Originally posted by Carrikature
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
An Infinite Past?
Collapse
X
-
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYou continue to misrepresent science theorems to support your religious presuppositions. This is dishonest and misleading. The actual 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper is not the "aha moment" you seem to think it is. Certainly Vilenkin concludes that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn't exist infinitely into the past. Apologists erroneously interpret this as: “therefore the universe definitely began to exist”, but this is not what he’s saying.
Vilenkin himself said: [I]If someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning; I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “no”…” For example, this theorem doesn't rule out physicist Stephen Hawking’s “no-boundary” proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”). Nor does it rule out other hypotheses OR as yet undiscovered scientific facts. Science is not like the inerrant word of scripture, it is a work in progress.
Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as philosophy understands the term). The opposite is true. Vilenkin explicitly argues for a scientific explanation based on the natural laws of the universe: ”What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed; one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event”. This refers to a 1982 paper whereby Vilenkin discusses the universe as arising naturally via quantum mechanics.
As for your 2,000 year old Christian theological "Ex Nihilo” explanation” we would still have our knowledge restricted to a 6,000 year-old, geocentric universe instead of the vast cosmos of solar-systems, multiple galaxies and multiple universes which has been uncovered NOT by Christian theology, which has often resisted the advance of knowledge, but by science.Last edited by seer; 04-26-2014, 07:22 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
I was wrong; you really don't have to be an expert to understand this stuff:
Top Theoretical Physicists, R&B Singers Meet To Debate Meaning Of Foreverβλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostI was wrong; you really don't have to be an expert to understand this stuff:
Top Theoretical Physicists, R&B Singers Meet To Debate Meaning Of Forever
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostI was wrong; you really don't have to be an expert to understand this stuff:
Top Theoretical Physicists, R&B Singers Meet To Debate Meaning Of ForeverAtheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Hope it isn't too off topic, but I just ran across an interesting article that's somewhat related:
Medieval bishop's theory resembles modern concept of multiple universes
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-medieva...rn.html#ajTabsLast edited by OingoBoingo; 04-26-2014, 09:49 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostHope it isn't too off topic, but I just ran across an interesting article that's somewhat related:
Medieval bishop's theory resembles modern concept of multiple universes
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-medieva...rn.html#ajTabs
Grosseteste's treatise on light, called De Luce (Concerning Light), is the earliest known attempt to describe the universe using a coherent set of physical laws, centuries before Isaac Newton. It proposes that the same physics of light and matter, which explain the solidity of ordinary objects, could be applied to the cosmos as a whole.
In explaining the formation of the ancient universe, geocentric and composed of a series of nested spheres, Grosseteste conceives the universe as beginning from a single point of light, the fusion of matter and form, which expands until matter can be moved no further: the first sphere. A different form of light radiates inwards compressing matter, until it will move no further, generating the second sphere, and so on.
Grosseteste's calculations are very consistent and precise. Had he had access to modern calculus and computing methods, he surely would have used them. In a recent paper, just published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A, our team built computer models to express Grosseteste's equations. In doing so it suggests, although this was probably not apparent to Grosseteste at the time, a series of ordered universes reminiscent of the modern "multiverse" concept.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is really cool. What a great mind!βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostVilenkin himself said: [I]If someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning; I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “no”…”βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post... Vilenkin can be careless in his choice of words - assuming that an educated audience would understand what he was referring to. ...βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI know what Vilenkin is saying Tass, and if you bother to read my link to the letter between him and William Craig I posted a while back you will see that this whole question is simple - there is no evidence for an eternal past. Period, end of story. There are a number of different theories - but they generally contradict each other.
You are misrepresenting Vilenkin and other cosmologists repeatedly on this, and taking the above letter out of context..
Tass you used the term "literally nothing." Either nothing is nothing or it is something. The real problem Tass is that they have NO idea. And remember when most cultures, like the ancient Greeks, and more recently science with the "Steady State" theory claimed that our universe was eternal - it was the Hebrew/Christian texts that said this universe began to exist. Perhaps science is actually moving closer to the Ex Nihilo position, like they did with our view of a finite universe. BTW - where does scripture claim a geocentric universe?Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-26-2014, 11:06 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI know what Vilenkin is saying Tass, and if you bother to read my link to the letter between him and William Craig I posted a while back you will see that this whole question is simple - there is no evidence for an eternal past. Period, end of story. There are a number of different theories - but they generally contradict each other.
Tass you used the term "literally nothing." Either nothing is nothing or it is something. The real problem Tass is that they have NO idea. And remember when most cultures, like the ancient Greeks, and more recently science with the "Steady State" theory claimed that our universe was eternal - it was the Hebrew/Christian texts that said this universe began to exist. Perhaps science is actually moving closer to the Ex Nihilo position, like they did with our view of a finite universe.
BTW - where does scripture claim a geocentric universe?“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostThis seems like a fairly definitive discussion of this question. Do you have a link? Sorry, if you've already posted one.
http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2...s-for-god.html
…wherein the author asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:
“If f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No…”
Craig’s (and seer’s) big problem is that according to Vilenkin, a beginning of the universe can still be described in scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness”. The authors say:
“What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed; one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event”, which Vilenkin argues here:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/ph...om_nothing.pdf
Interestingly, theists such as seer use Vilenkin’s paper as evidence that the universe was creatio ex nihilo (in the absolute sense of “out of nothing” as per philosophy) by the creator deity. But, although language can be ambiguous, never have Vilenkin et al considered a non-natural explanation of the universe's origins to be viable and have provided several plausible scenarios to this effect. Thus it is ingenuous of seer to claim the support of Vilenkin and his colleagues in this argument.Last edited by Tassman; 04-27-2014, 05:19 AM.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post“What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed; one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event”, which Vilenkin argues here:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/ph...om_nothing.pdf
Interestingly, theists such as seer use Vilenkin’s paper as evidence that the universe was creatio ex nihilo (in the absolute sense of “out of nothing” as per philosophy) by the creator deity. But, although language can be ambiguous, never have Vilenkin et al considered a non-natural explanation of the universe's origins to be viable and have provided several plausible scenarios to this effect. Thus it is ingenuous of seer to claim the support of Vilenkin and his colleagues in this argument.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostGenesis 1.16: “God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars”. This hardly indicates knowledge of the multiple solar systems, galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars or an infinite multiverse. What we get is about what one would expect of Bronze-Age astronomy. To claim more is to read more into the scripture than is actually there, i.e. an argument from silence which is a logical fallacy.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
160 responses
508 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 07:28 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment