An Infinite Past?

[seer]

From the perspective you describe it cannot be concluded either way.

We have good evidence that this present universe is finite, via big bang cosmology. There is no evidence that anything else but this present universe exists.

[JimL]

God is not nothing Jim. And you still would have the problem of the infinite regression of physical causes and effects, which as my example of moving backwards in time shows is impossible.

Doesn't matter seer. If God is a substance that has nothing in common with the substance of the universe, then the universe came from nothing whether created or not. As for your second point, as I keep pointing out and you keep failing to reply to, you have the same problem with infinite regression with respect to God and creation.

[seer]

Doesn't matter seer. If God is a substance that has nothing in common with the substance of the universe, then the universe came from nothing whether created or not.

But we don't know that. God is not nothing Jim, and we don't know that He couldn't generate energy from His own being. Creatio ex deo (I'm sure Leonhard will tell me it is a heresy).

As for your second point, as I keep pointing out and you keep failing to reply to, you have the same problem with infinite regression with respect to God and creation.

That is not the case, God does not change, as you know. And we have no idea if God thinks successively, as we do, since we are dealing with a timeless being. And we are not dealing with successive physical events that would be impossible to move through to get to this present universe...

Again: I will give you eternity, start with this present universe, jump back and visit the one before, then the one before that, etc, etc, etc... could you ever reach every past universe, even given eternity? Of course not - for no matter how many universes (or physical causes) you visited you would still have an infinite number ahead of you. It is irrational.

We all know that it would be impossible to visit every past universe (or every past physical cause) even given an eternity of time - because for no matter how many you reached there would still be an infinite number ahead. It is no more rational to argue that we could move through an infinite number of past events to get to this present universe. What does infinity + infinity + infinity equal Jim? Well it equals infinity - it is an irrational concept.

[shunyadragon]

This is just false Tass, where is the consensus? And there is no "evidence" for such an assertion, just ideas on paper. What physical qualities of this universe points to a multiverse being the "most probable explanation." More wishful thinking Tass...

Actually the current scientific view in the Big Bang scenario is that our universe began as something, a singularity, and not a beginning from nothing. There is no realistic theory or hypothesis for something beginning from absolutely nothing. The origin of the singularity and the greater cosmos it formed in and existed in are the present questions concerning cosmology, and the multiverse models.

[seer]

Actually the current scientific view in the Big Bang scenario is that our universe began as something, a singularity, and not a beginning from nothing. There is no realistic theory or hypothesis for something beginning from absolutely nothing. The origin of the singularity and the greater cosmos it formed in and existed in are the present questions concerning cosmology, and the multiverse models.

But there is no evidence that anything "physical" existed before the singularity. And there may not even be a way to really find out, what if anything, existed before said singularity. And Like I said to Jim - God is not nothing.

[shunyadragon]

But we don't know that. God is not nothing Jim, and we don't know that He couldn't generate energy from His own being. Creatio ex deo (I'm sure Leonhard will tell me it is a heresy).



That is not the case, God does not change, as you know. And we have no idea if God thinks successively, as we do, since we are dealing with a timeless being. And we are not dealing with successive physical events that would be impossible to move through to get to this present universe...

Again: I will give you eternity, start with this present universe, jump back and visit the one before, then the one before that, etc, etc, etc... could you ever reach every past universe, even given eternity? Of course not - for no matter how many universes (or physical causes) you visited you would still have an infinite number ahead of you. It is irrational.

We all know that it would be impossible to visit every past universe (or every past physical cause) even given an eternity of time - because for no matter how many you reached there would still be an infinite number ahead. It is no more rational to argue that we could move through an infinite number of past events to get to this present universe. What does infinity + infinity + infinity equal Jim? Well it equals infinity - it is an irrational concept.

You need to update your knowledge of the math of infinity by reading Infinity and the Mind by Rudy Rucker.

Simply what ever thing number or concept you can come up with there is always something beyond that. Lucretius got it right in the 1st century BC, and you're still clueless.

What ever Infinite regression you propose, there will always be something beyond it.

Your view of God must face the same criteria as the claim of the 'Greater Cosmos' and Natural Law. Both will be subject to the claim of never changing. From a philosophical perspective either may be true or false.

[shunyadragon]

But there is no evidence that anything "physical" existed before the singularity. And there may not even be a way to really find out, what if anything, existed before said singularity. And Like I said to Jim - God is not nothing.

I agree God is not nothing. The real parallel is the seed is to a tree, as the singularity is to the universe. Yes there may not even be a way to find out. We do not know for certain what existed before the singularity, but your argument represents a fallacy big time that because we do not know for certain what existed before or actually in the world where the singularity existed therefore important question; If there is a singularity, 'What would be the world around the singularity?', therefore we cannot simply conclude the most likely scenario is God created the Universe.

As I said before, by your logic and reasoning of the evidence available no conclusion can arrived at either way.

[JimL]

But we don't know that. God is not nothing Jim, and we don't know that He couldn't generate energy from His own being. Creatio ex deo (I'm sure Leonhard will tell me it is a heresy).

If the substance of the universe is the same substance as that of God then all you are saying is that they are one and the same thing. The same would be true for the universe and the Cosmos it came from, the one did not create the other, it gave birth to it.

That is not the case, God does not change, as you know. And we have no idea if God thinks successively, as we do, since we are dealing with a timeless being. And we are not dealing with successive physical events that would be impossible to move through to get to this present universe...

No, I do not know. I know thats the philosophical position of those who assert it, but if God thinks successively, then he changes with time, if he does not then he is determined and fixed by his own timeless nature. You've yet to answer this dilemma other than to say its just some mystery, but then that could just as well be said about the universe.

Again: I will give you eternity, start with this present universe, jump back and visit the one before, then the one before that, etc, etc, etc... could you ever reach every past universe, even given eternity? Of course not - for no matter how many universes (or physical causes) you visited you would still have an infinite number ahead of you. It is irrational.

The same could be argued about an infinite mind, else, as I pointed out above, that mind would be eternal and fixed like the block universe of Einstein.

We all know that it would be impossible to visit every past universe (or every past physical cause) even given an eternity of time - because for no matter how many you reached there would still be an infinite number ahead. It is no more rational to argue that we could move through an infinite number of past events to get to this present universe. What does infinity + infinity + infinity equal Jim? Well it equals infinity - it is an irrational concept.

We don't really understand infinity seer, but an infinite timeless universe is no different than an infinite timeless mind. If either one is infinite and timeless then they would both be fixed and determined. You can't have it both ways, at least not if you're to remain logical in your thinking. To argue that God has some mysterious way of both thinking successively and timelessly is to ignore the same logic that you apply to the universe.

[Tassman]

This is just false Tass, where is the consensus? And there is no "evidence" for such an assertion, just ideas on paper. What physical qualities of this universe points to a multiverse being the "most probable explanation." More wishful thinking Tass...

[seer]

I agree God is not nothing. The real parallel is the seed is to a tree, as the singularity is to the universe. Yes there may not even be a way to find out. We do not know for certain what existed before the singularity, but your argument represents a fallacy big time that because we do not know for certain what existed before or actually in the world where the singularity existed therefore important question; If there is a singularity, 'What would be the world around the singularity?', therefore we cannot simply conclude the most likely scenario is God created the Universe.

As I said before, by your logic and reasoning of the evidence available no conclusion can arrived at either way.

So there is no good reason to assume a physical cause either.

[seer]

What ever Infinite regression you propose, there will always be something beyond it.

What on earth does that mean?

[seer]

If the substance of the universe is the same substance as that of God then all you are saying is that they are one and the same thing. The same would be true for the universe and the Cosmos it came from, the one did not create the other, it gave birth to it.

No, not quite. Let me try and analogy. If we took some of my DNA and created some skin to help a burn victim, is that skin me? Of course not. What makes me, me and God, God is the personality, intelligence and character. And of course God created it, even if it did flow from his own being. We say that the carpenter created the chair even though he used preexisting material. In other words the universe would not exist unless God willed it into being.

The same could be argued about an infinite mind, else, as I pointed out above, that mind would be eternal and fixed like the block universe of Einstein.

Then you agree that you could not visit every past universe or physical cause even if I gave you an eternity. Like I said, the concept is irrational and physically impossible. And again Jim, you/we have no idea how a timeless being would think.

We don't really understand infinity seer, but an infinite timeless universe is no different than an infinite timeless mind. If either one is infinite and timeless then they would both be fixed and determined. You can't have it both ways, at least not if you're to remain logical in your thinking. To argue that God has some mysterious way of both thinking successively and timelessly is to ignore the same logic that you apply to the universe.

No Jim, we know that moving through an infinite number of past physical events to get to this present universe is both irrational and impossible. The thoughts of God are not physical events, and like I said we have no clue how a timeless being thinks.

[seer]

Again Tass, there is zero evidence for a multiverse. And there certainly is no good model for an infinite physical past. And the cycle model has pretty much been discarded.

Why Physicists Can't Avoid a Creation Event

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77980709/W...Creation-Event

[Leonhard]

This definitely does not represent anything close to Craig's position. He argued that the best interpretation present evidence and theory of physics and cosmology is that the universe and greater Cosmos is finite, which was shreaded by a competent scientist in the field. Craig has no competence in the field of physics and cosmology.

Exactly, Craig argues that the universe having an absolute beginning is better supported by the current evidence than the idea that there's a past-infinite cosmological expansion, or some cyclical universe.

However Craig has never argued that its impossible for the universe to fail to have a beginning qua the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem or the Hawking-Penrose theorems. Merely that, with Vilenkin, that you'd have to introduce an infinitely fine-tuned universe to avoid the conclusion. Which is unacceptable in physics.

He succeeded with references.

If he referred to anything he referred to his own model, he admitted he had no evidence for any of them, or that any of them could solve the substantial conceptual problems plaguing multiverse models. He merely expressed his confidence that they would ultimately be solved.

The question is how he knows that, and since he never actually argued that point then ultimately he's arguing in a circle. "Science will ultimately demonstrate that the universe is past-infinite because the universe is actually past-infinite."

Not a strong claim at all. I may cite some articles, as there are many and at least 17 models that apply to multiverse greater cosmos.

Where did I deny that there exists models like that?

It would rarer if you could cite physicists and cosmologists who deny that the most probable scenario is the existence of an infinite eternal multiverse cosmos.

Since there's no evidence, this can't be a denial, otherwise you're engaging in question begging behavior.

It is important to demonstrate that the Methodological Naturalist scientific methods of physics and cosmology can ONLY be used to apply the Nature of our Physical arguments and NOT theological questions concerning the existence of God and such.

Okay, why is that?

Any effort to do this [argue for theological questions] would represent a futile delusion, and little more then a circular argument

What's circular about it?

There is simply no justifiable reason to consider it finite, if one has a reasonable background in physics and cosmology. He cited Goth, and the theory of the 'No boundary Cosmos' by Hawkins and Hartie.

So how would you get around those two theorems and keeping in line with the principle of mediocrity 'our universe is nothing special', since the only way around those two theorems is to construct infinitely special universe set up in just the right way that they avoid the problems of Borde-Guth-Vilenkens theorem.

[Leonhard]

But we don't know that. God is not nothing Jim, and we don't know that He couldn't generate energy from His own being. Creatio ex deo (I'm sure Leonhard will tell me it is a heresy).

You're right, that's another heresy seer.

God is simple, he has no parts, he is identical to his substance. So its impossible for God to take a chunk of himself and fashion it into the world. At least not without ending up with pantheism, which Christianity denies to be the case. God isn't part of the world, he stands in relation to it.

So when God created the world, he created it out of nothing. He was all there was in the beginning, and then he made something that wasn't himself. There's no logical contradiction in asserting this.