Learn Cosmology From A Cosmologist, Not An Apologist

Counter Apologist points to this interview by SkyDivePhil with the renowned cosmologist Sir Roger Penrose talking about Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.

The hardly any of the interview addresses religious apologetics, at the 20:05 mark he is asked about William Lane Craig’s interpretation of the meaning of CCC and Penrose explains how Craig misunderstands it.

Counter-Apologist explains the takeaway for analyses of Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument.:

The point isn’t that the CCC is probably true, therefore the Kalam is false. We don’t yet know if the CCC is completely accurate. There are competing models by other cosmologists that very well could be correct.

The point is that apologists are so very quick to assert that the entire material universe must have had a beginning in order to try and drill out a god shaped hole to stick Yahweh in. The problem for apologists is that there’s no evidence that all of material reality must have had a beginning. What we have is simply an unknown in our current understanding, with numerous competing theoretical models that could explain the data we have.

Right now the best apologists can do is try to read their preferred metaphysical positions into the Big Bang and make arguments from those assumptions, but it’s nothing more than that.

Your Thoughts?

"Getting out of religion and back into nature is incredibly difficult. Cult-ural Science, cult-ural religion, ..."

Have I Considered Catholicism Sufficiently?
"Following on from my last past here - As pervasive as the term original sin ..."

Have I Considered Catholicism Sufficiently?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • dave

    Isn’t Craig in the minority on the theory of time? HIs entire arugement rests on the A theory of time, instead of the B theory.