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
See more
See less

An Infinite Past?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    This article (from a series of 6 articles) by Alan Guth from counterbalance.org has been posted before on these forums, but I think it's still relevant. The article deals with the issue of eternal inflation and what it has to say about the question of the ultimate beginning, i.e not only the beginning of our universe, but even further back than that. Here's what Guth has to say about this issue:

    http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/didth-frame.html

    Source: Did the Universe Have a Beginning? by Alan Guth


    Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

    Finally, I would like to discuss the central topic of this session, the question of whether or not the universe had a beginning.

    The name eternal inflation, as I pointed out earlier, could be phrased more accurately as future-eternal inflation. Everything that has been said so far implies only that inflation, once started, continues indefinitely into the future. It is more difficult to determine what can be said about the distant past.

    For the explicit constructions of eternally inflating models, the answer is clear. Such models start with a state in which there are no pocket universes at all, just pure repulsive-gravity material filling space. So there is definitely a beginning to the models that we know how to construct.

    In 1993 Borde and Vilenkin proved a theorem which showed under fairly plausible assumptions that every eternally inflating model would have to start with an initial singularity, and hence must have a beginning. In 1997, however, they noted that one of their assumed conditions, although valid at the classical level, was violated by quantum fluctuations that could be significant in eternally inflating models. They concluded that their earlier proof would not apply to such cases, so the door was open for the construction of models without a beginning. They noted, however, that no such models had been found.

    At the present time, I think it is fair to say that it is an open question whether or not eternally inflating universes can avoid having a beginning. In my own opinion, it looks like eternally inflating models necessarily have a beginning. I believe this for two reasons. The first is the fact that, as hard as physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all the models that we construct have a beginning; they are eternal into the future, but not into the past. The second reason is that the technical assumption questioned in the 1997 Borde-Vilenkin paper does not seem important enough to me to change the conclusion, even though it does undercut the proof. Specifically, we could imagine approximating the laws of physics in a way that would make them consistent with the assumptions of the earlier Borde-Vilenkin paper, and eternally inflating models would still exist. Although those modifications would be unrealistic, they would not drastically change the behavior of eternally inflating models, so it seems unlikely that they would change the answer to the question of whether these models require a beginning.

    So, as is often the case when one attempts to discuss scientifically a deep question, the answer is inconclusive. It looks to me that probably the universe had a beginning, but I would not want to place a large bet on the issue.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Some clarifications here. The universe Guth is speaking about here is the greater universe, not our universe, as can be shown by what Guth writes in the previous 5 articles (they can be accessed by clicking on the links on the right hand side of the page titled "Introduction", "How Does Inflation Work", "Evidence for Inflation", "Eternal Inflation: Mechanisms" and "Eternal Inflation: Implications") especially in the fourth article and the article titled Introduction where he writes:

    Source: Introduction, Alan Guth


    The question of whether or not the universe had a beginning is, of course, by no means an easy question. When you ask a scientist a question that is not easy, he never gives just one answer, but instead gives a succession of answers. In this case, I would like to offer two levels of answers.

    At the first level, I would argue that the answer to the question is yes, the universe had a beginning in the event that is usually referred to as the big bang.

    © Copyright Original Source



    http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/index-frame.html

    Here Guth is, it seems to me speaking of our own universe. Which means that the question of whether our universe had a beginning or not is not really up for question. In other words, the question that remains to be answered is not whether our universe had beginning, but whether or not the greater universe that produced our universe (supposing the eternal inflation theory is correct) had a beginning.

    In the fourth article Guth tries to explain the mechanisms behind eternal inflation, and has this to say, after describing how the repulsive-gravity material's (Guth's name for the false vacuum) expansion rate, which is faster than the repulsive-gravity material's decay rate leads to a scenario where an infinite number of pocket universes (of which ours is one) are created in a exponentially growing sea of repulsive-gravity material:

    Source: Eternal Inflation: Mechanisms, Alan Guth

    The process goes on literally forever, producing pocket universes and regions of repulsive-gravity material between them, ad infinitum. The universe on the very large scale acquires a fractal structure.

    The illustration of Fig. 2 is of course oversimplified in a number of ways: it is one-dimensional instead of three-dimensional, and the decays are shown as if they were very systematic, while in fact they are random. But the qualitative nature of the evolution is nonetheless accurate: eternal inflation really leads to a fractal structure of the universe, and once inflation begins, an infinite number of pocket universes are produced.

    © Copyright Original Source



    http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/etern-frame.html

    In other words, when Guth is speaking of the universe from this point on in the series of articles on counterbalance.org, it can be safely assumed that he is talking about the fractally structured greater universe and not our own pocket universe unless Guth clarifies otherwise.

    Going back to the last article in the series, we can conclude the following:

    1. The BGV theorem applies to every model of eternal inflation that has been found so far, which means that the greater universe that produced our pocket universe had to start out as a singularity, and thus must have had a beginning.

    2. Guth's opinion on the matter is that it " it looks like eternally inflating models necessarily have a beginning.", despite the fact that quantum fluctuations would violate one of the assumptions upon which the theorem rests.

    Guth concludes with the following:

    Source: Did the Universe Have a Beginning? Alan Guth


    So, as is often the case when one attempts to discuss scientifically a deep question, the answer is inconclusive. It looks to me that probably the universe had a beginning, but I would not want to place a large bet on the issue.

    © Copyright Original Source



    In conclusion, Alan Guth believes that the BGV theorem when applied to the eternal inflation models that have been found viable so far, makes it probable that the universe (understood here as the greater universe that has a fractal structure, and which produced our pocket universe) had a beginning. In other words, he thinks that the BGV theorem can be applied to the greater universe, and that the BGV theorem makes it probable that the greater universe necessarily had a beginning.

    Here's links to the entire series of articles for those interested, or those who want to check that I have understood Guth correctly on this matter:

    http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/index-frame.html

    http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/howdo-frame.html

    http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/evide-frame.html

    http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/etern-frame.html

    http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/etern1-frame.html

    http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/didth-frame.html
    Nothing new here. As I said before the question as to whether the greater cosmos has an eternal past is an open question and unanswered.
    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 shunyadragon View Post
      Nothing new here. As I said before the question as to whether the greater cosmos has an eternal past is an open question and unanswered.
      Yes it is an open question, and obviously a difficult one to answer. The universe, our universe, obviously had a beginning from our perspective, but from the perspective of its being a particular part of a greater Cosmos it had no beginning except as a change taking place within the whole. The question would then be did the Greater Cosmos have a beginning, and that is something we just don't understand as of yet. I think the reason being is that we don't even know how to define the Greater Cosmos, what is infinity, what does equalibrium even mean with regards to an infinite Cosmos, is there any such thing as maximum entropy increase with regards to infinity. Even in our own universe, if it were to expand forever the entropy would itself continue to increase forever unless an existing substance can completely vanish from existence which seems to me to be absurd on its face. Thats as illogical as the assertion that it came into existence from out of nothing. But I think that what Guth means when speaking about the beginning is not the beginning of our universe, and not the beginning of the Greater Cosmos, but rather the beginning of the Multiverse that arises within the Greater Cosmos which is different than the Greater Cosmos itself. The Greater Cosmos itself isn't a universe in our normal understanding of the term, it is the substance and structure out of which the multi-verse emerges. Thats just my laymans take on it of course, but to say that the issue is settled because the multiverse itself may not be eternal into the past, or in other words to say that the substance of existence was created from out of nothing, or that it was thought into existence is nothing more than wishful thinking.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        First Tass, let be clear there is no evidence that this is the case, it is a complete speculation at this time. And "literally nothing" as Vilenkin says is "literally nothing" or it is not. Or we have a clear contradiction. And Vilenkin being a good atheist of course would not assume God, but then again he is getting very close to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. It was "science", even in the last century, that claimed a Steady State universe. Along with many of the ancient philosophers that claimed that this universe was eternal.
        As a Christian, you are reading into Vilenkin et al what you want to see with breathtaking confirmation bias and making everything relevant to your cause - regardless of its non-basis in fact. To accuse atheists like Vilenkin of “bias”, as you do above, is projection on your part.

        Cosmologists such as Vilenkin are qualified, experienced eminent physicists - unlike Christian apologists such as WL Craig – and it is absurd that the latter invoke the former to support their own presuppositions when the expertise they draw upon explicitly rejects those very presuppositions in favor of a natural explanation. Craig is not a physicist and neither are you; if you opt to borrow their arguments you are obliged to accept their conclusions, NOT cherry-pick the bits that suit your presuppositions and discard the rest.

        It was the religious texts that said that universe began to exist - they were correct (and one wonders how they knew that).
        They didn't know that. And the apologists STILL don’t “know that” - despite their best efforts. The “beginning” of the greater cosmos is by no means established. Quite the reverse!

        Science and the philosophers were wrong. And now you have scientists using the very language of creation ex nihilo - creation from "literally nothing" - one can only wonder when they will catch up with theology (ambiguous language notwithstanding).
        You’re jumping the gun. As stated endlessly by shunya, me and others, the concept of "nothing" in quantum mechanics and physics is NOT the same as “nothing” as understood in classical philosophy. E.g. Dr. Laurence, in his ‘Universe from Nothing’, delineates three different kinds of “nothingness”.

        First "nothing" as understood by the ancient classical philosophers, i.e. empty space. Except we now know that even empty space is filled with energy, vibrating with electromagnetic fields and so-called virtual particles dancing in and out of existence according to the rules of quantum theory.

        Second is nothing, without even space and time. Following similar quantum logic, theorists have proposed that whole universes, little bubbles of space-time, could pop into existence, like bubbles in boiling water, out of this "nothing".

        Third a deeper nothing in which even the laws of physics are absent and Krauss postulates these laws coming from the multiverse - which Dr Krauss describes as an infinite assemblage of universes, each with its own randomly determined rules, particles and forces.

        In short, at this stage of our knowledge almost anything is possible. It is certainly too soon to declare victory for the Evangelical cause. Remember that, to date, ALL posited supernatural explanations have been found to have a natural explanation upon investigation - and multiverse theory is still in its infancy.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Tass, I asked you where the scripture taught a geocentric universe. And scripture speaks quite often of the stars, to many to count. And BTW - again you have no evidence of an infinite multiverse. And it is funny that these Bronze-Age people figured out that the universe began to exist. Something science only figure out in the last century.
        God making a great light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night and making stars, too many to count, does not even begin to describe the vastness of the universe(s) and Earth’s utter insignificance in comparison. And to argue that Genesis could mean that the earth is not the center of the universe, just because it doesn't overtly say it is, is an argument from silence, i.e. a logical fallacy.
        Last edited by Tassman; 04-28-2014, 05:27 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
          As a Christian, you are reading into Vilenkin et al what you want to see with breathtaking confirmation bias and making everything relevant to your cause - regardless of its non-basis in fact. To accuse atheists like Vilenkin of “bias”, as you do above, is projection on your part.

          Cosmologists such as Vilenkin are qualified, experienced eminent physicists - unlike Christian apologists such as WL Craig – and it is absurd that the latter invoke the former to support their own presuppositions when the expertise they draw upon explicitly rejects those very presuppositions in favor of a natural explanation. Craig is not a physicist and neither are you; if you opt to borrow their arguments you are obliged to accept their conclusions, NOT cherry-pick the bits that suit your presuppositions and discard the rest.
          Nonsense Tass, Craig never misrepresented Vilenkin. Their exchange is linked in this thread. And every man has his bias Tass, including you and Vilenkin.


          They didn't know that. And the apologists STILL don’t “know that” - despite their best efforts. The “beginning” of the greater cosmos is by no means established. Quite the reverse!
          Bull! I was speaking of the universe we live in. And that is the universe that scripture speaks of. And this universe began to exist. It doesn't speak to other possible universes, not that we have any evidence of them or a greater cosmos. So scripture was correct.



          In short, at this stage of our knowledge almost anything is possible. It is certainly too soon to declare victory for the Evangelical cause. Remember that, to date, ALL posited supernatural explanations have been found to have a natural explanation upon investigation - and multiverse theory is still in its infancy.

          You can't cash that check until you have it in hand Tass. Even one of your own links made the point that even if a multiverse did exist it may be impossible to confirm. And if Vilenkin's "literally nothing" doesn't literally mean nothing then he should say so - or maybe they really don't have a clue.

          God making a great light to rule the day and a lesser light to rule the night and making stars, too many to count, does not even begin to describe the vastness of the universe(s) and Earth’s utter insignificance in comparison. And to argue that Genesis could mean that the earth is not the center of the universe, just because it doesn't overtly say it is, is an argument from silence, i.e. a logical fallacy.
          This is completely dishonest Tass. You claimed that scripture taught a geocentric universe, I asked for proof of that - you offered none. It is on YOU to back up YOUR claim. If not, please recant.
          Last edited by seer; 04-28-2014, 07:41 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


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Actually, I wasn't using the word “nothing” on my own account but paraphrasing Vilenkin’s use of it in the link I provided, namely: “CREATION OF UNIVERSES FROM NOTHING”. Vilenkin can be careless in his choice of words - assuming that an educated audience would understand what he was referring to. Shunya is correct in that “nothing” in philosophy has different connotations in the quantum world.
            Thanks for the clarification.
            I'm not here anymore.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Nonsense Tass, Craig never misrepresented Vilenkin. Their exchange is linked in this thread. And every man has his bias Tass, including you and Vilenkin.
              He did. Craig, like you, is selective. E.g. Craig claims: “three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary". W.L Craig 'Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe'.

              As linked to earlier, the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper being quoted by Craig shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe - as opposed to Dr. Craig’s “any universe” - will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past. Craig then leaps to the unjustified conclusion that therefore “the universe definitely began to exist”. This is not necessarily what’s being argued.

              The theorem, for example, doesn't rule out 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”). Not to mention that, despite Craig’s unwarranted conclusions, Vilenkin himself is of the view that there is a probable natural scientific explanation; he proposes several possibilities himself. Vilenkin is the physicist NOT Craig and Vilenkin is better able to articulate what he means than an interpretation of what he means by a Christian apologist like Craig with an agenda.

              Bull! I was speaking of the universe we live in. And that is the universe that scripture speaks of. And this universe began to exist. It doesn't speak to other possible universes, not that we have any evidence of them or a greater cosmos. So scripture was correct.
              The earliest phases of the Big Bang remain subject to considerable speculation. As for the multiverse and greater cosmos there are several scientific models, each supported by evidence which encompass the available knowledge. There may be a way to go but to claim we don’t have "any evidence" is simply incorrect.

              You can't cash that check until you have it in hand Tass.
              The cheque which cannot be “cashed until you have it in hand” is the Judeo/Christian creatio ex nihilo doctrine.

              Even one of your own links made the point that even if a multiverse did exist it may be impossible to confirm.
              Maybe - although it probably will be. Regardless, to claim it CAN’T be confirmed is an argument from ignorance.

              And if Vilenkin's "literally nothing" doesn't literally mean nothing then he should say so.
              When you attempt to use science to justify your religious beliefs you must use words like “nothing” the way science uses them, NOT how your classical philosophers use them. The ancients had no knowledge of the counter-intuitive world of sub-atomic particles and quantum physicists. Concepts like “nothingness” take on different meanings as a consequence of quantum mechanics.

              - or maybe they really don't have a clue.
              If you believe that they "don't have a clue" why do you quote them?

              This is completely dishonest Tass. You claimed that scripture taught a geocentric universe, I asked for proof of that - you offered none. It is on YOU to back up YOUR claim. If not, please recant.
              There's nothing to recant. The assumption in the creation narratives, which was accepted for millennia by Judeo/Christians, was of a geocentric universe. Admittedly, Genesis doesn't provide much to go on - merely that there was a great light in the daytime and a lesser light at night and lots of stars - i.e. stuff any casual observer could see for himself - but the implication was that Earth was the center of it all.

              It took modern science to tell us that our universe was vast and comprised our solar-system wherein Earth was but one of many planets, hundreds of billions of galaxies within our universe, each containing hundreds of billions of stars. And possibly an infinite number of universes. None of this can be reasonably inferred from what we find in Genesis and nor was it. Not until the emergence of modern scientific methodology during The Renaissance and Enlightenment did we begin to understand the scale of the universe(s).
              Last edited by Tassman; 04-29-2014, 04:46 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
                He did. Craig, like you, is selective. E.g. Craig claims: “three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary". W.L Craig 'Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe'.

                As linked to earlier, the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper being quoted by Craig shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe - as opposed to Dr. Craig’s “any universe” - will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past. Craig then leaps to the unjustified conclusion that therefore “the universe definitely began to exist”. This is not necessarily what’s being argued.
                Again I will quote Vilenkin's letter to Craig and leave it there, I think he understands these issues better than you or me.

                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.

                The earliest phases of the Big Bang remain subject to considerable speculation. As for the multiverse and greater cosmos there are several scientific models, each supported by evidence which encompass the available knowledge. There may be a way to go but to claim we don’t have "any evidence" is simply incorrect.
                More nonsense Tass, even if there was a multiverse this universe is finite, and began to exist. And that is what scripture was referencing - and scripture was correct.



                When you attempt to use science to justify your religious beliefs you must use words like “nothing” the way science uses them, NOT how your classical philosophers use them. The ancients had no knowledge of the counter-intuitive world of sub-atomic particles and quantum physicists. Concepts like “nothingness” take on different meanings as a consequence of quantum mechanics.
                Then they shouldn't use terms like "literally nothing." "Literally" being key here.

                There's nothing to recant. The assumption in the creation narratives, which was accepted for millennia by Judeo/Christians, was of a geocentric universe. Admittedly, Genesis doesn't provide much to go on - merely that there was a great light in the daytime and a lesser light at night and lots of stars - i.e. stuff any casual observer could see for himself - but the implication was that Earth was the center of it all.
                Again Tass, you are so bias that you can not admit that you were wrong. That scripture does not teach a geocentric universe.
                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


                • Seer

                  As others pointed out, your clutching at straws to justify a religious scripture argument. Virtually no cosmologist, including Vilenkin, endorse Craig's argument. No models whatsoever support the notion that a finite/temporal cosmos in the past or the future is the most likely scenario. The Craig-Carroll debate covered these models, and quoted Guth clearly on video. Hawking's No boundary model is clearly a sound multiverse model that is unbounded in time and space.

                  Where can you specifically cite Vilenkin, Guth, Borg, Carroll or Hawking supporting the belief that a finite temporal past for the greater cosmos as a likely scenario? They of course express their doubts, and realize that these questions remain unanswered, and the ultimate questions of whether the greater cosmos is finite/temporal or eternal/infinite in the past or future may likely never be answered. One conclusion is almost unanimous is that time does not exists beyond the time/space world of any possible bubble universe.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-29-2014, 01:18 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 shunyadragon View Post
                    Seer

                    As others pointed out, your clutching at straws to justify a religious scripture argument. Virtually no cosmologist, including Vilenkin, endorse Craig's argument. No models whatsoever support the notion that a finite/temporal cosmos in the past or the future is the most likely scenario. The Craig-Carroll debate covered these models, and quoted Guth clearly on video. Hawking's No boundary model is clearly a sound multiverse model that is unbounded in time and space.

                    Where can you specifically cite Vilenkin, Guth, Borg, Carroll or Hawking supporting the belief that a finite temporal past for the greater cosmos as a likely scenario? They of course express their doubts, and realize that these questions remain unanswered, and the ultimate questions of whether the greater cosmos is finite/temporal or eternal/infinite in the past or future may likely never be answered. One conclusion is almost unanimous is that time does not exists beyond the time/space world of any possible bubble universe.
                    Thats one thing I can't wrap my head around Shunya. How is it explaind that muliple universes come into being in no time? If the Greater Cosmos produces one universe, then it must also create others. What would you call the duration between the two productions if not time?

                    Comment


                    • More nonsense Tass, even if there was a multiverse this universe is finite, and began to exist. And that is what scripture was referencing - and scripture was correct.
                      If this universe is part of a greater Cosmos then this universe is only finite with respect to itself, with respect to the Cosmos of which it is a part, it is infinite. The reason scripture was referencing this universe is because it was the word of men who knew nothing more than what they could see for themselves, and what they could see was very little. Besides that seer, they even got the chronological order of things all wrong in the creation story. The earth existed before all else for instance, everything else being created around it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Again I will quote Vilenkin's letter to Craig and leave it there, I think he understands these issues better than you or me.
                        Craig is trying to shoehorn Vilenkin’s arguments into an absolute creatio ex nihilo universe with the assumption of divine causation. Conversely, Vilenking clearly argues for an apparent beginning of the universe as a natural event, described by quantum cosmology; he has proposed several scenarios how this can be – including Hawking’s “no boundary” theory.

                        Given that Vilenkin is an eminent and experienced physicist as opposed to Craig who isn't and that Craig as an apologist has an agenda and given that every postulated supernatural occurrence in history has, upon examination, resulted in a natural explanation, I will put my money on Vilenkin and his colleagues, not Craig, in a discussion about cosmology.

                        More nonsense Tass, even if there was a multiverse this universe is finite, and began to exist. And that is what scripture was referencing - and scripture was correct.
                        No, this is not established science by any means. No cosmologist that I’m aware of supports the notion of finite cosmos or multiverse including, as others have pointed out, the arguments in the Craig-Carroll debate which covered these models. As well, Stephen Hawking's "No boundary” model is clearly a sound multiverse model that is unbounded in time and space – as I have mentioned numerous times.

                        Then they shouldn't use terms like "literally nothing." "Literally" being key here.
                        No, “the key here” - when you attempt to use science to justify your religious beliefs - is to use a word such as “nothing” the way science uses it, i.e. in the light of the counter-intuitive world of sub-atomic particles and quantum physics.

                        Again Tass, you are so bias that you can not admit that you were wrong. That scripture does not teach a geocentric universe.
                        Not so! Iin a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1992 Pope John Paul II regretted the treatment which Galileo received in the 17th century regarding his arguments for a heliocentric universe as opposed to a geocentric universe. The pope stated: “the Galileo incident to be based on a "tragic mutual miscomprehension" AND “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth…” In short, for most of Christian history geocentricism was assumed by the RCC.

                        As well the Fathers of the Protestant Reformation Were Geocentrists: "sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth". Martin Luther, Table Talk.

                        http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.co...ocentrism.html

                        There is nothing in scripture to “teach” otherwise than Earth being the center of the universe.
                        Last edited by Tassman; 04-29-2014, 11:33 PM.
                        “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


                        • The main issue I see here in the thread is that because Craig isn't a physicist, he can't use Vilenkin's insights (as a physicist) to support the Kalam argument. But when Vilenkin uses his insights into physics to say something philosophical (Tassman says that Vilenkin claims that on his model, 'There is a probable natural explanation.'), no one cries foul. I don't think Vilenkin does anything wrong; and neither does Craig. What I mean is that two intelligent men can argue and make arguments. To end the discussion with just, 'Craig is not a physicist. So there!', or 'Vilenkin is not a philosopher. So there!', is just dumb to me. If Craig is wrong in his physics, show where! But if he is using physics (Vilenkin's insights) to support philosophical premises, what's the problem? If the philosophical premises are wrong, show how the physics debunks it; don't just say, 'Craig's not a physicist.' This just darkens counsel. Or if (as I think) Vilenkin is wrong in his philosophy (by saying the beginning is a 'natural' event described by quantum cosmology), I don't just say, 'Vilenkin's not a philosopher.' I'd show where he's wrong in his philosophy.

                          The INFERENCE to natural vs. supernatural explanations is philosophy. The physics is the stuff that both Craig and Vilenkin agree on. Both agree on the crime scene, so to speak. A death took place! But if X says, 'He was murdered!', and Y says, 'It was suicide!', that doesn't mean both don't agree that someone is dead. Craig/Vilenkin agree: the physics is spot on, or at least as cutting edge as possible given the knowledge we have right now. What they disagree on is natural vs. supernatural explanations. Craig, the expert in philosophy (and to call him an apologist, while true, is annoying, because we all know his critics use it rhetorically to disparage him), infers a supernatural explanation. If the philosophical inference is invalid, show philosophically where it's invalid. If supernaturalists just debunked Vilenkin by saying, 'Oh, it's dumb that physics probably proves a natural beginning, since Vilenkin is not a philosopher, and that's a philosophical inference.', you'd experience the same annoying feeling I get when I read your hand-waving.

                          But all this is surface level superficiality. Has anyone actually linked to or spelled out Craig's arguments for either:
                          1. Why the physics doesn't need a supernatural explanation, or
                          2. Why the physics doesn't automatically prove a probable natural explanation

                          Reading Tassman just aggravates me. Shunya - well, I think he knows how I feel about talking with him. For example, he says Craig is just trying to shoehorn Vilenkin's physics into a 'creation from nothing' argument. Well, yea. Sort of. To say 'shoehorn' is rhetoric. I mean, the sentence is just too simplistic. That's not ALL Craig says. If he's wrong, he is at least respectably wrong. The principle of charity would have you represent his argument in all its vigor, then refute it. Otherwise, you just look like a Sophist. I get that you're saying the beginning of the universe can be explained by Quantum Cosmology; my point is that Craig addresses this. So, in his dealing with this, SHOW how he misunderstands or SHOW where he gets the physics wrong.

                          And so what if Craig has an agenda! So the freak what! Please God tell me that no eminent physicists have an agenda! Krauss! lol. My point is that I don't give a crap about agendas. People with agendas can argue for truth and the other way around. Don't score dumb rhetorical points by simply saying Vilenkin is this scientific God from on high, while Craig is . . . . this Bill O' Reilly-like apologist. It's just a waste of time and dishonest.

                          And then this SIMPLE reference to Hawking's Boundless Model. We get it! It exists. Deal with what Craig says about it, please! It's not like Craig is going to be like, 'Oh my God! The Boundless Model. Crap. Wow. What was I thinking? Let me pack and go home.' He KNOWS ABOUT IT. He has WRITTEN ABOUT IT. Deal with his arguments and stop just hurling elephants. If he's wrong, he's wrong. I don't care if Craig is proven wrong or not. Just SHOW where he is wrong in where he has written about it.
                          Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                          George Horne

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                            The main issue I see here in the thread is that because Craig isn't a physicist, he can't use Vilenkin's insights (as a physicist) to support the Kalam argument. But when Vilenkin uses his insights into physics to say something philosophical (Tassman says that Vilenkin claims that on his model, 'There is a probable natural explanation.'), no one cries foul. I don't think Vilenkin does anything wrong; and neither does Craig. What I mean is that two intelligent men can argue and make arguments. To end the discussion with just, 'Craig is not a physicist. So there!', or 'Vilenkin is not a philosopher. So there!', is just dumb to me. If Craig is wrong in his physics, show where! But if he is using physics (Vilenkin's insights) to support philosophical premises, what's the problem? If the philosophical premises are wrong, show how the physics debunks it; don't just say, 'Craig's not a physicist.' This just darkens counsel. Or if (as I think) Vilenkin is wrong in his philosophy (by saying the beginning is a 'natural' event described by quantum cosmology), I don't just say, 'Vilenkin's not a philosopher.' I'd show where he's wrong in his philosophy.

                            The INFERENCE to natural vs. supernatural explanations is philosophy. The physics is the stuff that both Craig and Vilenkin agree on. Both agree on the crime scene, so to speak. A death took place! But if X says, 'He was murdered!', and Y says, 'It was suicide!', that doesn't mean both don't agree that someone is dead. Craig/Vilenkin agree: the physics is spot on, or at least as cutting edge as possible given the knowledge we have right now. What they disagree on is natural vs. supernatural explanations. Craig, the expert in philosophy (and to call him an apologist, while true, is annoying, because we all know his critics use it rhetorically to disparage him), infers a supernatural explanation. If the philosophical inference is invalid, show philosophically where it's invalid. If supernaturalists just debunked Vilenkin by saying, 'Oh, it's dumb that physics probably proves a natural beginning, since Vilenkin is not a philosopher, and that's a philosophical inference.', you'd experience the same annoying feeling I get when I read your hand-waving.

                            But all this is surface level superficiality. Has anyone actually linked to or spelled out Craig's arguments for either:
                            1. Why the physics doesn't need a supernatural explanation, or
                            2. Why the physics doesn't automatically prove a probable natural explanation

                            Reading Tassman just aggravates me. Shunya - well, I think he knows how I feel about talking with him. For example, he says Craig is just trying to shoehorn Vilenkin's physics into a 'creation from nothing' argument. Well, yea. Sort of. To say 'shoehorn' is rhetoric. I mean, the sentence is just too simplistic. That's not ALL Craig says. If he's wrong, he is at least respectably wrong. The principle of charity would have you represent his argument in all its vigor, then refute it. Otherwise, you just look like a Sophist. I get that you're saying the beginning of the universe can be explained by Quantum Cosmology; my point is that Craig addresses this. So, in his dealing with this, SHOW how he misunderstands or SHOW where he gets the physics wrong.

                            And so what if Craig has an agenda! So the freak what! Please God tell me that no eminent physicists have an agenda! Krauss! lol. My point is that I don't give a crap about agendas. People with agendas can argue for truth and the other way around. Don't score dumb rhetorical points by simply saying Vilenkin is this scientific God from on high, while Craig is . . . . this Bill O' Reilly-like apologist. It's just a waste of time and dishonest.

                            And then this SIMPLE reference to Hawking's Boundless Model. We get it! It exists. Deal with what Craig says about it, please! It's not like Craig is going to be like, 'Oh my God! The Boundless Model. Crap. Wow. What was I thinking? Let me pack and go home.' He KNOWS ABOUT IT. He has WRITTEN ABOUT IT. Deal with his arguments and stop just hurling elephants. If he's wrong, he's wrong. I don't care if Craig is proven wrong or not. Just SHOW where he is wrong in where he has written about it.
                            It's too bad that the persons on this thread that would be in most need of reading this excellent post are probably just going to gloss over it and continue with their usual behaviour.

                            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. ...
                              I'm still curious as to what you are referring to with respect to Vilenkin being careless in his choice of words. Are you referring to ambiguity in his use of 'universe' and 'multiverse' as has been commented upon in this thread? Or other carelessness? If the latter, can you give some examples, please?
                              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 mattbballman31 View Post
                                ... The INFERENCE to natural vs. supernatural explanations is philosophy. ... Don't score dumb rhetorical points by simply saying Vilenkin is this scientific God from on high, while Craig is . . . . this Bill O' Reilly-like apologist. It's just a waste of time and dishonest. ...
                                You make some excellent points, Matt. I would submit that the whole category of 'supernatural' is the fundamental problem with this discussion. God is not within any genus. Nor should the doctrine of creation be reduced to a single, chronological act. Creation can neither be proven or disproved by theoretical or experimental physics. It would be like describing the Eucharist using chemical equations.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X