April 25, 2018 | David F. Coppedge

Secular Cosmology Is Useless and Pointless

Secular cosmologists admit they will never know how things began, and that the search is pointless. How is this ‘science’ even worth considering?

Nothing banged, and became everything. How’s that for science? Sad as it seems, this is the belief of modern scientists who reject “In the beginning, God.” Ross Pomeroy of Real Clear Science, in an article echoed on Space.com, quoted some of the world’s leading cosmologists about what came before the big bang in his article, “We’ll Never Know For Sure How Everything Began.” Before reading the following quote, one must realize that the secular cosmologists express confidence in the big bang model far exceeding its empirical support, as shown by Spike Psarris in his video, “What You’re Not Being Told About Astronomy,” Vol. III, “Our Created Universe.” After Pomeroy lets Sean Carroll of Caltech opine that the big bang theory is “100 percent true,” then comes its downfall:

But that percentage of surety dwindles to nothing when discussing the singularity that supposedly started it all. Where did it come from? What came before it? What caused it to “bang” in such a big way? As Carroll admitted, this singularity and its accompanying “bang” are essentially stand-ins for what we don’t – and currently can’t – actually know.

“It’s the time at which we don’t understand what the Universe was doing,” he said on Science Friday.

And we might not ever understand it, at least with current methods of observation.

If you look at the transcript of his interview on Science Friday, and search for the word “know,” you find that he knows almost nothing about anything that matters. So why are people listening to him, as if he is some great prophet for the 21st century?

Pomeroy also quotes Alan Guth, father of Inflation Theory (the Guth Goof). The only thing Guth knows is that the universe had a beginning. But he too admits that he doesn’t know anything about the cause of the big bang or inflation. He speculates out of thin space:

“It certainly looks like the universe that we observe around us… definitely had a beginning,” MIT cosmologist Alan Guth, the originator of the theory of cosmic inflation, said in an interview for the PBS show Closer to Truth [dated 2015]. “That doesn’t mean that that beginning was necessarily the ultimate beginning of all of reality. There may have been some prehistory to what we’re here calling the beginning.”

Pomeroy goes on to call theories for the cause of the universe “fanciful ideas,” but cosmologists are at a scientific “dead end” where they can only speculate. He briefly entertains some of the fanciful ideas, but then says,

All of these ideas sound cool, but none are reasonably testable, rendering them useless at the present time.

Classically, science is supposed to be useful, not useless. And cosmology’s fanciful ideas are not just useless now, he says. They might be useless forever. That makes them pointless, too. Using a tontological formulation of present knowledge, he continues:

We [tontology] will likely never know for sure how everything began, or even if there was a beginning. Perhaps the timeless quest to uncover our ultimate origins is pointless, a selfish side effect of our innate human need for a coherent narrative of existence. Indeed, the very concept of a beginning may be flawed, based on our comparatively paltry experience in this mystical reality. The Universe, and indeed all of Reality, is by no means required to conform to our concept of a “beginning”.

And of course, no matter how far down the rabbit hole we travel, there could always be a question of “what came before?” The search for a beginning will likely never end.

Do you have a point?

Stephen Weinberg was criticized for his statement in his book The First Three Minutes (1977, rev. 1993), “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” So what was his point in saying that? Can pointlessness give rise to a point? He tried to wiggle out of that in an interview for PBS. We don’t see any cosmologists saying anything now, though, to counter Pomeroy’s contention that secular cosmology is useless and pointless. How could such a view give rise to “our innate human need for a coherent narrative of existence”? What on earth does “coherent” mean, without presupposing laws of logic that are timeless and universal?

All of these ideas sound cool, but none are reasonably testable, rendering them useless at the present time.

It’s Worse Than They Are Saying

In a new video at Prager University, Brian Keating, an astrophysicist at the University of California, San Diego, asks “What’s a Greater Leap of Faith: God or the Multiverse?” The humorously-animated five-minute film lays the choices side by side. Keating shows how modern cosmologists, having rejected God for “no evidence,” have embraced a fantasy worldview for which there is absolutely no evidence, never will be any evidence, and is actually anti-evidence. “So let me ask you,” he ends, “who’s taking the bigger leap?”

So far, this presentation of theistic cosmology vs secular/atheistic cosmology is weak. While we appreciate Pomeroy’s honesty about secular limits to knowledge, and Keating’s argument that theism is stronger than the alternative, much more certainty can be attained – so much more, in fact, that it is time to call the secular scientists’ bluff and not let them get away with pretending to be prophets of knowledge. Particles do not become people!

First of all, the atheistic multiverse is absurd. Spike Psarris shows this clearly in his video. The multiverse is not just a leap of faith. It is not merely a matter of lack of knowledge. It is positively anti-knowledge! It cannot possibly be true. For one thing, it denies any plausible form of causality. For another, it leads to logical absurdities. As such, it must be rejected by anyone who respects reason at all.

Second, the case for design is a positive argument, not a negative argument (e.g., god-of-the-gaps). In every case where we observe a complex, specified, functioning, informational system coming into existence, we know that intelligence had a role in its causation. This is an argument from what we know, not from what we don’t know. Add to that the fine-tuning arguments and probability arguments. Together, these empirically-based and mathematical arguments shout design through a megaphone to anyone not blinded by their hatred of any thought of God.

Third, we have an Eyewitness who tells us what happened! Given the absurd alternatives, what is preventing you from trusting what He says? “For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the Lord, and there is no other.” (Isaiah 45:18).

 

Leave a Reply