Did the universe originate from a "big bang" as argued by leading astrophysicists and others? Or does some other theory more accurately describe its beginnings? Are there other forms of life in the universe? What about other universes? This volume discusses these and other topics in this hotly debated area where philosophy and science meet.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Transitions to a Modern Cosmology: Meister Eckhart and Nicholas of Cusa on the Intensive InfiniteElizabeth BrientThe Epochal Transition from the late medieval to the early modern world has long been thought in terms of the gradual “infinitization” of the cosmos. Traditionally this process has been studied by focusing on the pre-history and the aftermath of the Copernican revolution, that is, by describing the transition from the (...) finite, hierarchically ordered medieval cosmos to the infinite and homogeneous universe of the new astronomy. I would like to situate this paper within the context of a more general reading of the process of the infinitization of the medieval cosmos. That is, I want to argue that this process of “infinitization” must be understood intensively as well as extensively. Nature, in the modern age, is thought of not only as infinitely extended in space, but also as exhibiting an infinite richness in all of its parts. Each particular, each individual being is grasped as utterly unique, as infinitely rich and consequently as conceptually inexponable. Thus the infinitization of the real leads to an infinitization of the knowable—the radical shift in ontology grounds a corresponding shift in epistemology, so that the progress of human knowledge is understood as an unending project infinitely extended over time. In order to underscore both aspects of the infinitization of the medieval cosmos (intensive as well as extensive) I will focus on the way in which a single metaphor (that of the infinite sphere) is unfolded historically in the thought of Meister Eckhart and Nicholas of Cusa.1 This paper may thus be viewed as a case study of [End Page 575] the way in which the modern notion of “intensive infinity” may be traced back to late medieval speculation on the nature of God’s omnipresence in the world.1. EARLY SOURCES OF THE INFINITE SPHERE METAPHORThe metaphor of the infinite sphere makes its first appearance in the pseudo-Hermetic Liber XXIV philosophorum, a small book in the literary form of an “opus propositionum” which, in twenty-four propositions, describes the ineffable essence of God in the mystical language of Neoplatonic theology. It is in the second proposition of this book that we find for the first time the formulation, “God is an infinite sphere, whose center is everywhere, whose circumference is nowhere.”2 This formulation represents a significant development in the history of the Neoplatonic conception of intensive unity, and in the Christian understanding of divine infinity. The Neoplatonic One is here identified with God as infinite being. As a result the relationship between the One and the many, between God and the world, comes to be viewed in a new light, through the lens of “infinite unity.” The metaphor of the infinite sphere is a paradoxical formulation which pictures the coincidence of divine immanence with divine transcendence. That is, it expresses a double infinity: both intensive and extensive. God’s center is located at every point, as it were, indicating the plenitude and infinite richness of God’s being, while there is no limit, no boundary to the extent of God’s all-encompassing reach. The infinite sphere figures the divine nature as an intensive plenitude without end or bounds. The third and next proposition in this same work goes on to strengthen this sense of divine intensity, by asserting that God in his entirety is present in every part (Deus est totus in quolibet sui). The divine nature is not spread out compositionally, as it were, but is wholly present throughout. Proposition 18 describes God as a sphere which has just as many circumferences as points (Deus est sphaera cuius tot sunt circumferentiae, quot sunt puncta), once again, an exploding image which can only make sense in the case of an infinite sphere. These three propositions taken together provide us with a springboard for considering the nature of infinite unity. The exploding paradox of the infinite sphere [End Page 576] provides a rubric for thinking the coincidence of transcendence and immanence, a way of conceptualizing infinite unity, which cannot be “grasped” with finite concepts or through discursive reasoning. The metaphor of the infinite sphere finds its meaning precisely in the way... (shrink)

From cosmology to the fact that the existence of God and nature, to address these issues, the development of two kinds of controversial contemporary line of argument, I compared and assessed in this paper: the physical cosmology as a starting argument and the natural design as a starting point of the argument. I made ​​some preliminary assessment of the court. The results showed that the Big Bang argument are quite reasonable, however, found the natural design of the demonstration (...) clearly insufficient. I compare and evaluate two contemporary and controversial lines of argument from cosmological facts to the existence and nature of God: the argument from physical cosmology and the argument from design in nature. As a preliminary step, some criteria for such an evaluation are proposed. It turns out that the Big Bang argument keeps considerable plausibility , whereas the Design argument can be shown to be deficient. (shrink)

Throughout history cultures have adopted cosmological myths as a means to understand the world and the place of human beings in that world. Since the time of Galileo and Descartes the cosmological myths of religion were permanently divorced from the cosmological accounts grounded in the natural sciences.Nonetheless, even contemporary scientific cosmology can act as a controllingmetaphor for thinking about humanity and its fate.

Cosmology is a field riddled with controversy. With regard to cosmology itself, there are several different schools of thought. Some think that there is basically no such thing as scientific cosmology, and that cosmology is just a pseudoscience. Or as the French physicist Brillouin put it, cosmology is "pure fantasy." A second school says that the value of cosmology is undeniable. Astronomical observations and measurements have already encountered large-scale problems, and these problems have an (...) objective existence; they are not fabricated. This school holds, however, that because at present observational results are still scant, we should therefore emphasize the accumulation of observations and the organization of data and speculate less about theories or models of the universe. Some observational astronomers hold this view. And then there are still other people who believe that we want not only to emphasize observational facts, but also to make a serious effort to analyze the underlying mechanisms. We should look not only at the universe of the present, but also explore cosmic evolution, developing our cosmology based on the mutual interplay of theory and observation. (shrink)

Book review: David Alcalde, Cosmology Without God?: The Problematic Theology Inherent in Modern Cosmology, Cascade, Eugene 2019, pp.226.

Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the "snowball effect" or "groupthink". We (...) might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology. (shrink)

One of the more important cosmological consequences of Einstein's general theory of relativity is the hypothesis that our universe may either expand or contract with time. Relativistic cosmogony is concerned with those phases of this process which belong to the past. We begin with a digest of cosmogonic developments.

Summary During the 1930 and 1940s, the small world of cosmologists was buzzing with philosophical and methodological questions. The debate was stirred by Edward Milne's cosmological model, which was deduced from general principles that had no link with observation. Milne's approach was to have an important impact on the development of modern cosmology. But this article shows that it is an exaggeration to intimate, as some authors have done recently, that Milne's rationalism went on to infiltrate the discipline.

Between the spring and summer of 1973, the "Gang of Four" began to interfere publicly with the field of astrophysics, launching a critique of modern cosmology under the lead of the Magazine of Natural Dialectics, which they directly controlled. All of modern astrophysical cosmology was proclaimed to be a "new theology," and those studying cosmological models were denounced for "letting their intellects run wild." An endless litany of transgressions was attributed to Big-Bang cosmology in various (...) "criticisms" and "recriticisms."1 Pseudoscience masqueraded as science; idealism went under the guise of materialism; metaphysics and sophistry posed as dialectics. Under this torrent of abuse the study of the universe became a crime, and anyone showing the slightest interest in or concern for cosmological questions could not be free of suspicion. This was a massive obstacle to the growth of modern astrophysical cosmology in our country. (shrink)

This paper deals with two important English scientists of the first half of the twentieth century: Edward Arthur Milne and James Hopwood Jeans. It examines the philosophical reasons that, in 1932, induced Milne to devote himself to the newborn modern cosmology. Among those reasons, it is argued that the most important ones were some of Jeans’ philosophical statements regarding the new relativistic view of the expanding universe. In particular, Milne reacted to some confusing idealist opinions expressed by Jeans (...) in the London newspaper The Times, in May 1932, in a debate on the expansion of the universe. Actually, as it will be shown, Jeans received many criticisms about the philosophical reasonings present in all of his popularizing works. (shrink)

Kant’s first antinomy in the Critique of Pure Reason deals with the question of the size of the world. The temporal portion of the problem, on which I will focus in this paper, concerns the question of whether the world has a beginning in time or whether it exists eternally. Kant is sometimes understood as arguing that since neither one of the conflicting options can be confirmed, one needs to reject the common mistake of both opponents, namely, that we know (...) the world as a thing in itself, and embrace instead Kant’s transcendental idealism. In view of modern cosmology, Kant’s resolution of the first antinomy may appear outdated. Modern cosmological theories, after all, do suggest that the world evolved from a singular point by a big bang or through a cycle of successive expanding and contracting phases. I wish to argue in this paper that Kant’s analysis of the first antinomy does not involve questions of confirmability and that its lessons apply to modern cosmology as well. Kant’s analysis challenges the view that the world as a whole is a proper object for human investigation, but it does not reject the legitimacy of the cosmological project of explaining the current state of the universe and its evolution in terms of earlier events in the history of the world. It merely shows that modern theories are misguided only insofar as they attempt to affirm that the singular point is the absolute beginning of the world or that the cycle of expansion and contraction is ultimately infinite. Thus, Kant does not deny science as a legitimate avenue of research. He rather keeps cosmology from sliding into the dogmatic paths of traditional cosmological speculations, which purported to account for the absolute origin of the world by means of theological and metaphysical considerations. (shrink)

We analyse aspects of the Big Bang program in modern cosmology, with special focus on the strategies employed by its adherents both in defending the theory against anomalous data and in dismissing rival accounts. We illustrate this by critically examining four aspects of Big Bang cosmology: the interpretation of the cosmic red-shift, the explanation of the cosmic background radiation, the inflation hypothesis and the search for dark matter. We conclude that the Big Bang's dominance of contemporary (...) class='Hi'>cosmology is not justified by the degree of experimental support it receives relative to rival theories. (shrink)

During the last decade new developments in theoretical and speculative cosmology have reopened the old discussion of cosmology’s scientific status and the more general question of the demarcation between science and non-science. The multiverse hypothesis, in particular, is central to this discussion and controversial because it seems to disagree with methodological and epistemic standards traditionally accepted in the physical sciences. But what are these standards and how sacrosanct are they? Does anthropic multiverse cosmology rest on evaluation criteria (...) that conflict with and go beyond those ordinarily accepted, so that it constitutes an “epistemic shift” in fundamental physics? The paper offers a brief characterization of the modern multiverse and also refers to a few earlier attempts to introduce epistemic shifts in the science of the universe. It further discusses the several meanings of testability, addresses the question of falsifiability as a sine qua non for a theory being scientific, and briefly compares the situation in cosmology with the one in systematic biology. Multiverse theory is not generally falsifiable, which has led to proposals from some physicists to overrule not only Popperian standards but also other evaluation criteria of a philosophical nature. However, this is hardly possible and nor is it possible to get rid of explicit philosophical considerations in some other aspects of cosmological research, however advanced it becomes. (shrink)

Kant’s first antinomy in the Critique of Pure Reason deals with the question of the size of the world. The temporal portion of the problem, on which I will focus in this paper, concerns the question of whether the world has a beginning in time or whether it exists eternally. Kant is sometimes understood as arguing that since neither one of the conflicting options can be confirmed, one needs to reject the common mistake of both opponents, namely, that we know (...) the world as a thing in itself, and embrace instead Kant’s transcendental idealism. In view of modern cosmology, Kant’s resolution of the first antinomy may appear outdated. Modern cosmological theories, after all, do suggest that the world evolved from a singular point by a big bang or through a cycle of successive expanding and contracting phases. I wish to argue in this paper that Kant’s analysis of the first antinomy does not involve questions of confirmability and that its lessons apply to modern cosmology as well. Kant’s analysis challenges the view that the world as a whole is a proper object for human investigation, but it does not reject the legitimacy of the cosmological project of explaining the current state of the universe and its evolution in terms of earlier events in the history of the world. It merely shows that modern theories are misguided only insofar as they attempt to affirm that the singular point is the absolute beginning of the world or that the cycle of expansion and contraction is ultimately infinite. Thus, Kant does not deny science as a legitimate avenue of research. He rather keeps cosmology from sliding into the dogmatic paths of traditional cosmological speculations, which purported to account for the absolute origin of the world by means of theological and metaphysical considerations. (shrink)

The notion that nature is subject to laws is exciting from many different viewpoints. This paper is based on the context of modern cosmology. It will list the significant interdisciplinary implications generated by various aspects of the contemporary scientific discussion about the status of laws of nature, especially their dynamic nature. Recent work highlights how multiple aspects of the observed universe still lack explanation and that several problems of standard cosmology still form the object of debate. Considering (...) these issues, several proposals have been made that entail a revision of the concept of the law of nature, according to which the nature of time and of the relation between causality and natural laws ought to be reconsidered using approaches or viewpoints which point to philosophical issues. We argue that Tim Maudlin’s concept of Fundamental Law of Temporal Evolution (FLOTE) and Nancy Cartwright’s notion of the nomological machine provide new insights and valuable tools that can be used in the analysis of the status of laws in the context of cosmology and of complex systems theory. The limits of the traditional approach to laws of nature and their mathematical formulation are highlighted in this context, as well as the fact that many of the ultimate properties of nature may turn out to be formally unpredictable or uncomputable. (shrink)

Some physical aspects of Teilhard's synthesis are focused upon and confronted with the recent achievements of physics and cosmology. The stuff of the universe, according to modern physical theories, has become something more similar to a structure or form than to inert pieces of material substratum. Directedness of time and history no longer seems to be an ontological a priori of any existence, but rather an outcome of finely tuned initial conditions. And the growth of complexity is now (...) regarded as a process emerging out of physical laws rather than a foreign element in the body of physics. The question is considered of how these results affect Teilhard de Chardin's vision of the world. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is not only to deal with the concept of infinity, but also to develop some considerations about the epistemological status of cosmology. These problems are connected because from an epistemological point of view, cosmology, meant as the study of the universe as a whole, is not merely a physical (or empirical) science. On the contrary it has an unavoidable metaphysical character which can be found in questions like “why is there this universe (or (...) a universe at all)?”. As a consequence, questions concerning the infinity of the universe in space and time can correctly arise only taking into account this metaphysical character of cosmology. Accordingly, in the following paper it will be shown that two different concepts of physical infinity of the universe (the relativistic one and the inflationary one) rely on two different ways of solution of a metaphysical problem. The difference between these concepts cannot be analysed using the classical distinctions between actual/potential infinity or numerable/continuum infinity, but the introduction of a new “modal” distinction will be necessary. Finally, it will be illustrated the role of a philosophical concept of infinity of the universe. (shrink)

This article looks at Vesto Slipher’s work on nebular spectroscopy between 1912 and 1922as well as related research by other astronomers of the period, and it examines the dissem-ination of their results more widely. Slipher’s observations are viewed as marking the di-viding line between speculation about the universe in traditional astronomy and theadvent of modern cosmology and the theory of an expanding universe. The intent is todocument the dissemination of Slipher’s results in the period leading up to the (...) publicationof studies of relativistic cosmology by Willem de Sitter in 1917 and Alexander Friedmannin 1922. Themes touched on in the article include the unprecedented character ofSlipher’sfindings and the interaction of observation and theory in modern cosmology.A prominent concern is the role of technology in astronomical science over the past cen-tury and a half. Here reference is made to the writings of Paul Forman on historical shiftsthat have taken place in our understanding of the relationship of science and technology. (shrink)

Naturae vero rerum vis atque majestas in omnibus momentis fide caret, si quis modo partes ejus ac non totam coplectatur animo.1In the De natura deorum, Cicero recalls that followers of Pythagoras often justified justified their acceptance of a statement by appealing to the authority of their teacher. For them, inasmuch as Pythagoras “himself said it,” his words should be accepted unreservedly and there was no reason to argue further.2 Since antiquity, “ipse dixit” has been considered the most straightforward summary of (...) the argument from authority. It also seems to condense all of the negative characteristics of an attitude that we nowadays regard as the contrary to modern scientific... (shrink)

The difficult issues related to the interpretation of quantum mechanics and, in particular, the “measurement problem” are revisited using as motivation the process of generation of structure from quantum fluctuations in inflationary cosmology. The unessential mathematical complexity of the particular problem is bypassed, facilitating the discussion of the conceptual issues, by considering, within the paradigm set up by the cosmological problem, another problem where symmetry serves as a focal point: a simplified version of Mott’s problem.

Some recent Christian thinkers have made attempts to harmonize Christianity and science by trying to show a positive correlation between current cosmologyand a literal reading of the account of creation in Genesis. This essay argues that this approach is mistaken since it misunderstands the practices of scienceand hermeneutics. Instead it is argued that Scripture and tradition make only very broad claims about the nature of creation which must be respected when thinking about the universe. Those broad claims are decribed here.

Are the laws of nature real? Do they belong to the world or merely reflect the way we speak about it? If they are real, what sort of entity are they? This study contributes to the ongoing discussion of these questions by emphasizing the importance of a cosmological perspective on them. I argue that the evidence coming from modern evolutionary cosmology presents difficulties for certain currently fashionable philosophical accounts of laws, in particular, for the Dretske-Tooley-Armstrong theory. I defend, (...) in light of this evidence, the idea of laws as grounded in irreducible nomic properties of basic objects and examine its cosmological implications and consequences for the philosophy of modality. ;If the laws of nature are real, they must represent an integral aspect of the universe as a whole. From a cosmological point of view, these two totalities, the laws of nature and the universe, may be related. I begin by showing that a concern about the consequences of such possible relationship was an important factor in the historical rivalry between the steady-state and big bang cosmologies . ;The cosmological perspective on laws has still more striking implications in the context of the contemporary interplay between big-bang cosmology and high energy physics in the effort to understand the processes at work during the first moments of cosmic evolution. In a sense, the evolution of the physical state of the universe as a whole may have "carried" with it the evolution of certain nomic properties of matter. I contend that this poses problems for some nomic ontologies, such as the relations-between-universals theory, and favors the view of laws as grounded in causal powers of particulars. I show how the universe of causally powerful basic substances provides a natural framework for an interesting sense of modality characteristic of laws and how this illuminates the notoriously difficult problems of essential properties and natural kinds. (shrink)

Huduth argument (in contemporary Western philosophy known as Kalam Cosmological argument) is an argument for the existence of God which rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time. Some theists have claimed that modern science, particularly modern cosmology and second law of thermodynamics supports the key premise of the argument which argues that universe began to exist. On the other hand, some atheists have claimed that Quantum Mechanics have demonstrated that particles can be (...) created without cause falsifying the causal principle of the Kalam cosmological argument which states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. In this article we will evaluate these claims and try to determine what modern science has to say about this argument developed by medieval Muslim theologians. (shrink)

Our theological pictures of God, the world, and ourselves sometimes change in order to take account of scientific findings, ideas, and beliefs. How might they alter in response to recent ideas about the cosmos and the place of us humans in it?