Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[shunyadragon]

Try listening to Vilenkin in the link - he makes it clear that his theory requires a beginning - and he says it more than once. Then show me where Vilenkin presents a past-eternal model that he thinks works! Stop telling falsehoods Tass.

This only refers to our present universe we live in beginning from a singularity, and not all of physical existence. This only applies to Vilenkin's theory and model. Not all present theories or models require that our universe has a beginning.

[shunyadragon]

Yes thanks, I went through it this morning. It seems that Boxing has a real dislike for Craig. I mean in my You Tube link Vilenkin makes it clear that his theory is past incomplete and clearly says that that means that the universe had a "beginning" - his words not mine, and he says it more than once.

I do not have any dislike for Craig personally, but his arguments are flawed.

[shunyadragon]

So Tass you do or don't agree with the B-Theory of time?

I agree with the B-theory of time, but the theory or theories are related to the Quantum world and the multiverse models for the nature of our existence, where all possible universes have a beginning in time form a timeless matrix of a Quantum World.

[seer]

This only refers to our present universe we live in, and not all of physical existence.

Really Shuny? . When Vilenkin speaks of the universe he is speaking of the multiverse - He is speaking of the whole ball of wax. The eternal inflation theory with needs a beginning, is the theory that gives rise to the multiverse.

[seer]

I do not have any dislike for Craig personally, but his arguments are flawed.

Like you have a clue...

[seer]

I agree with the B-theory of time

Really? So you are both dead and alive?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So I am both dead and alive?

Not in the same moment of time, you aren't.

What does this B-Theory of time do to the law of non-contradiction?

This no more violates the law of non-contradiction than does the fact that I can straddle my property line and be on both my property and my neighbor's property.

Listen Boxing, we are speaking of Vilenkin's eternal inflation theory...

Well, no, we were talking about Dr. Craig's misrepresentation of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper from 2003.

...and he clearly says, more than once, that his theory requires a beginning. He clearly equates past incompleteness with a beginning.

He clearly does. And a beginning which, in fact, falls in line with the first two conditions of Dr. Craig's definition for "begins to exist" (though not the third or fourth condition). That's all well and good. However, Vilenkin himself mentions (in the e-mail which he sent to Dr. Craig, which is presented in the link that you provided) that there are cosmological models which do contemplate past-eternal universes and which are not restricted by the BGV theorem.

I think your dislike for Craig is clouding your judgement.

I assure you that it is not. I do dislike Dr. Craig. However, I respect him, and I try to treat his arguments irenically and with all the charity that I can grant them. I attempt to present his positions exactly as he presents them, not solely in order to avoid Straw Manning, but simply because that is the most respectful way to discourse with another person or their ideas.

I would be doing a disservice to both Dr. Craig and myself if I allowed something so petty to supercede logic.

[seer]

Not in the same moment of time, you aren't.

But didn't you tell me there weren't moments in time? Am I not existing in both states - somewhere in the universe?

This no more violates the law of non-contradiction than does the fact that I can straddle my property line and be on both my property and my neighbor's property.

So I can be both dead and alive?

He clearly does. And a beginning which, in fact, falls in line with the first two conditions of Dr. Craig's definition for "begins to exist" (though not the third or fourth condition). That's all well and good. However, Vilenkin himself mentions (in the e-mail which he sent to Dr. Craig, which is presented in the link that you provided) that there are cosmological models which do contemplate past-eternal universes and which are not restricted by the BGV theorem.

Yes, but if memory serves Vilenkin does not believe that those particular theories hold water. In my you tube link he goes through the cyclic universe for instance, that Steinhardt and others suggest, and he dismantles it. And in Craig's debate with Sean Carroll, Sean pretty much concedes that none of the models for an eternal past work. So I don't believe that Craig's claim is on shaky ground. Besides Boxing, you don't believe in an infinite past either - correct?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But didn't you tell me there weren't moments in time?

I certainly never said any such thing.

Am I not existing in both states - somewhere in the universe?

Yes. Again, precisely as I can be both on my property and on my neighbor's property.

So I can be both dead and alive?

Yes, though not in the same moment.

Yes, but if memory serves Vilenkin does not believe that those particular theories hold water. In my you tube link he goes through the cyclic universe for instance, that Steinhardt and others suggest, and he dismantles it.

Again, it is not true that Vilenkin "does not believe that those particular theories hold water." Just read the e-mail to Dr. Krauss from the very link you provided. Vilenkin says that he, himself, is exploring a model which is not governed by the BGV. Why bother to explore such a model if he didn't believe it plausible?

And in Craig's debate with Sean Carroll, Sean pretty much concedes that none of the models for an eternal past work.

He does no such thing. In fact, quite the reverse. He states that there are at least 17 plausible models of a past-infinite universe.

So I don't believe that Craig's claim is on shaky ground. Besides Boxing, you don't believe in an infinite past either - correct?

I prefer past-finite models, as I find them to be mathematically and aesthetically appealing. However, that does not mean that I believe the universe is past-finite. I don't believe anyone who claims to know that the universe is past-infinite, just as I do not believe anyone who claims to know that the universe is past-finite.

[seer]

I certainly never said any such thing.

You said:

I would generally avoid saying things like, "what you did last week exists now" or "the future exists now." The word "now" indicates a specific temporal position. That'd be like saying, "Tokyo exists at the North Pole." Yes, technically, Tokyo still exists for a person occupying the North Pole, but the statement can easily be confused for meaning Tokyo is located at the North Pole.

So I assumed that temporal language like "moments" was a no, no.

Yes. Again, precisely as I can be both on my property and on my neighbor's property.

So you can be dead on your property and alive on his property as you stand between both?

Yes, though not in the same moment.

Well of course, in the future when I die I won't be the same moment as I am now while alive.

[shunyadragon]

Really? So you are both dead and alive?

No, you are referring to one of the paradoxes of Quantum Theories, and not the B-Theory itself. We do not behave like Quantum particles in the macro world.

Back to the drawing board seer, and at least try harder.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

You said:

So I assumed that temporal language like "moments" was a no, no.

That was not, at all, my meaning. "Moments" are individual points along the dimension of Time, on the B-Theory. What I was warning against is claiming that something true of a future or past moment exists at the present moment, just as one should not say that Tokyo exists at the North Pole.

So you can be dead on your property and alive on his property as you stand between both?

Again, if you are asking about a single moment of time, no. If you are looking at one's life across all of space-time, yes.

No, you are referring to one of the paradoxes of Quantum Theories, and not the B-Theory itself. We do not behave like Quantum particles in the macro world.

Back to the drawing board seer, and at least try harder.

He actually wasn't referring to Quantum Mechanics, at all. He was referring to the fact that (on the B-Theory), if you look at the whole worldline carved out by a specific human body through spacetime, there are moments where that body is alive and there are moments where that body is dead, and these moments are co-extant with one another.

[shunyadragon]

He actually wasn't referring to Quantum Mechanics, at all. He was referring to the fact that (on the B-Theory), if you look at the whole worldline carved out by a specific human body through spacetime, there are moments where that body is alive and there are moments where that body is dead, and these moments are co-extant with one another.

Needs more explanation.

[seer]

That was not, at all, my meaning. "Moments" are individual points along the dimension of Time, on the B-Theory. What I was warning against is claiming that something true of a future or past moment exists at the present moment, just as one should not say that Tokyo exists at the North Pole.

Forgive me but I thought that in the B-Theory of time, past, present, and future all existed simultaneously. I mean you don't believe that there is an arrow of time - correct? So how can you have differing moments?

He was referring to the fact that (on the B-Theory), if you look at the whole worldline carved out by a specific human body through spacetime, there are moments where that body is alive and there are moments where that body is dead, and these moments are co-extant with one another.

So my dead self is co-extant with my live self? So in reality I am both dead and alive. I'm sorry Boxing, I believe that clearly undermines the law of non-contradiction.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Needs more explanation.

Imagine someone asked you, "Is a rainbow red or blue?" You might reply that a rainbow has both red and blue in it, and it depends on where one looks at the rainbow to determine its particular color at that point.

Similarly, when looking at the whole of spacetime, there exist moments where a person is alive, and there exist moments where that person is dead. These points are entirely co-extant. It depends on where one looks at space-time to determine the life-or-death of that person at that point.