An Infinite Past?

[seer]

That is not the question. What is Vilenkin describing as 'nothing' in his theorem?'

I wasn't talking to you about that - so what is your point?

Again, describe where Vilenkin or any other physicist or cosmologist proposes that the beginnings have 'no known cause.' This is not a question of evidence. It is a matter of how science views 'beginnings' in cosmology.

How who use 'begin?' the same as Vilenkin. Christian Theologists do propose that something comes from nothing as God created our physical existence out of 'absolutely nothing' with an 'absolute beginning.' That is not the same way scientists consider nothing.

Ok, then prove that Vilenkin's use of "begin" is different from common usage. You are making the claim, link please.

Again, do not make assertions as to how Vilenkin views 'beginnings,' and cite Vilenkin directly instead of unethically misrepresenting him.

What Shuny? I nowhere misquoted Vilenkin? His multiverse model needs a beginning, his own words and you will find that in the You Tube link of his seminar. Is he and other atheist scientists looking for a cause to the multiverse - of course, I already said this, they have ideas. Do they have a known explanation - no! Again if you think they do, then please post it.

[seer]

The problem is attempting to selectively out of context and unethically use scientific theorems and models of our cosmos to support this argument, especially when you reject the evidence that supports these theorems and models of the cosmos.

What evidence are you speaking of?

[JimL]

But again Jim, we are not claiming that something came from nothing, God is not nothing.

Yes you are claiming that seer. Though your claim is that the Universe or the Cosmos was created by God, the claim is also that it is a totally distinct substance from that of its creator, ergo that it was created from out of nothing

And the facts is, to most of us, God just makes more sense. Why is there something rather than nothing,

A logical guess would be because there is no such thing as nothing, that the Cosmos is eternal and infinite. Isn't that how you would describe God? You could ask that same question with regards to God. "Why is there God rather than no God"?

why is the universe intelligible,

If you should assume that God does exist, you could ask the same question with no good answer, so it really isn't relevant. But without God you have an answer, the universe is intelligible because minds evolved within, and comport with, the universe of which they are a part.

why is it life permitting,

Because it is.

and why did life appear?

Because it did.

and why did some of that life become rational and conscious.

Because matter takes many forms.

Never mind our deep sense of justice.

Again, minds comport with the enviroment of which they are a part and so evolve a sense of morality and justice. Which road would you say was in the best interests of minds to take in their overall best interests, morality and justice or immorality and injustice?

They are not only speaking of tunneling, at least Vilenkin wasn't. And he did use the term literally nothing.

http://mukto-mona.net/science/physic...om_nothing.pdf

I haven't listened to this yet so I can't comment on Vilinkin specifically, but it is an ongoing science. But if he is not talking about quantum tunneling, what on earth could he be talking about. What exactly did he claim came from literally nothing?

And Jim, there is no reason for me to assume that non-rational, non-conscious forces could or did create rational, conscious beings.

Well, though you do not accept it, there is a reason to accept it, that is exactly what we see from the billions of years of the evolutionary process. You do not see matter emerging from minds, you see minds emerging from matter.

[Tassman]

Yes you are claiming that seer. Though your claim is that the Universe or the Cosmos was created by God, the claim is also that it is a totally distinct substance from that of its creator, ergo that it was created from out of nothing


A logical guess would be because there is no such thing as nothing, that the Cosmos is eternal and infinite. Isn't that how you would describe God? You could ask that same question with regards to God. "Why is there God rather than no God"?

If you should assume that God does exist, you could ask the same question with no good answer, so it really isn't relevant. But without God you have an answer, the universe is intelligible because minds evolved within, and comport with, the universe of which they are a part.

Because it is.

Because it did.

Because matter takes many forms.

Again, minds comport with the enviroment of which they are a part and so evolve a sense of morality and justice. Which road would you say was in the best interests of minds to take in their overall best interests, morality and justice or immorality and injustice?




I haven't listened to this yet so I can't comment on Vilinkin specifically, but it is an ongoing science. But if he is not talking about quantum tunneling, what on earth could he be talking about. What exactly did he claim came from literally nothing?



Well, though you do not accept it, there is a reason to accept it, that is exactly what we see from the billions of years of the evolutionary process. You do not see matter emerging from minds, you see minds emerging from matter.

Excellent response!

[Tassman]

Are you being stupid on purpose? I said with the Vilenkin theory we have a beginning with no known cause. Do you know the cause of the multiverse? Does Vilenkin know the cause? Please tell us all.

No!

With the Vilenkin theorem we have a beginning of which the cause is as yet unknown; there's a difference between that and your blanket "no known cause". Vilenkin is in no way suggesting a Creatio ex Nihilo. There are several possible solutions to the boundary problem and Vilenkin himself proposes some. To imply that he (and others) accepts a "beginning with no known cause" is a dishonest misrepresentation of Vilenkin's position given that he overtly states that there is a probable scientific explanation.

So, while the current four dimensional space-time didn't always exist - which is what the BVG Theorem is all about - it is believed that the energy that makes it up has always existed, specifically at the quantum level. It can be shown mathematically that our space-time universe possibly evolved out of a quantum nucleation event that occurred in this energy 13.7 billion years ago.

[seer]

No!

With the Vilenkin theorem we have a beginning of which the cause is as yet unknown; there's a difference between that and your blanket "no known cause". Vilenkin is in no way suggesting a Creatio ex Nihilo. There are several possible solutions to the boundary problem and Vilenkin himself proposes some. To imply that he (and others) accepts a "beginning with no known cause" is a dishonest misrepresentation of Vilenkin's position given that he overtly states that there is a probable scientific explanation.

No Tass, there is no difference, there is no known cause. I already agree that there are ideas, and that of course an atheist who does science will want to believe that there is a previous physical cause. That is his presupposition. Vilenkin, Guth, et al would certainly think this is the case. And remember Tass, you are the one that is always demanding evidence, and when it comes to the multiverse there isn't any, and there certainly isn't any for what cause the multiverse to begin. The facts is Tass, you have faith, faith void of evidence.

So, while the current four dimensional space-time didn't always exist - which is what the BVG Theorem is all about - it is believed that the energy that makes it up has always existed, specifically at the quantum level. It can be shown mathematically that our space-time universe possibly evolved out of a quantum nucleation event that occurred in this energy 13.7 billion years ago.

It is "believed", "possibly evolved" - and no it can not be "shown." Numbers on paper are all very fine, but where are the fulfilled predictions, the physical evidence?

[shunyadragon]

No Tass, there is no difference, there is no known cause. I already agree that there are ideas, and that of course an atheist who does science will want to believe that there is a previous physical cause. That is his presupposition. Vilenkin, Guth, et al would certainly think this is the case. And remember Tass, you are the one that is always demanding evidence, and when it comes to the multiverse there isn't any, and there certainly isn't any for what cause the multiverse to begin. The facts is Tass, you have faith, faith void of evidence.

As cited Guth considered our physical existence likely infinite.

[seer]

Yes you are claiming that seer. Though your claim is that the Universe or the Cosmos was created by God, the claim is also that it is a totally distinct substance from that of its creator, ergo that it was created from out of nothing.

No Jim, I asked the question: Can God generate energy from His being that then becomes distinct from His being. That is the only question.

A logical guess would be because there is no such thing as nothing, that the Cosmos is eternal and infinite. Isn't that how you would describe God? You could ask that same question with regards to God. "Why is there God rather than no God"?

Ok

If you should assume that God does exist, you could ask the same question with no good answer, so it really isn't relevant. But without God you have an answer, the universe is intelligible because minds evolved within, and comport with, the universe of which they are a part.

Because it is.

Because it did.

Because matter takes many forms.

Yes, but these are not reasons. They are statements of faith. We are still back to non-living forces creating life, non-rational forces creating rational minds, and an intelligible universe, and non-conscious forces creating consciousness. I have zero reason Jim to assume that this did or could happen.

Again, minds comport with the enviroment of which they are a part and so evolve a sense of morality and justice. Which road would you say was in the best interests of minds to take in their overall best interests, morality and justice or immorality and injustice?

There is no justice or morality in a godless universe Jim, just personal or collective opinion. Just as if there were no universal, objective rules of logic there could be no rationality.

I haven't listened to this yet so I can't comment on Vilinkin specifically, but it is an ongoing science. But if he is not talking about quantum tunneling, what on earth could he be talking about. What exactly did he claim came from literally nothing?

This is a paper not a video, and yes quantum tunneling is involved, but, to quote: A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space.

So quantum tunneling is involved, but the universe comes from "literally nothing." So whether you or Tass want to admit it, this is very close to Christian language.

Well, though you do not accept it, there is a reason to accept it, that is exactly what we see from the billions of years of the evolutionary process. You do not see matter emerging from minds, you see minds emerging from matter.

You see no such thing Jim.Tell me Jim, where did non-conscious creatures become conscious? Did you see that? Did you see non-living forces create life?

[seer]

As cited Guth considered our physical existence likely infinite.

Yes he does, and? Like I said Shuny, I do not deny any man his faith.

[shunyadragon]

Yes he does, and? Like I said Shuny, I do not deny any man his faith.

The issue is not faith nor evidence. The issue is misrepresenting the position of physicists and cosmologists.

[seer]

The issue is not faith nor evidence. The issue is misrepresenting the position of physicists and cosmologists.

I misrepresented nothing, if you think I have please quote where I have. If not you are just bearing false witness again.

Did I not make my position clear back in post #844: Of course an atheist in science will assume that some other physical force caused, lets say, the multiverse to begin, but with out credible evidence all you are left with is a beginning.

And you also lied when you said I misquoted Steinhardt concerning his view on the multiverse theory.

[shunyadragon]

I misrepresented nothing, if you think I have please quote where I have. If not you are just bearing false witness again.

Did I not make my position clear back in post #844: Of course an atheist in science will assume that some other physical force caused, lets say, the multiverse to begin, but with out credible evidence all you are left with is a beginning.

And you also lied when you said I misquoted Steinhardt concerning his view on the multiverse theory.

You misrepresented both Vilenkin and Stsinhardt, by selectively unethically citing parts of their theorems to support your religious agenda, and then asserting there is no evidence for their theorems.

Vilenkin, Guth, Borde, and Steinhardt consider their models and theorems as based on credible evidence.

Already cited, as well as others where you misrepresent their work. You never have considered science as founded on credible evidence, so nothing new.

It is not a matter of religious belief as you assert above. This is a Red Herring.

[seer]

You misrepresented both Vilenkin and Stsinhardt, by selectively unethically citing parts of their theorems to support your religious agenda, and then asserting there is no evidence for their theorems.

That is a lie Shuny, again please link where misrepresented either. Show us.

Vilenkin, Guth, Borde, and Steinhardt consider their models and theorems as based on credible evidence.

Really, what credible evidence - can you list those evidences here? The predictions that were confirmed? And Steinhardt's and the Vilenkin theory are not compatible as Steinhardt made clear in my link. So which one is correct? Which one does the evidence point to?

[JimL]

No Jim, I asked the question: Can God generate energy from His being that then becomes distinct from His being. That is the only question.

It wouldn't matter, if it is the same substance, whether distinct or not, then it is the same substance. Its like asking if the Cosmos can generate baby universes that pinch off from the mother and become distinct from it. Sure, that is a logical possibility, highly unlikely in my opinion since i don't believe in an intervening nothingness, but even if that be the case, they would still be one and the same substance. Btw, generating anything would be an action that requires time and I know you don't subscribe to that notion of God.

Ok

Good.

Yes, but these are not reasons. They are statements of faith. We are still back to non-living forces creating life, non-rational forces creating rational minds, and an intelligible universe, and non-conscious forces creating consciousness. I have zero reason Jim to assume that this did or could happen.

They are the answers we have. We don't know the answer to how the exact mechanism works, but we do know that the universe of matter existed for billions of years before the elements that made life possible were even created by the forces of matter itself and that life once formed, whatever the mechanism, needed millions of more years to evolve all of the aspects that go into building a mind. Thats why i said that you do have reason to assume this is the order in which things happened, because that is what the process of evolution has made manifest. We don't see matter emerging from mind, we see matter building from itself both life and mind in a process that takes billions of years.

There is no justice or morality in a godless universe Jim, just personal or collective opinion. Just as if there were no universal, objective rules of logic there could be no rationality.

Of course there is seer, you see it in the courthouses and in the character of people every day. Ultimate and certain justice is what you are looking for and even in this universe that doesn't exist. Logic is a different case.

This is a paper not a video, and yes quantum tunneling is involved, but, to quote: A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space.

Okay, then what exactly is tunneling through what? Is nothing tunneling through nothing?

So quantum tunneling is involved, but the universe comes from "literally nothing." So whether you or Tass want to admit it, this is very close to Christian language.

Makes no sense seer. You may be misinterpreting him.

You see no such thing Jim.Tell me Jim, where did non-conscious creatures become conscious? Did you see that? Did you see non-living forces create life?

We don't see it seer, life began long ago in conditions that were suitable for it to begin in and it has evolved over millenia to the rational conscious life that exists today. Did I see it? No. Are you denying evolution?

[Tassman]

No Tass, there is no difference, there is no known cause.

I already agree that there are ideas, and that of course an atheist who does science will want to believe that there is a previous physical cause. That is his presupposition. Vilenkin, Guth, et al would certainly think this is the case. And remember Tass, you are the one that is always demanding evidence, and when it comes to the multiverse there isn't any, and there certainly isn't any for what cause the multiverse to begin. The facts is Tass, you have faith, faith void of evidence.

You're merely comparing your religious beliefs for which there is no substantive evidence, with science for which there is a solid record of fact-finding. Left to religion we would still be living in a geocentric universe rather than the vast universe - probable multiverse - which we now know our selves to be a part thereof.

It is "believed", "possibly evolved" - and no it can not be "shown." Numbers on paper are all very fine, but where are the fulfilled predictions, the physical evidence?

There are many predictions in physics which have in fact been fulfilled; black holes, and the Higgs Boson to name two. This is how science works. Therefore it simply remains to be seen whether or not the eternal nature of energy which makes it up our four dimensional universe has always existed as predicted. It can already be shown mathematically that our space-time universe probably evolved out of a quantum nucleation event and that it probably occurred within the eternal quantum field.

To Jim:

No Jim, I asked the question: Can God generate energy from His being that then becomes distinct from His being. That is the only question.

No it's not. Before you ask this question you need to establish the existence of God. Otherwise you are merely basing your 'science' on a mythological entity, not upon substantiated evidence.

So quantum tunneling is involved, but the universe comes from "literally nothing." So whether you or Tass want to admit it, this is very close to Christian language.

Only in the sense that quantum tunnelling emerges from the eternal energy of the quantum vacuum and that our universe is probably but one of an infinite number within a multiverse. This is really not very much like "Christian language".