Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[seer]

Science Tass, do you agree with Boxing, and as he said, most physicists today, in the B Theory of time where there is no past, present or future? Everything, including what you did last week, exists now? The future exists now?

http://boxingpythagoras.com/2014/08/...ical-argument/

No Tass, no model we have get us to an eternal past. And Craig did not misrepresent Vilenkin, Craig wrote him and here is part of Vilenkin's response (the rest is in the link).

I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately. This is not to say that you represented my views as to what this implies regarding the existence of God. Which is OK, since I have no special expertise to issue such judgements. Whatever it's worth, my view is that the BGV theorem does not say anything about the existence of God one way or the other. In particular, the beginning of the universe could be a natural event, described by quantum cosmology.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/hones...#ixzz3ibF6BZtf

[shunyadragon]

No Tass, no model we have get us to an eternal past. And Craig did not misrepresent Vilenkin, Craig wrote him and here is part of Vilenkin's response (the rest is in the link).




http://www.reasonablefaith.org/hones...#ixzz3ibF6BZtf

Old tired argument. Most models point to an infinite timeless Quantum World existing beyond our universe. The beginning of time refers to the beginning of all possible universes including our own, and not the absolute beginning of our physical existence.

[seer]

Old tired argument. Most models point to an infinite timeless Quantum World existing beyond our universe. The beginning of time refers to the beginning of all possible universes including our own, and not the absolute beginning of our physical existence.

Except there is no actual evidence for anything beyond this universe. And there is zero evidence that the Quantum World exists anywhere but in this universe. Despite your faith.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Science Tass, do you agree with Boxing, and as he said, most physicists today, in the B Theory of time where there is no past, present or future? Everything, including what you did last week, exists now? The future exists now?

This is almost right, but bears an ambiguity worth addressing-- though I completely understand that attempting to formulate things atemporally is exceedingly difficult and confusing. 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.

Better to simply say, "what you did last week exists" or "the future exists."

No Tass, no model we have get us to an eternal past.

This is not true. There are several past-eternal models actively being studied by cosmologists.

And Craig did not misrepresent Vilenkin, Craig wrote him and here is part of Vilenkin's response (the rest is in the link).

Tass didn't say that Craig misrepresented Vilenkin. He said that Dr. Craig misrepresents the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper from 2003. And this is absolutely true. Dr. Craig very commonly cites the quote, "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning," as if it comes from the BGV paper-- as he does here, for example. However, that quote cannot be found anywhere in the BGV paper, and goes well beyond the conclusions which the paper itself presents.

Nor is this a case of simple ignorance. Dr. Craig has been corrected on this point before, by several people, including extremely noteworthy cosmologists. However, he continues to parade this same quote every single time he discusses the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Old tired argument. Most models point to an infinite timeless Quantum World existing beyond our universe.

Here's where a major equivocation problem slips into these arguments. When philosophers like Dr. Craig talk about "our universe," they mean "the whole of material reality." On that definition, the Quantum World (as you phrase it) would not exist "beyond our universe." It is absolutely a part of our universe.

When physicists and cosmologists use the phrase "our universe," however, they tend to mean the particular four-dimensional space-time manifold which we happen to observe. This is not the whole of material reality, but a distinct subset of that whole.

It is all too easy to draw false conclusions about the former based on implications from the latter, and this occurs extremely frequently with apologists.

[seer]

This is almost right, but bears an ambiguity worth addressing-- though I completely understand that attempting to formulate things atemporally is exceedingly difficult and confusing. 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.

Better to simply say, "what you did last week exists" or "the future exists."

So my mom is still alive? Sounds like heaven...

This is not true. There are several past-eternal models actively being studied by cosmologists.

Of course they are actively being studied. There just isn't any actual evidence.

Tass didn't say that Craig misrepresented Vilenkin. He said that Dr. Craig misrepresents the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper from 2003. And this is absolutely true. Dr. Craig very commonly cites the quote, "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning," as if it comes from the BGV paper-- as he does here, for example. However, that quote cannot be found anywhere in the BGV paper, and goes well beyond the conclusions which the paper itself presents.

Nor is this a case of simple ignorance. Dr. Craig has been corrected on this point before, by several people, including extremely noteworthy cosmologists. However, he continues to parade this same quote every single time he discusses the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

So Craig is not misrepresenting Vilenkin who is one of the authors? I linked to their exchange. BTW - Vilenkin does clearly say that the present three best models do need a beginning. Including his theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So my mom is still alive? Sounds like heaven...

No. "Still" indicates a particular temporal location. It would be proper to say that there exist points in time in which your mother is alive.

Of course they are actively being studied. There just isn't any actual evidence.

Sure there is. Exactly the same evidence which we have for past-finite models, in fact. The problem isn't that we haven't got "any actual evidence." It's that the evidence which we have is inconclusive.

So Craig is not misrepresenting Vilenkin who is one of the authors? I linked to their exchange.

BTW - Vilenkin does clearly say that the present three best models do need a beginning. Including his theory

Vilenkin doesn't discuss specific models in that video. He discusses three archetypes within which many models fall. In the exchange with Dr. Craig to which you linked, Vilenkin mentions a few specific models which do avoid the assumptions of the BGV, including one which he was working on, himself.

[shunyadragon]

Except there is no actual evidence for anything beyond this universe. And there is zero evidence that the Quantum World exists anywhere but in this universe. Despite your faith.

Actually, again and again, we have zero evidence either way as far as any finite beginnings. We know that before the universe there was a singularity, and there are sound hypothesis how singularities formed. Nothing can be proven, because nothing is proven in science. There is evidence, but you do not accept science. If you want the bottom line we do not have any definitive objective evidence either way whether our physical existence had a beginning or not.

Boxing Pythagoras answered well.

Here's where a major equivocation problem slips into these arguments. When philosophers like Dr. Craig talk about "our universe," they mean "the whole of material reality." On that definition, the Quantum World (as you phrase it) would not exist "beyond our universe." It is absolutely a part of our universe.

When physicists and cosmologists use the phrase "our universe," however, they tend to mean the particular four-dimensional space-time manifold which we happen to observe. This is not the whole of material reality, but a distinct subset of that whole.

It is all too easy to draw false conclusions about the former based on implications from the latter, and this occurs extremely frequently with apologists.

[Adrift]

For anyone interested, Craig discusses quite a bit of what's been discussed in this thread in his recent Reasonable Faith podcast (including a bit more on A and B theories of time).

[Adrift]

So my mom is still alive? Sounds like heaven...



Of course they are actively being studied. There just isn't any actual evidence.




So Craig is not misrepresenting Vilenkin who is one of the authors? I linked to their exchange. BTW - Vilenkin does clearly say that the present three best models do need a beginning. Including his theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

seer, in case you're interested, a few of us made a lot of these same points with BP late last year in this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...il-BVG-WLC-etc

[Tassman]

Science Tass, do you agree with Boxing, and as he said, most physicists today, in the B Theory of time where there is no past, present or future? Everything, including what you did last week, exists now? The future exists now?

No Tass, no model we have get us to an eternal past. And Craig did not misrepresent Vilenkin, Craig wrote him and here is part of Vilenkin's response (the rest is in the link).

[Jichard]

No Tass, no model we have get us to an eternal past. And Craig did not misrepresent Vilenkin, Craig wrote him and here is part of Vilenkin's response (the rest is in the link).

Why are you making false claims, again, in the service of your theology? There are at least 17 eternal models of the universe. Sean Carroll's addressed this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8

[Jichard]

Except there is no actual evidence for anything beyond this universe.

And yet you claim that not only does God exist beyond this universe, but so do entire supernatural realms such as Heaven, Hell, and maybe so much more (maybe Purgatory?).

So you're engaged in blatant special pleading. Hopefully you can step past the cognitive dissonance, and recognize what you're doing.

[seer]

seer, in case you're interested, a few of us made a lot of these same points with BP late last year in this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...il-BVG-WLC-etc

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.

[seer]

No. "Still" indicates a particular temporal location. It would be proper to say that there exist points in time in which your mother is alive.

So I am both dead and alive? What does this B-Theory of time do to the law of non-contradiction?

Vilenkin doesn't discuss specific models in that video. He discusses three archetypes within which many models fall. In the exchange with Dr. Craig to which you linked, Vilenkin mentions a few specific models which do avoid the assumptions of the BGV, including one which he was working on, himself.

Listen Boxing, we are speaking of Vilenkin's eternal inflation theory and he clearly says, more than once, that his theory requires a beginning. He clearly equates past incompleteness with a beginning. I think your dislike for Craig is clouding your judgement.

[seer]

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


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.