This sounds rather more like Sandage being influenced by the lack of a Big Crunch, rather than the existence of a Big Bang.
It is possible I could have stated this more clearly from the beginning. It is the nature of the big bang as a singular event which is most compelling. If the big bang was really just one in a series of big bounces, then it could have a physical cause. But when the big bounce is not viable, you are left with a singular event. It is hard to conceive of any physical law that comes with a label saying "Good for only one use."
I will acknowledge that there does seem to have been some influence upon Sandage's conversion here, so I suppose that you are actually not too far off.
Thank you!
I still think that your use of this quote is an appeal to an inappropriate authority though.
An appeal to an inappropriate authority means the quoted person is not a real expert in the subject. i don't think you mean to say Sandage was not an expert astronomer and cosmologist.
Regarding Sandage's quote on Euclidean postulates, you write:
This is in direct contradiction to the argument for which you were attempting to use Sandage as backing. Whatever effect Sandage might have been influenced by the Big Bang or other cosmology, he clearly disagrees with you about the idea that cosmology actively supports a designer.
Not true. There are two levels of "belief" when the term is used in its widest connotation. The first level of belief is just intellectual assent to certain facts or evidence. Sandage reached this first level in 1974 when he learned the big bang was a singular event. He changed his mind and agreed the evidence led to a supernatural beginning for the universe. Someone can make this first step without changing religions. Robert Jastrow was one. Jastrow remained an agnostic even though he admitted the universe had a beginning and this is in line with the creation account in the Bible. The second level of belief is sometimes said to require a "step of faith" or "leap of faith." Sandage made this step or leap in 1976. This only happens after a person feels they know enough about who the creator is that they can put their trust in him and to begin to live as the creator requires. Sandage could have chosen YHWH, the God of the Jews. He could have chosen Jesus Christ, the God of the Christians. He could have chosen Allah, the God of Islam. Or he could have put his trust in some fourth or unknown god.
The big bang does not give us the identity of the creator. I have never claimed it did. I have only said the big bang is compatible with and supports the idea of a Designer or Creator. Sandage's discussion of trusting in Euclidean postulates is more in line with the step of faith of trusting in the God he identified as the most likely creator.
The part of your argument that actually proved controversial, the only bit that anyone really disagreed with you about, was that we could find support for a designer from cosmology, and there, Sandage provides you with far less support. I fail to see how an individual who said "Knowledge of the creation is not knowledge of the creator," or "astronomers may have found the first effect, but not necessarily thereby the first cause sought by Anselm and Aquinas" can be used to support your more extreme claim.
I do not think my view and Sandage's are that different. I have not claimed the big bang proves God exists (which is what Anselm and Aquinas tried to prove). I have said the big bang is compatible with and supportive of the concept of a designer or creator. I believe Sandage agrees with this. Go back and read the quotes i provided. It is clear the big bang put him on his spiritual journey which culminated in his conversion experience. And Stephen Hawking agrees that the big bang is supportive as well. Did you read my summation of the last thread? Hawking admitted the big bang smacks of divine intervention and it was the reason he tried to develop a theory which did not need a beginning, but his theory never caught on.
You also appear to have forgotten this item, which PaulK introduced;
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]
1 The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2 A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.
I agree with these with one proviso. As to #1, I think it is clear I have only quoted legitimate experts on the subject. As to #2, I have presented a smattering of opinion from atheists (Hawking), agnostics (Jastrow) and recently converted believers (Sandage). Here's the proviso. I think "consensus" is not the correct requirement in this context. Consensus can mean either complete agreement or majority agreement. When discussing a controversial subject, I think it is enough to show reasonable people from all positions agree. Universal agreement is too high a standard. It is unreasonable because there are unreasonable people in the world. I think the argument I presented meets the requirement.
But equally it underlines how Sandage's position is different to yours. He admits that belief requires a leap of faith, akin to pascal's Wager. Your position, that cosmology actively supports a designer goes further.
Please see the above description of two levels of belief.
™ Version 4.2
