Steady state theory

POI wrote: Thu Jun 06, 2024 6:32 pm I admit cosmology and theoretical physics are not my fields of expertise. I took some classes to fulfill my medical goals, decades ago, but that’s really it.

Bottom line, you only appeal to the argument from authority in this debate. You have not provided anything other than a few scientists that claim the universe is eternal. And you have not provided their evidence or arguments why they believe this.

Just like I would do for inferring about evidence for blackholes, string theory, etc etc etc.

It is special pleading if scientists can use inference, but Christians cannot use inference to demonstrate God exists.

The video below is not a ‘gotcha’ towards the conclusion of eternal, but instead demonstrates that the great debate continues.

The video discusses the steady state theory of the universe (which is not a new theory as the clickbait title suggests). This has been abandoned by cosmologists decades ago.

This post, the latest in my series about cosmology, talks about the Steady State theory. This is an elegant alternative theory to the Big Bang, which was very popular among astronomers in the 1950s, but is now obsolete. … te-theory/

What is one major problem with it? Because it violates the first law of thermo. This by itself would make it a supernaturalistic explanation since it violates the known laws of physics.

The Steady State theory gets round this by assuming that new matter is continuously created out of nothing at the incredibly small rate of 1 atom of hydrogen per 6 cubic kilometers of space per year. … te-theory/

Why was this theory proposed? Because atheists do not like the idea of a universe that was created.

One of the elegant features of the Steady State theory is that because the Universe is infinitely old the question of its origin doesn’t arise. It has always existed. Unlike the Big Bang theory, the Steady State theory has no point far back in time when a ‘creation event’ occurred causing the Universe to come into being. To Fred Hoyle, who was a committed atheist, this was a particularly attractive feature of the theory. … te-theory/

Why did cosmologists eventually abandon the steady state theory? Because it could not explain the CMBR.

However the real the nail in the coffin of the Steady State theory was the discovery in 1965 of the cosmic microwave background radiation. This is a weak background radiation which fills the whole of space and is the same in all directions. In the Big Bang theory this radiation is a relic or snapshot from the time the Universe was young and hot and was predicted before it was discovered. However, in the Steady State theory it is almost impossible to explain the origin of this radiation.

In the words of Stephen Hawking:
‘the Steady State theory was what Karl Popper would call a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified’ … te-theory/

My point being, again, is that if any scientist is worth their salt, they are already aware of all scientific laws in question.

Appeal to authority fallacy again.

You honestly think it never occurred to them about the law(s) of thermo?

The steady state theory is an example where they did not address the laws of thermo. And it is clearly a violation of the first law. And he was not looked on well by the scientific community:

Clayton says the Nobel Committee’s decision probably had more to do with Hoyle’s rejection of scientific orthodoxy than any missing equation. “Fred marginalized himself,” Clayton says. “He made himself look like a sorehead who only cared about the steady state universe and life from outer space. … He made himself look foolish.” … -equation/

In spite of the law(s) you mention, the great debate continues. Hence, the ones who are on the side of infinity MUST all be “godidit” deniers.

And what we see is the evidence and logical deductions of cosmology lead to the existence of the supernatural. Since atheists cannot accept the supernatural exists, they have to resort “I don’t know”.

otseng wrote: Thu Jun 06, 2024 8:24 am You’re the one who brought by Alan Guth. He believes in other universes…

And ‘multiverses’, under naturalism, is yet another unresolved topic debated by scientists who are aware of all the existing current known and not-yet completely known scientific laws.

Yes, another “I don’t know”. I’ll also add special pleading. If an intelligent being exists outside our universe, then immediately the skeptics balk. But if it’s a multitude of other universes outside our universe, then that’s totally acceptable.

The time to consider the ‘supernatural’ is when the ‘supernatural’ has first been demonstrated. Thus far, your methodology is fallacious in getting there, hence, is to be ignored.

Per your definition of natural, the sheer fact singularities exists demonstrates the supernatural exists.

“Anything which a) breaks known natural law and b) breaks yet-to-be-known natural law would be defined as ‘supernatural’.”

And we can add other universes to supernaturalistic explanations.

I guess this is why, no matter how much evidence is presented, some people will still argue a young earth, a flat earth, deny evolutionary theory, etc………… And much of this is to favor their interpretation of the Bible over anything else.

It’s the other way around. No matter how much evidence is presented to support Biblical claims, it will never be accepted by committed skeptics. Even if skeptics have no evidence or logical arguments to back up their claims, they will simply say, “I don’t know”. And we see this with the current debate where I have presented my evidence. And when asked for evidence to support an eternal universe, none has been presented. The only response continues to be using fallacious arguments like the appeal to authority.

otseng wrote: Thu Jun 06, 2024 8:24 am The way I see it is you ignore anything that is contrary to what you want to believe. Again, if you do not accept the definitions of the laws of thermo that I’ve presented, please present your own source on what they are.

You continue to either A) miss or b) evade my same repeated point. Either way, I’m done explaining.

Who then is the one who has true epistemology if you aren’t even willing to present a definition?

If all of this is beyond your understanding (“I admit cosmology and theoretical physics are not my fields of expertise. I took some classes to fulfill my medical goals, decades ago, but that’s really it.”), that’s fine. But don’t go trying to debate this and continually avoid answering basic requests and pretending you’re actually offering any refutation to my arguments.

Then why waste your time here? Change the world. Introduce data for peer review. Throw your hat into the ring to refute theoretical sciences, like evolution, and whatever other scientific theories you deny. We will await your grand prize(s). And if it does not come, it’s because they want to suppress the truth, ala Romans 1:19-22.

My attempt is through this forum. I do other things as well, but this is my little contribution to the world.