its point of an a priori being or existence. Cosmological arguments focus on the idea that our infinite and expanding universe had to have been created by God or a higher being, due to the complexity of the universe itself. Teleological argument emphasizes on the idea that God constructed the universe for the sole purpose of completing an end result in which the universe was made for.

According to Drew Dellinger, the word cosmology has two definitions. The first definition of cosmology is: “the branch of philosophy dealing with the origin and general structure of the universe, with its parts, elements, and laws, and especially with such of its characteristics as space, time, causality, and freedom (Drew).” The second definition of cosmology is: “the branch of astronomy that deals with the general structure and evolution of the universe (Drew).” Therefore, cosmology is the study of the origin of the universe, and it can be interpreted through a philosophical or scientific perspective. But for this essay, I will interpret cosmology

The Merriam-Webster definition of cosmogony is: "a theory of the origin of the universe." Now this seems simple. As long as there have been humans on Earth we have looked back to find some meaning to our existence. The simple fact is that we are a forever-curious species, and we are driven by a need to understand the world around us. However, for most of our history, we have lacked the means of observing enough of space to truly understand our origins, so we created gods to explain things we couldn't understand. As our understanding of the universe changed, so, too, did these gods. The Enlightenment in the Modern era was the first time that God was brought into question. The Church had too much power, people wanted freedom, and religion was

While I did approach Big History: Connecting Knowledge with an intent to gain a greater transdisciplinary understanding of terrestrial and cosmological history, in retrospect I can see that I have more so gained from the critical thinking aspects of the course and in particular the four claim tester tools: (1) Intuition, (2) authority, (3) logic, (4) evidence. As Jenny Duke-Yonge comments in her lecture segment ‘How do we decide what to believe?’ in which she introduces the claim tester tools:

In short the theory provides one explanation for the creation and continued existence of the universe. The most common theory for the ‘Hot’ Big Bang is that 13.7 billion years ago the universe began as a singularity (a single point in space–time when matter is infinitely dense) then began to expand at a rapid rate.

There are some important questions that must be answered in cosmology, for example, why is the universe so homogeneous? or why is it so flat?. From classical thermodynamics we know that if we want to have a system with the same temperature T everywhere, we must let it interact with itself for a long time until it reaches the equilibrium at the temperature T. Here the word interact is very important, because to have some interaction, the particles must be in causal contact between them. Thus if we look two different points in the space that are at the same temperature they should have been causally connected in the past in order to communicate information between them and reach equilibrium. To know if the universe could have been causally connected in the past by using astronomical observations, we can use the fact that it is possible to get the comoving distance (and hence

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Christian belief encountered significant opposition. Until then, most of the world shared the belief of the “Medieval world view” that not only was the earth positioned at the center of the universe, but that God was all knowing, all powerful and all good. God was thought to have created and sustained the wondrous workings of the universe. This belief told the people all they needed to know about the meaning and purpose of life. Then, scientific discovery and methods began to undermine religious beliefs. Scientists began to reveal that natural laws and natural forces governed the world. Opposing beliefs, e.g. the Marxism belief, criticized Christian views. People like, Bacon, Copernicus, Kepler,

     The existence of motion to the existence of a first mover as the cause of movement, was argued by Aristotle. This first mover he called God. The reason for this was that nothing caused God to move yet God was responsible for the motion of all other things. Thisargument is based on presumptions in other cosmological arguments. The first was that something could not cause itself, second something cannot come from nothing, last there could not possibly be an infinite amount of cause and effects.