Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(April 28, 2016 at 7:08 am)SteveII Wrote: You have no reason to think that whatsoever. Don't confuse metaphysics with physics.
I'm not thinking anything. I'm showing that you're applying principles in an inappropriate matter. Cause and effect does not apply when time does not exist, period.
And unfortunately for you, metaphysics is entirely reliant upon what physics says is possible. Stop abusing philosophy to try to make it conform to your desires.
(April 28, 2016 at 3:24 pm)SteveII Wrote: I posted this way back in this thread:
------- For reference, the BVG paper was 2003.
Vilenkin in his book (which comes 3 years after the paper): "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)."
In the Youtube video I posted (2012) Vilenkin showed that models which do not meet this one condition (any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past) still fail for other reasons to avert the beginning of the universe. Vilenkin concluded, “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”
You are simply refusing to call the space-time boundary the beginning of our universe. And then somehow you conclude because WLC calls it the beginning (as does Vilenkin), WLC does not understand the science.
It is unavoidable. If you need "new physics", a universe generator, or some other mechanism (a cause) to move across the boundary than you have a beginning of our universe. -------
You are correct, science breaks down as you pass through the singularity (not a thing but a boundary) and models do not help us. So, we cannot use science prior to that point. Now the only way to ponder that question is to use metaphysics.
Regarding the universe includes God: that would not be the definition of the universe. The universe is all space-time and physical matter that came into being 13 billion years ago.
And I posted this rebuttal 'way back in the thread' which negates your conclusions regarding Vilenkin in his own words...
Vilenkin also agrees with Hawking that, "the most promising approach appears to be the Quantum nucleation of the universe from nothing." ~35:15 Furthermore, when asked "Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?" by Victor Stenger, Vilenkin replied, "No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. [emphasis mine]" Vilenkin then goes on to quote the work of Gratton, Carroll and Chen who propose that the universe could very well have been contracting before it started expanding. (Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p.128).
Clearly Vilenkin doesn't draw the same conclusions about God you do.
And you ignore Jehanne's post on Velinkin:
Vacuum bubbles may nucleate and expand during the inflationary epoch in the early universe. After inflation ends, the bubbles quickly dissipate their kinetic energy; they come to rest with respect to the Hubble flow and eventually form black holes. The fate of the bubble itself depends on the resulting black hole mass. If the mass is smaller than a certain critical value, the bubble collapses to a singularity. Otherwise, the bubble interior inflates, forming a baby universe, which is connected to the exterior FRW region by a wormhole. A similar black hole formation mechanism operates for spherical domain walls nucleating during inflation. As an illustrative example, we studied the black hole mass spectrum in the domain wall scenario, assuming that domain walls interact with matter only gravitationally. Our results indicate that, depending on the model parameters, black holes produced in this scenario can have significant astrophysical effects and can even serve as dark matter or as seeds for supermassive black holes. The mechanism of black hole formation described in this paper is very generic and has important implications for the global structure of the universe. Baby universes inside super-critical black holes inflate eternally and nucleate bubbles of all vacua allowed by the underlying particle physics. The resulting multiverse has a very non-trivial spacetime structure, with a multitude of eternally inflating regions connected by wormholes. If a black hole population with the predicted mass spectrum is discovered, it could be regarded as evidence for inflation and for the existence of a multiverse.
You should quit trying to quote Vilenkin, because his actual stance on these matters is NOT what you want it to be!
First, the Stenger book predates the Velinkin lecture from my youtube post.
Second, Velinkin is not a theist. Commenting on a promising approach by Hawking (similar to his own), does not change the conclusion of the theorem (which is NOT a cosmology model). Of course he thinks that a further explanation is needed. Did you not see the slide at 35:00? What part of that is confusing?
Regarding Jehanne's post, Concluding sentence of the abstract: "If a black hole population with the predicted mass spectrum is discovered, it could be regarded as evidence for inflation and for the existence of a multiverse." What point is this supposed to be making? If there is a multiverse, do you think that avoids the problems with past infinite?
Regarding Hartle-Hawkings model (which is similar to Velinkin's), imaginary time variables can create a theory without a singularity. But it is not avoiding a beginning (see lecture around 34:30). I like the shell game though of switching out the models to make different points.
May 2, 2016 at 5:56 pm (This post was last modified: May 2, 2016 at 6:12 pm by Time Traveler.)
(May 2, 2016 at 2:08 pm)SteveII Wrote:
First, the Stenger book predates the Velinkin lecture from my youtube post.
Second, Velinkin is not a theist. Commenting on a promising approach by Hawking (similar to his own), does not change the conclusion of the theorem (which is NOT a cosmology model). Of course he thinks that a further explanation is needed. Did you not see the slide at 35:00? What part of that is confusing?
Regarding Jehanne's post, Concluding sentence of the abstract: "If a black hole population with the predicted mass spectrum is discovered, it could be regarded as evidence for inflation and for the existence of a multiverse." What point is this supposed to be making? If there is a multiverse, do you think that avoids the problems with past infinite?
Regarding Hartle-Hawkings model (which is similar to Velinkin's), imaginary time variables can create a theory without a singularity. But it is not avoiding a beginning (see lecture around 34:30). I like the shell game though of switching out the models to make different points.
The Stenger book and salient quotes postdate the Velinkin quote from the book you quoted. I also addressed Velinkin's conclusion from the video itself. But referring to the book you quote, Velinkin goes on to say...
Quote:Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic.
And there are many different scientific models describing the potential origin of our universe and the possibilities of a multiverse - none of which invoke God in their model. It is not a "shell game" to acknowledge these different models and possibilities.
You seem to believe that the BGV theorem somehow proves our universe had a beginning from absolute nothing, starting with an actual singularity in which only your God of the Gaps can account for. That's why Craig quotes the BGV theorem, and why you quote Craig. But this is not at all the conclusion the scientists who put forward the theorem draw. It's an ad hoc addition posited by a Christian apologist with no background in physics and no support from science. There is not one credible cosmologist that says something like, "Oh, because of the BGV theorem, we now know Gawdidit!" The theorem just doesn't help your case the way you want it to.
Then you ask, "If there is a multiverse, do you think that avoids the problems with past infinite?" So you are clearly open to the possibility that the BGV does not prove our universe began from absolute nothing, and are willing to move your God of the Gaps theory further down the line hoping to explain how a multiverse came about. Very flexible of you!
I understand why you obsess over "the problems with past infinite." It's part of Craig's take on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. If actual infinites don't exist in reality, then there must have been a first cause, and that first cause must have been magic bunnies... er leprechauns... no, that's not right. Oh yeah, GOD! Specifically, the Christian God. (Because only three-gods-for-the-price-of-one can create universes. Duh.)
Much of the universe seems to defy common intuition (Special and General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, my teenage daughters). Even if we found that the universe began from absolute nothing, starting with a true singularity (which would itself entail "actual infinites" by the way - infinite density, infinite temperature, infinite space-time curvature), this would still not provide empirical evidence for the existence of any deity. It would only prove that universes can arise from absolute nothing starting from actual singularities. (With the help of magic bunnies and leprechauns, of course.)
And you still have not addressed my question, "when exactly in the past prior to creating the universe did God decide to exist timelessly?"
(May 2, 2016 at 5:56 pm)Time Traveler Wrote: And you still have not addressed my question, "when exactly in the past prior to creating the universe did God decide to exist timelessly?"
Oh, let me answer! "God" existed timelessly from the beginning, but decided to become temporal and decided to create the Universe, created the Universe and had the Universe come into being all at the same time! (Whew!)
(May 2, 2016 at 5:56 pm)Time Traveler Wrote: And you still have not addressed my question, "when exactly in the past prior to creating the universe did God decide to exist timelessly?"
God existed timelessly and changeless causally prior to the universe. Atemporal. There was no stream of consciousness or successive chains of thoughts. He knew all truths intrinsically.
Depending on your preference between A and B theories of time, you can view God's temporality and the creation of the universe in one of two ways:
On the A theory, once God created space-time, God underwent an extrinsic change with the new relationship to his creation and in doing so became temporal. On the B theory, you could conclude that God did not undergo any temporal change (neither intrinsic nor extrinsic) and exists outside the block of time.
(May 2, 2016 at 5:56 pm)Time Traveler Wrote: And you still have not addressed my question, "when exactly in the past prior to creating the universe did God decide to exist timelessly?"
God existed timelessly and changeless causally prior to the universe. Atemporal. There was no stream of consciousness or successive chains of thoughts. He knew all truths intrinsically.
Depending on your preference between A and B theories of time, you can view God's temporality and the creation of the universe in one of two ways:
On the A theory, once God created space-time, God underwent an extrinsic change with the new relationship to his creation and in doing so became temporal. On the B theory, you could conclude that God did not undergo any temporal change (neither intrinsic nor extrinsic) and exists outside the block of time.
(May 3, 2016 at 5:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: God existed timelessly and changeless causally prior to the universe. Atemporal. There was no stream of consciousness or successive chains of thoughts. He knew all truths intrinsically.
Depending on your preference between A and B theories of time, you can view God's temporality and the creation of the universe in one of two ways:
On the A theory, once God created space-time, God underwent an extrinsic change with the new relationship to his creation and in doing so became temporal. On the B theory, you could conclude that God did not undergo any temporal change (neither intrinsic nor extrinsic) and exists outside the block of time.
May 3, 2016 at 5:32 pm (This post was last modified: May 3, 2016 at 5:35 pm by ApeNotKillApe.)
(May 3, 2016 at 5:24 pm)SteveII Wrote:
(May 3, 2016 at 5:07 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: And how do you know all that?
inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning grounded in a claim to certainty regarding the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, spaceless, timeless, invisible, immaterial supernatural entity that exists outside of existence and authored the laws of physics and personally crafted every individual atom in the universe all for the purpose of telling primates not to masturbate.
(May 3, 2016 at 5:24 pm)SteveII Wrote: inductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning grounded in a claim to certainty regarding the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, spaceless, timeless, invisible, immaterial supernatural entity that exists outside of existence and authored the laws of physics and crafted every individual particle.
No, inductive reasoning resulting from a study of natural theology.
May 3, 2016 at 5:37 pm (This post was last modified: May 3, 2016 at 5:37 pm by ApeNotKillApe.)
(May 3, 2016 at 5:35 pm)SteveII Wrote:
(May 3, 2016 at 5:32 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Inductive reasoning grounded in a claim to certainty regarding the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, spaceless, timeless, invisible, immaterial supernatural entity that exists outside of existence and authored the laws of physics and crafted every individual particle.
No, inductive reasoning resulting from presupposing the validity of natural theology.
