An Infinite Past?

[JimL]

Tass, a scientist, especially an atheist, is going to believe that there was a physical cause for the universe. That is their bias. The point is there is no physical evidence for such a cause. And the other point is that you too owe me an apology for accusing me of taking Steinhardt out of context concerning the multiverse. I did not.

That is not how science works seer. Scientists, even if they have a bias such as atheism, don't arrive at their conclusions due to their bias. That is what theists do. The very purpose of science is to find the truth, not to confirm ones biased beliefs. The real point is that there is no evidence for a supernatural cause or for a supernatural existence whatsoever and even if there were such an existence it would be beyond the reach of science to confirm it, ergo of it even being confirmed. It is true, i believe, that the great majority of scientists are skeptics when it comes to the notion of a supernatural eternally existing mind that thought the natural world into existence and that because no evidence for such a claim is ever forthcoming. It is a belief based purely on ignorance. Scientists attempt to uncover the true nature of existence and the reason for their skeptisism of a supernatural distinct creator is due to the fact that the natural world is all they have evidence of and therefore presuppose, and with good reason, that it itself is eternal.

[shunyadragon]

What agenda did I put forward here Shuny? Where? I quoted Steinhardt to show why a multiverse does not make sense, nor could you make predictions. Steinhardt favors the cyclic model - and? There is still no physical evidence for that either.

Your religious agenda, close to the same as Craig's. You do not believe in the evidence, but you still selectively cite their research to justify your agenda of 'no evidence.'

Your still clinging in a Newtonian world of physical evidence only, and a very biased selection of evidence.

[seer]

Your religious agenda, close to the same as Craig's. You do not believe in the evidence, but you still selectively cite their research to justify your agenda of 'no evidence.'

Your still clinging in a Newtonian world of physical evidence only, and a very biased selection of evidence.

Shuny, you are lying again. I never took Steinhardt out of context, you and the readers have the full quote and link. You are a deeply dishonest man. And BTW - there is zero physical evidence for either theory.

[seer]

That is not how science works seer. Scientists, even if they have a bias such as atheism, don't arrive at their conclusions due to their bias. That is what theists do.

That is false Jim, atheists are just as bias, and that bias has influence especially on this question. The fact is there is zero physical evidence that this universe had a natural beginning. You can have faith that it does, and that is your bias.

[Jedidiah]

In the early days of the Big Bang at least some scientists rejected the idea because it was distasteful to them.

[rogue06]

In the early days of the Big Bang at least some scientists rejected the idea because it was distasteful to them.

Many, specifically because it appeared to conform too closely to the Biblical account.

[shunyadragon]

Many, specifically because it appeared to conform too closely to the Biblical account.

references please.

[JimL]

That is false Jim, atheists are just as bias, and that bias has influence especially on this question. The fact is there is zero physical evidence that this universe had a natural beginning. You can have faith that it does, and that is your bias.

I didn't say that atheists were any less biased than theists seer, what i said was that they do not come to their scientific conclusions based on their bais, or their beliefs. That is the purpose of science, to prevent us from fooling ourselves. You are correct in that there is no evidence as to whether the natural world had a beginning or is itself eternal, accepting that is, that there is also no evidence that there exists anything other than the natural world. To me, though not conclusive, that is evidence. If someone should claim that there is another existence, one that is eternal and creator of the natural existence that we know of and are a part of, then it is really up to them to make a convincing case for it. But that of course is impossible to do, for that very reason, that there is no evidence of it. So we non-believers are left with the question, why should we believe such inexplicable claims?

[JimL]

In the early days of the Big Bang at least some scientists rejected the idea because it was distasteful to them.

In the early days of the Big bang, the theory was not well understood and there were many unanswered questions regarding it as there still is today. Your insinuation that the Big Bang theory was distastful to scientists, rather than their just being unconvinced by the theory is nothing more than hyperbole at best. What you are suggesting as theists often do, is that the conclusions that science comes to is based on the personal bias's of the scientists. That is just the opposite of how science actually works.

[Tassman]

Tass, a scientist, especially an atheist, is going to believe that there was a physical cause for the universe. That is their bias.

Vilenkin and Steinhardt, along with most cosmologists (a significant fact in itself) consider that physical forces are solely responsible for the existence and functioning of the universe. So, this being the case, WHY do you cite them in an attempt to discredit the notion of a purely material universe? By so doing you are taking them out of their proper context.

As shunya says, it was quite evident you were selectively misusing Steinhardt's quotes and paraphrasing him with misleading hyperbole in order to discredit multiverse theory and the concept of past eternal infinity. But you blundered. Steinhardt's cyclic hypothesis also supports past eternal infinity and doesn't necessarily exclude the multiverse model. This is not bias on their part; it's where the facts lead them.

The point is there is no physical evidence for such a cause. And the other point is that you too owe me an apology for accusing me of taking Steinhardt out of context concerning the multiverse. I did not.

There is not a great deal of direct for ANY

[seer]

Vilenkin and Steinhardt, along with most cosmologists (a significant fact in itself) consider that physical forces are solely responsible for the existence and functioning of the universe. So, this being the case, WHY do you cite them in an attempt to discredit the notion of a purely material universe? By so doing you are taking them out of their proper context.

That is completely false Tass. Did not quote Steinhardt to discredit an eternal past but to show that the multiverse theory has some serious flaws - period. And it is sad, like Shuny, you can not be man enough or honest enough to admit that you were wrong.

As shunya says, it was quite evident you were selectively misusing Steinhardt's quotes and paraphrasing him with misleading hyperbole in order to discredit multiverse theory and the concept of past eternal infinity. But you blundered. Steinhardt's cyclic hypothesis also supports past eternal infinity and doesn't necessarily exclude the multiverse model. This is not bias on their part; it's where the facts lead them

.

Again Tass, It was Steinhardt himself that brings discredit to the multiverse theory, not me and all can read it in context. Both you and Shuny claimed I took the quote out of context - I did not and for that slander you do owe me an apology. And the cyclic model, at least Steinhardt's model, does exclude a multiverse - both can not be correct.

There is about as much “physical evidence” for theories, such as Inflationary/Multiverse theory and Cyclic theory, which you choose not to favour, as there is for the theories that you do favour, such as the ‘Big Bang’. Presumably you support the latter because it provides a role for your Creator God whereas a past-infinite universe doesn't.

That is nonsense Tass, show me the physical evidence for either. And BTW, again, they both can not be true. So Tass, which one is correct? Which one has more physical evidence?

[seer]

I didn't say that atheists were any less biased than theists seer, what i said was that they do not come to their scientific conclusions based on their bais, or their beliefs. That is the purpose of science, to prevent us from fooling ourselves. You are correct in that there is no evidence as to whether the natural world had a beginning or is itself eternal, accepting that is, that there is also no evidence that there exists anything other than the natural world. To me, though not conclusive, that is evidence. If someone should claim that there is another existence, one that is eternal and creator of the natural existence that we know of and are a part of, then it is really up to them to make a convincing case for it. But that of course is impossible to do, for that very reason, that there is no evidence of it. So we non-believers are left with the question, why should we believe such inexplicable claims?

Jim when the atheist and scientist comes to the creation of this universe he wants there to be a natural explanation. He may make up and believe all manner natural explanations even without physical evidence. We have been taking about the multiverse - popular right now in science - but where is the evidence? We have been talking about the Cyclic model, less popular but again, where is the physical evidence? Shuny just recently posted a newer theory, that this universe was born out of a four dimensional black hole. Again where is the physical evidence? How about the many, many versions of string theory? They can not all be right - they are mutually exclusive. Yet scientists, on one side or the other, believe at least one of these mutually exclusive theories. So which one is right? The fact is Jim we don't have a clue about the origins of this universe.

[JimL]

Jim when the atheist and scientist comes to the creation of this universe he wants there to be a natural explanation.

Thats an assumption on your part seer. But even should we make that assumption, the scientific process does not allow for bias to effect conclusions. If a scientist wants the the universe to be static ala Einstein, his bias opinion can not effect the conclusion reached by empirical observation. Einstein realized and admitted that his belief was wrong because the science proved it to be wrong.

He may make up and believe all manner natural explanations even without physical evidence.

The scientist can only continue with his bias if the evidence is not conclusive, again ala Einstein, who cooked up the cosmological constant idea to allow for his belief of a static universe. Again the science proved him wrong, the universe is not static, its expanding.

We have been taking about the multiverse - popular right now in science - but where is the evidence? We have been talking about the Cyclic model, less popular but again, where is the physical evidence? Shuny just recently posted a newer theory, that this universe was born out of a four dimensional black hole. Again where is the physical evidence? How about the many, many versions of string theory? They can not all be right - they are mutually exclusive. Yet scientists, on one side or the other, believe at least one of these mutually exclusive theories. So which one is right? The fact is Jim we don't have a clue about the origins of this universe.

The fact of the matter seer, is that every single cosmological theory to date points either to a multiverse or is eternal and allows for a multiverse. There is no direct physical evidence, and being that other universes, should they exist, are outside of our light cone, there may never be direct physical evidence, but scientists in such cases follow the math and the math in all of these theories points to a multi-verse. The only model that does not point directly to a multi-verse that I can think of is Hawkings Big Bang scenario in which our particular universe of space and time created itself. But even in that scenario, it didn't create itself from out of nothing it created itself form out of the energy vacuum which some mistakingly call nothingness but which in my opinion would be better defined as the Greater Cosmos.

[shunyadragon]

Jim when the atheist and scientist comes to the creation of this universe he wants there to be a natural explanation. He may make up and believe all manner natural explanations even without physical evidence. We have been taking about the multiverse - popular right now in science - but where is the evidence? We have been talking about the Cyclic model, less popular but again, where is the physical evidence? Shuny just recently posted a newer theory, that this universe was born out of a four dimensional black hole. Again where is the physical evidence? How about the many, many versions of string theory? They can not all be right - they are mutually exclusive. Yet scientists, on one side or the other, believe at least one of these mutually exclusive theories. So which one is right? The fact is Jim we don't have a clue about the origins of this universe.

True motivation revealed.

[seer]

True motivation revealed.

Yes even scientists are bias.