What was God doing?

[Tassman]

More likely than not? Yet there is no observational evidence. The fact is Tass is that the atheist needs something like a multiverse or that horrible possibility of a God remains hanging over our heads.

[Yttrium]

What "observational" evidence is there for a multiverse? And yes, the multiverse theory is also based on fear - fear that God might be at the end of the road.

To quote the well known atheist philosopher, Thomas Nagel

Tell that to Seve in Applied Protology.

[seer]

Well Tass, I guess we both have our faith...

[shunyadragon]

Well Tass, I guess we both have our faith...

Tassman has the objective evidence that supports his view.

[Tassman]

Well Tass, I guess we both have our faith...

The difference is that mine is grounded in verifiable evidence and yours is not.

[seer]

The difference is that mine is grounded in verifiable evidence and yours is not.

No it is not, where is your "verifiable evidence" for a multiverse, that our universe was created by this unseen, mythical, all powerful multiverse?

[MaxVel]

No it is not, where is your "verifiable evidence" for a multiverse, that our universe was created by this unseen, mythical, all powerful multiverse?

Models made by.... ....scientists! If scientists theorise it, that makes it objective.

[shunyadragon]

Models made by.... ....scientists! If scientists theorise it, that makes it objective.

Claims to 'theorize' does not make anything objective, and this does not remotely describe how the scientific methods of falsification apply to the hypothesis of possible multiverses.

[Tassman]

No it is not, where is your "verifiable evidence" for a multiverse, that our universe was created by this unseen, mythical, all powerful multiverse?

independently point to such a conclusion...hence the existence of the multiverse is more likely than not. Conversely, there no evidence that a god-did-it, none.

[seer]

independently point to such a conclusion...hence the existence of the multiverse is more likely than not. Conversely, there no evidence that a god-did-it, none.

The fact is Tass, there is no good evidence for matter and energy being past eternal. Even the multiverse inflation theory does not get us to an eternal past. So even your multiverse most likely had a beginning.

In 1993 Borde and VilenkinA. Borde & A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3305-3309 (1994), gr-qc/9312022.proved a theorem which showed under fairly plausible assumptions that every eternally inflating model would have to start with an initial singularity, and hence must have a beginning. In 1997, however, theyA. Borde & A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 56, 717-723 (1997), gr-qc/9702019.noted that one of their assumed conditions, although valid at the classical level, was violated by quantum fluctuations that could be significant in eternally inflating models. They concluded that their earlier proof would not apply to such cases, so the door was open for the construction of models without a beginning. They noted, however, that no such models had been found.

At the present time, I think it is fair to say that it is an open question whether or not eternally inflating universes can avoid having a beginning. In my own opinion, it looks like eternally inflating models necessarily have a beginning. I believe this for two reasons. The first is the fact that, as hard as physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all the models that we construct have a beginning; they are eternal into the future, but not into the past. The second reason is that the technical assumption questioned in the 1997 Borde-Vilenkin paper does not seem important enough to me to change the conclusion, even though it does undercut the proof. Specifically, we could imagine approximating the laws of physics in a way that would make them consistent with the assumptions of the earlier Borde-Vilenkin paper, and eternally inflating models would still exist. Although those modifications would be unrealistic, they would not drastically change the behavior of eternally inflating models, so it seems unlikely that they would change the answer to the question of whether these models require a beginning.

So, as is often the case when one attempts to discuss scientifically a deep question, the answer is inconclusive. It looks to me that probably the universe had a beginning, but I would not want to place a large bet on the issue.

Al Guth

http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/didth-frame.html

[JimL]

The fact is Tass, there is no good evidence for matter and energy being past eternal. Even the multiverse inflation theory does not get us to an eternal past. So even your multiverse most likely had a beginning.

The way I read that link seer is that though eternally inflating universes may not past eternal, i.e. that they have a beginning, it doesn't suggest anything about the cause of their beginning. In other words it doesn't suggest that there was "nothing", i.e. no mass/energy prior to the beginning of a universe. I think you might be confusing what we define as universes here, with their cause. You say there is no good evidence for energy being past eternal, well there is no good evidence that it is not past eternal, and matter is a production of energy, which is evidence that universes come from a pre-existing source of energy.

[seer]

The way I read that link seer is that though eternally inflating universes may not past eternal, i.e. that they have a beginning, it doesn't suggest anything about the cause of their beginning. In other words it doesn't suggest that there was "nothing", i.e. no mass/energy prior to the beginning of a universe. I think you might be confusing what we define as universes here, with their cause. You say there is no good evidence for energy being past eternal, well there is no good evidence that it is not past eternal, and matter is a production of energy, which is evidence that universes come from a pre-existing source of energy.

Jim, if you want to conclude that there is a eternal physical past then it is on you to demonstrate it. As far as we know this is the only universe we have and it is finite.

[JimL]

Jim, if you want to conclude that there is a eternal physical past then it is on you to demonstrate it.

But I just gave you my reasoning for that. We both know that I can't prove it any more than you can prove the opposite. But you have no reason to believe that energy isn't infinite and past eternal.

As far as we know this is the only universe we have and it is finite.

As far as we know, yes. But that isn't saying much.

[shunyadragon]

Jim, if you want to conclude that there is a eternal physical past then it is on you to demonstrate it. As far as we know this is the only universe we have and it is finite.

False, as far as we know it is an open unresolved unfalsifiable question whether our physical existence is infinite or finite, nor eternal or non-eternal.

[shunyadragon]

Jim, if you want to conclude that there is a eternal physical past then it is on you to demonstrate it. As far as we know this is the only universe we have and it is finite.

False, as far as we know it is an open unresolved unfalsifiable question whether our physical existence is infinite or finite, nor eternal or non-eternal.

Beyond this you're arguing from ignorance.