An Infinite Past?

[Leonhard]

Not even that. Why would one assume an “entity” of any sort – “personal” or otherwise?

I think you're confused about what an argument does. If you make an argument to establish a conclusion, you establish that conclusion from other already agreed upon premises. The conclusion itself isn't one of those premises.

So its wrong to say that if I make a Kalam type argument that I'm "assuming" that such an entity exists, rather I'm demonstrating it.

It is, I regret, a common tactic of seer’s and he didn't, in my opinion, ‘miss’ any “subtle differences” so much as chose to ignore them because they were inconvenient regarding his religious presuppositions.

I think I'm being fairly gracious you, however lets get beyond all this seer bashing. I think he made some mistakes which mildly hurt his case, but only through distraction. Ultimately the point stands. If you wanted me to get sharp with you I'd still be pointing out the fact that you linked to a crank website.

But one is left with “credible” possibilities. And, no matter how “nuanced” you may think Craig’s arguments are there is nothing in the BGV Theorem that suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness”.

This is a bare assertion, give me one model which survives the BGV theorem without being a ridiculous mess of contrived assumptions, or spacetimes with collapsing regions that collapse in just exactly the right way to not cause problems ahead of time, which there is no natural way of doing.

including a quantum nucleation event

Depending on the model most of these have an absolute beginning in time.

and Hawking’s’ “no boundary” solution.

This one most certainly has a beginning in time.

To say that there can never be an alternative solution reduces one to a god-of-the-gaps argument.

I didn't that there can never be an alternative solution. Just that today the best and most well defended models in existence are the ones with a beginning in time. And that people who are trying to seek out alternatives don't seem to be really motivated by evidence but by preconceptions.

If I've you got any evidence or coherent models lets discuss them.

A temporary solution at best

A begging the question fallacy; this would only be true if you're right that the past is eternal in time.

It assumes that nothing further is to be discovered; that we already know all that is to be known and that this knowledge is sufficient to arrive at solid conclusions.

I haven't, seer haven't and Craig haven't said that the BGV proves an absolute beginning. It looks like a strawman you like burning.

The “beginning of time” does not necessarily equate with the emergence from “absolute nothingness”.

Since we're not discussing Kalam arguments I won't pick that one up.

You’d be better “admitting” that we have insufficient knowledge to arrive at any definite conclusion of how the universe functions rather than introduce a deity into the equation.

The goal of a Kalam argument isn't to demonstrate merely that a deity could explain it, but that there's really no other choice than either to accept the existence of a sufficiently powerful, personal entitity, or to deny some very basic and pretty much undeniable premises. It deduces the existence of such a deity. However lets get back to talking about time.

I haven't argued for God in this thread, so you don't have to worry that I will. You're defending yourself against things I don't say.

[Leonhard]

Thats all true, but I think the point that Shunya was making is that like the lack of direct evidence for the graviton, and previously to finding it, the higgs particle, we have no direct evidence of other universes either, but no direct evidence isn't the same thing as no evidence.

Yes and in a fairly ridiculous way he implied that this stance had changed since the days of Newton. It probably sounded very smart in his ears. Except Newton wasn't capable of detecting individual photons, yet he used the little indirect evidence he gathered from his lens experiments to postulate reasonably that light while being made of individual corpuscles, had to be associated with wave properties. Look up Newton Rings, its great piece of history. Indirect evidence, however you define it, was in vogue as well back then.

I'm not quite sure what all the hoopla is about anyway concerning the the multi-verse scenario. Even if there are multiple universes that are born of a mother Cosmos so to speak, that doesn't prove that the mother Cosmos itself is eternal. The theist can still go on to argue that an eternal and immaterial mind created time and the material substance of the mother Cosmos from out of nothing.

This is usually my point as well. I wouldn't mind some aspects of the inflationary models, as they do tend to create multiverses. However the only viable ones of those, as per BGV, are not past infinite.

[JimL]

Yes and in a fairly ridiculous way he implied that this stance had changed since the days of Newton. It probably sounded very smart in his ears. Except Newton wasn't capable of detecting individual photons, yet he used the little indirect evidence he gathered from his lens experiments to postulate reasonably that light while being made of individual corpuscles, had to be associated with wave properties. Look up Newton Rings, its great piece of history. Indirect evidence, however you define it, was in vogue as well back then.

But Newton aside, I think that the only point that shunya was trying to make to seer was that just because we don't have direct evidence of the existence of other universes, we can't see them, doesn't mean that we have no evidence of the existence of other universes. This is the argument that seer often puts forth to counter the argument that there is no evidence for the existence of a God. He will say that "there is no evidence of other universes either, that like the idea of an existing God, the idea of other existing universes is also unfalsifiable" and so belief in them is no more justified than the theists belief in God. I think shunya was trying to elucidate the difference between a notion based on pure belief and one for which there is actual physical evidence. Thanks for the info on Newtons Rings though. Very interesting. Did Newton have any explanation for this at the time, or like gravity, did he leave it up to his readers to come up with the explanation?

This is usually my point as well. I wouldn't mind some aspects of the inflationary models, as they do tend to create multiverses. However the only viable ones of those, as per BGV, are not past infinite.

I only play scientist on tweb, so i don't know. From a laymens philosophical perspective though, I can't for the life of me understand how anything can be denied of a Cosmos which is both infinite and eternal.

[seer]

But Newton aside, I think that the only point that shunya was trying to make to seer was that just because we don't have direct evidence of the existence of other universes, we can't see them, doesn't mean that we have no evidence of the existence of other universes.

OK, what evidence are you talking about?

I only play scientist on tweb, so i don't know. From a laymens philosophical perspective though, I can't for the life of me understand how anything can be denied of a Cosmos which is both infinite and eternal.

Again Jim, where is the evidence of this eternal and infinite universe?

[Leonhard]

OK, what evidence are you talking about?

JimL wasn't talking about evidence other than explaining what Shunya had meant.

[Leonhard]

From a laymens philosophical perspective though, I can't for the life of me understand how anything can be denied of a Cosmos which is both infinite and eternal.

This sentence is a little funny, I'm not sure its formulated as you've intended it. What exactly are we denying a Cosmos? Cookies? I have a feeling of what you meant though. If you mean whether its natural to deny that the universe is infinitely old, that's something that can be debated. Aristotle himself thought that the past was infinite, even though he later came to regard infinities in nature with some questioning. Many human tribes have created cyclical mythologies.

However, beyond the Hebrews you also had the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Romans and much of the Northern Mythology with origin stories that had definite beginnings. Here the universe arose out of some sort of chaos, order was then heroically imposed on the chaos and lo we have our civilization. The modern Cosmology, if one is to talk about what mythology it shares conceptions with, it would be of this sort.

So I don't think the idea is unnatural, which is fitting from a Christian perspective as I think its plausible to suppose that God would give people a tendency to form the right sorts of ideas along these lines.

It would be an interesting anthropological project to catalog all the origin stories of the world and compare frequencies here.

[JimL]

This sentence is a little funny, I'm not sure its formulated as you've intended it. What exactly are we denying a Cosmos? Cookies? I have a feeling of what you meant though. If you mean whether its natural to deny that the universe is infinitely old, that's something that can be debated. Aristotle himself thought that the past was infinite, even though he later came to regard infinities in nature with some questioning. Many human tribes have created cyclical mythologies.

However, beyond the Hebrews you also had the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Romans and much of the Northern Mythology with origin stories that had definite beginnings. Here the universe arising out of some sort of chaos, order was then heroically imposed on the chaos and lo we have our civilization. The modern Cosmology, if one is to talk about what mythology it shares conceptions with, it would be of this sort.

So I don't think the idea is unnatural, which is fitting from a Christian perspective as I think its plausible to suppose that God would give people a tendency to form the right sorts of ideas along these lines.

It would be an interesting anthropological project to catalog all the origin stories of the world and compare frequencies here.

The argument, from the theist perspective, seems to be that an infinite eternal God can exist and act from eternity, but that an infinite and eternal Cosmos can not exist and act from eternity. Aristotle's notion of God as the unmoved mover, it seems to me, did not mean that God himself was static, a static force that caused motion outside of himself, God according to my interpretation of Aristotle is no different than would be the interpretation of an eternal and infinite universe. So in either case we are defining an eternal and infinite existence whose nature is one of eternal and infinite action, change, or motion, but we only have knowledge of the one existence, that of the universe itself, which theists then deny to it the possibility of such a nature.

[JimL]

OK, what evidence are you talking about?



Again Jim, where is the evidence of this eternal and infinite universe?

Well like I said previously seer, the multiverse was not something that phycisists dreamt up and then sought to find proof of it. Hugh Everett first came up with the many worlds idea after analyzing Shroedingers equation and taking the math seriously.

[Tassman]

I think you're confused about what an argument does. If you make an argument to establish a conclusion, you establish that conclusion from other already agreed upon premises. The conclusion itself isn't one of those premises.

So its wrong to say that if I make a Kalam type argument that I'm "assuming" that such an entity exists, rather I'm demonstrating it.

I think I'm being fairly gracious you, however lets get beyond all this seer bashing. I think he made some mistakes which mildly hurt his case, but only through distraction. Ultimately the point stands.

If you wanted me to get sharp with you I'd still be pointing out the fact that you linked to a crank website.

This is a bare assertion, give me one model which survives the BGV theorem without being a ridiculous mess of contrived assumptions, or spacetimes with collapsing regions that collapse in just exactly the right way to not cause problems ahead of time, which there is no natural way of doing.

seeming

Depending on the model most of these have an absolute beginning in time.

This one most certainly has a beginning in time.

I didn't that there can never be an alternative solution. Just that today the best and most well defended models in existence are the ones with a beginning in time. And that people who are trying to seek out alternatives don't seem to be really motivated by evidence but by preconceptions.

If I've you got any evidence or coherent models lets discuss them.

possible modelshttp://www.mukto-mona.com/science/ph...om_nothing.pdf

A begging the question fallacy; this would only be true if you're right that the past is eternal in time.

I haven't, seer haven't and Craig haven't said that the BGV proves an absolute beginning. It looks like a strawman you like burning.

Since we're not discussing Kalam arguments I won't pick that one up.

You mentioned Kalam, not I.

The goal of a Kalam argument isn't to demonstrate merely that a deity could explain it, but that there's really no other choice than either to accept the existence of a sufficiently powerful, personal entitity, or to deny some very basic and pretty much undeniable premises. It deduces the existence of such a deity. However lets get back to talking about time.

I haven't argued for God in this thread, so you don't have to worry that I will. You're defending yourself against things I don't say.

[Tassman]

OK, what evidence are you talking about?

Indirect evidence is what Jim's talking about!

Again Jim, where is the evidence of this eternal and infinite universe?

For the umpteenth time seer, this time from Leonhard, "Indirect evidence, however you define it, was in vogue as well back then". "Indirect evidence" is NOT no evidence, as you continually assert. It is a productive methodology dating back many centuries to Newton and beyond.

[Leonhard]

You used the premise of a beginning of time in #807 to argue for the existence of “a very powerful, personal entity of some sort.” But you assumed without evidence that this entity is a coherent being, that it is “personal” and that nothing was in existence before the emergence of the space/time continuum.

You're moving the goalpost, originally you said I was assuming a deity, now you're saying that I'm assuming the coherency of the notion of a deity.

Well you just have, haven’t you?

I'll bring it up as often as you bash seer.

The link made the simple point re virtual particles I was after, but you’re correct a more authoritative website would have been preferable.

I know I did, to tease you about your seer bashing which was very unwarranted in light of that. You pretend that you're somehow scientifically aloof above seer, but now I'm pretty much sure that you can't tell the difference between crank science and real science, or that you're just speed goggling articles, skimming them for keywords and then posting them. Hardly better than what seer is doing.

Actually, the “bare assertion” is your assumption that outside of space/time there is nothing at all.

What do you mean with "outside" space-time?

This is not the position of many cosmologists who argue the possibility of the quantum vacuum always existing and that it consists of fluctuating electromagnetic fields which fluctuate about an expectation value of zero. From this seeming “nothingness” the universe(s) with their space/time emerged.

Actually its not a matter of such a field existing eternally into the past, in Vilenkin's model such a field is completely timeless, and a space-time emerges out of it by a quantum tunnelling event. So in that model there would still be a beginning of time, its just that here's there's a timeless physical cause of the beginning of time.

Well no they don’t. In quantum field theory, before Planck Time (at which space/’time as we know it began), there was the quantum vacuum consisting of the lowest possible energy.

You're begging the question again, this time that the space-time quantum vacuum models are correct which we don't know. And even if they were you couldn't say that time passed in that field since there would be no space-time. You can imagine such a field as a boundary all space-times emerge from.

Again, according to current understanding, the quantum vacuum is not simple empty space - it contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

Now you're making an equivocation fallacy, because the quantum vacuum of quantum field theory isn't the same thing as the sort of quantum vacuum used in inflationary theories, the former doesn't have space-time, the latter has.

No space-time; no particles with mass; no clocks; no time.

No! It doesn't. Hawking’s “no boundary” solution uses the analogy of a sphere whereby time itself may be finite but it exists without a boundary – as per a sphere which is finite in surface area but has no “beginning”.

Yes that's how popular articles describe it. That doesn't change the fact that you can easily find the earliest moment in that space-time. The only difference is that instead of being a singularity, it is now a well defined point without any geometric sharpness. As long as the model doesn't violate the notion of coherence, and it doesn't since its a GR model, then you can find its earliest moment.

Right now I'm staying at home with my mother enjoying a quiet environment to finish my thesis in. I don't have my books, so I can't dig into this for you. It'll just be your assertion against mine here. I'd rather show it to you.

I didn't claim established “coherent models”.

Very well.

What I said, in response to your: “no other alternatives right now”, was that there are several possible models under consideration. There’s a difference between the finality of “no other alternatives” and proposed "possible models”. These include Vilenkin’s ‘quantum tunnelling’ proposal. http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/ph...om_nothing.pdf

I've read this article before. This is just Vilenkin's quantum tunnelling proposal. His universe begins at t = 0, quantum tunnelling from an appropriate field. I'd need to get home to get my notes and sources, and I could tell you some of the problems conceptually with that. All that needs to be said here is that this is a model that has a definite beginning.

No one is arguing that the past is eternal in time. “Time” only describes how our space-time universe expanded and evolved after the first “Planck second of its existence. What existed before Planck Time is unknown at this stage but

This part is curious. You say that its not possible to talk about time prior to the first planck-second. Can you elaborate on that? If you mean that we enter some sort of timeless field, such as in the Vilenkin model with a quantum tunnelling event causing a universe to begin. Then I don't think you're disagreeing with seer at all. Then the universe is finite temporally at least.

As a philosophy geek I can also distinguish between logically 'prior' and temporally 'prior' however, I want to know specifically what you mean here.

it is posited by many that this universe is just one infinitesimal component amid a vast - probably infinite - multiverse, that itself had no origin in time.

There's a lot of multiverse mania these days that much is true, and so far its generating a lot of interesting toy models of the universe which are interesting to read about and discuss but unless it generates interesting predictions its going to fade away.

Both seer and Craig claim creatio ex nihilo on the basis of the BGV Theorem reaching a boundary in the past which Craig chooses to interpret as “the universe definitely began to exist”. But, as many physicists argue, ‘the boundary’ is not necessarily the end of the story.

Here you seem to be going against what you're saying above. Vilenkin's model is in agreement with what Craig's saying, though in (on Vilenkins part) a fairly confused way. As isn't really proposing a quantum tunnelling from literally nothing, just from a vacuum.

The goal of a Kalam argument, as revised and popularized by Craig, is that there's really no other choice than to accept the existence of a sufficiently powerful, personal entity whom Craig takes to be the creator God of the Christians. I would call this “a leap of faith”.

That's a strawman fallacy, it deduces the existence. It doesn't argue merely that no one currently has any other choice, but that no other choice is possible given the premises. Its a perfectly valid argument, the only thing that can be discussed is the validity of the premises. Want to have a discussion about the Kalam cosmological argument in the Basketball Court? The title would be 'Is the Kalam Cosmological Argument a valid argument"?

[Sea of red]

I think you're confused about what an argument does. If you make an argument to establish a conclusion, you establish that conclusion from other already agreed upon premises. The conclusion itself isn't one of those premises.

So its wrong to say that if I make a Kalam type argument that I'm "assuming" that such an entity exists, rather I'm demonstrating it.



I think I'm being fairly gracious you, however lets get beyond all this seer bashing. I think he made some mistakes which mildly hurt his case, but only through distraction. Ultimately the point stands. If you wanted me to get sharp with you I'd still be pointing out the fact that you linked to a crank website.



This is a bare assertion, give me one model which survives the BGV theorem without being a ridiculous mess of contrived assumptions, or spacetimes with collapsing regions that collapse in just exactly the right way to not cause problems ahead of time, which there is no natural way of doing.



Depending on the model most of these have an absolute beginning in time.



This one most certainly has a beginning in time.



I didn't that there can never be an alternative solution. Just that today the best and most well defended models in existence are the ones with a beginning in time. And that people who are trying to seek out alternatives don't seem to be really motivated by evidence but by preconceptions.

If I've you got any evidence or coherent models lets discuss them.



A begging the question fallacy; this would only be true if you're right that the past is eternal in time.



I haven't, seer haven't and Craig haven't said that the BGV proves an absolute beginning. It looks like a strawman you like burning.



Since we're not discussing Kalam arguments I won't pick that one up.



The goal of a Kalam argument isn't to demonstrate merely that a deity could explain it, but that there's really no other choice than either to accept the existence of a sufficiently powerful, personal entitity, or to deny some very basic and pretty much undeniable premises. It deduces the existence of such a deity. However lets get back to talking about time.

I haven't argued for God in this thread, so you don't have to worry that I will. You're defending yourself against things I don't say.

I know that since we last talked you converted to Christianity so I'm going to remain respectful of that in pending discussion. Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to point some things out, Leonhard.

Firstly, the BGV theorem that been referenced so much is speculation on top of an already unproven framework. Inflationary cosmology is a very touch subject as so far the inflaton field has yet to be discovered, unless you wish to go with the idea that the Higgs is the the inflaton field. As much as the authors might try the theorem isn't really a theorem so much as a physical paradox. That's what so much of cosmology actually is :a series of paradoxes. Currently, the horizon paradox, flatness paradox, and host of other problems in cosmology are explained by inflation simply because it's been the most mathematically developed. A number of other frameworks for explaining these issues do actually exist but are having a hard time getting examined because cosmologists are taught inflation as the standard.

Secondly, the concept of infinity is something I think a physicist should avoid when in waters such as these. Mathematics has an entire philosophy that twists that minds of the most veteran mathematicians. Physicists by their nature like to hide in mathematical frameworks and are the very last people that should be talking about paradoxical infinity, especially in discussions about already poorly understood physics.

Thirdly, until quantum gravity is understood this will all be nothing but speculation. The Higgs was celebrated (as it should be) as some sort of sign that current physics is on the right track, and maybe it is, but you know you didn't hear about? No supersymmetry particles have been found and many were speculated to be seen. Hell, we still have no idea what makes up dark matter outside of poorly defined string theory, and even more poorly defined theories outside of that.

Physics has a long way to go in explaining these things and I feel that theology is simply preying on that, all while not understanding even the bare-bone essentials to these subjects. Look at us: we've both gone a good ways in this field of science (now I'm doing other things) and after all these years of the study of everything from differential geometry to quantum field theory, I think I have more questions now than before. But that's the beauty of it, Leonhard. That's what makes this form of science so very special is that it goes into areas no man has gone before, often shattering human convictions held for years. Embrace that and don't try to mix it up with theology/philosophy as you're just setting yourself up for less clarity than before, and judging by our past discussions you're better for that.

[seer]

Indirect evidence is what Jim's talking about!



For the umpteenth time seer, this time from Leonhard, "Indirect evidence, however you define it, was in vogue as well back then". "Indirect evidence" is NOT no evidence, as you continually assert. It is a productive methodology dating back many centuries to Newton and beyond.

But there isn't even any indirect physical evidence. If you are speaking, like Jim, of math equations, then fine. But that is only numbers on paper - there have to be predictions, corresponding physical evidence.

[Leonhard]

I know that since we last talked you converted to Christianity so I'm going to remain respectful of that in pending discussion. Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to point some things out, Leonhard.

Firstly, the BGV theorem that been referenced so much is speculation on top of an already unproven framework. Inflationary cosmology is a very touch subject as so far the inflaton field has yet to be discovered, unless you wish to go with the idea that the Higgs is the the inflaton field. As much as the authors might try the theorem isn't really a theorem so much as a physical paradox. That's what so much of cosmology actually is :a series of paradoxes. Currently, the horizon paradox, flatness paradox, and host of other problems in cosmology are explained by inflation simply because it's been the most mathematically developed. A number of other frameworks for explaining these issues do actually exist but are having a hard time getting examined because cosmologists are taught inflation as the standard.

Secondly, the concept of infinity is something I think a physicist should avoid when in waters such as these. Mathematics has an entire philosophy that twists that minds of the most veteran mathematicians. Physicists by their nature like to hide in mathematical frameworks and are the very last people that should be talking about paradoxical infinity, especially in discussions about already poorly understood physics.

Thirdly, until quantum gravity is understood this will all be nothing but speculation. The Higgs was celebrated (as it should be) as some sort of sign that current physics is on the right track, and maybe it is, but you know you didn't hear about? No supersymmetry particles have been found and many were speculated to be seen. Hell, we still have no idea what makes up dark matter outside of poorly defined string theory, and even more poorly defined theories outside of that.

Physics has a long way to go in explaining these things and I feel that theology is simply preying on that, all while not understanding even the bare-bone essentials to these subjects. Look at us: we've both gone a good ways in this field of science (now I'm doing other things) and after all these years of the study of everything from differential geometry to quantum field theory, I think I have more questions now than before. But that's the beauty of it, Leonhard. That's what makes this form of science so very special is that it goes into areas no man has gone before, often shattering human convictions held for years. Embrace that and don't try to mix it up with theology/philosophy as you're just setting yourself up for less clarity than before, and judging by our past discussions you're better for that.

Thank you for writing a post that doesn't invite fragmentation Sea of Red.

You're wrong to call the BGV theorem speculation, it simple establishes a problem in all eternal inflationary models that have an average Hubble constant larger than zero. Namely that you get ultraviolet runaway problems as you go backwards in time. This isn't speculation, it mathematically proves that this problem will occur in almost all space-times.

Secondly, I do avoid the use of infinities for various reasons, and since a closed spacetime is more elegant and easier to treat when it comes to boundary conditions it looks favorable for those reasons alone. Ignoring here all philosophical problems with infinities. I don't like the mysticism you seem to throw towards the paradoxes that emerge from infinities in mathematics. I am aware of those, and its things like them that you'd typically use to argue that infinite extensive properties don't exist in the universe.

Thirdly, I wouldn't call it speculation that the best supported list of models is the one where time has a definite beginning. Even if quantum gravity models come about there's nothing that really indicates that they would have an infinite past either. It would be an argument from ignorance that because there's stuff out there we don't know about, we don't have evidence that the past is finite. From physics alone, this seems like the only and best option.

And what's with the "not even understanding the barebones essentials of these topics"? Do you mean to say that the theologians discussing these things don't understand General Relativity, or do you mean that things like quantum gravity isn't understood well enough yet to warrant a discussion?

The former is clearly false in some circumstances, the latter is false as well since we do have some tentative models of what a successful quantum gravity would look like and it doesn't appear that it will change the outcome ultimately. This will be assertion on my part until I get home. The weekend after this one I'll be there.

I know that since we last talked you converted to Christianity so I'm going to remain respectful of that in pending discussion.

But that's the beauty of it, Leonhard.

That's what makes this form of science so very special is that it goes into areas no man has gone before, often shattering human convictions held for years. Embrace that and don't try to mix it up with theology/philosophy as you're just setting yourself up for less clarity than before, and judging by our past discussions you're better for that.

You're tone got a wee bit patronising with these statements.

It wasn't the Kalam argument that got me into Christianity, however I consider it perfectly valid and well founded, if a bit limited in its conclusions.

I am well aware of the limitations of science, but so far you haven't really given a good argument why anyone should deny that the evidence supports a finite past. What we have today clearly does, and the only models on the table clearly do. Reading your post you could sum it up as "Science is hard, and since there's a lot we don't know relating to this we can't trust these results" At best this is an argument for holding to these things tentatively, at worst its a fallacious stance.

Physics, it seems to me, can supply theists with new ways to justify certain premises for such arguments as the Kalam. This is useful to show those atheists who are otherwise fairly ignorant and sometimes outright dismissive of philosophical arguments. Often I find atheists start to head off into weird angles, denying well founded science in some cases, implying that speculative models have far more scientific weight than they have (though they might be popularly considered), to denying completely obvious truths of causation. Its enough for me to make an atheist see that he's not acting reasonable in cases like that, and sometimes a scientifically slanted Kalam is useful for that.

[Leonhard]

But there isn't even any indirect physical evidence. If you are speaking, like Jim, of math equations, then fine. But that is only numbers on paper - there have to be predictions, corresponding physical evidence.

I think we could even grant more than this, by saying that there's weak indirect physical evidence. Something is weak if its already predicted to be true by other theories. For example one weak prediction of inflationary cosmology is the virtual non-existence of magnetic monopoles, or that the General Theory of Relativity is true. However none of this can establish it, yet it if any of it was shown to be false you might have ruled out those models.

But yes, basically there's no significant evidential support.