-
So, you are a William Lane Craig fan now, eh? What do you like about him and his religious beliefs/philosophy?
-
wat
-
Sounds interesting, but probably over my head.
-
I don't think anything that comes from William Lang Craig is over anyone's head.
-
I don't think anything that comes from William Lang Craig is over anyone's head.
Granted, I just glanced over a wikipedia article.
-
I don't think anything that comes from William Lang Craig is over anyone's head.
Except perhaps Richard Dawkins.
-
:lol
Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC! That guy's the leading Christian apologist. But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.
-
:lol
Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC! That guy's the leading Christian apologist. But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.
He's certainly a reputable philosopher, despite the musings internet atheists.
-
:lol
Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC! That guy's the leading Christian apologist. But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.
oh
ok
-
:lol
Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC! That guy's the leading Christian apologist. But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.
I don't care about apologetics. That's how I don't know about him.
-
:lol
Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC! That guy's the leading Christian apologist. But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.
I don't care about apologetics. That's how I don't know about him.
Next time you plan to read Crossan, read Craig instead.
-
:lol
Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC! That guy's the leading Christian apologist. But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.
I don't care about apologetics. That's how I don't know about him.
Next time you plan to read Crossan, read Craig instead.
Craig will most likely be proceeding from starting points that I don't accept, if he is like most other apologists I've come across.
-
:lol
Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC! That guy's the leading Christian apologist. But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.
I don't care about apologetics. That's how I don't know about him.
Next time you plan to read Crossan, read Craig instead.
Craig will most likely be proceeding from starting points that I don't accept, if he is like most other apologists I've come across.
So? I nearly vomit from laughter when I read the Jesus Seminar's publications. But I still read them.
-
And Hef will vomit with laughter at this guy, he's a joke. I can handle some of the other apologists because they at sound like they genuinely believe what they are saying. There is something about Craig that anything he says makes him sound like an ass. It's bad enough that most of his statements/claims are terrible.
-
:lol
Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC! That guy's the leading Christian apologist. But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.
I don't care about apologetics. That's how I don't know about him.
Next time you plan to read Crossan, read Craig instead.
Craig will most likely be proceeding from starting points that I don't accept, if he is like most other apologists I've come across.
So? I nearly vomit from laughter when I read the Jesus Seminar's publications. But I still read them.
Great. But I don't read apologists.
-
:lol
Don't know how you guys couldn't know about WLC! That guy's the leading Christian apologist. But anyway, my attempt to troll Cole failed greatly.
I don't care about apologetics. That's how I don't know about him.
Next time you plan to read Crossan, read Craig instead.
Craig will most likely be proceeding from starting points that I don't accept, if he is like most other apologists I've come across.
So? I nearly vomit from laughter when I read the Jesus Seminar's publications. But I still read them.
Great. But I don't read apologists.
Sure you do. Crossan qualifies, just not as an apologist for evangelical Christianity.
-
Now you're just name-calling.
-
Now you're just name-calling.
:lol
Other than an apology,what would you call work designed to put Thomas on the same level as the Canonical Gospels?
-
Now you're just name-calling.
:lol
Other than an apology,what would you call work designed to put Thomas on the same level as the Canonical Gospels?
Historical scholarship.
-
You know, I may be the worst Christian ever.
I hate Christian music and Christian books. I feel like a moron whenever I listen to worship music and even LOOK at a Christian book. I honestly don't care if other people do. But for me, it just feels lame.
edit
But, I like books written by Christians, or music by Christians, that have nothing or little to do with being a Christian.
-
Now you're just name-calling.
:lol
Other than an apology,what would you call work designed to put Thomas on the same level as the Canonical Gospels?
Historical scholarship.
lol.
-
And Hef will vomit with laughter at this guy, he's a joke. I can handle some of the other apologists because they at sound like they genuinely believe what they are saying. There is something about Craig that anything he says makes him sound like an ass. It's bad enough that most of his statements/claims are terrible.
I hope that is a joke. Care to enlighten us which of his statements are "terrible"? I'll be laughing at your comment in the meanwhile.
-
Now you're just name-calling.
:lol
Other than an apology,what would you call work designed to put Thomas on the same level as the Canonical Gospels?
Historical scholarship.
lol.
It's a free country.
-
And Hef will vomit with laughter at this guy, he's a joke. I can handle some of the other apologists because they at sound like they genuinely believe what they are saying. There is something about Craig that anything he says makes him sound like an ass. It's bad enough that most of his statements/claims are terrible.
I hope that is a joke. Care to enlighten us which of his statements are "terrible"? I'll be laughing at your comment in the meanwhile.
This.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZU-_lRGLcQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZU-_lRGLcQ)
He begins his argument on false premises ie the universe coming out of nothing. He then posits that everything that exists must have a cause and concludes with no reason or evidence that the cause must be god. He goes on the claim that the cause must be "uncaused, changeless, timeless"..Where the fuck does he get off assuming anything like that. Oh and "it must also be personal", give me a break. He knows nothing about the big bang theory and mocks it.
-
Wow dude.
-
He wanted an example of terrible and that is prime.
-
Not really dude.
-
So pulling a reductio ad absurdum on the big bang theory. Then claiming something needs to have an intelligent cause and that cause is "uncaused, changeless, timeless" and "personal", doesn't qualify as terrible to you?
Really? That's the equivalent of saying germ theory states that germs appear out of nowhere and infect the body when really it's leprechauns. Those leprechauns have always been there and there is a personal leprechaun for each one of us with a unique hatred and disease. That is the level of stupid in his argument.
-
And Hef will vomit with laughter at this guy, he's a joke. I can handle some of the other apologists because they at sound like they genuinely believe what they are saying. There is something about Craig that anything he says makes him sound like an ass. It's bad enough that most of his statements/claims are terrible.
I hope that is a joke. Care to enlighten us which of his statements are "terrible"? I'll be laughing at your comment in the meanwhile.
This.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZU-_lRGLcQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZU-_lRGLcQ)
He begins his argument on false premises ie the universe coming out of nothing. He then posits that everything that exists must have a cause and concludes with no reason or evidence that the cause must be god. He goes on the claim that the cause must be "uncaused, changeless, timeless"..Where the fuck does he get off assuming anything like that. Oh and "it must also be personal", give me a break. He knows nothing about the big bang theory and mocks it.
God this must be a joke.
No, no, no, no. Don't make a mockery of his arguments.
The argument in question is the comsological argument. Let's state it formally:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause
- The universe began to exist
- Therefore, the universe has a cause
1) Premise 1 is commonsencical. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. If you deny premise 1, then you'd have to explain why just anything doesn't come into existence randomly. In other words: if premise one were not true, then one would expect anything to randomly come into existence; spontaneously existing objects (let's hope you don't deny premise 1, as this would mean that we're dealing with a special type of looney).
2) This is a given. The universe began to exist. This is a fact. An overwhelming amount of comsological evidence and simple philosophy (namely, out of nothing, nothing comes) assure us this is true. The law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, the expansion of the universe, results from experiments from CERN, all point to the definite beginning of our universe some 14 billion years ago. Any physicist with any semblance of repute and self-respect will agree to this. Denying this given reveals that you are either scientifically ignorant or too blinded by pride or emotion to conceed this fact, in light of the complications it imparts on an atheistic worldview. In fact, in 2003, three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary in their famous Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. On the beginning of existence of our universe, Vilenkin wrote:
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".
And just what is our universe? Space, time, energy and matter. This means that space, energy and matter (which is synonymous with our universe) had a beginning. This leads us to premise 3.
3) From premise 1, it follows that the universe must have a cause. Taking into account that space, time, energy and matter began to exist, the cause of our universe, by definition, must be transcendent of space, time, energy and matter. Whatever caused the universe to come into existence must be timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent.
Why personal and fruther explication from the man himself? I direct you here: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8429
Notice that no mention of God was made in the argument or post; this is mere comsology and basic reasoning.
Your post was light on the reasoning and arguments but heavy on the ad hominem. This is the kind of useless offal of psuedo-philosophical and psuedo-rational objections and arguments that define the intellectually bankrupt New Atheism movement.
-
move back to the discussion of the man/subject rather than each other
-
God this must be a joke.
No, no, no, no. Don't make a mockery of his arguments.
The argument in question is the comsological argument. Let's state it formally:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause
- The universe began to exist
[/b]
- Therefore, the universe has a cause
1) Premise 1 is commonsencical. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. If you deny premise 1, then you'd have to explain why just anything doesn't come into existence randomly. In other words: if premise one were true, then one would expect anything to randomly come into existence; spontaneously existing objects (let's hope you don't deny premise 1, as this would mean that we're dealing with a special type of looney).
2) This is a given. The universe began to exist. This is a fact. An overwhelming amount of comsological evidence and simple philosophy (namely, out of nothing, nothing comes) assure us this is true. The law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, the expansion of the universe, results from experiments from CERN, all point to the definite beginning of our universe some 14 billion years ago. Any physicist with any semblance of repute and self-respect will agree to this. Denying this given reveals that you are either scientifically ignorant or too blinded by pride or emotion to conceed this fact, in light of the complications it imparts on an atheistic worldview. In fact, in 2003, three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary in their famous Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. On the beginning of existence of our universe, Vilenkin wrote:
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".
And just what is our universe? Space, time, energy and matter. This means that space, energy and matter (which is synonymous with our universe) had a beginning. This leads us to premise 3.
3) From premise 1, it follows that the universe must have a cause. Taking into account that space, time, energy and matter began to exist, the cause of our universe, by definition, must be transcendent of space, time, energy and matter. Whatever caused the universe to come into existence must be timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent.
Why personal and fruther explication from the man himself? I direct you here: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8429
Notice that no mention of God was made in the argument or post; this is mere comsology and basic reasoning.
Your post was light on the reasoning and arguments but heavy on the ad hominem. This is the kind of useless offal of psuedo-philosophical and psuedo-rational objections and arguments that define the intellectually bankrupt New Atheism movement.
We don't know if the universe "began" to exist. It is equally plausible that it has always existed.
Also, saying that anything that "begins" has to have a "cause" is strange (and somewhat loaded) wording. And not true.
-
Notice that no mention of God was made in the argument or post; this is mere comsology and basic reasoning.
Whatever caused the universe to come into existence must be timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent.
Sorry, but lol.
This particular universe had a beginning, but there's no reason to assume that it had to spring from nothing, whether you're talking about multiverses, a big crunch (though that's been pretty much disproved) or Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. Either way, there's far too little evidence one way or the other to say what occured before the start of the universe. To immediately jump to "it had to have been caused by a omnipotent immaterial entity" is just as illogical, and has nothing to do with cosmology or basic reasoning.
-
God this must be a joke.
No, no, no, no. Don't make a mockery of his arguments.
The argument in question is the comsological argument. Let's state it formally:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause
- The universe began to exist
- Therefore, the universe has a cause
No reason to call the cause god.
1) Premise 1 is commonsencical. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. If you deny premise 1, then you'd have to explain why just anything doesn't come into existence randomly. In other words: if premise one were true, then one would expect anything to randomly come into existence; spontaneously existing objects (let's hope you don't deny premise 1, as this would mean that we're dealing with a special type of looney).
No one is denying that something happened in order for the universe to begin it's current state, .notice I said current state. As the Big Bang theory does not state the universe came from nothing. It doesn't Craig is willfully ignorant as I'm sure he has been corrected.
2) This is a given. The universe began to exist. This is a fact. An overwhelming amount of comsological evidence and simple philosophy (namely, out of nothing, nothing comes) assure us this is true.
Big bang theory does not claim from nothing.
The law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, the expansion of the universe, results from experiments from CERN, all point to the definite beginning of our universe some 14 billion years ago.
Beginning of it's current state.
Any physicist with any semblance of repute and self-respect will agree to this. Denying this given reveals that you are either scientifically ignorant or too blinded by pride or emotion to conceed this fact, in light of the complications it imparts on an atheistic worldview.
How the shit does the Big bang impart complications on atheism, if anything it would bolster it. Also there is no such thing as an "atheistic worldview", not believing in god is not a worldview. You can be an atheist and believe the big bang never happened or we live on a disc supported by a turtle. Atheist = lack of a belief in a god/gods...period.
In fact, in 2003, three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary in their famous Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. On the beginning of existence of our universe, Vilenkin wrote:
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".
I looked this up, it is another Craigism, surprise surprise he is wrong and quote mining (what a fuckwit).
Here is the article he is refering to.
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf
No where in the artical does it state that there was nothing before this boundary in fact here is a quote from the article
What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary
of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of
the Universe in a quantum nucleation event [12]. The
boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which
can be determined from the appropriate instanton.
Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear
that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation
alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of
the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary
Looks like the opposite to me
3) From premise 1, it follows that the universe must have a cause. Taking into account that space, time, energy and matter began to exist, the cause of our universe, by definition, must be transcendent of space, time, energy and matter. Whatever caused the universe to come into existence must be timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent.
The current state of the area of space that we call universe began expansion at the big bang. Please read up on the theory, holy shit man.
Why personal and fruther explication from the man himself? I direct you here: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8429
Notice that no mention of God was made in the argument or post; this is mere comsology and basic reasoning.
First I must point out lolz " I am no longer an atheist but now a humbled agnostic"
this cause is itself uncaused, beginningless
He pulls this out of his ass, just bald assumptions.
So a changeless state must be a timeless state. Even on a non-relational view of time, time could at best be an undifferentiated time in which literally nothing happened; no change occurs. Third, its spacelessness. Anything that exists in space must be temporal, as it undergoes at least extrinsic change in relation to the things around it. So our cause must transcend space and time, at least sans the universe.
What? That's like fish saying fish saying "our master must trancend water!". Just because there is a localized area of space that we at the moment cannot measure beyond does not mean the universe was created by a timeless being.
This rejoinder is futile because if the initial cosmological singularity is a physical state of affairs, as you think, then it is the first state of the universe (its initial boundary point) and, hence, began to exist a finite time ago. It cannot have come into being out of nothing, as you agree. So there must be a transcendent cause of the first state of the universe. Here my second argument, borrowed from Swinburne, for the personhood of the first cause becomes relevant. As I explain, there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. . . . Now a first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. It can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and his volitions, a personal explanation (Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 192-3)
Big bang does not say it began from nothing.. I feel like a broken record. I'm not reading any more of this. I've gotten half way through and all he does is misrepresent cosmology and jump to conclusions.
Your post was light on the reasoning and arguments but heavy on the ad hominem. This is the kind of useless offal of psuedo-philosophical and psuedo-rational objections and arguments that define the intellectually bankrupt New Atheism movement.
This coming from someone who follows a quote-mining charlaton. Craig needs to stop lying about science to prepetuate his own career of being an expert in lies. It's funny how you claim us to be intellectually bankrupt when we have most of the leading scientist on our side and they are speaking out more and more.
-
We don't know if the universe "began" to exist. It is equally plausible that it has always existed.
Also, saying that anything that "begins" has to have a "cause" is strange (and somewhat loaded) wording. And not true.
We know for a fact that our universe began to exist. If our universe had existed for an infinite amount of time, the freely available energy in the universe would have all been used up and the universe would be in heat death an infinite amount of time ago. Not to mention the philosophical problem of an infinite number of past events. If it's still not clicking, an analogy would be a hot cup of tea which is still decently hot. Were the cup of tea left in room temperature for an infinite amount of time, the cup of tea would be cold (in other words room temperature). Anyone who clings to the belief that the universe has existed forever is either gravely misinformed or merely being intellectually dishonest.
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".
-
Notice that no mention of God was made in the argument or post; this is mere comsology and basic reasoning.
Whatever caused the universe to come into existence must be timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent.
Sorry, but lol.
This particular universe had a beginning, but there's no reason to assume that it had to spring from nothing, whether you're talking about multiverses, a big crunch (though that's been pretty much disproved) or Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. Either way, there's far too little evidence one way or the other to say what occured before the start of the universe. To immediately jump to "it had to have been caused by a omnipotent immaterial entity" is just as illogical, and has nothing to do with cosmology or basic reasoning.
Sorry, but lol.
This particular universe had a beginning
You said if yourself; our universe began to exist. This means that space, time, energy, and matter began to exist. This necessitates the cause of the universe to be beyond time, energy, space and matter. Denying this would only lead to the fallacious conclusion that the universe, before coming into existence, began to exist. That conclusion is, though patently and ludicrously illogical.
So let's say that the universe is part of a multiverse, for which there is no evidence for and which was thought up merely to attempt to evade the conclusion of the beginning of existence of our universe. But all you are doing is merely extending the same problem and the same conclusion to the problem at once; the existence of the multiverse itself would require an explanation. So all you are doing is merely extending the problem of beginning of existence to the multiverse.
-
Should I even bother to address El Jonno's ad hominem filled diatribe against WLC, or should I merely dismiss it for what it so painfully obviously is - an embarrassing, ironically self-righteous, hate filled, emotional attack which is filled with scientific gaffes skewered upon misunderstandings of arguments, scientific theories, philosophical matters piled upon even more ad hominems?
Oh and spelling errors and the use of the word "lolz"?
?
-
Alright, let me get this straight: it's inconceivable that the/a multiverse (or our universe, if you're going to subscribe to something like CCC) had no beginning, thus the only solution is that some other "timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent" entity caused it?
-
You said if yourself; our universe began to exist. This means that space, time, energy, and matter began to exist. This necessitates the cause of the universe to be beyond time, energy, space and matter. Denying this would only lead to the fallacious conclusion that the universe, before coming into existence, began to exist. That conclusion is, though patently and ludicrously illogical.
No it would not, get off your WLC high. Our universe came to being but there was existence before the universe. Why do you not understand this? We cannot measure beyond the Big Bang because of our current state of technology but scientist are working on doing so right now.
So let's say that the universe is part of a multiverse, for which there is no evidence for and which was thought up merely to attempt to evade the conclusion of the beginning of existence of our universe.
No it wasn't. Why the hell would you think that? There is no reason to believe that the Big Bang hasn't happened else where, at the moment we only have evidence of one.
But all you are doing is merely extending the same problem and the same conclusion to the problem at once; the existence of the multiverse itself would require an explanation. So all you are doing is merely extending the problem of beginning of existence to the multiverse.
Yes, exactly! Why is that an issue? You see science follows evidence, it doesn't make stuff and then attempt to twist the evidence in it's favour.
Should I even bother to address El Jonno's ad hominem filled diatribe against WLC, or should I merely dismiss it for what it so painfully obviously is - an embarrassing, ironically self-righteous, hate filled, emotional attack which is filled with scientific gaffes skewered upon misunderstandings of arguments, scientific theories, philosophical matters piled upon even more ad hominems?
Oh and spelling errors and the use of the word "lolz"?
?
No please, I would like to know exactly where I'm wrong considering I actually read the article in which WLC is attempting to use as a defense. I do find it funny that you are are claiming that I am self-righteous when all you have done is put me down and not address any of my arguments. If you think merely reposting what WLC said in his video is a rebuttal, you are sorely mistaken.
-
You said if yourself; our universe began to exist. This means that space, time, energy, and matter began to exist. This necessitates the cause of the universe to be beyond time, energy, space and matter. Denying this would only lead to the fallacious conclusion that the universe, before coming into existence, began to exist. That conclusion is, though patently and ludicrously illogical.
No it would not, get off your WLC high. Our universe came to being but there was existence before the universe. Why do you not understand this? We cannot measure beyond the Big Bang because of our current state of technology but scientist are working on doing so right now.
So let's say that the universe is part of a multiverse, for which there is no evidence for and which was thought up merely to attempt to evade the conclusion of the beginning of existence of our universe.
No it wasn't. Why the hell would you think that? There is no reason to believe that the Big Bang hasn't happened else where, at the moment we only have evidence of one.
But all you are doing is merely extending the same problem and the same conclusion to the problem at once; the existence of the multiverse itself would require an explanation. So all you are doing is merely extending the problem of beginning of existence to the multiverse.
Yes, exactly! Why is that an issue? You see science follows evidence, it doesn't make stuff and then attempt to twist the evidence in it's favour.
Should I even bother to address El Jonno's ad hominem filled diatribe against WLC, or should I merely dismiss it for what it so painfully obviously is - an embarrassing, ironically self-righteous, hate filled, emotional attack which is filled with scientific gaffes skewered upon misunderstandings of arguments, scientific theories, philosophical matters piled upon even more ad hominems?
Oh and spelling errors and the use of the word "lolz"?
?
No please, I would like to know exactly where I'm wrong considering I actually read the article in which WLC is attempting to use as a defense. I do find it funny that you are are claiming that I am self-righteous when all you have done is put me down and not address any of my arguments. If you think merely reposting what WLC said in his video is a rebuttal, you are sorely mistaken.
I have highlighted the areas of your post that made me do this a couple of times: :facepalm:
-
Wow, you don't have a rebuttal, you just have a closed mind. You don't have a rebuttal or an explanation beyond Craig's lies. Please think for yourself or continue to enjoy your ignorance. It's your choice.
-
Alright, let me get this straight: it's inconceivable that the/a multiverse (or our universe, if you're going to subscribe to something like CCC) had no beginning, thus the only solution is that some other "timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent" entity caused it?
In my thinking, two issues of our universe need to be explained.
- Our universe had a cause. Pretty intuitive, I don't think anyone disagrees.
- Time had a beginning, whether it began with our universe or outside our universe. I can't remember the name of the argument for this, but I remember how it went. Basically, if the past is infinite, we'd never be in the present, because it would take an infinite amount of time for the past to become the present. Hopefully someone who is better-versed in this argument can help me out.
Our universe's cause can be explained by God, a multiverse, or whatever you want. What is clear is that our universe's cause must be "extrauniversal". Yes my vocabulary's shoddy but I'm working on it and hopefully you get my point. Our universe's cause must be (or must have been, at the time) outside of our universe. And, to go a step further, whatever caused our multiverse must be "extramultiversal". If you really want to get technical, there's a line that stops the otherwise infinite regress of causes, whether that be at the universal level, the multiversal level, or beyond. But for now, I'll just use the word "extrauniversal" as an adjective to describe the first cause to everything.
The fact that time began to exist must mean it had a cause to its existence. Because time did not exist before it was caused to exist, the cause of time existed without time. So, the cause of time is "timeless" (at least when time did not exist).
We can call the cause to time "God". We can attribute to God the qualities of "extrauniversal" and "timeless". In other words, there was an extrauniversal, timeless cause to everything we know today. Something can't cause itself, so God must be these things.
Through philosophy, I agree that we can't call God "changeless", "immaterial", "omnipotent", "omniscient", "loving", "holy", "just" or whatever. That stuff comes with religion. But what is clear is that there exists (or had existed) an extrauniversal, timeless thing that caused both our universe/multiverse/etc and time.
-
Alright, let me get this straight: it's inconceivable that the/a multiverse (or our universe, if you're going to subscribe to something like CCC) had no beginning, thus the only solution is that some other "timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent" entity caused it?
In my thinking, two issues of our universe need to be explained.
- Our universe had a cause. Pretty intuitive, I don't think anyone disagrees.
I don't think this is intuitive. I don't see why the universe always existing is just as plausible. Either way, there's no way one can say for sure.
- Time had a beginning, whether it began with our universe or outside our universe. I can't remember the name of the argument for this, but I remember how it went. Basically, if the past is infinite, we'd never be in the present, because it would take an infinite amount of time for the past to become the present. Hopefully someone who is better-versed in this argument can help me out.
Part of the problem may be that there's a lot of complex physics that you don't understand (and frankly, I don't either). Time isn't absolute. It's relative, and does not exist without matter. To say that "time had a beginning" like someone started a cosmic stopwatch is pretty off-base.
The fact that time began to exist must mean it had a cause to its existence. Because time did not exist before it was caused to exist, the cause of time existed without time. So, the cause of time is "timeless" (at least when time did not exist).
Expanding from before, the expansion of the universe from the focal point of the Big Bang brought "time" to what we'd today pinpoint as the relative location of the Earth in spacetime. It ain't that simple.
-
I don't think this is intuitive. I don't see why the universe always existing is just as plausible. Either way, there's no way one can say for sure.
From a philosophical perspective, everything that is some way had a cause to it being that way. All you need to do is assume consistency (which is what we see in nature), and we can say that the universe began at some point. From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward.
Part of the problem may be that there's a lot of complex physics that you don't understand (and frankly, I don't either). Time isn't absolute. It's relative, and does not exist without matter. To say that "time had a beginning" like someone started a cosmic stopwatch is pretty off-base.
Good point. This argument could change in the future if we discover new things about the nature of time. But going off what we know, time must have had a beginning. It's relative speed means nothing. Whether time is moving quickly or slowly makes no difference in the infinite space between the past and the present if we assume that time has always existed.
Expanding from before, the expansion of the universe from the focal point of the Big Bang brought "time" to what we'd today pinpoint as the relative location of the Earth in spacetime. It ain't that simple.
Not sure what you're getting at here. I think I agree. What you're saying is that the universe had a beginning and now we're here. Okay. Great.
-
From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward.
It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.
-
From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward.
It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.
How so? If we assume consistency, does it matter what particular instance we're in to make a call on whether or now the universe had a beginning?
-
Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.
-
From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward.
It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.
How so? If we assume consistency, does it matter what particular instance we're in to make a call on whether or now the universe had a beginning?
What I mean is if you assume something like CCC theory or big crunch, the universe as it is now had a start (the big bang), but can still have been in existence forever.
-
Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.
Science is based on philosophy.
From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward.
It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.
How so? If we assume consistency, does it matter what particular instance we're in to make a call on whether or now the universe had a beginning?
What I mean is if you assume something like CCC theory or big crunch, the universe as it is now had a start (the big bang), but can still have been in existence forever.
Okay. I'll admit I'm not 100% familiar with all the start-of-the-universe theories, but, no matter what, something caused it to either exist or to "start" (if there's a difference between the two) and that something has to be outside the universe for anything to make sense.
-
Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.
You'd be surprised. Especially when speaking of uncaused causes, and the nature of nothingness.
-
From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward.
It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.
How so? If we assume consistency, does it matter what particular instance we're in to make a call on whether or now the universe had a beginning?
What I mean is if you assume something like CCC theory or big crunch, the universe as it is now had a start (the big bang), but can still have been in existence forever.
No, because there is not enough entropy in the universe to warrant a re-coalescence of space-time. We know the fate of our universe; heat death.
-
Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.
Science is based on philosophy.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.
You'd be surprised. Especially when speaking of uncaused causes, and the nature of nothingness.
Then maybe it could clear up some of the gaps in our logic about gravitation.
-
It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.
Translated:
"Yes, I concede that scientific evidence points overwhelmingly to the beginning of existence of our universe, yet I'm not about to accept that our universe had a beginning because I stubbornly refuse to do so."
-
I don't think this is intuitive. I don't see why the universe always existing is just as plausible. Either way, there's no way one can say for sure.
Because science has revealed that it is entirely implausible! Re-iterating once again; if the universe were here for an infinite amount of time, all its free energy would be spent and the universe would have reached heat death an infinite amount of time ago, not to mention the problem of an infinite amount of past time-events!
Expanding from before, the expansion of the universe from the focal point of the Big Bang brought "time" to what we'd today pinpoint as the relative location of the Earth in spacetime. It ain't that simple.
If a universe exhibits space-time expansion greater than 0, the universe began to exist.
-
Again.. Space existed before the big bang, the inflation of the universe did not come from nothing. Lawrence Krauss explains this in his lecture "A universe from nothing".
-
Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.
Science is based on philosophy.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
You're flat-out wrong on this one. Physics and chemistry were once called "natural philosophy".
-
From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward.
It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.
How so? If we assume consistency, does it matter what particular instance we're in to make a call on whether or now the universe had a beginning?
What I mean is if you assume something like CCC theory or big crunch, the universe as it is now had a start (the big bang), but can still have been in existence forever.
No, because there is not enough entropy in the universe to warrant a re-coalescence of space-time. We know the fate of our universe; heat death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_Cyclic_Cosmology
Just because you believe that you know the beginning and the end of the universe doesn't mean that there aren't valid theories that disagree with you.
-
Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.
Science is based on philosophy.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
You're flat-out wrong on this one. Physics and chemistry were once called "natural philosophy".
And the modern-day scientific method bears very little resemblance to it. "Scientific philosophy" nowadays is called pseudoscience.
-
Philosophy doesn't have much bearing on science.
Science is based on philosophy.
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
You're flat-out wrong on this one. Physics and chemistry were once called "natural philosophy".
And the modern-day scientific method bears very little resemblance to it. "Scientific philosophy" nowadays is called pseudoscience.
Good sir I would quite go that far, at least the colloquial definition of pseudoscience. On the whole i agree the Scientific method and Philosophy are very different.
-
Science is based on the assumptions that the laws of physics are consistent, that logic works, and that empiricism can be used to prove anything at all. Those assumptions are all reached through philosophy.
-
From a scientific perspective, evidence points to the universe expanding (and accelerating) outward.
It does seem that the evidence points to this particular instance of our universe having a beginning (a distinction I should have made earlier), however that does not necessarily mean that the universe itself had to have a beginning.
How so? If we assume consistency, does it matter what particular instance we're in to make a call on whether or now the universe had a beginning?
What I mean is if you assume something like CCC theory or big crunch, the universe as it is now had a start (the big bang), but can still have been in existence forever.
No, because there is not enough entropy in the universe to warrant a re-coalescence of space-time. We know the fate of our universe; heat death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_Cyclic_Cosmology
Just because you believe that you know the beginning and the end of the universe doesn't mean that there aren't valid theories that disagree with you.
Yes, I know of the other proposed theories. Yet they've proven to be completely unlikely to occur. The most likely end-universe scenario is the heat death scenario. Most reputable physicists agree on this.
-
Interesting that some must assume that the universe had a "beginning" and "cause", and that a "god" must have caused it, making "god" timeless and without cause. And every regression back enevitable leads to the prime mover. Why cant it be just as reasonable that the universe/multiverse/megaverse/at&t-u-verse/whatever itself is the prime mover? Why must one use the explanation of a "god" when it isnt really necessary? Why cant the universe itself be the timeless entity itself?
-
Yet they've proven to be completely unlikely to occur.
Any source for this at all?
Either way though, it's irrelevant. Even if you assume that the universe has a distinct beginning (which is quite possible/likley), it's a massive leap in logic to assume that that beginning must have been caused by something "omnipotent, immaterial, timeless, and changeless", i.e. God - as much so to assume that there's a multiverse, or anything else. I know you argue that whatever multiverse may exist would have to have a beginning itself, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that besides the fact that it's convenient for you.
-
Interesting that some must assume that the universe had a "beginning" and "cause", and that a "god" must have caused it, making "god" timeless and without cause. And every regression back enevitable leads to the prime mover. Why cant it be just as reasonable that the universe/multiverse/megaverse/at&t-u-verse/whatever itself is the prime mover? Why must one use the explanation of a "god" when it isnt really necessary? Why cant the universe itself be the timeless entity itself?
How can something cause itself? We know of nothing in the natural world that can do that. It's a huge leap of faith to attribute something like that to the universe.
Yet they've proven to be completely unlikely to occur.
Any source for this at all?
Either way though, it's irrelevant. Even if you assume that the universe has a distinct beginning (which is quite possible/likley), it's a massive leap in logic to assume that that beginning must have been caused by something "omnipotent, immaterial, timeless, and changeless", i.e. God - as much so to assume that there's a multiverse, or anything else. I know you argue that whatever multiverse may exist would have to have a beginning itself, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that besides the fact that it's convenient for you.
It's about consistency. Everything we know has a beginning, and (especially if the universe has a beginning) it follows that a hypothetical multiverse would also have a beginning.
-
]How can something cause itself?
It doesnt cause itself. It has always existed. It is the prime mover. My point is that the prime mover doesnt have to be a god. It can be the universe itself, or the multiverse, or whatever. It doesnt have to be a personified omnipotent entity. It could just "be".
]
We know of nothing in the natural world that can do that. It's a huge leap of faith to attribute something like that to the universe.
Wait, it is a huge leap of faith to attribute it to the universe, but it is acceptable to attribute it to a personified omnioptent being that takes personal interest in the lives of humans on a non-descript rock, in an arm of a one non-descript galaxy out of trillions? Ok.
-
Everything we know has a beginning
How so? Technically speaking no one has proven that matter has a beginning, so in reality nothing we know has a beginning.
-
It doesnt cause itself. It has always existed. It is the prime mover. My point is that the prime mover doesnt have to be a god. It can be the universe itself, or the multiverse, or whatever. It doesnt have to be a personified omnipotent entity. It could just "be".
Cool. You gave me a new word. "Prime mover". Nice. Well, I was explicit to not attribute anything to "God" (i.e. the Prime Mover) other than he must be outside of space and time. You guys keep saying that I'm calling God "omnipotent" or "personal", which is something I've been careful to not do. Please don't bring it up again.
Everything we know has a beginning
How so? Technically speaking no one has proven that matter has a beginning, so in reality nothing we know has a beginning.
Sorry. What I should have said is that everything we know has a cause for being what it is and in the state that it's in.
-
It doesnt cause itself. It has always existed. It is the prime mover. My point is that the prime mover doesnt have to be a god. It can be the universe itself, or the multiverse, or whatever. It doesnt have to be a personified omnipotent entity. It could just "be".
Cool. You gave me a new word. "Prime mover". Nice. Well, I was explicit to not attribute anything to "God" (i.e. the Prime Mover) other than he must be outside of space and time. You guys keep saying that I'm calling God "omnipotent" or "personal", which is something I've been careful to not do. Please don't bring it up again.
I didnt say that you said anything. And dont tell me what I can or cant bring up. OK Thnx.
-
Everything we know has a beginning
How so? Technically speaking no one has proven that matter has a beginning, so in reality nothing we know has a beginning.
Sorry. What I should have said is that everything we know has a cause for being what it is and in the state that it's in.
Not really. Besides the things that happen randomly (can't really call those "causes"; mechanisms would be more apt), there's plenty of stuff that happens on the quantum level that has no rhyme nor reason.
-
It doesnt cause itself. It has always existed. It is the prime mover. My point is that the prime mover doesnt have to be a god. It can be the universe itself, or the multiverse, or whatever. It doesnt have to be a personified omnipotent entity. It could just "be".
Cool. You gave me a new word. "Prime mover". Nice. Well, I was explicit to not attribute anything to "God" (i.e. the Prime Mover) other than he must be outside of space and time. You guys keep saying that I'm calling God "omnipotent" or "personal", which is something I've been careful to not do. Please don't bring it up again.
I didnt say that you said anything. And dont tell me what I can or cant bring up. OK Thnx.
This is what you said:
Wait, it is a huge leap of faith to attribute it to the universe, but it is acceptable to attribute it to a personified omnioptent being that takes personal interest in the lives of humans on a non-descript rock, in an arm of a one non-descript galaxy out of trillions? Ok.
That has nothing to do with this discussion.
Everything we know has a beginning
How so? Technically speaking no one has proven that matter has a beginning, so in reality nothing we know has a beginning.
Sorry. What I should have said is that everything we know has a cause for being what it is and in the state that it's in.
Not really. Besides the things that happen randomly (can't really call those "causes"; mechanisms would be more apt), there's plenty of stuff that happens on the quantum level that has no rhyme nor reason.
To that I'd say that we can't say for sure whether or not there is a cause. At any rate, behavior is still predictable, in the sense that there are probabilities associated with quantum mechanics and the randomness is governed by those probabilities. But everything else has a definitive cause, so I'd say that "All things have a cause" is a fair default position. With something as macroscopic as the universe, I think a Newtonian approach is best anyway.
-
And Hef will vomit with laughter at this guy, he's a joke. I can handle some of the other apologists because they at sound like they genuinely believe what they are saying. There is something about Craig that anything he says makes him sound like an ass. It's bad enough that most of his statements/claims are terrible.
I think the same things about Dawkins. Scanning through the wiki page I find Craig intriguing. The guy actually is using syllogistic arugmentation when it comes to philosophy which basically means he's Aristotelian in his background. That's a plus right there. For those who disagree with him, please provide your counter argument.
-
Wait, it is a huge leap of faith to attribute it to the universe, but it is acceptable to attribute it to a personified omnioptent being that takes personal interest in the lives of humans on a non-descript rock, in an arm of a one non-descript galaxy out of trillions? Ok.
That has nothing to do with this discussion.
I think it does. Part of this discussion is that the universe must have a beginning, requiring some higher "thing" to initiate the start. Many obviously believe that is god, and they indeed assign many of those attributes to god. I put forward the idea that the univers or multiverse is the timeless entity itself. There is no reason to add another layer of a god initiating the universe/multiverse until there is a solid and provable reason to do so. To me, that is pretty much on point with the discussion. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
-
Wait, it is a huge leap of faith to attribute it to the universe, but it is acceptable to attribute it to a personified omnioptent being that takes personal interest in the lives of humans on a non-descript rock, in an arm of a one non-descript galaxy out of trillions? Ok.
That has nothing to do with this discussion.
I think it does. Part of this discussion is that the universe must have a beginning, requiring some higher "thing" to initiate the start. Many obviously believe that is god, and they indeed assign many of those attributes to god. I put forward the idea that the univers or multiverse is the timeless entity itself. There is no reason to add another layer of a god initiating the universe/multiverse until there is a solid and provable reason to do so. To me, that is pretty much on point with the discussion. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
But in what sense can you provide proof for something and if that is not possible how to do you then answer the question? In a sense Craig, albeit in a shiny new wrapper to what Aristotle and other philosophers have already shown, uses philosophy to answer a question where the burden of proof is highly unlikely. I seriously doubt anyone believes that proof exists that will tell us flat out the universe had a beginning that will satisfy everyone. Interestingly enough, Craig even goes to science to show how it is possible that the universe did have a beginning, but again how do we approach the question of how did it begin? How can this be proved? Can it be proved? If not do we give up and go home? If this was always the case I would argue that much of what we have discussed and learned from philosophy alone would never have happened. Sometimes a speculative idea can put all the pieces together nicely. Sometimes it doesn't work out so well. I think Craig does offer a well articulated speculative idea that paints a reasonable picture of our universe and the concept of God. He will most certainly agree that God cannot be empirically proven. That's impossible. But then how do we know emotions exist? We don't see emotion, only the effects of the emotion (facial expressions, words, actions). Often times the effects give us information on the cause where we find the meaning. Why did I yell? Because of the cause of anger. Anger made me yell.
-
Wait, it is a huge leap of faith to attribute it to the universe, but it is acceptable to attribute it to a personified omnioptent being that takes personal interest in the lives of humans on a non-descript rock, in an arm of a one non-descript galaxy out of trillions? Ok.
That has nothing to do with this discussion.
I think it does. Part of this discussion is that the universe must have a beginning, requiring some higher "thing" to initiate the start. Many obviously believe that is god, and they indeed assign many of those attributes to god. I put forward the idea that the univers or multiverse is the timeless entity itself. There is no reason to add another layer of a god initiating the universe/multiverse until there is a solid and provable reason to do so. To me, that is pretty much on point with the discussion. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
But in what sense can you provide proof for something and if that is not possible how to do you then answer the question? In a sense Craig, albeit in a shiny new wrapper to what Aristotle and other philosophers have already shown, uses philosophy to answer a question where the burden of proof is highly unlikely. I seriously doubt anyone believes that proof exists that will tell us flat out the universe had a beginning that will satisfy everyone. Interestingly enough, Craig even goes to science to show how it is possible that the universe did have a beginning, but again how do we approach the question of how did it begin? How can this be proved? Can it be proved? If not do we give up and go home? If this was always the case I would argue that much of what we have discussed and learned from philosophy alone would never have happened. Sometimes a speculative idea can put all the pieces together nicely. Sometimes it doesn't work out so well. I think Craig does offer a well articulated speculative idea that paints a reasonable picture of our universe and the concept of God. He will most certainly agree that God cannot be empirically proven. That's impossible. But then how do we know emotions exist? We don't see emotion, only the effects of the emotion (facial expressions, words, actions). Often times the effects give us information on the cause where we find the meaning. Why did I yell? Because of the cause of anger. Anger made me yell.
Not sure of the point of your response as it relates to my post. I merely stated that the universe (or some higher level of "universe/multiverse) may have existed in one form/state or another forever...making it the prime mover, and not the traditional human concept of god. Considering the range of what we really know about all of existence (and possible outside of our existence or observation), they both seem to be equally possible..
Trying to state with any level of certainty, other than "I really have no fucking clue", about who or what the prime mover is, is deluding themselves. But hey...it sells books.
-
And Hef will vomit with laughter at this guy, he's a joke. I can handle some of the other apologists because they at sound like they genuinely believe what they are saying. There is something about Craig that anything he says makes him sound like an ass. It's bad enough that most of his statements/claims are terrible.
I think the same things about Dawkins. Scanning through the wiki page I find Craig intriguing. The guy actually is using syllogistic arugmentation when it comes to philosophy which basically means he's Aristotelian in his background. That's a plus right there. For those who disagree with him, please provide your counter argument.
I did provide the reason I disagree with him. I'll restate in bullet form:
- Craig claims the Big Bang theory states the universe came from nothing. This is false it does not.
- Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Sure if you are use cause as in something caused it not cause as in purpose. It is not logical to call it god when the laws of physics allow for the big bang to happen.
- Premise 2: The universe began to exist. Yes it did and no it didn't. The universe as we no it now started at the big bang. In almost all probability existence itself did not, they are not equal.
-Premise 3: The cause is timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent. No, it merely has to be before inflation and does not have to fit any of these requirements as the Big Bang theory already states as apart of it's model.
- Craig out right lies. He is wrong about the Big Bang and he makes illogical conclusions. He quote mines articles to support his claim that state the opposite, as I already proved in my previous post. Omega I am still waiting for you to explain to me where Craig get's off lying about this article. You know because my post was oh so "painfully obviously is - an embarrassing, ironically self-righteous, hate filled, emotional attack which is filled with scientific gaffes skewered upon misunderstandings of arguments, scientific theories, philosophical matters piled upon even more ad hominems? "
See you are Christian and lean toward Craig, I get that. However there is a big difference between Craig and Dawkins. When Dawkins' uses Science to bolster his claims, he tells the truth and knows what he is talking about. Craig mocks science (IE Big Bang) and then attempts to use it through lying to support his claims (The article). Dawkins' is a respected scientist, that has changed the face of biology as an educator, a promoter and a researcher. Craig is a nobody in the scientific community and will be forgotten as a nutter or remembered as a nutter.
-
Wait, it is a huge leap of faith to attribute it to the universe, but it is acceptable to attribute it to a personified omnioptent being that takes personal interest in the lives of humans on a non-descript rock, in an arm of a one non-descript galaxy out of trillions? Ok.
That has nothing to do with this discussion.
I think it does. Part of this discussion is that the universe must have a beginning, requiring some higher "thing" to initiate the start. Many obviously believe that is god, and they indeed assign many of those attributes to god. I put forward the idea that the univers or multiverse is the timeless entity itself. There is no reason to add another layer of a god initiating the universe/multiverse until there is a solid and provable reason to do so. To me, that is pretty much on point with the discussion. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
But in what sense can you provide proof for something and if that is not possible how to do you then answer the question? In a sense Craig, albeit in a shiny new wrapper to what Aristotle and other philosophers have already shown, uses philosophy to answer a question where the burden of proof is highly unlikely. I seriously doubt anyone believes that proof exists that will tell us flat out the universe had a beginning that will satisfy everyone. Interestingly enough, Craig even goes to science to show how it is possible that the universe did have a beginning, but again how do we approach the question of how did it begin? How can this be proved? Can it be proved? If not do we give up and go home? If this was always the case I would argue that much of what we have discussed and learned from philosophy alone would never have happened. Sometimes a speculative idea can put all the pieces together nicely. Sometimes it doesn't work out so well. I think Craig does offer a well articulated speculative idea that paints a reasonable picture of our universe and the concept of God. He will most certainly agree that God cannot be empirically proven. That's impossible. But then how do we know emotions exist? We don't see emotion, only the effects of the emotion (facial expressions, words, actions). Often times the effects give us information on the cause where we find the meaning. Why did I yell? Because of the cause of anger. Anger made me yell.
Not sure of the point of your response as it relates to my post. I merely stated that the universe (or some higher level of "universe/multiverse) may have existed in one form/state or another forever...making it the prime mover, and not the traditional human concept of god. Considering the range of what we really know about all of existence (and possible outside of our existence or observation), they both seem to be equally possible..
Trying to state with any level of certainty, other than "I really have no fucking clue", about who or what the prime mover is, is deluding themselves. But hey...it sells books.
He's saying that, assuming we'll never be able to empirically prove the beginning of the universe (since we can only observe what's in our universe), we're left with a bunch of ideas that can't be scientifically proven or disproven. Our debate is over God vs. a timeless mass which we could call the "preuniverse". Science can't make a statement on either one of these possibilities, but that doesn't mean an answer can't be reached. That's where philosophy comes in. So, while there are an infinite number of possibilities to how our universe began, we, as humans who seek conviction of truth, opt for the most parsimonious, sensical option, which would be God -- a timeless, spaceless entity with motivation to create.
-
Why can't you just acknowledge that you don't know rather than settle with the explanation that 'feels right'?
-
Why can't you just acknowledge that you don't know rather than settle with the explanation that 'feels right'?
History points to God, science doesn't contradict God, and philosophy sees that the universe needs a "Prime Mover"--God fits the best.
-
"History" points to a god? What does that mean?
-
In fact, in 2003, three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary in their famous Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. On the beginning of existence of our universe, Vilenkin wrote:
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".
I looked this up, it is another Craigism, surprise surprise he is wrong and quote mining (what a fuckwit).
Here is the article he is refering to.
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf
No where in the artical does it state that there was nothing before this boundary in fact here is a quote from the article
What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary
of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of
the Universe in a quantum nucleation event [12]. The
boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which
can be determined from the appropriate instanton.
Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear
that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation
alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of
the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary
Looks like the opposite to me
It's quite obvious that you didn't even understand the quote you used (merely as shock-and-awe tool. Hey, anyone can chose an enigmatic quote out of context that they have no semblance of an idea of what it is saying and claim that it supports their views. Isn't that the definition of "Quote Mining"?!); the average expansion condition cannot in fact be avoided, rendering your point moot. And then you try to shrug off a thoroughly peer-reviewed conclusion to the work of 3 leading physicists as "quote mining" (especially when you yourself are guilty of the very thing you have accused WLC on). That ain't gonna fly.
"Hard as physicists have tried to find some kind of an inflationary-model universe that does not have a beginning, still, every single cosmological model based on an inflationary hypothesis has to have a beginning." - Alan Guth.
The absolute conclusion that these three men came to was than any conceivable universe which features any average expansion greater than 0 began to exist (our universe unquestionably features average expansion greater than 0). For argument's sake, though let's include this as well: This is a quote from a letter Vilenkin sent to Stenger:
"[The only way] you can avoid the conclusion of the BGV theorem is by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having a contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable; small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities so that it would never make it to the expanding phase. So if someone asks me whether or not the theorem I prove with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is 'yes'. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is 'no,' but that is to say that you have the problem with the messy singularities that prevent re-expansion."
Alan Guth states of possible preceding universes or multiverses:
"With reasonable assumption, one can show that, even in the context of inflation with many 'bubbles' forming, there would still be, somewhere, an absolute beginning."
3) From premise 1, it follows that the universe must have a cause. Taking into account that space, time, energy and matter began to exist, the cause of our universe, by definition, must be transcendent of space, time, energy and matter. Whatever caused the universe to come into existence must be timeless, changeless, immaterial, and omnipotent.
The current state of the area of space that we call universe began expansion at the big bang. Please read up on the theory, holy shit man.
Not only a clear misunderstanding of the premise, but also an ironic ad hominem.
-
God this must be a joke.
No, no, no, no. Don't make a mockery of his arguments.
The argument in question is the comsological argument. Let's state it formally:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause
- The universe began to exist
- Therefore, the universe has a cause
No reason to call the cause god.
When in doubt, learn to read; no mention of God has been made in the argument
1) Premise 1 is commonsencical. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. If you deny premise 1, then you'd have to explain why just anything doesn't come into existence randomly. In other words: if premise one were true, then one would expect anything to randomly come into existence; spontaneously existing objects (let's hope you don't deny premise 1, as this would mean that we're dealing with a special type of looney).
No one is denying that something happened in order for the universe to begin it's current state, .notice I said current state. As the Big Bang theory does not state the universe came from nothing. It doesn't Craig is willfully ignorant as I'm sure he has been corrected.
Just where, oh, where did I mention Big Bang?
2) This is a given. The universe began to exist. This is a fact. An overwhelming amount of comsological evidence and simple philosophy (namely, out of nothing, nothing comes) assure us this is true.
Big bang theory does not claim from nothing.
Again, no appeal to the Big Bang theory has been made.
Any physicist with any semblance of repute and self-respect will agree to this. Denying this given reveals that you are either scientifically ignorant or too blinded by pride or emotion to conceed this fact, in light of the complications it imparts on an atheistic worldview.
How the shit does the Big bang impart complications on atheism, if anything it would bolster it. Also there is no such thing as an "atheistic worldview", not believing in god is not a worldview. You can be an atheist and believe the big bang never happened or we live on a disc supported by a turtle. Atheist = lack of a belief in a god/gods...period.
In response to red: An absolute beginning, which is unavoidable, presents an enormous problem to the atheist, given that they believe in no supernatural or, to use H's perfect phrasing, "extrauniversal" entity that transcends the laws of physics and obviously space, matter, time and energy. In other words, the atheist would have to somehow explain, if the absolute beginning of space, time, matter and energy is given (which all points to "yes, it is given"), how the universe came into existence from utter non-existence (absence of space, time, energy and matter) through naturalistic means. In other words, the atheist would be cornered on the issue and would have to appeal to space, time, energy and matter to explain their own existence (ie: space, time, energy and matter caused themselves to come into existence), which is a patently and embarrassingly ludicrous claim.
In response to green: trust me, not believing in (a) God is a worldview. Maybe you don't even know what a worldview is. That's what dictionaries are useful for.
In response to yellow: Utterly embarrassing and nonsensical statement.
In response to blue: You can rebel against two thousand years of tradition and against a series of long dead atheists whose intellect surpass your own all you like, but atheism - like it or not - has traditionally mean the assertion that no God exists. Atheism = God does not exist. Atheism =/= lack of belief in God. Unfortunately, many atheists have gotten away in the recent years to redefine it as lack of belief merely to save themselves from the burden of proof that is placed on them if they accept the traditional definition of "God does not exist". Don't bother starting an argument here. I have zero interest in finding out what El Jonno thinks atheism should mean.
(neat color coding, huh)
Why personal and fruther explication from the man himself? I direct you here: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8429
Notice that no mention of God was made in the argument or post; this is mere comsology and basic reasoning.
First I must point out lolz " I am no longer an atheist but now a humbled agnostic"
Another useless and silly comment
this cause is itself uncaused, beginningless
He pulls this out of his ass, just bald assumptions.
Clearly you are not capable of following a basic premise; if space, matter, energy and time came into existence (in other words began to exist) then it follows logically that the cause for the universe must be transcendent of space, time, energy, matter and therefore is at least timeless, immaterial, and omnipotent. This a logically sound argument. If the conditions that if time, space, energy and matter began to exist are hypothetically accepted, the conclusion that whatever caused space, time, energy and matter to come into being, the only logical conclusion would be that the cause for their coming to existence is independent of these qualities (time, energy, matter, space - restating them just for clarity and to prevent any possible evasion of the logical conclusion). There is no squirming away from this conclusion. The conclusion cannot be rejected.
So a changeless state must be a timeless state. Even on a non-relational view of time, time could at best be an undifferentiated time in which literally nothing happened; no change occurs. Third, its spacelessness. Anything that exists in space must be temporal, as it undergoes at least extrinsic change in relation to the things around it. So our cause must transcend space and time, at least sans the universe.
What? That's like fish saying fish saying "our master must trancend water!". Just because there is a localized area of space that we at the moment cannot measure beyond does not mean the universe was created by a timeless being.
Another comment that displays both misunderstanding of the premises and of cosmological matters yet also seeks to offend simultaneously.
This rejoinder is futile because if the initial cosmological singularity is a physical state of affairs, as you think, then it is the first state of the universe (its initial boundary point) and, hence, began to exist a finite time ago. It cannot have come into being out of nothing, as you agree. So there must be a transcendent cause of the first state of the universe. Here my second argument, borrowed from Swinburne, for the personhood of the first cause becomes relevant. As I explain, there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. . . . Now a first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. It can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and his volitions, a personal explanation (Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 192-3)
Big bang does not say it began from nothing.. I feel like a broken record. I'm not reading any more of this. I've gotten half way through and all he does is misrepresent cosmology and jump to conclusions.
There wasn't even a mention of Big Bang in the quote! If you feel like a broken record, that's because you are! The points in the quote were completely ignored. Instead, you just chose to repeat a meaningless and unsubstantiated claim that "the Big Bang does not say it began from nothing" while the it doesn't even apply to the topic that is being discussed!
Your post was light on the reasoning and arguments but heavy on the ad hominem. This is the kind of useless offal of psuedo-philosophical and psuedo-rational objections and arguments that define the intellectually bankrupt New Atheism movement.
This coming from someone who follows a quote-mining charlaton. Craig needs to stop lying about science to prepetuate his own career of being an expert in lies[/color]. It's funny how you claim us to be intellectually bankrupt when we have most of the leading scientist on our side and they are speaking out more and more.
If you are going to offend the man without reason to, do it properly. It's charlatan. Not "charlaton".
-
He's saying that, assuming we'll never be able to empirically prove the beginning of the universe (since we can only observe what's in our universe), we're left with a bunch of ideas that can't be scientifically proven or disproven. Our debate is over God vs. a timeless mass which we could call the "preuniverse". Science can't make a statement on either one of these possibilities, but that doesn't mean an answer can't be reached. That's where philosophy comes in. So, while there are an infinite number of possibilities to how our universe began, we, as humans who seek conviction of truth, opt for the most parsimonious, sensical option, which would be God -- a timeless, spaceless entity with motivation to create.
That is a nice opinion, and it is clear that it is the one that makes the most sense to you, and/or makes you feel the most comfortable. I can respect that. But nothing you have said makes your explanation any more probable than any other. But I think it has more to do with your faith/personal philosophy, and how it all fits into your meaning of life, etc. I respect that....just dont agree.
-
omega, watch the insulting language.
doesn't help persuade and isn't acceptable around here
same goes with a number of previous posts by others leaning towards bringing down the person rather than the argument
-
Everything we know has a beginning
How so? Technically speaking no one has proven that matter has a beginning, so in reality nothing we know has a beginning.
Sorry. What I should have said is that everything we know has a cause for being what it is and in the state that it's in.
Not really. Besides the things that happen randomly (can't really call those "causes"; mechanisms would be more apt), there's plenty of stuff that happens on the quantum level that has no rhyme nor reason.
Many atheists claim that quantum events serve as proof of "uncaused events" or "proof that something can come from nothing."
Yet they fail to consider that quantum events occur in the presence of existence of space, time, energy and matter. Thus they can't truly be said to be "uncaused" or "proof that something can come from nothing". Many eager scientists merely use the word "nothing" to describe a vacuum; space void of matter. Yet notice that space absent of matter is not truly "nothing" as they claim. True nothingness could be most closely expressed as a complete absence of existence, or complete and utter absence of space, time, energy and matter.
More on the matter here: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-part-of-nothing-dont-you.html (https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-part-of-nothing-dont-you.html)
-
omega, watch the insulting language.
doesn't help persuade and isn't acceptable around here
same goes with a number of previous posts by others leaning towards bringing down the person rather than the argument
Sorry. Not to be a pest, but could you quote / demonstrate some examples of the where I am being insulting so that I can earnestly avoid doing so in the future?
-
sure...
"When in doubt, learn to read; no mention of God has been made in the argument"
"Maybe you don't even know what a worldview is. That's what dictionaries are useful for."
"In response to yellow: Utterly embarrassing and nonsensical statement."
"You can rebel against two thousand years of tradition and against a series of long dead atheists whose intellect surpass your own all you like"
"Another useless and silly comment"
"Clearly you are not capable of following a basic premise"
"If you feel like a broken record, that's because you are!"
-
Clearly you are not capable of following a basic premise; if space, matter, energy and time came into existence (in other words began to exist) then it follows logically that the cause for the universe must be transcendent of space, time, energy, matter and therefore is at least timeless, immaterial, and omnipotent. This a logically sound argument. If the conditions that if time, space, energy and matter began to exist are hypothetically accepted, the conclusion that whatever caused space, time, energy and matter to come into being, the only logical conclusion would be that the cause for their coming to existence is independent of these qualities (time, energy, matter, space - restating them just for clarity and to prevent any possible evasion of the logical conclusion). There is no squirming away from this conclusion. The conclusion cannot be rejected.
But your premise could easily be entirely false. Perhaps some arent disagreeing with the coclusion you draw from the premise, but are disagreeing with the premise itself?
-
Yet they've proven to be completely unlikely to occur.
Any source for this at all?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h351nDd3ZvA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h351nDd3ZvA)
Either way though, it's irrelevant. Even if you assume that the universe has a distinct beginning (which is quite possible/likley), it's a massive leap in logic to assume that that beginning must have been caused by something "omnipotent, immaterial, timeless, and changeless", i.e. God - as much so to assume that there's a multiverse, or anything else. I know you argue that whatever multiverse may exist would have to have a beginning itself, but there's absolutely no reason to believe that besides the fact that it's convenient for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK-X3x9tyqY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK-X3x9tyqY)
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/11/reading-rosenberg-part-iii.html (https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/11/reading-rosenberg-part-iii.html)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bsxt1ZCQrk
-
Clearly you are not capable of following a basic premise; if space, matter, energy and time came into existence (in other words began to exist) then it follows logically that the cause for the universe must be transcendent of space, time, energy, matter and therefore is at least timeless, immaterial, and omnipotent. This a logically sound argument. If the conditions that if time, space, energy and matter began to exist are hypothetically accepted, the conclusion that whatever caused space, time, energy and matter to come into being, the only logical conclusion would be that the cause for their coming to existence is independent of these qualities (time, energy, matter, space - restating them just for clarity and to prevent any possible evasion of the logical conclusion). There is no squirming away from this conclusion. The conclusion cannot be rejected.
But your premise could easily be entirely false. Perhaps some arent disagreeing with the coclusion you draw from the premise, but are disagreeing with the premise itself?
Oh, trust me, I get that. Yet given the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence in case for the beginning of the universe (ie space, energy, matter and time), if the premise is rejected, then it reveals a ignorance of leading cosmological matters (deliberate or otherwise).
Do you have a disagreement with the premise itself?
-
Clearly you are not capable of following a basic premise; if space, matter, energy and time came into existence (in other words began to exist) then it follows logically that the cause for the universe must be transcendent of space, time, energy, matter and therefore is at least timeless, immaterial, and omnipotent. This a logically sound argument. If the conditions that if time, space, energy and matter began to exist are hypothetically accepted, the conclusion that whatever caused space, time, energy and matter to come into being, the only logical conclusion would be that the cause for their coming to existence is independent of these qualities (time, energy, matter, space - restating them just for clarity and to prevent any possible evasion of the logical conclusion). There is no squirming away from this conclusion. The conclusion cannot be rejected.
But your premise could easily be entirely false. Perhaps some arent disagreeing with the coclusion you draw from the premise, but are disagreeing with the premise itself?
Oh, trust me, I get that. Yet given the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence in case for the beginning of the universe (ie space, energy, matter and time), if the premise is rejected, then it reveals a ignorance of leading cosmological matters (deliberate or otherwise).
Do you have a disagreement with the premise itself?
I dont disagree with it. It is just a premise, not a fact. I think it is a theory that might be correct.
It is also possible that what you think is the beginning of the universe may be just the beginning of its current state or incarnation. You seem to really want the universe to have a beginning, when it is entirely possible that it doesnt. I think that is where you are having the disconnect. Your premise is just that....a premise and theory...not fact....and so is your conclusion drawn from that premise .
-
Clearly you are not capable of following a basic premise; if space, matter, energy and time came into existence (in other words began to exist) then it follows logically that the cause for the universe must be transcendent of space, time, energy, matter and therefore is at least timeless, immaterial, and omnipotent. This a logically sound argument. If the conditions that if time, space, energy and matter began to exist are hypothetically accepted, the conclusion that whatever caused space, time, energy and matter to come into being, the only logical conclusion would be that the cause for their coming to existence is independent of these qualities (time, energy, matter, space - restating them just for clarity and to prevent any possible evasion of the logical conclusion). There is no squirming away from this conclusion. The conclusion cannot be rejected.
But your premise could easily be entirely false. Perhaps some arent disagreeing with the coclusion you draw from the premise, but are disagreeing with the premise itself?
Oh, trust me, I get that. Yet given the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence in case for the beginning of the universe (ie space, energy, matter and time), if the premise is rejected, then it reveals a ignorance of leading cosmological matters (deliberate or otherwise).
Do you have a disagreement with the premise itself?
I dont disagree with it. It is just a premise, not a fact. I think it is a theory that might be correct.
It is also possible that what you think is the beginning of the universe may be just the beginning of its current state or incarnation. You seem to really want the universe to have a beginning, when it is entirely possible that it doesnt. I think that is where you are having the disconnect. Your premise is just that....a premise and theory...not fact....and so is your conclusion drawn from that premise .
This will no doubt be erroneously recognized as arrogance, but I can assure you that you are wrong. I've now become the broken record on this thread. If the universe were temporally infinite, the universe would have reached heat death an infinite amount of time ago.
-
I disagree. It wont be erroneous.
-
I disagree. It wont be erroneous.
*Sigh*
So you believe that the universe has existed forever?
(To which you will no doubt erroneously respond "I didn't say that. I just said it is just as likely as the alternative of a universe that began to exist".)
-
I disagree. It wont be erroneous.
*Sigh*
So you believe that the universe has existed forever?
(To which you will no doubt erroneously respond "I didn't say that. I just said it is just as likely as the alternative of a universe that began to exist".)
Well without proof, I can say I dont know what to believe, except that both scenarios seem very plausible and perfectly viable explanations. Is it so hard to understand that some may take the opposing, but just as possible, explanation? Or that some might not assert knowledge about things they cant understand or comprehend, and take no side, instead requiring proof (even if they never get it)?
And the *sigh* , coupled with the "you will no doubt erroneously respond" illustrate that you learned nothing from Yorosts suggestions, and make me think I would rather not discuss anything further with you here.
-
I disagree. It wont be erroneous.
*Sigh*
So you believe that the universe has existed forever?
(To which you will no doubt erroneously respond "I didn't say that. I just said it is just as likely as the alternative of a universe that began to exist".)
Well without proof, I can say I dont know what to believe, except that both scenarios seem very plausible and perfectly viable explanations. Is it so hard to understand that some may take the opposing, but just as possible, explanation? Or that some might not assert knowledge about things they cant understand or comprehend, and take no side, instead requiring proof (even if they never get it)?
And the *sigh* , coupled with the "you will no doubt erroneously respond" illustrate that you learned nothing from Yorosts suggestions, and make me think I would rather not discuss anything further with you here.
I placed the *sigh* there because I seemingly have to individually spend 10 posts dedicated to a single poster simply to establish a scientific fact. The universe cannot have existed forever. If it had, the universe would have reached heat death. Can I trust you to look at my previous posts regarding the beginning of existence of the universe, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theory (which establishes that any universe which has exhibited expansion greater than 0 - an attribute our universe does indeed exhibit - must have had an absolute beginning) and the problem of an temporally infinite universe in regard to the laws of thermodynamics, or must I re-iterate them as well to you?
I'm sure you can understand that having to explain and establish facts that we know about the universe while at the same time allaying various cosmological misconceptions can get a little frustrating after a good while.
While I concede that the sigh was somewhat apt to be interpreted as offensive, the "you will no doubt erroneously respond" was a mere prediction that turned out to be quite accurate.
-
I placed the *sigh* there because I seemingly have to individually spend 10 posts dedicated to a single poster simply to establish a scientific fact. The universe cannot have existed forever. If it had, the universe would have reached heat death.
It doesn't matter how many posts you devote to it it still won't be a scientific fact.
You're conflating the apparent beginning of the configuration we see of the known universe, that demarcated the rapid inflationary period of the universe from the big bang singularity, with an absolute beginning of the universe.
That very singularity tells us that our model of physical laws is incomplete and thus we simply cannot currently say what configuration the universe was in at that moment.
https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/
-
I placed the *sigh* there because I seemingly have to individually spend 10 posts dedicated to a single poster simply to establish a scientific fact. The universe cannot have existed forever. If it had, the universe would have reached heat death.
It doesn't matter how many posts you devote to it it still won't be a scientific fact.
You're conflating the apparent beginning of the configuration we see of the known universe, that demarcated the rapid inflationary period of the universe from the big bang singularity, with an absolute beginning of the universe.
That very singularity tells us that our model of physical laws is incomplete and thus we simply cannot currently say what configuration the universe was in at that moment.
https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/
THANK YOU. Not only is it unclear what happened before the big bang, it is also just as unclear what will happen in the future. Heat Death is NOT scientific fact, but is a hypothesis that relies on assumptions that vary greatly, with many necessary facts unknown or unclear.
It is not a scientific fact that the universe had a specific beginning, nor is its ultimate end (if it has one) a known or scientific fact. I understand your entire arguement rests on this premise that the universe has a definite and scientifically proven beginning and end....but the fact is that premise is at best an educated guess. You "spen(t) 10 posts dedicated to a single poster simply to establish a scientific fact", where it does not exist.
Just to give you the chance to prove me wrong, you are more than welcome to post reference where your premise is scientific fact...and not just theory.
I am more than willing to look at any reputable scientific source that states it is a scientifically proven fact that the universe began its existence at the big bang, and did not exist at all before it....and that it is a proven scientific fact that the universe will end in heat death.
Thx
-
THANK YOU. Not only is it unclear what happened before the big bang, it is also just as unclear what will happen in the future. Heat Death is NOT scientific fact, but is a hypothesis that relies on assumptions that vary greatly, with many necessary facts unknown or unclear.
Even the "fact" of there having been an extremely high temperature state and rapid inflationary phase of the early universe is not necessarily true yet either. We do have good evidence to suggest this model of the early universe is correct, but since we can't observe the big bang directly we're relying on a combination of secondary evidence and theoretical models.
It's possible that if/when we reconcile dark matter (for which we now have excellent evidence), dark energy (still a bit nebulous afaics) and quantum gravity with General Relativity and The Standard Model our picture of the early universe may conspicuously change.
Then again it may not! :)
For further reading I can recommend https://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/big_bangs
-
I placed the *sigh* there because I seemingly have to individually spend 10 posts dedicated to a single poster simply to establish a scientific fact. The universe cannot have existed forever. If it had, the universe would have reached heat death.
It doesn't matter how many posts you devote to it it still won't be a scientific fact.
You're conflating the apparent beginning of the configuration we see of the known universe, that demarcated the rapid inflationary period of the universe from the big bang singularity, with an absolute beginning of the universe.
That very singularity tells us that our model of physical laws is incomplete and thus we simply cannot currently say what configuration the universe was in at that moment.
https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/
What possible configurations are you referring to?
-
I placed the *sigh* there because I seemingly have to individually spend 10 posts dedicated to a single poster simply to establish a scientific fact. The universe cannot have existed forever. If it had, the universe would have reached heat death.
It doesn't matter how many posts you devote to it it still won't be a scientific fact.
You're conflating the apparent beginning of the configuration we see of the known universe, that demarcated the rapid inflationary period of the universe from the big bang singularity, with an absolute beginning of the universe.
That very singularity tells us that our model of physical laws is incomplete and thus we simply cannot currently say what configuration the universe was in at that moment.
https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/
What possible configurations are you referring to?
He doesnt know...there are just theories. I think that is his (and my) entire point. We do not know what configuration the universe was in at or before that very instance, or if there was even a universe at all. To insist that it is scientific fact is incorrect. To insist that it is scientific fact that the universe will end in HD is also incorrect. There is simply too much we do not know, and to claim to know is clearly an assumption.....and you know what they say about assuming. ;)
-
Something that needs to be posted:
1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
-
Something that needs to be posted:
1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
Dont you think god is infinite?
-
1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
Why not?
-
No. And even if he was infinite (and therefore could not exist), that doesn't validate your infinite universe theory.
-
No.
Really? What is all that "from everlasting to everlasting" gibberish in the Good Book about?
-
Suppose we meet a man who claims to have been counting from eternity and is now finishing: ..., -3, -2, -1, 0. We could ask, why did he not finish counting yesterday or the day before or the year before? By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he should have finished by then. Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should have already be done! In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at any point we reach he will have already finished. But if at no point in the past do we find him counting this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. This illustrates the fact that the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition is equally impossible whether one proceeds to or from infinity.'
Infinity implies completeness, whereas counting implies successive additions (and the notion of incompleteness).
https://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Religious_Studies/Phil_of_Rel/God/kalam_cosmological_craig.php (https://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Religious_Studies/Phil_of_Rel/God/kalam_cosmological_craig.php)
-
No.
Really? What is all that "from everlasting to everlasting" gibberish in the Good Book about?
I think the correct translation is "from age to age". If God existed before time, then we wouldn't say God is eternal in the traditional sense (i.e. God began to exist at t= -∞ and continued to exist until t = ∞). That would mean that the universe would never have come into existence.
-
If he didn't exist before time, then how did he create everything?
-
"If the universe were not curved like a sphere but had a flat topology, it could be both unbounded and infinite. The curvature of the universe can be measured through multipole moments in the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation. As to date, analysis of the radiation patterns recorded by the WMAP spacecraft hints that the universe has a flat topology. This would be consistent with an infinite physical universe."
"However, there are some theoretical circumstances where the end result is infinity. One example is the singularity in the description of black holes. Some solutions of the equations of the general theory of relativity allow for finite mass distributions of zero size, and thus infinite density."
All I see from you are philosphical arguements that actual infinity cant exist....like the counting example. What if the man isnt counting down to zero....what if the person counted any number today, and doubled (or halved) the number? Going to the past halving the number will always result in a number that can be halved. Going to the future and doubling the number will always result in aa number that can be doubled. You are also assuming that time is uniform. We dont know what happens to time under some circumstances...like at or before the big bang....or in the future.
In short, just like the assertion of the universe having a specific beginning and end, the assertion that actual infinity cant exist is pure speculation at this point.
-
If he didn't exist before time, then how did he create everything?
He's the timeless Prime Mover. I can't tell you how he created something out of nothing, or how he created time without time. He's God and can do nearly whatever he wants.
Anyway, you run into that regress problem with or without God, so I don't think that's a disproof of God at all.
"If the universe were not curved like a sphere but had a flat topology, it could be both unbounded and infinite. The curvature of the universe can be measured through multipole moments in the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation. As to date, analysis of the radiation patterns recorded by the WMAP spacecraft hints that the universe has a flat topology. This would be consistent with an infinite physical universe."
"However, there are some theoretical circumstances where the end result is infinity. One example is the singularity in the description of black holes. Some solutions of the equations of the general theory of relativity allow for finite mass distributions of zero size, and thus infinite density."
All I see from you are philosphical arguements that actual infinity cant exist....like the counting example. What if the man isnt counting down....what if the person counted 1 today, and doubled (or halved) the number? Going to the past halving the number will always result in a number that can be halved. Going to the future and doubling the number will always result in aa number that can be doubled.
Can you expand on this a little more? I don't see how it shows that the universe is infinite. Modern cosmologists believe that the universe is 13.75 billion years old. It doesn't matter if the rate of time has increased/decreased during the universe's history. 13.75 billion years, whether it's doubled, quadrupled, or raised to the zillionth power, is not infinity.
-
If god is not infinite, then by your assertion, god had a beginning and an end. If something with a beginning has a cause, then something had to initiate that beginning.....then he wasnt god....and neither can whatever started him.....so on and so forth into infinity. By saying something cant be infinite, arent you saying there cant even be a god or prime mover?
-
If he didn't exist before time, then how did he create everything?
He's the timeless Prime Mover. I can't tell you how he created something out of nothing, or how he created time without time. He's God and can do nearly whatever he wants.
Anyway, you run into that regress problem with or without God, so I don't think that's a disproof of God at all.
I'm not trying to disprove God. I believe in God. I'm just trying to better understand your conception of God.
If he is the timeless Prime Mover, then how can he NOT be infinite?
-
If he didn't exist before time, then how did he create everything?
He's the timeless Prime Mover. I can't tell you how he created something out of nothing, or how he created time without time. He's God and can do nearly whatever he wants.
Anyway, you run into that regress problem with or without God, so I don't think that's a disproof of God at all.
"If the universe were not curved like a sphere but had a flat topology, it could be both unbounded and infinite. The curvature of the universe can be measured through multipole moments in the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation. As to date, analysis of the radiation patterns recorded by the WMAP spacecraft hints that the universe has a flat topology. This would be consistent with an infinite physical universe."
"However, there are some theoretical circumstances where the end result is infinity. One example is the singularity in the description of black holes. Some solutions of the equations of the general theory of relativity allow for finite mass distributions of zero size, and thus infinite density."
All I see from you are philosphical arguements that actual infinity cant exist....like the counting example. What if the man isnt counting down....what if the person counted 1 today, and doubled (or halved) the number? Going to the past halving the number will always result in a number that can be halved. Going to the future and doubling the number will always result in aa number that can be doubled.
Can you expand on this a little more? I don't see how it shows that the universe is infinite. Modern cosmologists believe that the universe is 13.75 billion years old. It doesn't matter if the rate of time has increased/decreased during the universe's history. 13.75 billion years, whether it's doubled, quadrupled, or raised to the zillionth power, is not infinity.
It is believed that it has been 13.75 B years since the big bang. What does that have to do with how old the universe is? That is just how old it is since the bang....it does not address what happened before the big bang.
And it is mathematically and theoretically possible for the universe to be infinite and come from nothing.
Not saying it is....just that it is possible, and you really cant say it isnt possible.
-
If god is not infinite, then by your assertion, god had a beginning and an end. If something with a beginning has a cause, then something had to initiate that beginning.....then he wasnt god....and neither can whatever started him.....so on and so forth into infinity. By saying something cant be infinite, arent you saying there cant even be a god or prime mover?
No. I'm saying that if something can't be infinite, then there must be a prime mover. The universe scientifically isn't and philosophically can't be infinite. So it must have a prime mover. When it comes to things that are outside of time (i.e. God), I don't think it's fair to apply words like "beginning", "end", and "infinite", since those are all time-dependent words.
-
It is believed that it has been 13.75 B years since the big bang.
After reading through this entire thread, trust me when I say it feels like it has been a lot longer.
And El Jonno and Omega, if I continue to see personal attacks, the both of you are outta here. You already been warned in the thread.
-
If he didn't exist before time, then how did he create everything?
He's the timeless Prime Mover. I can't tell you how he created something out of nothing, or how he created time without time. He's God and can do nearly whatever he wants.
Anyway, you run into that regress problem with or without God, so I don't think that's a disproof of God at all.
I'm not trying to disprove God. I believe in God. I'm just trying to better understand your conception of God.
If he is the timeless Prime Mover, then how can he NOT be infinite?
I am trying to be very careful with my vocabulary here. So far I've used "infinite" to describe something that is time-dependent. God is outside of time (must be, or we run into the infinite-number-of-past-events problem), and so I don't want to call him "infinite". That would be like saying "God began to exist an infinite number of years ago" which makes no sense. I think "omnipresent" is a better word.
-
If god is not infinite, then by your assertion, god had a beginning and an end. If something with a beginning has a cause, then something had to initiate that beginning.....then he wasnt god....and neither can whatever started him.....so on and so forth into infinity. By saying something cant be infinite, arent you saying there cant even be a god or prime mover?
No. I'm saying that if something can't be infinite, then there must be a prime mover. The universe scientifically isn't and philosophically can't be infinite. So it must have a prime mover. When it comes to things that are outside of time (i.e. God), I don't think it's fair to apply words like "beginning", "end", and "infinite", since those are all time-dependent words.
No. It is theoretically and mathematically possible for the universe to be infinite and come from nothing. Not saying it is, but it is possible. If a universe can be infinite and come from nothing, a prime mover isnt necessary.
-
If god is not infinite, then by your assertion, god had a beginning and an end. If something with a beginning has a cause, then something had to initiate that beginning.....then he wasnt god....and neither can whatever started him.....so on and so forth into infinity. By saying something cant be infinite, arent you saying there cant even be a god or prime mover?
No. I'm saying that if something can't be infinite, then there must be a prime mover. The universe scientifically isn't and philosophically can't be infinite. So it must have a prime mover. When it comes to things that are outside of time (i.e. God), I don't think it's fair to apply words like "beginning", "end", and "infinite", since those are all time-dependent words.
No. It is theoretically and mathematically possible for the universe to be infinite and come from nothing. Not saying it is, but it is possible. If a universe can be infinite and come from nothing, a prime mover isnt necessary.
Back to this again? No, it's NOT. It is an impossibility to have an infinite series of past events. This has been explained again and again. When will you just concede this point?
-
If he didn't exist before time, then how did he create everything?
He's the timeless Prime Mover. I can't tell you how he created something out of nothing, or how he created time without time. He's God and can do nearly whatever he wants.
Anyway, you run into that regress problem with or without God, so I don't think that's a disproof of God at all.
I'm not trying to disprove God. I believe in God. I'm just trying to better understand your conception of God.
If he is the timeless Prime Mover, then how can he NOT be infinite?
I am trying to be very careful with my vocabulary here. So far I've used "infinite" to describe something that is time-dependent. God is outside of time (must be, or we run into the infinite-number-of-past-events problem), and so I don't want to call him "infinite". That would be like saying "God began to exist an infinite number of years ago" which makes no sense. I think "omnipresent" is a better word.
OK, I now understand your terminology.
However, to say that God is NOT infinite means that he IS finite. Basic logic of the words in play.
So, how do you explain a finite God?
-
I think the terms "infinite" and "finite" can only be applied to things that are time-dependent. So I'd say God is neither.
-
If god is not infinite, then by your assertion, god had a beginning and an end. If something with a beginning has a cause, then something had to initiate that beginning.....then he wasnt god....and neither can whatever started him.....so on and so forth into infinity. By saying something cant be infinite, arent you saying there cant even be a god or prime mover?
No. I'm saying that if something can't be infinite, then there must be a prime mover. The universe scientifically isn't and philosophically can't be infinite. So it must have a prime mover. When it comes to things that are outside of time (i.e. God), I don't think it's fair to apply words like "beginning", "end", and "infinite", since those are all time-dependent words.
No. It is theoretically and mathematically possible for the universe to be infinite and come from nothing. Not saying it is, but it is possible. If a universe can be infinite and come from nothing, a prime mover isnt necessary.
Back to this again? No, it's NOT. It is an impossibility to have an infinite series of past events. This has been explained again and again. When will you just concede this point?
It is theoretically and mathematically possible for the universe to be infinite and come from nothing.
Please read about the possible shapes of the universe and their implications....I will await you concession.
-
I placed the *sigh* there because I seemingly have to individually spend 10 posts dedicated to a single poster simply to establish a scientific fact. The universe cannot have existed forever. If it had, the universe would have reached heat death.
It doesn't matter how many posts you devote to it it still won't be a scientific fact.
You're conflating the apparent beginning of the configuration we see of the known universe, that demarcated the rapid inflationary period of the universe from the big bang singularity, with an absolute beginning of the universe.
That very singularity tells us that our model of physical laws is incomplete and thus we simply cannot currently say what configuration the universe was in at that moment.
https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/
What possible configurations are you referring to?
He doesnt know...there are just theories. I think that is his (and my) entire point. We do not know what configuration the universe was in at or before that very instance, or if there was even a universe at all. To insist that it is scientific fact is incorrect. To insist that it is scientific fact that the universe will end in HD is also incorrect. There is simply too much we do not know, and to claim to know is clearly an assumption.....and you know what they say about assuming. ;)
Yet that is an invalid counterpoint. While it is obviously not a fact (which is a word I must admit I misused), there is an overwhelming amount of cosmological evidence that points to the absolute beginning of the universe. An analogy is the theory of evolution. While one may argue that it is a mere theory and not a "fact," enough evidence has been unearthed and examined as to deem evolution a proper certainty. Also, why dismiss or ignore the conclusion that three highly reputable and leading cosmologists / physicist (Borde, Guth, Vilenkin) reached so eagerly?
Yet to the main point: what makes the Bode-Guth-Vilenkin theorem so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe. Because we don't yet have a quantum theory of gravity, we are not able to provide a physical description of the first split second of the early universe. But the BGV Theorem is independent of any physical description of the early universe. Their theorem implies that the early quantum vacuum state of the early universe (which is often erroneously and misleadingly categorized as "nothing") cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the theorem itself implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.
-
If he didn't exist before time, then how did he create everything?
It would be more accurate to say that God exists independently of time rather than before (because existing before time isn't reasonable).
-
Something that needs to be posted:
1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
The key term here is "actual" as in material. No infinitely material actuality exists and cannot exist. Infinity is merely something that manifests itself immaterially (numbers, patterns, etc).
-
Something that needs to be posted:
1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
The key term here is "actual" as in material. No infinitely material actuality exists and cannot exist. Infinity is merely something that manifests itself immaterially (numbers, patterns, etc).
Yep. Should have been more discreet.
-
It is believed that it has been 13.75 B years since the big bang.
After reading through this entire thread, trust me when I say it feels like it has been a lot longer.
And El Jonno and Omega, if I continue to see personal attacks, the both of you are outta here. You already been warned in the thread.
Sorry Coach. He was spitting in both my old man's face and mine. Emotions flared somewhat. I don't plan on letting that happen again.
*sheaths sword*
-
Something that needs to be posted:
1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
The key term here is "actual" as in material. No infinitely material actuality exists and cannot exist. Infinity is merely something that manifests itself immaterially (numbers, patterns, etc).
Yep. Should have been more discreet.
Not at all. That is what why "actual" is placed before "infinite." The argument is phrased adequately. People responding simply didn't understand what an actual infinity was referring to.
-
Yet that is an invalid counterpoint. While it is obviously not a fact (which is a word I must admit I misused), there is an overwhelming amount of cosmological evidence that points to the absolute beginning of the universe. An analogy is the theory of evolution. While one may argue that it is a mere theory and not a "fact," enough evidence has been unearthed and examined as to deem evolution a proper certainty. Also, why dismiss or ignore the conclusion that three highly reputable and leading cosmologists / physicist (Borde, Guth, Vilenkin) reached so eagerly?
You still completely miss the point, as does H. What you call the "beginning" of the universe may not be the "beginning". It is very simple. It is unknown what happened before inflation, therefore the big bang could merely be the initiatioon of a new cycle or state. Period. This has nothing to do with the big bang....but what happened before.
Yet to the main point: what makes the Bode-Guth-Vilenkin theorem so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe. Because we don't yet have a quantum theory of gravity, we are not able to provide a physical description of the first split second of the early universe. But the BGV Theorem is independent of any physical description of the early universe. Their theorum implies that the early quantum vaccum state of the early universe (which is often erroneously and misleadingly categorized as "nothing") cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the theorem itself implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.
Again...the first split second of the what may only be the current version/cycle/stage of the universe. Their theories have nothing to do with what came before.
It is clear that you desperatly need to beleive that the universe has a beginning, when that is simply not even close to being established.
This discussion with you reminds me of, to use your analogy, evolution. You are railing on about the fact of evolution, when I am talking about abiogenesis.
I will make it simple, and fully agree that the big bang happened. It was the beginning of the universe as we know it. But you cant explain what happened BEFORE. You dont know, and neither do any scientists or physicists. There are theories and even physical evidence regarding the shape of the universe.....and with some shapes there is no end to the universe. It is theoretically and mathematically possible to be infinite and come from nothing.
I hope you are now understanding of the distinction, so we dont have to discuss this point any further.
-
Something that needs to be posted:
1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
The key term here is "actual" as in material. No infinitely material actuality exists and cannot exist. Infinity is merely something that manifests itself immaterially (numbers, patterns, etc).
Yep. Should have been more discreet.
Not at all. That is what why "actual" is placed before "infinite." The argument is phrased adequately. People responding simply didn't understand what an actual infinity was referring to.
You seem so sure of yourself, yet theoretical physicists do not agree.
Instead of just saying, why not post a reference where that fact is stated and proven.
It is theorized that we can only observe an infintesimal potion of the universe, and that it may go out infinitely.
It is possible, regardless of how much you dont want it to be.
It is possible that the universe is infinite and can come from nothing.
-
I feel I must leave this thread again as we have come full circle, and fear it will be an infinite loop. Pun intended.
It is clear to me at least, that both Omega and H are firmly entrenched in a view that has simply not been proven....not even close. Perhaps it is a required view as a foundation of their beliefs and faith...not sure. But it is disheartening to have a discussion where ideas and theories are stated as uncontrovertible fact.
We used to be certain the earth was flat and the center of the universe.
It is not conducive to any form of discussion, and as such, I will bow out.
-
Yet that is an invalid counterpoint. While it is obviously not a fact (which is a word I must admit I misused), there is an overwhelming amount of cosmological evidence that points to the absolute beginning of the universe. An analogy is the theory of evolution. While one may argue that it is a mere theory and not a "fact," enough evidence has been unearthed and examined as to deem evolution a proper certainty. Also, why dismiss or ignore the conclusion that three highly reputable and leading cosmologists / physicist (Borde, Guth, Vilenkin) reached so eagerly?
You still completely miss the point, as does H. What you call the "beginning" of the universe may not be the "beginning". It is very simple. It is unknown what happened before inflation, therefore the big bang could merely be the initiatioon of a new cycle or state. Period. This has nothing to do with the big bang....but what happened before.
I concede that. For the sake of argument, though, let's say that 3 previous universes (or past-inflationary models) ultimate caused our own to come into existence. Our universe would not have an absolute beginning, no, but the absolute beginning would merely be inherited by the first universe in the past-inflationary hierarchy. In other words, no, our universe may not be the absolute beginning of existence, but the absolute beginning of existence is unavoidable.
Yet to the main point: what makes the Bode-Guth-Vilenkin theorem so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe. Because we don't yet have a quantum theory of gravity, we are not able to provide a physical description of the first split second of the early universe. But the BGV Theorem is independent of any physical description of the early universe. Their theorum implies that the early quantum vaccum state of the early universe (which is often erroneously and misleadingly categorized as "nothing") cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the theorem itself implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.
Again...the first split second of the what may only be the current version/cycle/stage of the universe. Their theories have nothing to do with what came before.
It is clear that you desperatly need to beleive that the universe has a beginning, when that is simply not even close to being established.
This discussion with you reminds me of, to use your analogy, evolution. You are railing on about the fact of evolution, when I am talking about abiogenesis.
I will make it simple, and fully agree that the big bang happened. It was the beginning of the universe as we know it. But you cant explain what happened BEFORE. You dont know, and neither do any scientists or physicists. There are theories and even physical evidence regarding the shape of the universe.....and with some shapes there is no end to the universe. It is theoretically and mathematically possible to be infinite and come from nothing.
I hope you are now understanding of the distinction, so we dont have to discuss this point any further.
Eh...
Yet to the main point: what makes the Bode-Guth-Vilenkin theorem so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe. Because we don't yet have a quantum theory of gravity, we are not able to provide a physical description of the first split second of the early universe. But the BGV Theorem is independent of any physical description of the early universe. Their theorum implies that the early quantum vaccum state of the early universe (which is often erroneously and misleadingly categorized as "nothing") cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the theorem itself implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.
This part that I highlighted addresses how the BGV Theorem would apply even to proposed past-universe models...
-
Something that needs to be posted:
1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
The key term here is "actual" as in material. No infinitely material actuality exists and cannot exist. Infinity is merely something that manifests itself immaterially (numbers, patterns, etc).
Yep. Should have been more discreet.
Not at all. That is what why "actual" is placed before "infinite." The argument is phrased adequately. People responding simply didn't understand what an actual infinity was referring to.
You seem so sure of yourself, yet theoretical physicists do not agree.
Instead of just saying, why not post a reference where that fact is stated and proven.
It is theorized that we can only observe an infintesimal potion of the universe, and that it may go out infinitely.
It is possible, regardless of how much you dont want it to be.
It is possible that the universe is infinite and can come from nothing.
Please, no. Please reject this statement.
-
I feel I must leave this thread again as we have come full circle, and fear it will be an infinite loop. Pun intended.
It is clear to me at least, that both Omega and H are firmly entrenched in a view that has simply not been proven....not even close. Perhaps it is a required view as a foundation of their beliefs and faith...not sure. But it is disheartening to have a discussion where ideas and theories are stated as uncontrovertible fact.
We used to be certain the earth was flat and the center of the universe.
It is not conducive to any form of discussion, and as such, I will bow out.
That's quite ironic. You are the one who continuously regurgitates long-rejected and misleading cosmological views and has been seemingly turning a blind eye to the peer-reviewed, physicist generated conclusion / theorem I provided for the unavoidable beginning of the universe.
-
Omega;
This will be my last response to you in this thread, as I am running out of patience. Discussing things with you has no possible chance of progress.
BGV is one of many possible theories. Please stop treating it as the correct and proven theory.
And Im not even arguing against it...just that it is not even close to being proven, and there are other theories and possibilities. That is where you have the massive disconnect.
Here is another theory:
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.[1] Within the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model
In a flat universe, all of the local curvature and local geometry is flat. It is generally assumed that it is described by a Euclidean space, although there are some spatial geometries that are flat and bounded in one or more directions (like the surface of a cylinder, for example).
The alternative two-dimensional spaces with a Euclidean metric are the cylinder and the Möbius strip, which are bounded in one direction but not the other, and the torus and Klein bottle, which are compact.
In three dimensions, there are 10 finite closed flat 3-manifolds, of which 6 are orientable and 4 are non-orientable. The most familiar is the 3-Torus. See the doughnut theory of the universe
In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching some fixed rate. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as that of an open universe.
Euclidean space is flat and infinite, and a flat universe can have zero total energy and thus can come from nothing
Boom. See how there are other theories out there? Some accepted by most physicists and flying directly against your assertions? Now can you see where I am coming from, and why is is monumentally pointless in discussing anything with you?
So no :facepalm: please. I should use it towards you to illustrate your complete lack of ability to consider any other possibilities and/or theories that may not feel right to you. You have a stubborn attachment to one view, and that type of behavoir is not condusive to discussions here.
Good Day.
-
Omega;
This will be my last response to you in this thread, as I am running out of patience. Discussing things with you has no possible chance of progress.
BGV is one of many possible theories. Please stop treating it as the correct and proven theory.
No... the BGV is not a theory at all. It is a theorem. These are completely different things. You are confusing the BGV Theorem to be a (pre-inflationary) model.
Here is another theory:
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.[1] Within the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model
In a flat universe, all of the local curvature and local geometry is flat. It is generally assumed that it is described by a Euclidean space, although there are some spatial geometries that are flat and bounded in one or more directions (like the surface of a cylinder, for example).
The alternative two-dimensional spaces with a Euclidean metric are the cylinder and the Möbius strip, which are bounded in one direction but not the other, and the torus and Klein bottle, which are compact.
In three dimensions, there are 10 finite closed flat 3-manifolds, of which 6 are orientable and 4 are non-orientable. The most familiar is the 3-Torus. See the doughnut theory of the universe
In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching some fixed rate. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as that of an open universe.
Euclidean space is flat and infinite, and a flat universe can have zero total energy and thus can come from nothing
So no :facepalm: please. I should use it towards you to illustrate your complte lack of ability to consider any other possibilities and/or theories that may not feel right to you. You have a stubborn attachment to one view, and that thype of behavoir is not condusive to discussions here.
I of course acknowledge the existence of other proposed models to explain the existence of our universe. There should be no argument there.
Yet there are also competing "theories" out there for evolution. Does this mean that because there are other proposed theories for evolution, evolution is not true? Of course not. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports evolution theory. Same applies here. An overwhelming amount of evidence points to the absolute beginning of existence of our or any other conceivable universe. All other proposed models lack the structural support of strong evidence in their favor.
-
It is possible that the universe is infinite and can come from nothing.
There is something that needs to be addressed. You (and others) seem to think that anything is possible, and therefore anything should be considered as a plausible theory to the beginning of the universe. But there are a great deal of things that aren't possible--things that are self-contradictory. A round square, for instance, is an impossible object. It's self-contradicting. I also believe (although I may be in a minority here among theists) that complete omnipotence, as is usually attributed to God, leads to contradictions.
And it's the same with your infinite past theory. It doesn't work. Even in the theoretical, it cannot be possible for reasons that we've repeated again and again. Even if you allow for an exponentially changing rate of time, you still run into this problem.
-
You (and others) seem to think that anything is possible, and therefore anything should be considered as a plausible theory to the beginning of the universe.
-
It is possible that the universe is infinite and can come from nothing.
There is something that needs to be addressed. You (and others) seem to think that anything is possible, and therefore anything should be considered as a plausible theory to the beginning of the universe. But there are a great deal of things that aren't possible--things that are self-contradictory. A round square, for instance, is an impossible object. It's self-contradicting. I also believe (although I may be in a minority here among theists) that complete omnipotence, as is usually attributed to God, leads to contradictions.
And it's the same with your infinite past theory. It doesn't work. Even in the theoretical, it cannot be possible for reasons that we've repeated again and again. Even if you allow for an exponentially changing rate of time, you still run into this problem.
Yet there it is. Dont believe it if you dont want to. There is so much we havent discovered or know. But H does know I guess.
-
It is possible that the universe is infinite and can come from nothing.
There is something that needs to be addressed. You (and others) seem to think that anything is possible, and therefore anything should be considered as a plausible theory to the beginning of the universe. But there are a great deal of things that aren't possible--things that are self-contradictory. A round square, for instance, is an impossible object. It's self-contradicting. I also believe (although I may be in a minority here among theists) that complete omnipotence, as is usually attributed to God, leads to contradictions.
And it's the same with your infinite past theory. It doesn't work. Even in the theoretical, it cannot be possible for reasons that we've repeated again and again. Even if you allow for an exponentially changing rate of time, you still run into this problem.
Yet there it is. Dont believe it if you dont want to. There is so much we havent discovered or know. But H does know I guess.
Don't believe the Earth is round or in evolution. There is so much we haven't discovered.
-
Once again, even if you assume the universe had a beginning (which is entirely possible/likely), the simple fact is we have no idea what exists beyond the bounds of it. Everything you can say about it, whether that it was created by God or it exists in a multiverse or whatever, is unsubstantiated.
-
Once again, even if you assume the universe had a beginning (which is entirely possible/likely), the simple fact is we have no idea what exists beyond the bounds of it. Everything you can say about it, whether that it was created by God or it exists in a multiverse or whatever, is unsubstantiated.
There might not exist anything beyond its boundaries. A conclusion through scientific or empirical means would be impossible at that point. That's where philosophical arguments truly come into play. However, if it is indeed a multiverse, the BGV theorem would still apply to the multiverse, requiring an absolute beginning of the multiverse as well.
-
Once again, even if you assume the universe had a beginning (which is entirely possible/likely), the simple fact is we have no idea what exists beyond the bounds of it. Everything you can say about it, whether that it was created by God or it exists in a multiverse or whatever, is unsubstantiated.
There might not exists anything beyond its boundaries. A conclusion through scientific or empirical means would be impossible at that point. That's where philosophical arguments truly come into play. However, if it is indeed a multiverse, the BGV theorem would still apply to the multiverse, requiring an absolute beginning of the multiverse as well.
You're talking about something that contains entire universes. Why would you assume that it would follow the same laws of physics?
-
Once again, even if you assume the universe had a beginning (which is entirely possible/likely), the simple fact is we have no idea what exists beyond the bounds of it. Everything you can say about it, whether that it was created by God or it exists in a multiverse or whatever, is unsubstantiated.
There might not exists anything beyond its boundaries. A conclusion through scientific or empirical means would be impossible at that point. That's where philosophical arguments truly come into play. However, if it is indeed a multiverse, the BGV theorem would still apply to the multiverse, requiring an absolute beginning of the multiverse as well.
You're talking about something that contains entire universes. Why would you assume that it would follow the same laws of physics?
Why assume one even exists?
-
Once again, even if you assume the universe had a beginning (which is entirely possible/likely), the simple fact is we have no idea what exists beyond the bounds of it. Everything you can say about it, whether that it was created by God or it exists in a multiverse or whatever, is unsubstantiated.
There might not exists anything beyond its boundaries. A conclusion through scientific or empirical means would be impossible at that point. That's where philosophical arguments truly come into play. However, if it is indeed a multiverse, the BGV theorem would still apply to the multiverse, requiring an absolute beginning of the multiverse as well.
You're talking about something that contains entire universes. Why would you assume that it would follow the same laws of physics?
It might not follow the same laws of physics, but I think we would expect our universe's abstract truths (math statements, for example) to be true outside of our universe. On the same token, I think the abstract idea of infinity and how it can't exist in material form would also apply outside the universe.
-
I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply saying that there's no reason to hold any belief regarding what is or isn't beyond the universe.
-
Omega;
This will be my last response to you in this thread, as I am running out of patience. Discussing things with you has no possible chance of progress.
BGV is one of many possible theories. Please stop treating it as the correct and proven theory.
And Im not even arguing against it...just that it is not even close to being proven, and there are other theories and possibilities. That is where you have the massive disconnect.
Here is another theory:
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.[1] Within the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model
In a flat universe, all of the local curvature and local geometry is flat. It is generally assumed that it is described by a Euclidean space, although there are some spatial geometries that are flat and bounded in one or more directions (like the surface of a cylinder, for example).
The alternative two-dimensional spaces with a Euclidean metric are the cylinder and the Möbius strip, which are bounded in one direction but not the other, and the torus and Klein bottle, which are compact.
In three dimensions, there are 10 finite closed flat 3-manifolds, of which 6 are orientable and 4 are non-orientable. The most familiar is the 3-Torus. See the doughnut theory of the universe
In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching some fixed rate. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as that of an open universe.
Euclidean space is flat and infinite, and a flat universe can have zero total energy and thus can come from nothing
Boom. See how there are other theories out there? Some accepted by most physicists and flying directly against your assertions? Now can you see where I am coming from, and why is is monumentally pointless in discussing anything with you?
So no :facepalm: please. I should use it towards you to illustrate your complete lack of ability to consider any other possibilities and/or theories that may not feel right to you. You have a stubborn attachme
one view, and that type of behavoir is not condusive to discussions here.
Good Day.
This is also not condusive to good discussion. Kudos to omega for not reacting to it
-
Yesh, would your feelings be hurt if I just up and banned everybody from P/R?
-
Why when I try to look up the BVG Theorem, all I see are creation, catholic, and religious websites?
Most about WL Craig using it for support. Hmmm :\
Why cant I find any articles about whether this theorem is widely accepted by the scientific community?
Where is the peer review?
Anyway, the authors themselves say that their theorem does not say the universe had to have a beginning.
The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (pdf) shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe (as opposed to Dr. Craig’s “any universe”) will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past.
Which doesnt negate the possibility that the universe began to exist out of nothing, and is infinite in size as the Flat model shows. Euclidean space is flat and infinite, and a flat universe can have zero total energy and thus can come from nothing.
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.[1] Within the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model. This, to me, looks like it is the most accepted view of the universe, and as a flat universe, it can be infinite and come from nothing. It doesnt have to exist infinitely in the past...it can be infinite in size and come from nothing.
Dr. Craig seems to interpret this information as “the universe definitely began to exist” although that is a bit presumptuous. For example, this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).
Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:
"f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning
I personally would like to know about the subtleties. Perhaps he is speaking of the fact that they do not know what happened pre big-bang...and even says that in order to know that, one must be ready to tackle tough paradoxes. Regardless, the author himself is saying the universe did NOT have to have a beginning.
Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true. The authors write,
"What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event."
This “quantum nucleation event” refers to a paper Vilenkin wrote in 1982 (pdf) which discusses the universe coming into being through quantum mechanics. Interestingly, many theists use Vilenkin’s paper as evidence that the universe came from “literally nothing” but Craig has already criticized this work.
In short, the theorem which necessitates a beginning, doesnt negate the theory that the universe can be infinite in size and time going forwars, and that it could have come from Nothing, as shown in the flat universe theory.
I can understand why someone would latch on to this as it appears that it is proof that the universe has a beginning. However, this is just another educated guess like so many others, yet with still so much information not yet available to us.
I just cant seem to find any articles on wether this theorem is accepted anywhere outside people and/or organizations that are trying to prove the existence of god.
-
Why when I try to look up the BVG Theorem, all I see are creation, catholic, and religious websites?
Most about WL Craig using it for support. Hmmm :\
Why cant I find any articles about whether this theorem is widely accepted by the scientific community?
Where is the peer review?
Anyway, the authors themselves say that their theorem does not say the universe had to have a beginning.
The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (pdf) shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe (as opposed to Dr. Craig’s “any universe”) will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past.
Which doesnt negate the possibility that the universe began to exist out of nothing, and is infinite in size as the Flat model shows. Euclidean space is flat and infinite, and a flat universe can have zero total energy and thus can come from nothing.
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.[1] Within the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model. This, to me, looks like it is the most accepted view of the universe, and as a flat universe, it can be infinite and come from nothing. It doesnt have to exist infinitely in the past...it can be infinite in size and come from nothing.
The idea of universe causing itself to come into existence from nothing (as in literally nothing, not simply empty space, etc) is an idea that is more ludicrous than magic.
Dr. Craig seems to interpret this information as “the universe definitely began to exist” although that is a bit presumptuous. For example, this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).
Again, from one of my previous posts: "what makes the Bode-Guth-Vilenkin theorem so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe."
Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:
"f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning
I personally would like to know about the subtleties. Perhaps he is speaking of the fact that they do not know what happened pre big-bang...and even says that in order to know that, one must be ready to tackle tough paradoxes. Regardless, the author himself is saying the universe did NOT have to have a beginning.
I addressed this in a previous post. The complete quote goes as follows:
"[The only way] you can avoid the conclusion of the BGV theorem is by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having a contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable; small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities so that it would never make it to the expanding phase. So if someone asks me whether or not the theorem I prove with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is 'yes'. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is 'no,' but that is to say that you have the problem with the messy singularities that prevent re-expansion."
Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true. The authors write,
"What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event."
This “quantum nucleation event” refers to a paper Vilenkin wrote in 1982 (pdf) which discusses the universe coming into being through quantum mechanics. Interestingly, many theists use Vilenkin’s paper as evidence that the universe came from “literally nothing” but Craig has already criticized this work.
This, too, has been addressed:
"What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary
of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of
the Universe in a quantum nucleation event [12]. The
boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which
can be determined from the appropriate instanton.
Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear
that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation
alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of
the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary"
The average expansion condition cannot, in fact, be avoided.
I can understand why someone would latch on to this as it appears that it is proof that the universe has a beginning. However, this is just another educated guess like so many others, yet with still so much information not yet available to us.
Alan Guth States:
"Hard as physicists have tried to find some kind of an inflationary-model universe that does not have a beginning, still, every single cosmological model based on an inflationary hypothesis has to have a beginning."
Alan Guth states of possible preceding universes or multiverses:
"With reasonable assumption, one can show that, even in the context of inflation with many 'bubbles' forming, there would still be, somewhere, an absolute beginning."
And, conclusively, Vilenkin states:
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".
I just cant seem to find any articles on wether this theorem is accepted anywhere outside people and/or organizations that are trying to prove the existence of god.
It should be of no surprise that the BVG Theorem is mostly mentioned exclusively on theistic websites; atheists would much rather turn a blind eye to this sort of information.
-
Yesh, would your feelings be hurt if I just up and banned everybody from P/R?
That could be fun
-
The idea of universe causing itself to come into existence from nothing (as in literally nothing, not simply empty space, etc) is an idea that is more ludicrous than magic.
It would seem ludicrous, especially if a person thinks they know what is, and what isnt possible in something as vast and incredible as the universe. Too bad it is shown that it is theoretically possible. People thought a round earth was ludicrous at one time.
But I can understand ones resistance to opening yourself to the possibility as it may be in conflict with ones faith.
Again, from one of my previous posts: "what makes the Bode-Guth-Vilenkin theorem so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe."
Not true. It clearly does not work with ALL inflationary models.
This is from the author himself....asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:
"If someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.
Interestingly, many theists use Vilenkin’s paper as evidence that the universe came from “literally nothing”.
You really want this theorem to be the one correct answer. It clearly is not, nor does it purport to be.
It is an educated guess...that is still missing information.
I addressed this in a previous post. The complete quote goes as follows:
"[The only way] you can avoid the conclusion of the BGV theorem is by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having a contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable; small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities so that it would never make it to the expanding phase. So if someone asks me whether or not the theorem I prove with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is 'yes'. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is 'no,' but that is to say that you have the problem with the messy singularities that prevent re-expansion."
."
My response is simply thebolded and underlined above, in the words of the author. How do you explain this?
Alan Guth States:
"Hard as physicists have tried to find some kind of an inflationary-model universe that does not have a beginning, still, every single cosmological model based on an inflationary hypothesis has to have a beginning."."
But the theorem cant prove a beginning for all inflationary models. That is all that is needed. I am not trying to prove there is no beginning...just that you cant prove there is one. And no one has yet.
Alan Guth states of possible preceding universes or multiverses:
"With reasonable assumption, one can show that, even in the context of inflation with many 'bubbles' forming, there would still be, somewhere, an absolute beginning."
."
Yet the authors admit that their theorem does not work with all inflationary models.
And, conclusively, Vilenkin states:
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".."
Yet the "proof" doesnt work with all inflationary models. And that the proof doesnt say wht the beginning is....as it could be creation from nothing as the flat universe shows.
It should be of no surprise that the BVG Theorem is mostly mentioned exclusively on theistic websites; atheists would much rather turn a blind eye to this sort of information.."
And I guess the physicists, cosmologists, and scientific community at large are turning a blind eye too. Hmmm.
-
The idea of universe causing itself to come into existence from nothing (as in literally nothing, not simply empty space, etc) is an idea that is more ludicrous than magic.
It would seem ludicrous, especially if a person thinks they know all about what is possible in the universe. Too bad it is shown that it is theoretically possible. People thought a round earth was ludicrous at one time.
But I can understand your resistance to opening yourself to the possibility as it may be in conflict with your faith.
No, it hasn't. You believe it has because cosmologists use misleading terms to define nothing. For example, Hawking & Mlodinow have postulated that the universe could have created itself "from nothing" merely by cause of the universal laws. Pity they don't realize that "universal laws" are not "nothing." Equally as erroneously, many atheists profess that quantum events prove that something can come from nothing. Pity that they don't understand that they are using the word "nothing" merely to refer to space devoid of matter (a vacuum) which is clearly not nothing.
Juicy discussion on the matter here:
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-are-some-physicists-so-bad-at.html
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-part-of-nothing-dont-you.html
Again, from one of my previous posts: "what makes the Bode-Guth-Vilenkin theorem so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe."
Not true. It clearly does not work with ALL inflationary models.
Vilenkin states:
"The remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein's equation. So even if Einstein's gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold."
I addressed this in a previous post. The complete quote goes as follows:
"[The only way] you can avoid the conclusion of the BGV theorem is by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having a contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable; small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities so that it would never make it to the expanding phase. So if someone asks me whether or not the theorem I prove with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is 'yes'. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is 'no,' but that is to say that you have the problem with the messy singularities that prevent re-expansion."
."
My response is simply thebolded and underlined above, in the words of the author. How do you explain this?
It is explained by Vilenkin himself in that very quote! "That is to say that you have the problem with the messy singularities that prevent re-expansion." He's merely being humble; were the answer no, the universe would have never made it to the inflation stage and we would not be able to have this conversation.
Once again, I re-iterate Vilenkin's conclusion on the BVG Theorem:
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".
-
Try all you like, there is no proof one way or the other. The physicists, cosmologists, scientists, and philosophers all agree that there is no definitive answer at this time. They surely dont think BVG is the answer as there is nothing to find showing wide acceptance of the theorem other than religious websites. It is all educated guesses and theories...with one perhaps being proven correct some day.
You are very entrenched in your position, and it is clear that you will not be moved to think that there are other very real possibilites.
There really isnt a point in discussing it any further.
Goodnight.
-
Try all you like, there is no proof one way or the other. The physicists, cosmologists, scientists, and philosophers all agree that there is no definitive answer at this time. They surely dont think BVG is the answer as there is nothing to find showing wide acceptance of the theorem other than religious websites. It is all educated guesses and theories...with one perhaps being proven correct some day.
You are very entrenched in your position, and it is clear that you will not be moved to think that there are other very real possibilites.
There really isnt a point in discussing it any further.
Goodnight.
The objections you sought to raise to the BGV Theorem were all rather weak and revealed as unfounded or taking quotes out of context. I provided further information re-assuring the validity of the theorem and put their quotes into context to reveal their intended meaning. Respectfully, if anyone is entrenched in their position, it appears to be you. Well I tried. It appears that more than proof is necessary to convince an unreasonable man.
-
I would have been more than willing to give BVG more credit if i could find more acceptance for it other than you, Craig, and creationist websites. And it is difficult to see how I can be entrenched in a position, when I dont hold a position on any theory or theorem. I suppot that there are many possibilities, the likes of which we havent begun to imagine. I an humble enough to know that at this point in time, we humans dont have the definitive answers. But I guess you feel you do.
-
I would have been more than willing to give BVG more credit if i could find more acceptance for it other than you, Craig, and creationist websites.
I'm sure the theorem either states or assumes that the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago - a fact creationists would no doubt oppose.
And it is difficult to see how I can be entrenched in a position, when I dont hold a position on any theory or theorem. I suppot that there are many possibilities, the likes of which we havent begun to imagine. I an humble enough to know that at this point in time, we humans dont have the definitive answers. But I guess you feel you do.
Yes, there are many possibilities. Yet the disconnect here is that some are more reasonable or likely than others!
-
I would have been more than willing to give BVG more credit if i could find more acceptance for it other than you, Craig, and creationist websites.
I'm sure the theorem either states or assumes that the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago - a fact creationists would no doubt oppose.
And it is difficult to see how I can be entrenched in a position, when I dont hold a position on any theory or theorem. I suppot that there are many possibilities, the likes of which we havent begun to imagine. I an humble enough to know that at this point in time, we humans dont have the definitive answers. But I guess you feel you do.
Yes, there are many possibilities. Yet the disconnect here is that some are more reasonable or likely than others!
LOL. That wont stop creationists from cherry picking what they want. They do it with the bible too.
And I am glad you mention the many possibilities with some more reasonable or likely than others. Not one more likely than any other. That is all I have been saying....that there are other reasonable and likely possibilities.
-
Yes, there are many possibilities. Yet the disconnect here is that some are more reasonable or likely than others!
LOL. That wont stop creationists from cherry picking what they want. They do it with the bible too.
And I am glad you mention the many possibilities with some more reasonable or likely than others. Not one more likely than any other. That is all I have been saying....that there are other reasonable and likely possibilities.
Yet you must also understand that among these "some" that are taken more or less seriously, the most probable and reasonable of them is the absolute beginning of the universe, supported by the BGV theorem.
-
Yes, there are many possibilities. Yet the disconnect here is that some are more reasonable or likely than others!
LOL. That wont stop creationists from cherry picking what they want. They do it with the bible too.
And I am glad you mention the many possibilities with some more reasonable or likely than others. Not one more likely than any other. That is all I have been saying....that there are other reasonable and likely possibilities.
Yet you must also understand that among these "some" that are taken more or less seriously, the most probable and reasonable of them is the absolute beginning of the universe, supported by the BGV theorem.
I agree that the most supported position is that the universe in its current state had a beginning with the big bang.
There is no generally accepted position on what happened before that.
What happened before the Big Bang? The conventional answer to that question is usually, “There is no such thing as ‘before the Big Bang.’” That’s the event that started it all. But the right answer, says physicist Sean Carroll, is, “We just don’t know.” Carroll, as well as many other physicists and cosmologists have begun to consider the possibility of time before the Big Bang, as well as alternative theories of how our universe came to be.
Granted, — and Carroll stressed this point — any research on these topics is generally considered speculation at this time. “None of this is firmly established stuff,” he said. “I would bet even money that this is wrong. But hopefully I’ll be able to come back in 10 years and tell you that we’ve figured it all out.”
We just dont know.
-
But the BGV Theorem is independent of any physical description of the early universe. Their theorem implies that the early quantum vacuum state of the early universe (which is often erroneously and misleadingly categorized as "nothing") cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning.
BGV theorem demonstrates that a class of eternal inflation models (which are not necessarily accurate models of reality) must have a singularity in their past.
It doesn't really tell us anything dramatic, it just leads us to the position as already stated: if such models of inflation are correct and there was a big bang singularity we cannot currently say anything reliable about the state of the universe at and beyond that boundary.
It does not prove that the kind of inflationary models it deals with are accurate. If they are it doesn't preclude the no boundary proposal and it doesn't preclude the possibility that our observable universe is embedded in a wider reality and it doesn't preclude the possibility of accurate models of a pre-inflationary universe.
-
But the BGV Theorem is independent of any physical description of the early universe. Their theorem implies that the early quantum vacuum state of the early universe (which is often erroneously and misleadingly categorized as "nothing") cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning.
BGV theorem demonstrates that a class of eternal inflation models (which are not necessarily accurate models of reality) must have a singularity in their past.
It doesn't really tell us anything dramatic, it just leads us to the position as already stated: if such models of inflation are correct and there was a big bang singularity we cannot currently say anything reliable about the state of the universe at and beyond that boundary.
It does not prove that the kind of inflationary models it deals with are accurate. If they are it doesn't preclude the no boundary proposal and it doesn't preclude the possibility that our observable universe is embedded in a wider reality and it doesn't preclude the possibility of accurate models of a pre-inflationary universe.
This is probably why you cant find any info, reviews, or articles on it other than religious sites. It looks like it doesnt prove anything real, and is just a theoretical proof resting on assumptions that may not even be correct.
Not only are the assumtions about things like the many inflationary models unproven, it specifically does not work when some inflationary models are used. I really cant see how any conclusions can be drawn from it with any level of certainty. It appears that it is being used almost exclusively as a "proof of god" by religious organizations, authors, and speakers. Could it be correct, or partially correct? Sure, but the point is that it could just as easily be completely wrong.
Can someone personally believe the assumptions and conclusion are correct? Of course. Someones faith and view of reality may require its conclusions to be correct so everything makes sense. Thats totally cool. It just cant be asserted to be factually correct, or the accepted view of the scientific community.
-
But the BGV Theorem is independent of any physical description of the early universe. Their theorem implies that the early quantum vacuum state of the early universe (which is often erroneously and misleadingly categorized as "nothing") cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning.
BGV theorem demonstrates that a class of eternal inflation models (which are not necessarily accurate models of reality) must have a singularity in their past.
It doesn't really tell us anything dramatic, it just leads us to the position as already stated: if such models of inflation are correct and there was a big bang singularity we cannot currently say anything reliable about the state of the universe at and beyond that boundary.
"The remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein's equation. So even if Einstein's gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. - Alexander Vilenkin"
The BGV theorem applies to any universe which has on average been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. No eternal inflation model of the universe is necessary for the BGV to be compatible.
The ultimate conclusion of the BGV is that any universe which exhibits an average expansion greater than 0 must have had a beginning. Proposed prior "universes" or states of "reality" to the existence of this universe would exhibit an average expansion greater than 0 and therefore must also have had a beginning. An infinite regress of universe-creating universe is ludicrous; an absolute beginning of existence is the most sane of all proper conclusions.
It does not prove that the kind of inflationary models it deals with are accurate. If they are it doesn't preclude the no boundary proposal and it doesn't preclude the possibility that our observable universe is embedded in a wider reality and it doesn't preclude the possibility of accurate models of a pre-inflationary universe.
I suppose that by a "wider reality," you are merely referring to a proposed multiverse?
Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the theorem itself implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.
-
Can someone personally believe the assumptions and conclusion are correct? Of course. Someones faith and view of reality may require its conclusions to be correct so everything makes sense. Thats totally cool. It just cant be asserted to be factually correct, or the accepted view of the scientific community.
This doesn't amount to an argument.
Yes, the morons who came up with this theorem were a bunch of bible thumping, God-fearing, scientifically illiterate, biased good-for-nothings:
Alan Guth: born February 27, 1947) is an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist. Guth has researched elementary particle theory (and how particle theory is applicable to the early universe). Currently serving as Victor Weisskopf Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is the originator of the inflationary universe theory.[1][2]
He graduated from MIT in 1968 in physics and stayed to receive a master's and a doctorate, also in physics.
As a junior particle physicist, Guth first developed the idea of cosmic inflation in 1979 at Cornell and gave his first seminar on the subject in January 1980.[3][4] Moving on to Stanford University Guth formally proposed the idea of cosmic inflation in 1981, the idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a positive vacuum energy density (negative vacuum pressure). The results of the WMAP mission in 2006 made the case for cosmic inflation very compelling.
Arvind Borde: Senior Professor
Department of Mathematics
C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University
Director, Technology Center, Southampton College, 1999--2005
Director, Natural Science Division, Southampton College, 2001--2003
Webmaster, Southampton College, 1995--2000
KITP Scholar and General Member
Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of California at Santa Barbara, 2007--2009.
Visiting Scientist
Institute of Cosmology, Tufts University, 1993--2006.
Visiting Scientist
Center for Theoretical Physics, MIT, 2001--2002.
Guest Scientist
High Energy Theory Group, Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1987--2000.
Research Associate
Relativity Group, Syracuse University, 1985--1987.
Post-doctoral Fellow
with W.G. Unruh, University of British Columbia, 1982--19
* Inflationary spacetimes are incomplete in past directions
(with A.H. Guth and A. Vilenkin), Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 90, 151301 (2003).
* Constraints on spatial distributions of negative energy
(with L.H. Ford and T.A. Roman), Phys. Rev. D Vol. 65, 084002 (2002)
* Causal continuity in degenerate spacetimes
(with F. Dowker, R. Garcia, R. Sorkin and S. Surya), Class. and Quant. Grav., Vol. 16, 3457 (1999).
* Creation and structure of baby universes in monopole collisions
(with Mark Trodden and Tanmay Vachaspati), Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 59, 043513 (1999).
* How impossible is topology change?
Bull. Astr. Soc. India, Vol. 25, 571 (1997).
* Violations of the weak energy condition in inflating spacetimes
(with Alexander Vilenkin), Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 56, 717 (1997).
* Regular black holes and topology change
Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 55, 7615 (1997).
* Singularities in inflationary cosmology
(with Alexander Vilenkin), Proceedings of the Sixth Quantum Gravity Seminar, Moscow, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, Vol. 5, 813 (1996).
* The impossibility of steady-state inflation
(with Alexander Vilenkin), in Relativisitic Astrophysics: the Proceedings of the Eighth Yukawa Symposium, ed. by M. Sasaki, Universal Academic Press, Japan (1995).
* Open and Closed Universes, Initial Singularities and Inflation
Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 50, 3692 (1994).
* Eternal Inflation and the Initial Singularity
(with Alexander Vilenkin), Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 72, 3305 (1994).
* Geodesic Focusing, Energy Conditions and Singularities
Class. and Quant. Grav., Vol. 4, 343 (1987).
* Hamiltonian Formalism for the Spin-5/2 Gauge Field
Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 26, 407 (1982).
Alexander Vilenkin: (13 May 1949, Kharkiv, Ukraine, Soviet Union) is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from a quantum vacuum. His work in cosmic strings has been pivotal.
-
You win. The BVG theorem is 100% correct and there are no other possible outcomes or scenarios. Whatever the BVG theorem says happened, or will happen, did infact happen or will happen. :tup
-
You win. The BVG theorem is 100% correct and there are no other possible outcomes or scenarios. Whatever the BVG theorem says happened, or will happen, did infact happen or will happen. :tup
Finally
-
You win. The BVG theorem is 100% correct and there are no other possible outcomes or scenarios. Whatever the BVG theorem says happened, or will happen, did infact happen or will happen. :tup
Finally
:rollin
-
The ultimate conclusion of the BGV is that any universe which exhibits an average expansion greater than 0 must have had a beginning. Proposed prior "universes" or states of "reality" to the existence of this universe would exhibit an average expansion greater than 0 and therefore must also have had a beginning. An infinite regress of universe-creating universe is ludicrous; an absolute beginning of existence is the most sane of all proper conclusions.
An absolute beginning is at odds with the authors' opinion as stated in the paper itself (which can be found at https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf). From the discussion section (discretionary highlighting is my own).
"Our argument shows that null and timelike geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper
time (finite affine length, in the null case).
What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event. The boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which can be determined from the appropriate instanton. Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary. This is the chief result of our paper. The result depends on just one assumption: the Hubble parameter H has a positive value when averaged over the affine parameter of a past-directed null or noncomoving timelike geodesic."
I suppose that by a "wider reality," you are merely referring to a proposed multiverse?
Merely? Nope.
With that I'll take my leave from this thread - one can only lead a horse to water. In parting I'll leave a couple of Richard Feynman quotes which I feel are appropriate (particularly to notions of "sane" conclusions).
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school. It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it. That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." (Speaking about QED, the study of which he was awarded a Nobel Prize for).
-
^^^^^ Very nice. Thank you.
Love the bolded part.
So is this basically the authors themselves saying that their theorem may very well be wrong as the assumtions they based the theorem on are/may be incorrect or incomplete? Are they also saying that some new information and physics are required to give the full answer to describe the universe, including what happened before the big bang?
Interesting.
I think that is pretty much exactly what we have all been saying from the very start.
-
The ultimate conclusion of the BGV is that any universe which exhibits an average expansion greater than 0 must have had a beginning. Proposed prior "universes" or states of "reality" to the existence of this universe would exhibit an average expansion greater than 0 and therefore must also have had a beginning. An infinite regress of universe-creating universe is ludicrous; an absolute beginning of existence is the most sane of all proper conclusions.
An absolute beginning is at odds with the authors' opinion as stated in the paper itself (which can be found at https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf). From the discussion section (discretionary highlighting is my own).
"Our argument shows that null and timelike geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper
time (finite affine length, in the null case).
What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event. The boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which can be determined from the appropriate instanton. Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary. This is the chief result of our paper. The result depends on just one assumption: the Hubble parameter H has a positive value when averaged over the affine parameter of a past-directed null or noncomoving timelike geodesic."
This is now the third time I have addressed this passage. They are merely being scholarly; no known functioning model can avoid averaged expansion!
An absolute beginning is at odds with the authors' opinion
If so, then why would they go on to state:
"Hard as physicists have tried to find some kind of an inflationary-model universe that does not have a beginning, still, every single cosmological model based on an inflationary hypothesis has to have a beginning."
"With reasonable assumption, one can show that, even in the context of inflation with many 'bubbles' forming, there would still be, somewhere, an absolute beginning."
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".
-
If at all the conclusion of the BGV Theorem that the universe began to exist is further questioned:
https://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/ (https://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/)
-
If at all the conclusion of the BGV Theorem that the universe began to exist is further questioned:
https://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/ (https://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/)
Funny. If we didnt buy into BVG by now, what would make you think an online post from an Intelligent Design Blog, regurgitating the exact same info you already posted, make us change our mind? Really? This is what you present to us? An article implying he presented this at the Hawking Symposium??? LOL. Not only was he not a speaker, he wasnt even there! The article merely states the SAME info you already posted...and you quote it from an ID bolg! LOL
Get back to us with any kind of serious scientific website or legitimate scientific community, agreeing with BVG. And by that I dont mean only ID, religious, or Craig supporter websites. LOL.
C'mon man, you can do better than that. :rollin
-
If at all the conclusion of the BGV Theorem that the universe began to exist is further questioned:
https://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/ (https://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/)
Funny. If we didnt buy into BVG by now, what would make you think an online post from an Intelligent Design Blog, regurgitating the exact same info you already posted, make us change our mind? Really? This is what you present to us? An article implying he presented this at the Hawking Symposium??? LOL. Not only was he not a speaker, he wasnt even there! The article merely states the SAME info you already posted...and you quote it from an ID bolg! LOL
Get back to us with any kind of serious scientific website or legitimate scientific community, agreeing with BVG. And by that I dont mean only ID, religious, or Craig supporter websites. LOL.
C'mon man, you can do better than that. :rollin
Because Vilenkin's quote at the end is quite ambiguous as to the conclusion reached by modern science on the beginning of our universe:
"All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
But don't worry, you can still believe that the universe has always existed.
Oh, and that it caused itself to come into existence from non-existence.
-
Ill stick with the entire scientific community on this one and go with the "we dont have enough evidence yet to know what really happened". Not with someone who is only quoted on religious websites by people who have pre-formed ideas that BVG supports. But hey, whatever floats your Ark.
-
It sounds like time to agree to disagree and move on...
-
It sounds like time to agree to disagree and move on...
Absolutely.
-
Ill stick with the entire scientific community on this one
Because Alexander Vilenkin, Arvind Borde and Alan Guth are not part of the scientific community.
-
Cant respond. Sorry. Already moved on.
-
It sounds like time to agree to disagree and move on...
This, in no uncertain terms.