An infinite series of finite causes.

[Tassman]

You just don't get it Tass, even if there was a multi-verse how do you demonstrate that it was past eternal? Even if all the math lined up, that still would not tell us that it never have a beginning. We could never go back in time...

I don't "demonstrate that it was past eternal" and neither do you, because we are not theoretical physicists and not in a position to research the issue. But many scientists have left the hypotheses of an infinite universe/multiverse on the table because presumably, there is good reason to think their existence is a real possibly. So whether or not this notion conflicts with your world view is irrelevant.

https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-u...ultiverse.html

[Tassman]

I shouldn't stoop down to your level....point taken.

Are you an academic scientist?

No. And I only have your say-so that you are.

String theory has been around for 40 years.

I didn't taunt you, I insinuated that you were being a hypocrite.

No, I don't really care if there is a multiverse but I don't like to play fast and loose with the science. It seems that you two desperately want there to be an eternal universe so you will grab onto anything that suggests it. And no, Shuny does not exhibit knowledge and understanding on the subject. He block quotes websites that agree with a couple of key words that he likes. His last quote was from a slide from a talk given.

More snide speculation regarding motivation! You see this is where you go wrong. Why do you assume I like to

1. This is, by your definition, a childish taunt.

No!

2. I wrote what I was accusing Shuny of doing and I am not doing that in the least. So there is no difference.

This is where we disagree. And I repeat, it is not fitting to discuss others behind their back.

[seer]

I don't "demonstrate that it was past eternal" and neither do you, because we are not theoretical physicists and not in a position to research the issue. But many scientists have left the hypotheses of an infinite universe/multiverse on the table because presumably, there is good reason to think their existence is a real possibly. So whether or not this notion conflicts with your world view is irrelevant.

https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-u...ultiverse.html

No, Tass there is no actual evidence, and not only that even if a multiverse existed you can not prove it was eternal into the past, that it didn't have a beginning - without going back in time.

[element771]

ok..this is going no where. I didn't mean for what I said to be a dig, I am sorry that you took it that way. However, I do think that you are over condescending to theists at times.

No. And I only have your say-so that you are.

Do you think I am lying?

More snide speculation regarding motivation! You see this is where you go wrong. Why do you assume I like to

My apologies. I didn't know you would take offense to it.

One of the major motivations underlying the multiverse is to explain the fine tuning of certain parameters (cosmological constant is one of them). IMO, I think it is playing fast and loose with science to posit something that is, by definition, not verifiable via observation / experimentation. Maybe you don't play fast and loose but some of the theories being espoused are.

[carpedm9587]

Deep breath...everyone...

One of the problems on this message board, IMO, is the deep level of distrust and disrespect each side has for the other. Many atheists speak as if theists don't have a brain in their heads, and their beliefs are as vapid as someone accepting the theology/doctrines of a superman comic book. Many theists speak as is atheists don't have a brain in their head and are out to defraud/debunk/dismiss the entire theistic community. The dialogue between the two sides is largely dismissive, condescending, and often wanders into insulting.

I have been on both sides of this equation. I'm not the only one here who has been. But I am continuously amazed at the degree of rancor that arises simply because we believe in different things. Yes, I believe that those who hold to the idea of a god are wrong. They are worshipping something that does not exist. But they also believe I am wrong, and I am failing to worship something that DOES exist. We clearly can't both be right - so one or both of us is wrong about that. That does not HAVE to make us enemies - nor does it mean we have to treat one another with condescension and ridicule.

So...maybe bring it up a notch? "I don't agree with you" is not disrespectful. "Libtard" and "moron" and all the rest are. Is there any possibility of being just a bit more respectful of one another? Or am I just an older man naively hoping for the impossible...?

[Tassman]

ok..this is going no where. I didn't mean for what I said to be a dig, I am sorry that you took it that way.

I agree, which is why I opted out of the discussion previously...only resuming at your request.

However, I do think that you are over condescending to theists at times.

I'm sorry if you think this to be the case, it's not intentional.

Do you think I am lying?

Not necessarily, but I tend to take all claims of scholastic/academic achievements made on the internet with a grain of salt.

My apologies. I didn't know you would take offense to it.

OK, no problem.

One of the major motivations underlying the multiverse is to explain the fine tuning of certain parameters (cosmological constant is one of them). IMO, I think it is playing fast and loose with science to posit something that is, by definition, not verifiable via observation / experimentation. Maybe you don't play fast and loose but some of the theories being espoused are.

Certainly. But that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are many reputable scientists taking multiverse theory very seriously.

[mattbballman31]

Time to clean house again! The Shuny-insects and the Tass-cockroaches are scurrying about again.

So this pile of pretentious crap (gotta love your ) is your way of admitting that you cannot show a parsimonious way to arrive at a true premise for metaphysical argument and hence cannot arrive at a true conclusion. OK! Nothing more needs be said.

Thanks for reminding me of your other dishonest, argumentative tactic: label the refutation calling you out on your baloney 'pretentious crap', or other some such appellation. It's the cowardly way of flailing away from the nylon fishing net you get caught in every time you set keyboard to screen. And, uh, no. It passes all the normal standards of parsimony in the literature. So, let me see . . . Do I subject such standards of parsimony to some Internet troll with no ability to advance beyond the elementary stage of intellection 99% of normally functioning people have when they're five years old, OR just stick with how the scholars have determined it? Hmmm. It's such a difficult decision. I'll really have to think about this. This is a deep, vexing question worthy of consideration from the most insightful sages and sufis!

Oh, get over it you thin-skinned little wuss. Awww. What's wrong? Someone talked to you like you talk to everyone else? Grow up and move out of your grandma's basement!

Current theoretical physics regarding the possible infinite universe and multiverse is "cutting edge" science by any standard as compared to established science such as Evolution, which is uniformly accepted by the vast majority of scientists worldwide.

What on earth art thou speaking of, my poor pathetic wretch? Name me 10 mainstream cosmologists or theoretical physicists that believe that the universe is PAST-eternal! Provide name, credentials, place of employment, CV's, and at least one published article supporting such a thesis (NOT an essay trying to falsify the mainstream view, but an essay that actually demonstrates and advocates for it as established science). The ONLY snippet of cosmological evidence that even remotely comes close to justifying a 'possible', infinite universe is that of 'eternal inflation', which is aimed toward the FUTURE, you disgusting villain. Absolutely zero cosmological evidence for a past-eternal universe. But if you want to hold out for possible future scientific discoveries confirming your glassy-eyed, hope-filled, God-less pipe-dreams, be my uninvited guest! But just remember, you look just as ridiculously silly as someone who says, "God bless me! I know the scientific community believes that every microgram of evidence supports biological evolution, I'll still hold out hope that there's something that'll come along that'll show the world is 6,000 years old!" Why don't you quit being dishonest and get back to organizing your stamp collection?

You are the biggest, most oblivious, hypocritical loser on this forum. Your penchant for drowning everyone under the Niagara Falls of your idiotic trivialities is only outweighed by the stench of trollishness permeating your every post.

As always, you insist the evidence supports a finite, and cry 'attacking the straw man' argument and not acknowledging the facts that the physical existence cannot be falsified that it is finite nor temporal, nor whether our universe nor our physical existence is either finite, temporal, infinite nor eternal.

What is this incoherent babble? Oh, it's shunya again. Everyone get prepared for the ole', clever, witty, "Pftttttt splat, dribble, dribble!" comeback!

Supports a finite? What koan is this? Supports a finite. Hmmm. Supports . . . . a . . . . finite. Oh! Sorry. Trying to interpret Shunya is like trying to solve a Rubik's Cube, while skydiving, drunk, blindfolded, tied, bound, and gagged, while juggling chainsaws, and saying the alphabet backwards, with no parachute.

The 'physical existence cannot be falsified'? What is this riddle, wrapped in an enigma, eaten, digested, and barfed out by the troll monster? Oh, that's right! We're reading Shunya-the-English-is-my-third-language-even-though-I'm-gonna-judge-everyone-regarding-their-communication-skills-dragon! Yay! We missed him so much! Perhaps the falsification is to be applied to the universe being finite or temporal? Not sure why you don't think that physics have already been trying to falsify this since the early to mid 20th century? Oh yea. Because you're an ignorant, hairy, stinky troll that hasn't taken their weekly shower next to Shrek's swamp. That's not the point, and never has been. The attempt at falsifying a finite, temporal universe goes on all the time. That's the point. It has withstood falsification for so long that it's probably finite and temporal, you corpulent, sorry excuse for a mall-Santa.

You are the one that is arguing that the scientific evidence supports a finite or temporal physical existence and it does not.

What's wrong with that, you incomprehensible bundle of rambling nonsense? There's oodles of such evidence. What say you on it? More, dribble, dribble, splat, Pffffft, native language, stupidity?

Again seer, this is a phony argument from ignorance and not even true. Contemporary physicists and cosmologists do not agree with this scenario. You need to cite scientists that support this as as any kind of absolute beginning or ending of our physical existences based on your scenario of the beginning and ending of our universe.

Did you take your logic lessons from Tassman? This argument from ignorance fallacy is moronically fetched faster than a cheetah chasing a gazelle! Seer's citation of thermodynamic expansion to support as evidence for the beginning of the universe is NOT an argument from ignorance. My guess is that you seized on seer's use of the language "there is no evidence for anything else", and your out-dated, obsolete, rusty, dilapidated fallacy-detector started dinging like a fifty year old car horn. The only problem is that seer mentioned that thermodynamic expansion is positive evidence for the universe having a beginning, which would disqualify it from being an argument from ignorance, you pathetic dunderhead. Please return to your decade-long struggle in putting six legos together, and stop embarrassing yourself. Let me guess! - Pffffffftt. Splat. Dribble, dribble. Look at me! I'm in that dern sandbox again.

There are possible hypothesis for cyclic universes, black hole universes, and multiverses that give the possibility of our physical existence is eternal and/or infinite. This is the belief of physicists and cosmologists, for which you totally lack the qualifications nor the education to draw the conclusions you are asserting based on a religious agenda.

There goes Shunya again! Pffffftttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!! Splat. That bug smeared on the windshield flying around on the Autobahn. Blah, blah, blah. No substantiated consensus on any of these possibilities. But if you want to hang your hat on mere 'possibilities', I guess you can hold out hope on the POSSIBILITY that the standard model of particle physics is wrong, or that quantum mechanics is going to go away some day, or that STR and GTR might possibly not apply to classical objects, measurements, and momentums. Yippee! We can do whatever we want with the magic wand of naked possibility! Welcome to Shunya-land!

My sole argument is that the scientific concept of an infinite universe or multiverse remains an open question in science at this stage. Unlike you and your bid to shoehorn science to fit your religious presuppositions, I am not arguing for one thing or the other. I'm awaiting the scientific consensus based upon the evidence. It will come in due course just as it has for many other scientific achievements.

So what, dingbat! ALL of the cosmological evidence supports a finite universe. ALL of the 'evidence' for a past-eternal universe or a multi-verse is merely theoretical. Calling the universe finite is a COMPLETELY, RELIGIOUSLY NEUTRAL proposition. But seeing as you think that the sole motivation for siding with the present cosmological evidence is to merely shoehorn science to fit a religious presupposition, that tells me all I need to know about your own psychological projections! And what the heck are you talking about? IT IS CONSENSUS that Big Bang Cosmology is the best explanation of the cosmological evidence. But if you want to wait it out so you can hold out for the possibility that future scientific advances will make it easier for you to shoehorn science to fit your presuppositions, that's fine by me!

I have. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, heat death is not the disappearance of energy, not the end of the universe, the universe that we know can expand on into infinity but it's energy, though useless will continue to exist, because not only can something not come from nothing, but neither can something become nothing.

Jim, what do you think that the BVG theorem and the Hartle-Hawking Singularity Theorems imply?

So...maybe bring it up a notch? "I don't agree with you" is not disrespectful. "Libtard" and "moron" and all the rest are. Is there any possibility of being just a bit more respectful of one another? Or am I just an older man naively hoping for the impossible...?

You seem like a cool dude to me! The degree to which I 'bring it down a notch' is proportional to how the person I'm talking to deserves to be treated. Tit for Tat. Look at what happened with us! Our conversation reset and it became cordial. Tass and Shunya have demonstrated being trolls throughout the course of this thread. Go through and read it. They deserve to be utterly denounced. They're not serious and demonstrate zero capacity to follow a line of argumentation. They have an agenda and deserve every handful of mud they've tossed at everyone else. Ask yourself this question. Why is it that if you were to contribute to this discussion, you'd be treated with more respect and dignity compared with the pathetic Tass and Shunya? There are civil standards, even if there is disagreement. Jim would also be treated with respect up until there is reason to think otherwise. And it'll oscillate from there.

[JimL]

Jim, what do you think that the BVG theorem and the hartle-Hawking Singularity Theorems imply.

They are theories that imply the universe had a beginning, that it was born of nothing.

[Tassman]

No, Tass there is no actual evidence, and not only that even if a multiverse existed you can not prove it was eternal into the past, that it didn't have a beginning - without going back in time.

[mattbballman31]

They are theories that imply the universe had a beginning, that it was born of nothing.

Okay, good. And what is a theory?

[Tassman]

Time to clean house again! The Shuny-insects and the Tass-cockroaches are scurrying about again.

So funny! You're a legend in your own mind little man.

Thanks for reminding me of your other dishonest, argumentative tactic: label the refutation calling you out on your baloney 'pretentious crap', or other some such appellation. It's the cowardly way of flailing away from the nylon fishing net you get caught in every time you set keyboard to screen. And, uh, no. It passes all the normal standards of parsimony in the literature. So, let me see . . . Do I subject such standards of parsimony to some Internet troll with no ability to advance beyond the elementary stage of intellection 99% of normally functioning people have when they're five years old, OR just stick with how the scholars have determined it? Hmmm. It's such a difficult decision. I'll really have to think about this. This is a deep, vexing question worthy of consideration from the most insightful sages and sufis!



Oh, get over it you thin-skinned little wuss. Awww. What's wrong? Someone talked to you like you talk to everyone else? Grow up and move out of your grandma's basement!



What on earth art thou speaking of, my poor pathetic wretch? Name me 10 mainstream cosmologists or theoretical physicists that believe that the universe is PAST-eternal! Provide name, credentials, place of employment, CV's, and at least one published article supporting such a thesis (NOT an essay trying to falsify the mainstream view, but an essay that actually demonstrates and advocates for it as established science). The ONLY snippet of cosmological evidence that even remotely comes close to justifying a 'possible', infinite universe is that of 'eternal inflation', which is aimed toward the FUTURE, you disgusting villain. Absolutely zero cosmological evidence for a past-eternal universe. But if you want to hold out for possible future scientific discoveries confirming your glassy-eyed, hope-filled, God-less pipe-dreams, be my uninvited guest! But just remember, you look just as ridiculously silly as someone who says, "God bless me! I know the scientific community believes that every microgram of evidence supports biological evolution, I'll still hold out hope that there's something that'll come along that'll show the world is 6,000 years old!" Why don't you quit being dishonest and get back to organizing your stamp collection?



You are the biggest, most oblivious, hypocritical loser on this forum. Your penchant for drowning everyone under the Niagara Falls of your idiotic trivialities is only outweighed by the stench of trollishness permeating your every post.



What is this incoherent babble? Oh, it's shunya again. Everyone get prepared for the ole', clever, witty, "Pftttttt splat, dribble, dribble!" comeback!

Supports a finite? What koan is this? Supports a finite. Hmmm. Supports . . . . a . . . . finite. Oh! Sorry. Trying to interpret Shunya is like trying to solve a Rubik's Cube, while skydiving, drunk, blindfolded, tied, bound, and gagged, while juggling chainsaws, and saying the alphabet backwards, with no parachute.

The 'physical existence cannot be falsified'? What is this riddle, wrapped in an enigma, eaten, digested, and barfed out by the troll monster? Oh, that's right! We're reading Shunya-the-English-is-my-third-language-even-though-I'm-gonna-judge-everyone-regarding-their-communication-skills-dragon! Yay! We missed him so much! Perhaps the falsification is to be applied to the universe being finite or temporal? Not sure why you don't think that physics have already been trying to falsify this since the early to mid 20th century? Oh yea. Because you're an ignorant, hairy, stinky troll that hasn't taken their weekly shower next to Shrek's swamp. That's not the point, and never has been. The attempt at falsifying a finite, temporal universe goes on all the time. That's the point. It has withstood falsification for so long that it's probably finite and temporal, you corpulent, sorry excuse for a mall-Santa.



What's wrong with that, you incomprehensible bundle of rambling nonsense? There's oodles of such evidence. What say you on it? More, dribble, dribble, splat, Pffffft, native language, stupidity?



Did you take your logic lessons from Tassman? This argument from ignorance fallacy is moronically fetched faster than a cheetah chasing a gazelle! Seer's citation of thermodynamic expansion to support as evidence for the beginning of the universe is NOT an argument from ignorance. My guess is that you seized on seer's use of the language "there is no evidence for anything else", and your out-dated, obsolete, rusty, dilapidated fallacy-detector started dinging like a fifty year old car horn. The only problem is that seer mentioned that thermodynamic expansion is positive evidence for the universe having a beginning, which would disqualify it from being an argument from ignorance, you pathetic dunderhead. Please return to your decade-long struggle in putting six legos together, and stop embarrassing yourself. Let me guess! - Pffffffftt. Splat. Dribble, dribble. Look at me! I'm in that dern sandbox again.



There goes Shunya again! Pffffftttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!! Splat. That bug smeared on the windshield flying around on the Autobahn. Blah, blah, blah. No substantiated consensus on any of these possibilities. But if you want to hang your hat on mere 'possibilities', I guess you can hold out hope on the POSSIBILITY that the standard model of particle physics is wrong, or that quantum mechanics is going to go away some day, or that STR and GTR might possibly not apply to classical objects, measurements, and momentums. Yippee! We can do whatever we want with the magic wand of naked possibility! Welcome to Shunya-land!



So what, dingbat! ALL of the cosmological evidence supports a finite universe. ALL of the 'evidence' for a past-eternal universe or a multi-verse is merely theoretical. Calling the universe finite is a COMPLETELY, RELIGIOUSLY NEUTRAL proposition. But seeing as you think that the sole motivation for siding with the present cosmological evidence is to merely shoehorn science to fit a religious presupposition, that tells me all I need to know about your own psychological projections! And what the heck are you talking about? IT IS CONSENSUS that Big Bang Cosmology is the best explanation of the cosmological evidence. But if you want to wait it out so you can hold out for the possibility that future scientific advances will make it easier for you to shoehorn science to fit your presuppositions, that's fine by me!



Jim, what do you think that the BVG theorem and the Hartle-Hawking Singularity Theorems imply?



You seem like a cool dude to me! The degree to which I 'bring it down a notch' is proportional to how the person I'm talking to deserves to be treated. Tit for Tat. Look at what happened with us! Our conversation reset and it became cordial. Tass and Shunya have demonstrated being trolls throughout the course of this thread. Go through and read it. They deserve to be utterly denounced. They're not serious and demonstrate zero capacity to follow a line of argumentation. They have an agenda and deserve every handful of mud they've tossed at everyone else. Ask yourself this question. Why is it that if you were to contribute to this discussion, you'd be treated with more respect and dignity compared with the pathetic Tass and Shunya? There are civil standards, even if there is disagreement. Jim would also be treated with respect up until there is reason to think otherwise. And it'll oscillate from there.

There is nothing to which to respond in this offensive rant of yours. The fact is that there are

[seer]

Time to clean house again! The Shuny-insects and the Tass-cockroaches are scurrying about again.

You know Matt, you string invectives together as good as my Drill Instructors on Parris Island - pure poetry bro....

[carpedm9587]

You seem like a cool dude to me! The degree to which I 'bring it down a notch' is proportional to how the person I'm talking to deserves to be treated. Tit for Tat. Look at what happened with us! Our conversation reset and it became cordial. Tass and Shunya have demonstrated being trolls throughout the course of this thread. Go through and read it. They deserve to be utterly denounced. They're not serious and demonstrate zero capacity to follow a line of argumentation. They have an agenda and deserve every handful of mud they've tossed at everyone else. Ask yourself this question. Why is it that if you were to contribute to this discussion, you'd be treated with more respect and dignity compared with the pathetic Tass and Shunya? There are civil standards, even if there is disagreement. Jim would also be treated with respect up until there is reason to think otherwise. And it'll oscillate from there.

When I let someone else govern how I interact - I give them control over my moral/ethical choices. And, as Gandhi is claimed to have said, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

[element771]

Deep breath...everyone...

One of the problems on this message board, IMO, is the deep level of distrust and disrespect each side has for the other. Many atheists speak as if theists don't have a brain in their heads, and their beliefs are as vapid as someone accepting the theology/doctrines of a superman comic book. Many theists speak as is atheists don't have a brain in their head and are out to defraud/debunk/dismiss the entire theistic community. The dialogue between the two sides is largely dismissive, condescending, and often wanders into insulting.

I have been on both sides of this equation. I'm not the only one here who has been. But I am continuously amazed at the degree of rancor that arises simply because we believe in different things. Yes, I believe that those who hold to the idea of a god are wrong. They are worshipping something that does not exist. But they also believe I am wrong, and I am failing to worship something that DOES exist. We clearly can't both be right - so one or both of us is wrong about that. That does not HAVE to make us enemies - nor does it mean we have to treat one another with condescension and ridicule.

So...maybe bring it up a notch? "I don't agree with you" is not disrespectful. "Libtard" and "moron" and all the rest are. Is there any possibility of being just a bit more respectful of one another? Or am I just an older man naively hoping for the impossible...?

It is a tough one. I will give you two examples of why it is difficult for me personally.

I am a Christian who is also a scientist. I often am accused of cognitive dissonance / compartmentalization simply because I do not fit the mold. This is offensive to me because it isn't like I haven't thought these things through. What really gets me is that the people who tell me this are not scientists themselves. They will go as far as to say that I must not be a good scientist. Once again, I try to hold my tongue but it is difficult.

The second pertains to this message board. I try to treat everyone with respect and for the most part, I am treated the same way. The rub is when you see an atheist calling a person stupid for believing in God. The same person that you get along with. It is hard to not take that personally because they must also think that you are stupid. It also works the other way as well when theists criticize atheists for being arrogant or blind. I could see how that is a problem for another person that will get offended.

I think that the fact is when we come to a message board, we already have our guard up. Any sign of an offense and its go time.

[element771]

I agree, which is why I opted out of the discussion previously...only resuming at your request.

I'm sorry if you think this to be the case, it's not intentional.

Ok, no worries here either.

Not necessarily, but I tend to take all claims of scholastic/academic achievements made on the internet with a grain of salt.

Understood. I can elaborate if you would like.

Certainly. But that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are many reputable scientists taking multiverse theory very seriously.

Right but I think that on some level it is a mistake and there are plenty of scientists who agree. It is not the idea of the multiverse that I have a problem with, it is the fact that most models are, by definition, not testable by observation or empirical measurement. If there is no way to test the mathematical model, how can you ever verify it? There have been plenty of times in physics were there have been multiple mathematical models describing the same thing. Without empirical verification...How do you ever determine which one is correct? How do you determine if any of them are correct? This represents a slippery slope IMO.