(December 5, 2018 at 7:26 am)Cherub786 Wrote:

(December 5, 2018 at 7:22 am)Jehanne Wrote: I think that you are taking Dawkins out of context.  Read his The God Delusion sometime, which I just saw on the shelves of Barnes & Noble here recently!

As for the Universe being "not eternal", if you read Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick and Walker (voted by the APS as being the greatest undergraduate physics textbook of the 20th century), they say that speculating what came "before" the Big Bang is a meaningless question, that is, nothing came before the Big Bang.  This is, of course, a very old observation.

That's what I've been saying all along. The universe had a beginning, and is therefore finite, and before it there was nothing, so the universe came from ex nihilo.
The question I'm posing is what caused it to come into existence and how.

As Professor Edward Tryon speculated long ago, maybe it was due to a quantum fluctuation:

Wikipedia: Edward Tryon -- Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation?

(December 5, 2018 at 7:33 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 5, 2018 at 7:26 am)Cherub786 Wrote: That's what I've been saying all along. The universe had a beginning, and is therefore finite, and before it there was nothing, so the universe came from ex nihilo.
The question I'm posing is what caused it to come into existence and how.

As Professor Edward Tryon speculated long ago, maybe it was due to a quantum fluctuation:

Wikipedia: Edward Tryon -- Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation?

Well according to this speculation, there is no explanation for how a single particle brought about by a "quantum fluctuation" becomes an entire universe.

Also, this theory posits that the universe exists within a plane, a "vacuum". Is that not an example of deductive reasoning?
And is that empty space eternal or did it too have a beginning?
So these theories are pure speculation and they fail to account for existence.
Furthermore, they are based on the assumption that the law of conservation of energy is absolute truth and is a physical law that was always in operation even before the coming into existence of our universe. But all the evidence points to the fact that the energy that constitutes the universe came into existence

(December 5, 2018 at 7:43 am)Cherub786 Wrote:

(December 5, 2018 at 7:33 am)Jehanne Wrote: As Professor Edward Tryon speculated long ago, maybe it was due to a quantum fluctuation:

Wikipedia: Edward Tryon -- Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation?

Well according to this speculation, there is no explanation for how a single particle brought about by a "quantum fluctuation" becomes an entire universe.

Also, this theory posits that the universe exists within a plane, a "vacuum". Is that not an example of deductive reasoning?
And is that empty space eternal or did it too have a beginning?
So these theories are pure speculation and they fail to account for existence.
Furthermore, they are based on the assumption that the law of conservation of energy is absolute truth and is a physical law that was always in operation even before the coming into existence of our universe. But all the evidence points to the fact that the energy that constitutes the universe came into existence

Most cosmologists/physicists are of the opinion that the total energy of the Universe is zero:

Wikipedia -- Zero-energy universe

And as Professor Sean Carroll pointed-out in his debate with William Lane Craig, per Professors Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, asking what came "before" the Big Bang may be like going to the South Pole and asking, "Where's south?"  Such may be a meaningless question.

On the other hand, the Universe may simply be eternal, without beginning or end, and without an edge, either, an actual infinite in both time and space.  It seems that you are bothered by the idea of an infinite regress or an actual infinite, but, theism is plagued by these types of paradoxes, also.  After all, if God created the Universe, who created God, and what caused God to create the Cosmos?  Again, this is a very old debate, and while it may be the case that planets move because there are angels pushing them, it is not necessary to believe such, just as it is not necessary to believe in a Creator that caused the Cosmos to come into being.  Maybe the Cosmos just Is.

(December 5, 2018 at 7:57 am)Jehanne Wrote: And as Professor Sean Carroll pointed-out in his debate with William Lane Craig, per Professors Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, asking what came "before" the Big Bang may be like going to the South Pole and asking, "Where's south?"  Such may be a meaningless question.

Then what of Tyron's theory that the "vacuum" of space precedes the coming into existence of the universe? Can't have your cake and eat it to!

Quote:On the other hand, the Universe may simply be eternal, without beginning or end, and without an edge, either, an actual infinite in both time and space.

The problem with your side is you can't make up your mind and stick with one theory. Instead we have multiple, conflicting theories about the nature of the universe, whether it is eternal or finite in both time and space. Of course, even your scientists and cosmologists have generally dismissed the idea that the universe is eternal and an actual infinite.

Quote:  It seems that you are bothered by the idea of an infinite regress or an actual infinite, but, theism is plagued by these types of paradoxes, also.  After all, if God created the Universe, who created God, and what caused God to create the Cosmos?  Again, this is a very old debate, and while it may be the case that planets move because there are angels pushing them, it is not necessary to believe such, just as it is not necessary to believe in a Creator that caused the Cosmos to come into being.  Maybe the Cosmos just Is.

I repeat, most of your cosmologists tend to agree the universe has a beginning and more are coming to the realization it came from nill.
In order for there not to be an infinite regress, and infinite regress is illogical when actual existence is acknowledged, because actual existence cannot be actualized in an infinite regress...therefore, there must be an uncaused or uncreated that is the cause for all that is extant. So either the universe itself is uncaused and eternal without beginning or something else is. Most of your cosmologists have eliminated the former idea.

(December 5, 2018 at 8:12 am)Cherub786 Wrote: I repeat, most of your cosmologists tend to agree the universe has a beginning and more are coming to the realization it came from nill.
In order for there not to be an infinite regress, and infinite regress is illogical when actual existence is acknowledged, because actual existence cannot be actualized in an infinite regress...therefore, there must be an uncaused or uncreated that is the cause for all that is extant. So either the universe itself is uncaused and eternal without beginning or something else is. Most of your cosmologists have eliminated the former idea.

I have no idea who your sources are; if you are alluding to the BGV theorem, here it is:

Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete

I have read the paper (it's only 4 pages); the authors call for "new physics" and not belief in some supernatural agency.

(December 5, 2018 at 8:24 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 5, 2018 at 8:12 am)Cherub786 Wrote: I repeat, most of your cosmologists tend to agree the universe has a beginning and more are coming to the realization it came from nill.
In order for there not to be an infinite regress, and infinite regress is illogical when actual existence is acknowledged, because actual existence cannot be actualized in an infinite regress...therefore, there must be an uncaused or uncreated that is the cause for all that is extant. So either the universe itself is uncaused and eternal without beginning or something else is. Most of your cosmologists have eliminated the former idea.

I have no idea who your sources are; if you are alluding to the BGV theorem, here it is:

Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete

I have read the paper (it's only 4 pages); the authors call for "new physics" and not belief in some supernatural agency.

Vilenkin's paper was also posted here and I read it too.
Obviously the paper doesn't say a supernatural agency created the universe. But do you at least agree that the universe came from nothing?

Btw, Vilenkin's proposal as outlined in Creation of Universes from Nothing dispenses with the big bang model.

(December 5, 2018 at 7:26 am)Cherub786 Wrote: That's what I've been saying all along. The universe had a beginning, and is therefore finite, and before it there was nothing, so the universe came from ex nihilo.

Now if you could prove that, you might have something. As it sits, you've got nothing.

(December 5, 2018 at 9:10 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 5, 2018 at 7:26 am)Cherub786 Wrote: That's what I've been saying all along. The universe had a beginning, and is therefore finite, and before it there was nothing, so the universe came from ex nihilo.

Now if you could prove that, you might have something.  As it sits, you've got nothing.

ِAlready been proven by the cosmologists and physicists.

(December 5, 2018 at 7:26 am)Cherub786 Wrote:

(December 5, 2018 at 7:22 am)Jehanne Wrote: I think that you are taking Dawkins out of context.  Read his The God Delusion sometime, which I just saw on the shelves of Barnes & Noble here recently!

As for the Universe being "not eternal", if you read Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, Resnick and Walker (voted by the APS as being the greatest undergraduate physics textbook of the 20th century), they say that speculating what came "before" the Big Bang is a meaningless question, that is, nothing came before the Big Bang.  This is, of course, a very old observation.

That's what I've been saying all along. The universe had a beginning, and is therefore finite, and before it there was nothing, so the universe came from ex nihilo.
The question I'm posing is what caused it to come into existence and how.

Fundamental rookie error. There was no "before" space-time. The statement is meaningless. "Before" is a temporal reference.
Here's a start : http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Enuma_Elish
You can find a lot more if you get off your ass and look. Hint --- any textbook on Comparative Mythology.

(December 5, 2018 at 9:26 am)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(December 5, 2018 at 7:26 am)Cherub786 Wrote: That's what I've been saying all along. The universe had a beginning, and is therefore finite, and before it there was nothing, so the universe came from ex nihilo.
The question I'm posing is what caused it to come into existence and how.

Fundamental rookie error. There was no "before" space-time. The statement is meaningless.

It can't be helped due to limitation of language.
The point is the universe came from nothing. The universe was preceded by its non-existence

There I used the word preceded