Cosmogony is the study of the origin of the cosmos, in its entirety. There are many theories that are presented to explain the origin of everything, from both (but not always) a theological or a scientific ideological foundation. There are however, certain things that any theory of cosmogony must include to be valid. These are:
1. A metaphysical explanation of the coming-into-being of the cosmos. This is necessary because space-time or the domain of the ‘physical’ is the very thing that requires explanation and therefore, cannot bear the burden of accounting for the causal explanation of itself. This also means that the causal account of the cosmos must take an ontological form and not a time-dependent form – in other words, it is not enough of an explanation for the universe that the cause is prior in terms of time, but rather it has to be ontologically causal.
2. The explanation of the cosmos must explain every single aspect of the cosmos and nothing can be left as a brute fact of reality without explanation. If a theory so wishes to have brute facts that are beyond the explanatory powers of the thesis, then that theory must provide a non-arbitrary and independent reason for having such brute elements as part of the theory. It could also be that the theory upholds a view that the coming-into-being of the cosmos must necessarily have parameters that are beyond every explanation but if this is the case then the theory must explain this view using ontological and not physical means.
(The above mentioned clauses for any valid theory of cosmogony have made a distinction between the understanding of the term ontological and the term physical. By physical is meant any concept that involves the parameters of space/time/mass/energy. These are opposed to ontological concepts such as universals.)
It is for these reasons that the following article is so disappointing: (
http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/the-biggest-big-question-of-all). It is unfortunate that this article attempts to present ten different competing theories that attempt to answer the cosmogonic question but that the vast majority fail the two tests that are mentioned above.
It begins by presenting an orthodox Judeo-Christian understanding of the ‘creation’ of the cosmos and refers to this theory as an untestable hypothesis because a ‘Creator’ being naturally metaphysically prior to the space-time continuum cannot be understood through epistemic means. This is a curious charge. One wonders what exactly would count as an answer seeing as every answer of ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ must naturally assume that whatever caused the cosmos as it is must be metaphysically prior and thus by necessity be outside of scientific parameters. This is not to say that this essay agrees with the theistic view, but rather that it conforms to the criteria above and as such, can be an answer.
The second answer presented is the view that there is no cosmogony theory needed as the question it presupposes need not be answered. This is a perfectly valid mode of reasoning as it is true that the question of the origin of the universe only needs to be answered if it is assumed that there was an origin to the universe in the first place. Though this reason can be disputed in lieu of the first criteria above, in that it is possible to still demand an ontological answer for the existence of anything even if it exists forever, this will be explained further below.
It is however, the next eight answers that provide inadequate theories of cosmogony that fail the criteria set forth above for a valid explanation. They are scientific explanations that are at the cutting edge of today’s scientific pursuit of Physics. Many of them have highly technical names that intimidate the outsider, names such as ‘The Grand Unified Theory’, ‘The Many-worlds Multiverse’, ‘Quantum Foam Multiverse’ and ‘M-Theory Grand Design’ being just a selection. However, none of these theories manage to answer the question posed.
Read the rest here:
http://theophaniac.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/impotent-cosmogony/
Topic: Impotent Cosmogony