@H

[eric42434224]

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.

[Vivace]

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.   

[eric42434224]

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.

[El JoNNo]

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. 

[Ħ]

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.

[Sigz]

Why can't you just acknowledge that you don't know rather than settle with the explanation that 'feels right'?

[Ħ]

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.

[GuineaPig]

"History" points to a god?  What does that mean?

[Omega]

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.

[Omega]

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".

[eric42434224]

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.

[yeshaberto]

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

[Omega]

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

[Omega]

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?

[yeshaberto]

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!"

[eric42434224]

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?

[Omega]

Yet they've proven to be completely unlikely to occur.

Any source for this at all?

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://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/11/reading-rosenberg-part-iii.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bsxt1ZCQrk

[Omega]

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?

[eric42434224]

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 .

[Omega]

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.

[eric42434224]

I disagree.  It wont be erroneous.

[Omega]

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".)

[eric42434224]

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.

[Omega]

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.

[Cruithne]

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/

[eric42434224]

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

[Cruithne]

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

[Omega]

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?

[eric42434224]

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. 

[Ħ]

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.

[eric42434224]

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?

[hefdaddy42]

1) An actual infinite cannot exist.

Why not?

[Ħ]

No. And even if he was infinite (and therefore could not exist), that doesn't validate your infinite universe theory.

[hefdaddy42]

No.

Really?  What is all that "from everlasting to everlasting" gibberish in the Good Book about?

[Ħ]

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