JLNobody wrote:This has been a wonderful thread. I'm suprised I missed out on it. Let me just agree with those who consider Dawkins' arguments scientifically acceptable but philosophically inadequate (or insufficient). I see his level of argumentation similar to that of fundamentalist theists.
Very insightful. I agree.
georgeob1
Your use of the term "unexplained" is (a) inaccurate and (b) dependent on convential views of "existence" and "explanation"
(a) As I understand it one hypothesis about "the singularity" is that is formed at the junction of two alternative universes in a manner similar to "wave reinforcement". (Physicists feel free to correct this simplistic description). (b) Even if we dismiss such hypotheses as mere speculation the semantic significance of "the singularity" is that such a term is consentual view for discourse amongst scientists who wish to interpret the known data. Its "reality" lies in its retrodictive utility It may well be that prediction/retrodiction is at present considered essential to "explanation" but some authors (Capra for example) hold this to be a merely a "human cognitive trait" in man's anthropocentric search for ever greater"control". ( Theists tend to enjoy this argument because it allows them to cash in on "the man made in God's image" scenario. ) If we revalue "control" within "explanation" it opens the door to alternative epistemological views such as those of Piaget with respect to "knowledge" as two way interaction between observer and observed. "Existence" and "reality" is process not evoked structure.
I used the term "singularity" in its mathematical sense - a useage that is clear and precise. A singularity is an element or point in a domain at which the mathematicak relationship in question cannot yield a meaningful result: it's value is undefined - as division by zero is undefined.
Such singularities abound in mathematical descriptions of nature, as, for example for the mathematical expression for gravitational attraction in a domain in which the separation between the attracting objects approaches zero. They are a certain indication of a deficiency or missing element in the theory expressed by the relationship. The current cosmological model - and all the disputed versions of it - have an inescapable singularity at the beginning.
We know beyond reasonable doubt that the observable universe is finite in both extent and time. (Indeed the First Law of Thermodymamics and the observation that it gets dark at night are sufficient to prove that.) It is finite in extent, and had a beginning in time. However all the data and all the "known" laws of physics point to a singularity at its beginning.
A number of somewhat fancifal speculations have been put forward to "explain" this singularity, but none - to my knowledge - has been developed with sufficient coherence and self-consistency to be called even a theory. Most involve sequences (perhaps unbounded) of creation and destruction or variations of quantum multiverses, and the like. To my view these are no more satisfying than the singularity itself.
This alone does not prove the existence of a creator. However it leaves the alternate "explanations" or the faith that a better one will surely come, more or less in the same domain as the faith in a creator. (This is a point which the esteemed Mr. Dawkins consistently evades in his writings.)
Consider, for example a possible theory involving an infinite sequence of creations and distructions of such universes: or alternatively an infinite froth of bubble universes, bounded in a - what?. These are no less singularities themselves, and hardly provide an answer the question, Where did it all come from?
