Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[seer]

Dr. Carroll says precisely the opposite of what you are claiming, in the passage which you quoted. You're attempting to claim that there are "no workable models." Dr. Carroll talks about presenting workable models. We do not know if these are the right models, yet, but they are most certainly workable ones.

A workable model is one which actually corresponds to reality Boxing. Which one of the 17 would that be? Beside, like you said, you don't believe in an infinite past - so at this point you would also disagree with Carroll. The fact is we have no model that gets us to an eternal past, at least not one that corresponds to the universe as we presently understand it. .

Craig is absolutely wrong, in that claim. Once again, there are a number of past-eternal models which have not been shown to be untenable, as Vilenkin, himself, has told Craig. You seem to enjoy selectively quoting Dr. Vilenkin. When something he has said seems to agree with the claim you are making, you repeat it as if it is an unassailable truth. However, when Vilenkin says something which contradicts your claim, you ignore it entirely.

Really, where does Vilenkin say that there is a model that gets us to an eternal past that he agrees with? Please provide a link, I provided a link to his You Tube talk - and I took nothing out of context.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, are you this dense? In the video Vilenkin also explains why the cyclic model also needs a "beginning." His words, not mine. The fact is there are not workable theories that get us to an eternal past. That is science today...

Let me quote Carroll again:

Continuously quoting Carroll or Vilenkin gets you no where. Actually the Vilenkin work is a bit old. I need sources from you concerning other research and models to support your assertions.

Still waiting . . .

[JimL]

A workable model is one which actually corresponds to reality Boxing. Which one of the 17 would that be? Beside, like you said, you don't believe in an infinite past - so at this point you would also disagree with Carroll. The fact is we have no model that gets us to an eternal past, at least not one that corresponds to the universe as we presently understand it.

.
The simple truth is that there is no known answer as to the age old question as to why there is something rather than nothing. Invoking god of course is just a plugging in of the gap in our knowledge. Such a strategy leaves you still with the same question to be answered as well as many more with regards to the existence and nature of god himself.

Really, where does Vilenkin say that there is a model that gets us to an eternal past that he agrees with? Please provide a link, I provided a link to his You Tube talk - and I took nothing out of context.

He doesn't, which means absolutely nothing other than such a model has not yet been found. Vilenkin is an athiest, so whatever you think his model proves to him, it doesn't prove God did it. His understanding of nothingness is not the same as yours, it is a nothingness that is subject to quantum mechanics, which being so can not be absolutely nothing, but it could certainly be eternal.

[Tassman]

Yes Skywalker your faith is deep. But I'm not sure why you would amen this. As I have been saying there are no workable models that actually get us to an eternal past, and in the debate Mr. Carroll agreed with that.

at this time Vilenkin is clearly leaving open the possibility of developing workable models that may well point to a universe without a beginning. Many scientists have the view of an eternal universe as the best explanation for what we see. Dr. Carroll for one. He has many times stated that the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics is the simplest and most likely correct interpretation and he may yet be shown to be right. You forget that, unlike divine revelation, science is a work in progress.

[Tassman]

You keep quoting Vilenkin like a broken record, There are other models that are infinite. An absolute beginning of our physical existence is not an assumption of any model including Vilenkin. Please cite a source of a cyclic model that has a beginning. You do not accept the science multiverse models of the cosmos, therefore your reasoning is hypocrisy par excellence.

This is seer's modus operandi, shunya. He cherry-picks a quote from a reputable scientist that seems to support his world-view and then flogs it to death as some sort of absolute proof that vindicates his faith. He did the same with a cherry-picked quote from Sam Harris regarding 'consciousness'. In this instance he's flogging a quote from Vilenkin that seems to validate his belief that the universe must have had a beginning...by which he means of course, that god-did-it. In short, he's blatantly and dishonestly misrepresenting science to support his own religious presuppositions.

[seer]

Continuously quoting Carroll or Vilenkin gets you no where. Actually the Vilenkin work is a bit old. I need sources from you concerning other research and models to support your assertions.

Still waiting . . .

You are such a hypocrite Shuny... And why shouldn't I quote Carroll and Vilenkin - they know way more that we do on the subjective.

[seer]

This is seer's modus operandi, shunya. He cherry-picks a quote from a reputable scientist that seems to support his world-view and then flogs it to death as some sort of absolute proof that vindicates his faith. He did the same with a cherry-picked quote from Sam Harris regarding 'consciousness'. In this instance he's flogging a quote from Vilenkin that seems to validate his belief that the universe must have had a beginning...by which he means of course, that god-did-it. In short, he's blatantly and dishonestly misrepresenting science to support his own religious presuppositions.

Where did I misrepresent Vilenkin or Harris? Be specific Tass, or apologize. This is low, even for you brother...

[seer]

at this time Vilenkin is clearly leaving open the possibility of developing workable models that may well point to a universe without a beginning. Many scientists have the view of an eternal universe as the best explanation for what we see. Dr. Carroll for one. He has many times stated that the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics is the simplest and most likely correct interpretation and he may yet be shown to be right. You forget that, unlike divine revelation, science is a work in progress.

Tass, no where in these debates did I ever claim otherwise. All I have been saying all along is that science can not demonstrate that the universe or matter and energy are past eternal. And that is fact. And of course card carrying radical atheists like you and Carroll need an eternal physical past, and to quote Carroll:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-a...#ixzz3j4XXoIjM

[Boxing Pythagoras]

A workable model is one which actually corresponds to reality Boxing.

No, a workable model is one which accounts for the available data, makes testable and useful predictions, and is not self-contradictory. If you want to define a "workable model" as being the model which actually corresponds to reality, then there are absolutely no "workable models" in science.

Beside, like you said, you don't believe in an infinite past - so at this point you would also disagree with Carroll.

I don't believe claims that the past is finite, either. Whether or not I believe a model is irrelevant to whether or not that model is workable. So, no, I would not disagree with Carroll, here. I rather agree with him when he says that there are numerous workable models which present a past-infinite universe. As I have said several times, in this thread.

The fact is we have no model that gets us to an eternal past, at least not one that corresponds to the universe as we presently understand it.

Once again, you are patently wrong, here.

Really, where does Vilenkin say that there is a model that gets us to an eternal past that he agrees with? Please provide a link, I provided a link to his You Tube talk - and I took nothing out of context.

You provided the link, in fact, where Vilenkin made this statement. So, it should look familiar to you:

Jaume Garriga and I are now exploring a picture of the multiverse where the BGV theorem may not apply. In bubbles of negative vacuum energy, expansion is followed by cocntraction, and it is usually assumed that this ends in a big crunch singularity. However, it is conceivable (and many people think likely) that singularities will be resolved in the theory of quantum gravity, so the internal collapse of the bubbles will be followed by an expansion. In this scenario, a typical worldline will go through a succession of expanding and contracting regions, and it is not at all clear that the BGV assumption (expansion on average) will be satisfied.

So, are you claiming that Alexander Vilenkin would be exploring a past-infinite model of the cosmos even though he doesn't think the model is "workable?"

Furthermore, you are certainly taking Vilenkin's YouTube lecture out of context, as you keep claiming that Vilenkin refutes all past-infinite models of the universe. This is certainly not the case. In that lecture, he describes three very generic classes into which some past-infinite models fall: Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution, and Static Seed. He does name a few specific models which are typical of these classes, but he most certainly does not discuss all possible past-infinite models. There are models of the universe which do not belong to any of these three classes, but which do explore a past-infinite timeline. In fact, Vilenkin named three such models in his e-mail to Lawrence Krauss from the above link: Carroll-Chen, Aguirre-Gratton, and the aforementioned model which Vilenkin is exploring with Jaime Garriga. Vilenkin does not discuss any of these models in that lecture.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem only applies if two assumptions are satisfied. First, space-time has to behave classically at quantum scales. Secondly, space-time has to be expanding, on average, over the whole of its history. Models which violate either or both of these assumptions are not discussed at all by Vilenkin's lecture.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Tass, no where in these debates did I ever claim otherwise. All I have been saying all along is that science can not demonstrate that the universe or matter and energy are past eternal.

Similarly, science cannot demonstrate that the universe is past-finite. What's your point?

And of course card carrying radical atheists like you and Carroll need an eternal physical past

Since when is Sean Carroll a "card-carrying radical atheist?" He's an atheist, to be sure. But why do you think him to be a "radical" atheist?

Furthermore, why do you think he "needs" an eternal past? He prefers models of the universe which are past-infinite, but that doesn't mean he "needs" such a model. I am certainly no less "radical" than is Dr. Carroll, as regards my atheism, and yet I prefer past-finite models of the universe.

[seer]

Similarly, science cannot demonstrate that the universe is past-finite. What's your point?

So you agree that science can not demonstrate that the universe is past eternal. That is all I have been saying, so why argue with me? And doesn't present cosmology i.e. Big Bang point to a specific beginning for the universe in the finite past? Isn't that exactly what you believe? Do you believe that with out scientific justification?

Since when is Sean Carroll a "card-carrying radical atheist?" He's an atheist, to be sure. But why do you think him to be a "radical" atheist?

Because I have listened to his debates on line. Your problem Boxing, like Tass, is that you think that only theist can be bias.

Furthermore, why do you think he "needs" an eternal past? He prefers models of the universe which are past-infinite, but that doesn't mean he "needs" such a model. I am certainly no less "radical" than is Dr. Carroll, as regards my atheism, and yet I prefer past-finite models of the universe.

Sure, but then he faces the fine tuning problem which Craig quotes in the debate and Carroll does not deny.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So you agree that science can not demonstrate that the universe is past eternal.

Yes. As I have been saying throughout, the question of whether Time is past-infinite or past-finite is still very much an open question, in cosmology.

That is all I have been saying, so why argue with me?

Because that is not all you have been saying. You have been claiming that science can demonstrate the universe is past-finite. This is not the case.

And doesn't present cosmology i.e. Big Bang point to a specific beginning for the universe in the finite past?

No. Again, that has been my entire point, throughout this thread. The question of whether or not the universe is past-finite is very much open.

Isn't that exactly what you believe?

I have explicitly stated a number of times that it is not. I do not believe anyone who claims to know that the universe is past-finite. I prefer past-finite models, but that does not mean that I believe the universe is therefore past-finite.

Because I have listened to his debates on line. Your problem Boxing, like Tass, is that you think that only theist can be bias.

If you think that, you cannot be very familiar with my posting history or my other writing. I constantly correct the misconceptions and biases of atheists. By far, the most read single post on my blog-- the one which led Nick Peters to invite me to join TWeb-- is one in which I upbraid another atheist precisely for his biases.

I have also listened to Dr. Carroll's debates. What about them makes you refer to him as a "radical" atheist? What is the difference between a "radical" atheist, and one who is not "radical?"

Sure, but then he faces the fine tuning problem which Craig quotes in the debate and Carroll does not deny.

Carroll doesn't deny that there exists a question in physics which we call "the Fine Tuning problem." Nor does any physicist. However, "we don't understand this, therefore God" is the very definition of the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy. The fact that there is a Fine Tuning problem does not imply the existence of deity any more than the fact that there is a Twin Primes Conjecture in mathematics.

[seer]

Yes. As I have been saying throughout, the question of whether Time is past-infinite or past-finite is still very much an open question, in cosmology.

Because that is not all you have been saying. You have been claiming that science can demonstrate the universe is past-finite. This is not the case.

No. Again, that has been my entire point, throughout this thread. The question of whether or not the universe is past-finite is very much open.

As far as I know the universe began with the big bang, and that is in the finite past. We have physical evidence for a finite universe - is there physical evidence for an infinite past?

I have also listened to Dr. Carroll's debates. What about them makes you refer to him as a "radical" atheist? What is the difference between a "radical" atheist, and one who is not "radical?"

There was a four man debate, Carroll and Craig were involved - and that was where he impressed me as radical. And I think atheists like Vilenkin are much more measured.

Carroll doesn't deny that there exists a question in physics which we call "the Fine Tuning problem." Nor does any physicist. However, "we don't understand this, therefore God" is the very definition of the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy. The fact that there is a Fine Tuning problem does not imply the existence of deity any more than the fact that there is a Twin Primes Conjecture in mathematics.

Yes we don't understand it so "nature did it."

[Boxing Pythagoras]

As far as I know the universe began with the big bang, and that is in the finite past. We have physical evidence for a finite universe - is there physical evidence for an infinite past?

Why do you think that the universe began with the Big Bang? What physical evidence have we got for a finite universe?

There was a four man debate, Carroll and Craig were involved - and that was where he impressed me as radical. And I think atheists like Vilenkin are much more measured.

You already stated that you consider Carroll "radical" because of the debates you watched. And I had already assume that, since you were using the phrase "radical atheists," there must exist other atheists who you do not consider to be "radical." None of that answers my questions.

What has Dr. Carroll said in his debates which cause you to think he is a "radical" atheist? What is the difference between a "radical" atheist, and one who is not "radical?" Am I a "radical" atheist?

Yes we don't understand it so "nature did it."

No one has made such a claim. We have said, "we don't understand it, so let's attempt to find ways to understand it." That is not at all analogous to, "we don't understand it, therefore the true answer can only be God."

[Adrift]

Why do you think that the universe began with the Big Bang?

Can't speak for seer, and I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but it seems to be a commonly accepted view. In fact, it seems to be so well known that it's strange to hear it called into question. Stephan Hawking suggests that the universe began at the Big Bang in both his writings and in the documentaries I've seen. If you google the phrases "Big Bang" and "beginning of the universe" together you'll find dozens of academic websites, and popular scientific articles that suggest the same.

What physical evidence have we got for a finite universe?

"Size and temperature fluctuations at the very largest scales does not fit what would be expected of an infinite universe"? Heat death?