An Infinite Past?

[seer]

Vilenkin has not asserted that there exists some new physics describe the past history of the cosmos, only that our current physics is insufficient to the task.

No he said more than that and so did your link. That we actually need a "new physics" to get past the need for a beginning.

Classical theism holds that God is changeless, and yet that God can perform actions. If you disagree with this sentiment, let me know. I honestly do not want to Straw Man you.

Yes, I do disagree. I only believe that God is changeless concerning His moral character.

Matter and energy comprise only a tiny percentage of the known universe. If you are only asserting that God created matter and energy, rather than asserting God created all of space-time, then I've misunderstood your position.

Well if God created matter and energy that kind of is the whole ball of wax, isn't it. And time would be relational - related to actual events, if time exists at all.

Again, on Classical Theism, God is considered to be completely removed from time. If this is not your view, let me know so that I can avoid Straw Manning you.

I'm not sure. I certainly would say that He is eternal, but how He relates to time is beyond me.

If time is illusory in the manner Dr. Barber suggests, Creation is still non-cogent. I honestly don't understand what you think is gained by going that route.

In this thread Boxing, I was not only referring to Dr. Barber, but to Dr. Carroll, and Brian Greene (and in the Greene link there are a number of other physicists quoted who question the reality of time). The over all point being that there is a real question about what time is. Is it real and fundamental or merely an illusion.

If it is the latter, your objection:

1. If time is past-finite, then there is some time t which is the first instant of time.
2. If t is the first instant of time, then there are no instants of time prior to t.
3. The universe exists at t.
4. If the universe came into existence from non-existence, there must have been some time t' prior to t at which the universe did not exist.
5. From #2, there cannot exist any time t' prior to t.
6. Therefore, either time is not past-finite or else the universe did not come into existence from non-existence.

...has no weight or force. The argument is moot - correct?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No he said more than that and so did your link. That we actually need a "new physics" to get past the need for a beginning.

He said that we would need new physics. He did not assert that this new physics actually exists. There's a fairly large difference.

When such "new physics" ideas are proposed, as is the case with Superstring models or Loop Quantum Gravity, they must be evaluated on their own merits. I maintain that "supernatural causation" hypotheses are not cogent, making them impossible to evaluate rationally.

Yes, I do disagree. I only believe that God is changeless concerning His moral character.

Cool. That helps me to understand your picture of God, better.

Well if God created matter and energy that kind of is the whole ball of wax, isn't it. And time would be relational - related to actual events, if time exists at all.

No, matter and energy are only an extremely tiny proportion of the known universe. Space-time is more akin to "the whole ball of wax."

Whether or not time is relational, I'm still wondering if you think God created time or if God is subject to time. Your previous statements lead me to think the latter, which is a departure from Classical Theism, but I want to be sure, before I continue.

In this thread Boxing, I was not only referring to Dr. Barber, but to Dr. Carroll, and Brian Greene (and in the Greene link there are a number of other physicists quoted who question the reality of time). The over all point being that there is a real question about what time is. Is it real and fundamental or merely an illusion.

If it is the latter, your objection:

...has no weight or force. The argument is moot - correct?

It depends on which aspects of time are considered illusory. On the A-theory, time is fully real as we experience it. On the B-theory, time is real but the dynamism of time is illusory. On Barbour's model, there is no temporal dimension, at all, so both dynamism and the dimensional aspects of time are illusory.

My reductio ad absurdum is applicable on both the A- and B-theories. It is not applicable on Barbour's model, but that model is not supportive of theistic Creation either.

The only way out, for a theistic Creation model, seems to be to assert that time is not a created entity, but that it exists independently of the physical cosmos. This would tend to clash with the standard creatio ex nihilo doctrine, though.

[Tassman]

What are you talking about, from your very own link:



And you cherry picked your quote, because it went on:



You can not get to an eternal past with inflation theory. You need a "new physics."

[seer]

He said that we would need new physics. He did not assert that this new physics actually exists. There's a fairly large difference.

When such "new physics" ideas are proposed, as is the case with Superstring models or Loop Quantum Gravity, they must be evaluated on their own merits. I maintain that "supernatural causation" hypotheses are not cogent, making them impossible to evaluate rationally.

Yes, but whether such a "new physics" actually exists or if we could ever really understand it is another story. So we are left with the finite universe with no clue about how it began. And I'm still not sure why a supernatural cause can not be in the running. Why? Because we couldn't understand it?

No, matter and energy are only an extremely tiny proportion of the known universe. Space-time is more akin to "the whole ball of wax."

Well, as discussed time is questionable, and isn't space made of quantum particles? Besides time are we not left with matter and energy?

Whether or not time is relational, I'm still wondering if you think God created time or if God is subject to time. Your previous statements lead me to think the latter, which is a departure from Classical Theism, but I want to be sure, before I continue.

I think God create time once He created the universe, or rather time is a by product of successive physical events. An arbitrary way to mark said events. For instance, if there were no minds in the universe Mars would still exist, but would time? Where, how?

It depends on which aspects of time are considered illusory. On the A-theory, time is fully real as we experience it. On the B-theory, time is real but the dynamism of time is illusory. On Barbour's model, there is no temporal dimension, at all, so both dynamism and the dimensional aspects of time are illusory.

My reductio ad absurdum is applicable on both the A- and B-theories. It is not applicable on Barbour's model, but that model is not supportive of theistic Creation either.

The only way out, for a theistic Creation model, seems to be to assert that time is not a created entity, but that it exists independently of the physical cosmos. This would tend to clash with the standard creatio ex nihilo doctrine, though.

Like I said Boxing, time, what it actually is or isn't is still quite elusive. I read a paper by Paul Davies yesterday and the fact is we simply do not understand it. The same point that Dr. Carroll made. So to use time as a argument against God creating ex nihilo is not only thin, but seriously premature.

[seer]

Indeed! And the reason "you cannot get to an eternal past with inflation theory" is because it is governed by classical Newtonian Mechanics, which cease to function at the Planck era - i.e. the first few moments of the existence of this universe. At this point Quantum Mechanics (i.e. the “new physics” being referred to) is required to describe what, if anything lay, beyond the Planck era. As yet no definitive quantum model has been established, although Vilenkin proposes quantum tunneling as a possible solution to the boundary problem.

Thus, just because classical mechanics has broken down at this point, it doesn't necessarily follow that nothing existed before the Planck epoch. There are increasing indications that say otherwise. Consequently, you cannot refer to “an absolute beginning” at this stage. We simply don't have sufficient information to do so.

The point is Tass, that we still do not have a clue. And even if quantum tunneling can get us past the present boundary problem how does that get us to an eternal past. Nobody, even Vilenkin, explains how that gets us to a past eternal state.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes, but whether such a "new physics" actually exists or if we could ever really understand it is another story. So we are left with the finite universe with no clue about how it began. And I'm still not sure why a supernatural cause can not be in the running. Why? Because we couldn't understand it?

Again, it's not because we can't understand it. It's because "supernatural causation" is not a cogent concept.

Well, as discussed time is questionable, and isn't space made of quantum particles? Besides time are we not left with matter and energy?

No, space is not made of quantum particles. Quite the reverse, actually. Matter and energy are emergent properties of the curvature of space-time. Special Relativity shows us that matter and energy are equivalent, and General Relativity shows us that energy is equivalent to the curvature of space-time.

I think God create time once He created the universe, or rather time is a by product of successive physical events. And arbitrary way to mark said events. For instance, if there were no minds in the universe Mars would still exist, but would time? Where, how?

On current models of physics, since time is every bit as much a dimension as space, time would certainly exist without minds in exactly the same way that space is not dependent upon minds for its existence.

Like I said Boxing, time, what it actually is or isn't is still quite elusive. I read a paper by Paul Davies yesterday and the fact is we simply do not understand it. The same point that Dr. Carroll made. So to use time as a argument against God creating ex nihilo is not only thin, but seriously premature.

This is why I went to the trouble of addressing a number of different possible understandings of time and showing that, on each, the stereotypical creatio ex nihilo doctrine is not cogent. Once again, if you can offer a cogent explanation of time which would preserve the doctrine, I'm all ears.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but whether such a "new physics" actually exists or if we could ever really understand it is another story. So we are left with the finite universe with no clue about how it began. And I'm still not sure why a supernatural cause can not be in the running. Why? Because we couldn't understand it?

Well, as discussed time is questionable, and isn't space made of quantum particles? Besides time are we not left with matter and energy?

I think God create time once He created the universe, or rather time is a by product of successive physical events. And arbitrary way to mark said events. For instance, if there were no minds in the universe Mars would still exist, but would time? Where, how?

Much of your arguments here represent a fallacy, (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam), where your argument for an absolute beginning is based on your claim of the lack of actual physical evidence for physical existence prior to the beginning of our universe, or other unknowns such as issues with time.

Like I said Boxing, time, what it actually is or isn't is still quite elusive. I read a paper by Paul Davies yesterday and the fact is we simply do not understand it. The same point that Dr. Carroll made. So to use time as a argument against God creating ex nihilo is not only thin, but seriously premature.

Good point!! it is seriously a problem for either an argument for the existence of God (the necessity for a 'beginning.') nor against God existing. The concept of our universe or our physical existence has some kind of beginning is unknown, because of the illusive nature of time, and other unknowns.

The problem of unknowns beyond the scientific knowledge based on Methodological Naturalism is the primary reason any theological/philosophical arguments concerning the existence of God are mote (a minuscule meaningless piece of anything)

[seer]

Much of your arguments here represent a fallacy, (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam), where your argument for an absolute beginning is based on your claim of the lack of actual physical evidence for physical existence prior to the beginning of our universe, or other unknowns such as issues with time.

No Shuny, the fact is all the evidence we have at this time points to a finite universe. Vilenkin himself said we can not avoid a beginning. If you want to pose an eternal past it is on you to show how that is possible.

[shunyadragon]

Again, it's not because we can't understand it. It's because "supernatural causation" is not a cogent concept.

I disagree here, based on the human perspective it cannot be determined that the existence of God "supernatural causation" cannot be determined as 'not cogent concept' in this thread. This argument presented by seer and likewise Craig, is not a persuasive cogent argument.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I disagree here, based on the human perspective it cannot be determined that the existence of God "supernatural causation" cannot be determined as 'not cogent concept' in this thread. This argument presented by seer and likewise Craig, is not a persuasive cogent argument.

Yes, the idea of "supernatural causation" which has been discussed in this thread is the idea which I was referencing as being non-cogent. As I've mentioned several times, if someone would like to present definitions for "supernatural" and "causation" which would make "supernatural causation" a cogent concept, I would love to discuss the notion.

[seer]

Again, it's not because we can't understand it. It's because "supernatural causation" is not a cogent concept.

But not "cogent" based on what? Our limited understanding?

No, space is not made of quantum particles. Quite the reverse, actually. Matter and energy are emergent properties of the curvature of space-time. Special Relativity shows us that matter and energy are equivalent, and General Relativity shows us that energy is equivalent to the curvature of space-time.

So what is space made of? Nothing?

This is why I went to the trouble of addressing a number of different possible understandings of time and showing that, on each, the stereotypical creatio ex nihilo doctrine is not cogent. Once again, if you can offer a cogent explanation of time which would preserve the doctrine, I'm all ears.

Well no Boxing, the only certain thing we know is that we don't know. We can muse about possible solutions but nothing is written in stone or known for sure. So I am in no way obligated to form an argument based on such a flimsy ever shifting understanding.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But not "cogent" based on what? Our limited understanding?

Based on the definitions of "supernatural" and "causation," as we have been using them in this thread. Once again, cogency is not equivalent to understanding or comprehension. This has nothing to do with something being difficult to understand.

So what is space made of? Nothing?

Space is not a composition of component parts.

Well no Boxing, the only certain thing we know is that we don't know. We can muse about possible solutions but nothing is written in stone or known for sure. So I am in no way obligated to form an argument based on such a flimsy ever shifting understanding.

This entire conversation began because you objected to the omission of "supernatural causation" from consideration on Methodological Naturalism. If you want to persuade people that supernatural causation is a viable option, then you are absolutely obligated to form an argument in support of that position. If you do not want to persuade people that supernatural causation is a viable option, then your contributions to this thread have been entirely irrelevant.

[seer]

Based on the definitions of "supernatural" and "causation," as we have been using them in this thread. Once again, cogency is not equivalent to understanding or comprehension. This has nothing to do with something being difficult to understand.

I'm still not getting it. What exactly is incoherent about a supernatural Being?

Space is not a composition of component parts.

Then what is space? Is it nothingness?

This entire conversation began because you objected to the omission of "supernatural causation" from consideration on Methodological Naturalism. If you want to persuade people that supernatural causation is a viable option, then you are absolutely obligated to form an argument in support of that position. If you do not want to persuade people that supernatural causation is a viable option, then your contributions to this thread have been entirely irrelevant.

No Boxing, one of your main objections against a supernatural cause revolved around the idea of time being real. As we have discussed that is quite thin and most likely premature. So what is next? And by the way, as a Presuppositionalist I'm not in the habit of trying to "prove" God.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I'm still not getting it. What exactly is incoherent about a supernatural Being?

The concept of "existence" is generally spatio-temporal in nature. What does it mean for a thing to exist outside of space-time?

Then what is space? Is it nothingness?

Space-time is the material field which composes the known universe.

No Boxing, one of your main objections against a supernatural cause revolved around the idea of time being real. As we have discussed that is thin and most likely premature. So what is next?

You keep blatantly ignoring the fact that supernatural causation is just as non-cogent whether time is real or not. I explicitly addressed the idea of supernatural causation on a view that time is not real, as well as on a view that time is real.

[seer]

The concept of "existence" is generally spatio-temporal in nature. What does it mean for a thing to exist outside of space-time?

So your argument, like I suggested, is based on ignorance. You don't know how that can be so it can't be. Our existence is spatio-temporal therefore all existence must be so.

Space-time is the material field which composes the known universe.

I'm specifically asking what space is made of. You denied that it was made of quantum particles so I'm asking - is space nothingness?

You keep blatantly ignoring the fact that supernatural causation is just as non-cogent whether time is real or not. I explicitly addressed the idea of supernatural causation on a view that time is not real, as well as on a view that time is real.

But your only real objection was based on time. Is that all you have?