Why think God caused the universe to exist?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

You don't think we should assume what?

I don't think that we should assume that something existed before the Big Bang, and I don't think we should assume that nothing existed before the Big Bang.

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

Do you realize that by identifying as a Naturalist, Vilenkin is making the exact same claim as Carroll made, albeit more succinctly? Do you realize that Vilenkin has no more or less foundation for this claim than does Carroll? Again, are you just upset that Carroll has explicitly stated the position of Naturalism?

Now, you have completely ignored my very simple question seven times, so let's go for an eighth: how do you differentiate a "radical" atheist from one who is not "radical?"

[seer]

I don't think that we should assume that something existed before the Big Bang, and I don't think we should assume that nothing existed before the Big Bang.

Except most physicists, as far as I can tell, are assuming something existed before this universe, or as least looking for a cause and effect connection.

Do you realize that by identifying as a Naturalist, Vilenkin is making the exact same claim as Carroll made, albeit more succinctly? Do you realize that Vilenkin has no more or less foundation for this claim than does Carroll? Again, are you just upset that Carroll has explicitly stated the position of Naturalism?

Now, you have completely ignored my very simple question seven times, so let's go for an eighth: how do you differentiate a "radical" atheist from one who is not "radical?"

Have you ever seen Vilenkin, in a public forum, arguing against the concept of God? Carroll does this regularly. Why would a physicist do this?

[Teallaura]

....because it's so darn to teach a car to drive in traffic....

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Except most physicists, as far as I can tell, are assuming something existed before this universe, or as least looking for a cause and effect connection.

Looking for a thing is not at all the same as assuming that thing is real. You seem to be conflating hypotheses with sincerely held beliefs.

Have you ever seen Vilenkin, in a public forum, arguing against the concept of God? Carroll does this regularly. Why would a physicist do this?

Yes. Once again, Vilenkin self-identifies as a Naturalist. He has argued against the idea of God in his popular work, like his book Many Worlds In One, which I mentioned earlier. He has publicly stated that he doesn't believe there is enough evidence of a personal god to be convincing, and that the idea of an impersonal god simply seems an extraneous attempt to rename natural law.

You've now ignored my question eight times.

How do you differentiate a "radical" atheist from one who is not "radical?"

[seer]

Looking for a thing is not at all the same as assuming that thing is real. You seem to be conflating hypotheses with sincerely held beliefs.

Well I would assume that they believe in a cause and effect connection for the universe or they wouldn't be looking for it.

Yes. Once again, Vilenkin self-identifies as a Naturalist. He has argued against the idea of God in his popular work, like his book Many Worlds In One, which I mentioned earlier. He has publicly stated that he doesn't believe there is enough evidence of a personal god to be convincing, and that the idea of an impersonal god simply seems an extraneous attempt to rename natural law.

You've now ignored my question eight times.

How do you differentiate a "radical" atheist from one who is not "radical?"

Again Boxing I gave you my distinction. Vilenkin may not believe there is enough evidence for a personal God, but that is quite different than what Carroll is doing - actively going after the concept of God and making broad claims he can not justify in public forum after public forum. That is why I call him radical - he has an agenda. If you can't see the distinction - fine, I'm done.

[shunyadragon]

Except most physicists, as far as I can tell, are assuming something existed before this universe, or as least looking for a cause and effect connection.

So does Vilenkin based on the evidence

Have you ever seen Vilenkin, in a public forum, arguing against the concept of God? Carroll does this regularly. Why would a physicist do this?

There arguments against God are not relevant to the discussion. Start a thread and we will discuss it.

[JimL]

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

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.

BP, being an atheist, how do you figure a past-finite model of existence without invoking creation?

[Tassman]

Except most physicists, as far as I can tell, are assuming something existed before this universe, or as least looking for a cause and effect connection.

No, most physicists regard both options as still being on the table, namely that either something did exist before the Big Bang OR that nothing existed before the Big Bang. Neither hypothesis has been established as yet.

Have you ever seen Vilenkin, in a public forum, arguing against the concept of God? Carroll does this regularly. Why would a physicist do this?

Vilenkin is a self-identified Scientific Naturalist and as such holds the view that the entire universe can be understood in purely naturalistic terms. Hence the possibility of the supernatural and God being an explanation for any phenomena is by definition excluded.

[Jichard]

Excellent blog post, clear and well presented!

Then you might like this: http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com...html#appendix1

[Tassman]

Then you might like this: http://angramainyusblog.blogspot.com...html#appendix1

Thanks, very interesting! But I'll stay loyal to Boxing Pythagoras I think. Same conclusion (i.e. Craig's got it wrong) with less words.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

BP, being an atheist, how do you figure a past-finite model of existence without invoking creation?

Firstly, I'm a B-Theorist insofar as Time is concerned, and even William Lane Craig has long admitted that the idea of causation upon which his Kalam Cosmological Argument is based breaks down on the B-Theory.

However, more importantly, regardless of whether one is an A-Theorist or a B-Theorist, and regardless of whether the universe is past-infinite or past-finite, if you believe that Time is a real, material entity (as is the view of both Classical Theology and modern cosmology), then the universe has always existed. It is completely nonsensical to claim that a thing which has never been non-existent was created.

[seer]

No, most physicists regard both options as still being on the table, namely that either something did exist before the Big Bang OR that nothing existed before the Big Bang. Neither hypothesis has been established as yet.

Really who are all these physicists who don't seek a cause and effect connection for the universe? All the men we have been discussing are putting forth theories to support cause and effect.

Vilenkin is a self-identified Scientific Naturalist and as such holds the view that the entire universe can be understood in purely naturalistic terms. Hence the possibility of the supernatural and God being an explanation for any phenomena is by definition excluded.

Nonsense, first you have to show me where Vilenkin made this claim in context. Second, since as you agree, we really don't have a clue how the universe came into being excluding God is more than premature.

[seer]

Firstly, I'm a B-Theorist insofar as Time is concerned, and even William Lane Craig has long admitted that the idea of causation upon which his Kalam Cosmological Argument is based breaks down on the B-Theory.

However, more importantly, regardless of whether one is an A-Theorist or a B-Theorist, and regardless of whether the universe is past-infinite or past-finite, if you believe that Time is a real, material entity (as is the view of both Classical Theology and modern cosmology), then the universe has always existed. It is completely nonsensical to claim that a thing which has never been non-existent was created.

A honest question Boxing that I asked a few times now, perhaps you missed it. If as you say, our experience of time is an illusion, why do we always, without exception, experience it only going one way. If all "moments" of time (past present and future) actually exist why do we never have the illusion of going backward in time. What causes this forward illusion and why only that? Thanks...

[Adrift]

Firstly, I'm a B-Theorist insofar as Time is concerned, and even William Lane Craig has long admitted that the idea of causation upon which his Kalam Cosmological Argument is based breaks down on the B-Theory.

Just so you are aware, there have been defenses of the Kalam argument on the B-theory of time.

However, more importantly, regardless of whether one is an A-Theorist or a B-Theorist, and regardless of whether the universe is past-infinite or past-finite, if you believe that Time is a real, material entity (as is the view of both Classical Theology and modern cosmology), then the universe has always existed. It is completely nonsensical to claim that a thing which has never been non-existent was created.

When people ask if the universe has always existed what they really want to know is did the universe exist in the infinite past. The prevailing view among cosmologists seems to be that the universe, along with time, began at the Big Bang. So, of course, in a sense, the universe has always existed, that is, it has always existed as long as time has existed. But that's a bit different from what most people mean when they ask "has the universe always existed?" The answer to their actual implied question is, no, the universe (including time) is not past-infinite. It began.

[seer]

Just so you are aware, there have been defenses of the Kalam argument on the B-theory of time.

And wouldn't we be left with an effect (the universe) without a cause?