Could you believe that your current religion is wrong?

[shunyadragon]

False. Our observable univese is mostly in a red shift. For all appearences is expanding. What we see of it is a distant past. The conclusion has been drawn from this that the observable universe is finite. There is as yet no known observable evidence that it is infinite.

False, the observable universe does not define nor limit our physical existence to the expansion of our universe, which originated from a singularity. There is no observable evidence that our physical existence is either finite nor infinite.

Please provide an academic reference from physics or cosmology that confirms that it s falsifiable hypothesis or model that concludes that our physical existence is finite.

This remains a major unverifiable assumption. Need scientific references, and this is off topic, please respond here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ian-apologists

[Kbertsche]

The [Jewish, Islamic and Hindu] faith is fundamentally about a personal relationship with God.

I don't believe this is true. Do you have any support for your claim?

Hinduism is more about appeasing the gods than in having a close personal relationship with them. Islam is more about submission to Allah than in entering into a personal relationship. Judaism (at least the orthodox version) seems to be more about obedience than about personal relationship. None of these three religions are fundamentally about a personal relationship with God. I've got friends and acquaintances from all three groups; none seem to have a sense of a close personal relationship with God. All three religions are fundamentally based on other things.

[Kbertsche]

The main assumption that is the problem with WLC and other apologists is that it cannot be logically proven, demonstrated, nor scientifically falsified that our physical existence is finite nor infinite. It is only an assumption based on one's belief that God Created our physical existence from nothing, and definitely begs the question.

This would be a major unverifiable assumption.

Our present universe has a finite age, is expanding at a finite rate, and has a finite size. Our present universe is finite, not infinite. This is what testable, falsifiable cosmology tells us.

Yes, it is theoretically possible that the multiverse exists and is infinite. I agree with you that this is untestable, unfalsifiable metaphysics. We can't say for sure whether the multiverse exists or is finite or infinite.

So WLCs argument may or may not work on the multiverse. But there's no need to try to apply it there. WLCs argument works fine with our present, finite universe.

[Tassman]

Our present universe has a finite age, is expanding at a finite rate, and has a finite size. Our present universe is finite, not infinite. This is what testable, falsifiable cosmology tells us.

Yes, it is theoretically possible that the multiverse exists and is infinite. I agree with you that this is untestable, unfalsifiable metaphysics. We can't say for sure whether the multiverse exists or is finite or infinite.

So WLCs argument may or may not work on the multiverse. But there's no need to try to apply it there. WLCs argument works fine with our present, finite universe.

[shunyadragon]

Our present universe has a finite age, is expanding at a finite rate, and has a finite size. Our present universe is finite, not infinite. This is what testable, falsifiable cosmology tells us.

Yes, it is theoretically possible that the multiverse exists and is infinite. I agree with you that this is untestable, unfalsifiable metaphysics. We can't say for sure whether the multiverse exists or is finite or infinite.

So WLCs argument may or may not work on the multiverse. But there's no need to try to apply it there. WLCs argument works fine with our present, finite universe.

Your hedging here, the problem here is that it cannot be logically proven, demonstrated, nor scientifically falsified that our physical existence is finite nor infinite. It is only an assumption based on one's belief that God Created our physical existence from nothing, and definitely begs the question.

[shunyadragon]

The Elephant in the room problem is that WLC claims science supports his claim of a beginning from absolute nothing, which is false, and a misrepresentation of science.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't believe this is true.

It is not uncommon for shunya to spout opinions which are not true.

Do you have any support for your claim?

Give him a minute, and he'll google up something which may or may not support his claim.

[Kbertsche]

Your hedging here, the problem here is that it cannot be logically proven, demonstrated, nor scientifically falsified that our physical existence is finite nor infinite. It is only an assumption based on one's belief that God Created our physical existence from nothing, and definitely begs the question.

You are not responding to what I claimed. My claim was about our present universe, which testable, falsifiable science says is finite. I am not talking about "our physical existence" by which you seem to include a hypothetical, untestable, unfalsifiable multiverse.

[shunyadragon]

You are not responding to what I claimed. My claim was about our present universe, which testable, falsifiable science says is finite. I am not talking about "our physical existence" by which you seem to include a hypothetical, untestable, unfalsifiable multiverse.

WLC's claim would be Creation out of nothing to form a universe (all of physical existence) with an absolute beginning. You are taking a selective interpretation of the evidence to justify WLC's and your argument which fails completely by scientific standards. I need not even have to address the question of the possible existence of other universes, multi-verses, or anything beyond our universe to consider your selective use of the evidence to justify your claim, false, and not falsifiable, therefore not supported by science.

[Kbertsche]

WLC's claim would be Creation out of nothing to form a universe (all of physical existence) with an absolute beginning. You are taking a selective interpretation of the evidence to justify WLC's and your argument which fails completely by scientific standards.

I am describing standard, accepted, testable science. This says that our present universe is finite. If you disagree, please present (testable, falsifiable) scientific evidence that our present universe is infinite.

I need not even have to address the question of the possible existence of other universes, multi-verses, or anything beyond our universe to consider your selective use of the evidence to justify your claim, false, and not falsifiable, therefore not supported by science.

Agreed; you should not address hypothetical things such as these which are not testable or falsifiable.

[Kbertsche]

So are you claiming that matter and energy did not originate at the Big Bang, but were pre-existent? Can you describe any testable, falsifiable evidence which supports this claim?

[Carrikature]

You are not responding to what I claimed. My claim was about our present universe, which testable, falsifiable science says is finite. I am not talking about "our physical existence" by which you seem to include a hypothetical, untestable, unfalsifiable multiverse.

If the kalam argument as presented by WLC relies solely on our present universe, it fails as an argument for God. Which isn't surprising.

[Tassman]

So are you claiming that matter and energy did not originate at the Big Bang, but were pre-existent? Can you describe any testable, falsifiable evidence which supports this claim?

According to Quantum Field Theory, space is empty space with a positive cosmological constant (or vacuum energy). Therefore, according to this theory, even before the Big Bang there was something. Multiverse Theory follows this hypothesis.

http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-...-theories.html

[shunyadragon]

I am describing standard, accepted, testable science. This says that our present universe is finite. If you disagree, please present (testable, falsifiable) scientific evidence that our present universe is infinite.

Actually no, these tested, acceptable models are not falsifiable to conclude the support for an absolute beginning from nothing claimed by WLC. You should no better that these claims cannot be falsified nor supported by science.

Agreed; you should not address hypothetical things such as these which are not testable or falsifiable.

Actually, I have repeatedly rejected the cosmological models of origins as central to the problem with your arguments, and focused on the your selective use of evidence to justify a claim that science in some way supports WLC's claims, but you repeated bring it up as a smelly Red Herring rotting on the dock on a hot summer day.

I have repeated stated that the infinite nor the finite nature of our physical existence cannot be falsified by scientific methods, and you chose to side step and ignore this fact.

Tassman realizes this and also has repeated supported this problem that your metaphysical assertions cannot be falsified by science.

[Kbertsche]

I am describing standard, accepted, testable science. This says that our present universe is finite. If you disagree, please present (testable, falsifiable) scientific evidence that our present universe is infinite.

Actually no, these tested, acceptable models are not falsifiable to conclude the support for an absolute beginning from nothing claimed by WLC. You should no better that these claims cannot be falsified nor supported by science.

You are evading my question. Where is your testable, falsifiable evidence that our present universe is infinite?

And what do you mean by a "tested, acceptable model" not being "falsifiable"? If it is testable, it should be falsifiable! (Unless you mean something unusual by "testable"?)