Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

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.

The fact that something is commonly believed is very different from that thing being true. Whether or not a person believes the Big Bang to have been the beginning of the universe, the fact of the matter is that Big Bang cosmology is not a model of universal origin. It simply states that the universe has undergone expansion, and that if we trace that expansion backward, it seems that the universe once existed in a hot, dense state. It does not make any claim as to whether or not there existed any period of time prior to this hot, dense state. On some models, that acts as a past-boundary or a pole of space-time. On other models, it does not.

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

This article discusses spatial finitude, not temporal finitude.

Heat death?

Heat Death is a prediction about future states based on particular models. It says nothing at all about past states, and it is particularly useless in predicting the past states (or future states, for that matter) of models in which entropy develops differently.

[seer]

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

Really? You believe that big bang cosmology is wrong? That the universe is not about 13 billion years old?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

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.

I said I didn't consider Vilenkin to be radical.

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?

I'm only going by memory, but I believe he went on a tirade about the God of the bible. But it has been over a year.

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."

And you assume that we can understand it, and you assume that nature did it.

[Adrift]

The fact that something is commonly believed is very different from that thing being true.

Absolutely. I'm simply attempting to point out that seer (or anyone else for that matter) is not off their rocker for thinking that the universe began with the Big Bang.

Whether or not a person believes the Big Bang to have been the beginning of the universe, the fact of the matter is that Big Bang cosmology is not a model of universal origin. It simply states that the universe has undergone expansion, and that if we trace that expansion backward, it seems that the universe once existed in a hot, dense state. It does not make any claim as to whether or not there existed any period of time prior to this hot, dense state. On some models, that acts as a past-boundary or a pole of space-time. On other models, it does not.

Stephen Hawking seems to suggest that there's more to it than that, "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."

This article discusses spatial finitude, not temporal finitude.

In your view, then, space and time are not intrinsically tied?

Heat Death is a prediction about future states based on particular models. It says nothing at all about past states, and it is particularly useless in predicting the past states (or future states, for that matter) of models in which entropy develops differently.

I apologize. It was my understanding that entropy was tied to the idea of a finite universe. I assumed this was a relatively common view. You are saying that this is not held by any cosmologist, is that correct?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Really? You believe that big bang cosmology is wrong? That the universe is not about 13 billion years old?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

I don't believe Big Bang Cosmology makes any definite claims about whether the universe has a past-finite history or a past-infinite history. Why do you think it does?

I said I didn't consider Vilenkin to be radical.

...which is entirely irrelevant to my questions.

I'm only going by memory, but I believe he went on a tirade about the God of the bible. But it has been over a year.

What tirade? What did he say that was "radical?" Again, how do you differentiate "radical" from not "radical?" What do you mean by the use of the word "radical?" Do you have any actual definition for what you mean by "radical atheist," or were you simply using a nebulous, undefined phrase in order to show that you dislike Dr. Carroll?

And you assume that we can understand it, and you assume that nature did it.

No. I don't. Attempting to understand some particular question does not imply that the question can be understood; nor does it imply any particular answer to the question.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Absolutely. I'm simply attempting to point out that seer (or anyone else for that matter) is not off their rocker for thinking that the universe began with the Big Bang.

Certainly not! Nor have I ever said that he was. What I said is that he is wrong to pretend that science has demonstrated that the universe is past-finite.

Stephen Hawking seems to suggest that there's more to it than that, "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."

And I would disagree with Prof. Hawking's claim, there, as would a number of very prominent cosmologists. And I say that as someone who, again, prefers past-finite models of the universe.

In your view, then, space and time are not intrinsically tied?

The fact that two things are intrinsically tied to one another does not imply that they necessarily share the same properties. There is no reason to think that if space is finite, time cannot be infinite. Nor to think that if time is finite, space must also be finite. It is entirely possible to contemplate geometries in which some of the dimensions are finite while others are infinite.

I apologize. It was my understanding that entropy was tied to the idea of a finite universe. I assumed this was a relatively common view.

No, entropy is not tied to the idea of a finite universe. Entropy is a metric by which we judge how common a particular state is in light of the total possible states in which a system might appear. We can build-- and some have built-- arguments based upon assumptions of the mechanics of entropic development which will predict that the universe is past-finite. However, we can do the same thing with models that predict a past-infinite universe-- as, for example, Carroll and Chen have done in their model.

You are saying that this is not held by any cosmologist, is that correct?

No, that is not correct. I am saying that the idea that the universe is past-finite is no more demonstrable than the idea that it is past-infinite.

[seer]

I don't believe Big Bang Cosmology makes any definite claims about whether the universe has a past-finite history or a past-infinite history. Why do you think it does?

Because of quotes like this referenced by Adrift

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.

...which is entirely irrelevant to my questions.

Then I have no idea what you mean.

What tirade? What did he say that was "radical?" Again, how do you differentiate "radical" from not "radical?" What do you mean by the use of the word "radical?" Do you have any actual definition for what you mean by "radical atheist," or were you simply using a nebulous, undefined phrase in order to show that you dislike Dr. Carroll?

Like I said it was an impression I had.

But for instance:

the idea that there is only one reality; that there are not separate planes of the natural and the supernatural; that there is only one material existence; that we are part of the universe and do not stand outside of it in any way. And the way that science got there is by basically realizing that human beings are not that smart. You are not Vulcans, you are not Mr. Spock, you are not perfectly logical.

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com...n-carroll.html

[Adrift]

Certainly not! Nor have I ever said that he was. What I said is that he is wrong to pretend that science has demonstrated that the universe is past-finite.

I see. I suppose when you asked seer why he thought the universe began with the Big Bang, it sounded like you're leading him a bit. Attempting to make him sound irrational. If that wasn't the case, then I'm not certain what your point was.

And I would disagree with Prof. Hawking's claim, there, as would a number of very prominent cosmologists. And I say that as someone who, again, prefers past-finite models of the universe.

Wow. Ok.

The fact that two things are intrinsically tied to one another does not imply that they necessarily share the same properties. There is no reason to think that if space is finite, time cannot be infinite. Nor to think that if time is finite, space must also be finite. It is entirely possible to contemplate geometries in which some of the dimensions are finite while others are infinite.

So you would also disagree with Hawking (and other cosmologists) that time likely began with the universe, is that correct?

We can build-- and some have built-- arguments based upon assumptions of the mechanics of entropic development which will predict that the universe is past-finite.

That was precisely my point when I said that it was my understanding that entropy was tied to the idea of a finite universe.

No, that is not correct. I am saying that the idea that the universe is past-finite is no more demonstrable than the idea that it is past-infinite.

Thank you. Would you say that, currently, the more popular view is that the universe is past-finite?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Because of quotes like this referenced by Adrift

Okay, so you believe based on quotes from some authorities in the field. I have contradictory statements from other eminent authorities in the field. Therefore, the only way to determine whose position is correct is to look at the actual evidence which is available and to evaluate arguments based upon that evidence. So, what evidence is there that demonstrates the universe cannot be past-infinite?

Then I have no idea what you mean.

I mean, "How do you differentiate a 'radical' atheist from an atheist who is not 'radical?'" I did not ask for examples of atheists who you consider to be "radical" and "not radical." I asked you what the word "radical" is meant to indicate.

Like I said it was an impression I had.

But for instance:

So, being a Naturalist is what you mean by "radical?" But that can't be the case, since Vilenkin is a Naturalist, and you said that you don't think he is "radical."

I see. I suppose when you asked seer why he thought the universe began with the Big Bang, it sounded like you're leading him a bit. Attempting to make him sound irrational. If that wasn't the case, then I'm not certain what your point was.

I wasn't attempting to make him sound irrational. I was asking why he thinks Big Bang Cosmology demonstrates that the universe is past-finite.

So you would also disagree with Hawking (and other cosmologists) that time likely began with the universe, is that correct?

Not at all. I think that Time is decidedly a part of material reality, just as space is. If the whole of material reality had a beginning, then obviously Time also began. I simply don't agree with the claim that "all the evidence seems to indicate... that the universe had a beginning." I think that claims steps beyond the implications of the evidence.

Thank you. Would you say that, currently, the more popular view is that the universe is past-finite?

I haven't seen any formal polling or studies on the subject, but I think that's a fair claim. The problem is not that I find a past-finite universe to be untenable-- again, as I am a person who prefers past-finite models, that is obviously not the case. The problem is that "the popular belief among scientists is that the universe has a past-finite history" is a very, very different claim than "the universe began to exist." The former is quite likely true, but that does not imply that the latter is therefore true.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is intended to be a deductive argument. If any of the premises of a deductive argument are at all dubious, then the argument is unsound.

[seer]

Okay, so you believe based on quotes from some authorities in the field. I have contradictory statements from other eminent authorities in the field. Therefore, the only way to determine whose position is correct is to look at the actual evidence which is available and to evaluate arguments based upon that evidence. So, what evidence is there that demonstrates the universe cannot be past-infinite?

Boxing I never said that the universe could not be past infinite, just that it looks pretty clear that it is finite. At least now. The lines of evidence for a finite universe were in my link. I mean you don't think Hawking holds his position without evidence - do you?

I mean, "How do you differentiate a 'radical' atheist from an atheist who is not 'radical?'" I did not ask for examples of atheists who you consider to be "radical" and "not radical." I asked you what the word "radical" is meant to indicate.

So, being a Naturalist is what you mean by "radical?" But that can't be the case, since Vilenkin is a Naturalist, and you said that you don't think he is "radical."

Again, for instance I never heard Vilenkin make a claim like Carroll:

Carroll basically claims that the supernatural does not exist, that there is only one reality. That is a statement of bias.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Boxing I never said that the universe could not be past infinite, just that it looks pretty clear that it is finite. At least now. The lines of evidence for a finite universe were in my link. I mean you don't think Hawking holds his position without evidence - do you?

You don't think that Sean Carroll and Alan Guth hold their positions without evidence - do you?

Again, since we both can reference eminent authorities in the field, let's actually look at the evidence, itself. So, what about the evidence makes you think that "it looks pretty clear that it is finite?"

Again, for instance I never heard Vilenkin make a claim like Carroll:

Then, apparently, you're not very familiar with Vilenkin's work. Vilenkin is a Naturalist. He does not believe in the existence of the supernatural any more than does Carroll, and in his book Many Worlds In One, he says that the theologians who try to latch onto his work in order to support their theology are "too simplistic" and are stepping beyond what is reasonable.

So, again, if Naturalism is what you mean by "radical," then Vilenkin is also a "radical atheist." So, just what is it that you mean by the phrase "radical atheist?"

How do you differentiate "radical" from not "radical?"

[seer]

You don't think that Sean Carroll and Alan Guth hold their positions without evidence - do you?

Yes, I actually do - without physical evidence. Where the Big Bang theory has been supported by a number physical observations. The the Big Bang theory made predictions that have been confirmed. What predictions have Guth's and Carroll's theories made that have been confirmed by observation?

Again, since we both can reference eminent authorities in the field, let's actually look at the evidence, itself. So, what about the evidence makes you think that "it looks pretty clear that it is finite?"

No, you may be able to talk past me Boxing. The physical lines of evidence were in my link.

Then, apparently, you're not very familiar with Vilenkin's work. Vilenkin is a Naturalist. He does not believe in the existence of the supernatural any more than does Carroll, and in his book Many Worlds In One, he says that the theologians who try to latch onto his work in order to support their theology are "too simplistic" and are stepping beyond what is reasonable.

So, again, if Naturalism is what you mean by "radical," then Vilenkin is also a "radical atheist." So, just what is it that you mean by the phrase "radical atheist?"

How do you differentiate "radical" from not "radical?"

Nonsense, Vilenkin never made an unfounded, broad claim, that there was only one reality and that the supernatural did not exist - as far as I know.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes, I actually do - without physical evidence. Where the Big Bang theory has been supported by a number physical observations. The the Big Bang theory made predictions that have been confirmed. What predictions have Guth's and Carroll's theories made that have been confirmed by observation?

Carroll and Guth have not said anything which contradicts the Big Bang Theory. Once again, the Big Bang Theory does not make the claim that the universe has a past-finite history.

No, you may be able to talk past me Boxing. The physical lines of evidence were in my link.

Which link? The Wikipedia entry on the Big Bang? If so, then you are quite wrong. That article does not discuss any physical evidence showing that the universe has a past-finite history. Once again, you are mistakenly presuming that a past-finite history is part-and-parcel with the Big Bang Theory. It is not.

Nonsense, Vilenkin never made an unfounded, board claim, that there was only one reality and that the supernatural did not exist - as far as I know.

You do understand that Vilenkin is a Naturalist, right? He does not believe that the supernatural exists any more than Carroll does.

Once again, how do you differentiate an atheist who is "radical" from one who is not "radical?" Is it simply a meaningless and arbitrary distinction, on your part, or do you have some actual standard by which you judge? What do you intend to mean by use of the word "radical?"

[seer]

Carroll and Guth have not said anything which contradicts the Big Bang Theory. Once again, the Big Bang Theory does not make the claim that the universe has a past-finite history.

Right, they are suggesting an eternal past - is there physical evidence to support that? And certainly Hawking does suggest that the universe is finite, had a beginning. With the expansion starting about 13 billion years. I guess you can assume that something existed before the singularity. But Hawking does not assume that - why should we?

You do understand that Vilenkin is a Naturalist, right? He does not believe that the supernatural exists any more than Carroll does.

Boxing I said more than once that Vilenkin was an atheist...

Once again, how do you differentiate an atheist who is "radical" from one who is not "radical?" Is it simply a meaningless and arbitrary distinction, on your part, or do you have some actual standard by which you judge? What do you intend to mean by use of the word "radical?"

I never heard Vilenkin make the UNFOUNDED assertion that Carroll did.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Right, they are suggesting an eternal past - is there physical evidence to support that? And certainly Hawking does suggest that the universe is finite, had a beginning. With the expansion starting about 13 billion years. I guess you can assume that something existed before the singularity. But Hawking does not assume that - why should we?

I don't think we should. Why should we assume that nothing existed before the Big Bang?

Boxing I said more than once that Vilenkin was an atheist...

That's irrelevant. Not all atheists are Naturalists, and the statement of Carroll's which you claimed made him "radical" was simply the definition of Naturalism.

I never heard Vilenkin make the UNFOUNDED assertion that Carroll did.

Again, Vilenkin is a Naturalist. Are you saying the reason Carroll is a "radical" atheist is simply because he gave a vocal definition of his Naturalism, while Vilenkin is not "radical" because he has not explicitly stated what that means?

Why do you keep avoiding my questions? I've asked you several times, now, how you differentiate an atheist who is "radical" from one who is not "radical," and yet you still seem entirely recalcitrant in answering what should, ostensibly, be a pretty simple question.

[seer]

I don't think we should. Why should we assume that nothing existed before the Big Bang?

You don't think we should assume what?

Again, Vilenkin is a Naturalist. Are you saying the reason Carroll is a "radical" atheist is simply because he gave a vocal definition of his Naturalism, while Vilenkin is not "radical" because he has not explicitly stated what that means?

Why do you keep avoiding my questions? I've asked you several times, now, how you differentiate an atheist who is "radical" from one who is not "radical," and yet you still seem entirely recalcitrant in answering what should, ostensibly, be a pretty simple question.

I told you Boxing, why are you being thick? I never heard Vilenkin make the UNFOUNDED assertion that Carroll did. As a matter of fact when this came up with Bill Craig's letter Vilenkin was quite gracious.

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.

Not the categorical statement that there is only one reality, and that the supernatural does not exist. How does Carroll know this?