Changes

   | accessdate = 25.1.2012

   | accessdate = 25.1.2012

   | publisher = Victor Books, Baker Books

   | publisher = Victor Books, Baker Books

}}</ref> [[Thomas Aquinas]] in his [[Summa Theologica]] argued that when it comes to [[Cause and effect|''causes'']], it is not possible to go to [[Infinity|''infinity'']] (either there is a first cause or there is no cause at all) and he referred to the first cause as the ''ultimate cause''. He identified it with God, because at least in one respect, a first cause exhibits an important property of the divine: ''It is uncaused''. According to David Berlinski this is a weak (Aquinas's conclusion might not be definitively confirmed as true or false) but not absurd argument that is frequently met with inept objections.<ref name="Devils"/> Berlinski also argues that the concept of singularity belongs ''essentially'' to mathematics and singularities are not ''experimentally'' accessible objects that could be weighted, measured, assessed, replicated, balanced, or seen by any modality of the senses.<ref name="DeniableDarwin">{{cite book

}}</ref> [[Thomas Aquinas]] in his [[Summa Theologica]] argued that when it comes to [[Cause and effect|''causes'']], it is not possible to go to [[Infinity|''infinity'']] (either there is a first cause or there is no cause at all) and he referred to the first cause as the ''ultimate cause''. He identified it with God, because at least in one respect, a first cause exhibits an important property of the divine: It is ''uncaused''. According to David Berlinski this is a weak (Aquinas's conclusion might not be definitively confirmed as true or false){{#tag:ref|cf."The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man." ''The Book of Job: An introduction'' ([[G.K. Chesterton]], 1907)|group=note}} but not absurd argument that is frequently met with inept objections.<ref name="Devils"/> Berlinski also argues that the concept of singularity belongs ''essentially'' to mathematics and singularities are not ''experimentally'' accessible objects that could be weighted, measured, assessed, replicated, balanced, or seen by any modality of the senses.<ref name="DeniableDarwin">{{cite book

|author=David Berlinski

|author=David Berlinski

|title=The deniable Darwin

|title=The deniable Darwin

|chapter = The Cause

|chapter = The Cause

| url=

| url=

| quote = }}</ref> He further asserts that a state of infinite density is completely unacceptable as a physical description of the universe.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> According to [[Alan Guth]], "In spite of the fact that we call it the Big Bang [[theory]] it really says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang. It doesn't tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn't even describe, doesn't really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this bang." Michio Kaku from City University of New York adds that "at the instant of the Big Bang ... we have the centrepiece of the Universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law".<ref name="BBC">{{cite web

| quote = }}</ref> He further asserts that a state of infinite density is completely unacceptable as a physical description of the universe.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> According to [[Alan Guth]], "In spite of the fact that we call it the Big Bang [[theory]] it really says absolutely nothing about the Big Bang. It doesn't tell us what banged, why it banged, what caused it to bang. It doesn't even describe, doesn't really allow us to predict what the conditions are immediately after this bang." {{#tag:ref|Scientific organizations dominated by [[atheistic]] scientists who usurp the right to call themselves "mainstream" routinely describe this 'bang' as following: "A huge explosion, known as the Big Bang, then sent matter and energy expanding in all directions."<ref name="NAS">{{cite web |author=National Academy of Sciences(NAS)|title=Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences|chapter=The Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life|publisher=The Nationals Academies Press|year=1999|pages=48|url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=3|quote=}}</ref>|group=note}} Michio Kaku from City University of New York adds that "at the instant of the Big Bang ... we have the centrepiece of the Universe itself, a missing piece beyond physical law".<ref name="BBC">{{cite web

|title=Parallel Universes

|title=Parallel Universes

|series=Science & Nature; TV Program Horizon

|series=Science & Nature; TV Program Horizon

|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=naked-singularities

|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=naked-singularities

|access date=08.03.2012

|access date=08.03.2012

|quote=A black hole has two parts. At its core is a singularity, the infinitesimal point into which all the matter of the star gets crushed. Surrounding the singularity is the region of space from which escape is impossible, the perimeter of which is called the event horizon. Once something enters the event horizon, it loses all hope of exiting. Whatever light the falling body gives off is trapped, too, so an outside observer never sees it again. It ultimately crashes into the singularity. Conventional wisdom has it that a large star eventually collapses to a black hole, but some theoretical models suggest it might instead become a so-called naked singularity. Sorting out what happens is one of the most important unresolved problems in astrophysics.The discovery of naked singularities would transform the search for a unified theory of physics, not least by providing direct observational tests of such a theory.}}</ref> Berlinski writes with irony that until recently, great physicists have attempted with dignity to respect the distinction between what is known and what is not. He continues that contemporary cosmologists compromised their scrupulousness and feel free to say anything that pops into their heads, uncorrected by any criticism beyond the trivial.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>

|quote=A black hole has two parts. At its core is a singularity, the infinitesimal point into which all the matter of the star gets crushed. Surrounding the singularity is the region of space from which escape is impossible, the perimeter of which is called the event horizon. Once something enters the event horizon, it loses all hope of exiting. Whatever light the falling body gives off is trapped, too, so an outside observer never sees it again. It ultimately crashes into the singularity. Conventional wisdom has it that a large star eventually collapses to a black hole, but some theoretical models suggest it might instead become a so-called naked singularity. Sorting out what happens is one of the most important unresolved problems in astrophysics.The discovery of naked singularities would transform the search for a unified theory of physics, not least by providing direct observational tests of such a theory.}}</ref> Berlinski writes with irony that until recently, great physicists have attempted with dignity to respect the distinction between what is known and what is not. He continues that contemporary cosmologists compromised their scrupulousness and feel free to say anything that pops into their heads, uncorrected by any criticism beyond the trivial.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>{{#tag:ref|cf."When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything."<ref>{{cite book|author=Don Bierle|title=Surprised by Faith|chapter=3|publisher=FaithSearch International (http://www.faithsearch.org/)|location=Chaska, MN, USA|year=2004|page=67|pages=143|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=iP7tAQAACAAJ&dq=DonBierle+Surprised+by+faith&hl=en&sa=X&ei=z5FnT4rkLqOo4gTRl9D6Bw&redir_esc=y|isbn=978-0-9714-1008-4|quote=}}</ref> (paraphrased G.K. Chesterton) or more precisely attributed: "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense." ([[G.K. Chesterton]]) "The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything" (É.L. Cammaerts)<ref>{{cite journal|author=Nigel Rees |title=First things|year=1997|issue=69-74|pages=|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=NuQnAAAAYAAJ&q=%22The+first+effect+of+not+believing+in+God+is+to+believe+in+anything%22&dq=%22The+first+effect+of+not+believing+in+God+is+to+believe+in+anything%22&hl=en&ei=PSzcTvewIefx0gHqmrj0DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y}}</ref>|group=note}}

== Einstein on singularity ==

== Einstein on singularity ==

|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=1IfLYHv5pyUC&dq=inauthor:%22Robert+Jastrow%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cF9aT6TIMcPe4QSK77jeDw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA}}</ref>

|url=http://books.google.no/books?id=1IfLYHv5pyUC&dq=inauthor:%22Robert+Jastrow%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cF9aT6TIMcPe4QSK77jeDw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA}}</ref>

== References ==

== References ==

{{Reflist}}

{{Reflist}}

==See also==

== See also ==

*[[Origins debate]]

*[[Origins debate]]

*[[Atheism and the suppression of science#Rejection of the Big Bang|Atheism and the Rejection of the Big Bang]]

*[[Atheism and the suppression of science#Rejection of the Big Bang|Atheism and the Rejection of the Big Bang]]

==External links==

== External links ==

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pP8ENlWfRk&feature=related ''The Case for a Creator'']: [[Lee Strobel]] & [[William Lane Craig]] on the [[Big Bang]] and the [[Cosmological_argument#Cosmological_arguments|Kalam Cosmological Argument]]

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pP8ENlWfRk&feature=related ''The Case for a Creator'']: [[Lee Strobel]] & [[William Lane Craig]] on the [[Big Bang]] and the [[Cosmological_argument#Cosmological_arguments|Kalam Cosmological Argument]]