Hello!

I must start of by recognizing that I am a skeptic, and DO NOT believe in the type of "GOD" that apologists such as Dr. William Lane Craig espouses. 

There is a reason Atheists are not buying his arguments.  Why?

In summary, Craig asserts that infinity cannot really exist (i.e. you can't ever really reach an infinite number of baseballs - which seems true), and therefore, and along with support from the Boarde Guth Vilenkin Theorem, that our Universe (or Multiverse - all of physical reality) cannot be eternal -or infinite - to the past.

Therefore, as all things to our knowledge that begin to exist must have had a cause, something "a-physical" must have been that cause (as physical reality is that which is being created or started), and that is consistent with a spiritual entity which serves as a prime moving factor.

Moreover, since this moment of "creation" would have occurred at a "select" moment, this implies a choosing rather than a random act (i.e. why not earlier etc.), which implies a creative mind.

Why isn't this good enough to a skeptic?

Three deal breakers:

1)  Once the mechanism of action by which the asserted"a-physical" prime mover is understood to have performed its creative task, the entity and action could/would be redefined as an entirely natural, new form or branch of physics.

2)  It is fundamentally irrational to assert that an all powerful, all knowing  sentient being of any type (spiritual or natural) simply exists from eternity, without a prior phase or explanation as to its development.   To our knowledge, all things which have intelligence (let alone maximally obtainable intelligence) must have gone through a learning, or programming phase.

3) Most importantly, most Cosmologists such as Sir Roger Penrose, Carroll, Guth and others assert that physical reality may indeed be infinite (in fact infinite in many multidimensional layers)!

So for a skeptic to take seriously an argument for a "God" or "gods" existence, those three caveats must be addressed. 

Well  I think I"ve found such a solution.  Please

Administrator Notice
Link removed for advertising and 30/30 violation

Warm Regards

Happy philosophizing!

General Relativity is a classical model of gravitation. A quantum model, if ever fully developed, may give different inferences beyond those of the BGV theorem. As you imply, models of infinite cosmologies exist some of which can be found in the pages of The Physical Review Letters. If Dr. Craig or anyone else thinks that these peer-reviewed papers are bogus, the American Physical Society has a toll-free ethics hotline that Dr. Craig or others can call to report this, or, he can simply contact the President of the APS to file a complaint. Letters to the APS editors would also be an avenue that Dr. Craig could pursue.

Well, first off, there's no such thing as the Boarde Guth Vilenkin Theorem, though a similarly named Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem is often misrepresented as stating that the universe cannot be be past eternal when in fact it does not say that.

Second, that all things that began to exist must have a cause is an assertion which, when applied to the universe as a whole, has no evidence in support of it and may very well be wrong.

And third, there's no reason why a cause occurring at a select "moment" would have had to be a mind as arguments to the effect that it must, such as Al Ghazali's, are known to be flawed.

In short, it's not good enough for the skeptic because its main supports turn out to be false or invalid.

Infinite time cannot exist for the simple reason that if time proceeds at one year per year, then we'd still be way back there at minus infinity BC.

(November 20, 2022 at 8:28 am)Angrboda Wrote: Well, first off, there's no such thing as the Boarde Guth Vilenkin Theorem, though a similarly named Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem is often misrepresented as stating that the universe cannot be be past eternal when in fact it does not say that.  

Second, that all things that began to exist must have a cause is an assertion which, when applied to the universe as a whole, has no evidence in support of it and may very well be wrong.

And third, there's no reason why a cause occurring at a select "moment" would have had to be a mind as arguments to the effect that it must, such as Al Ghazali's, are known to be flawed.  

In short, it's not good enough for the skeptic because its main supports turn out to be false or invalid.

Here's the paper:

Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete

It's only 4 pages (including references); I would encourage folks to read it for themselves.

For those who do not wish to read the article, the last page is telling, and so, I will copy & paste that (emphasis mine):

Quote:What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibil-ities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event [12]. The boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which can be determined from the appropriate instanton.  Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can some-how be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20].  This is the chief result of our paper. The result depends on just one assumption: the Hubble parameter H has a positive value when averaged over the affine parameter of a past-directed null or noncomoving timelike geodesic.

I think most cosmologists are at least open to the idea of an infinite Universe, or Multiverse.
Sir Roger Penrose's CCC theory extends back to an infinite series of eons. - no need for a Creator.
Anthony Aguire (AG model) and Sean Carroll (CC model) 's models, both argue inflation with a bidirectional arrow of time. Under the assumption of Eternal Block Universe model of space-time, they are both infinite to the past and the future. - so no need or room for a Creator.
String theories Ekpyrotic Universe could be modeled as past infinite - imagining for example an eternal infinite number of branes existing in a higher dimension realm.
However, what if the "Growing" Block Universe is the correct model of space - time...? We don't know .
Then, when it comes to Inflation, the AG and CC models are stuck with a low entropy middle which exists without explanation.
Penrose' then incorporates an eternal regress of cause to effect, which one of the members in earlier reply objects to (how could we arrive at our present)?
The truth of reality is really alot of speculation.
It seems like the group here likes cosmology!

(November 20, 2022 at 2:28 pm)Skeptic201 Wrote: However, what if the "Growing" Block Universe is the correct model of space - time...?  We don't know .

If it's growing, then it's growing at a certain rate.  Which means there's another time that governs the rate of growth.

Maybe it's different times all the way down.

How An Infinite Multiverse Manifests an Eternal God

    THEORY

    For those who follow the debates, it is well known that the "traditional" Theistic argument for God's existence (often forwarded by Christian Apologists, such as Dr. William Lane Craig)  is led by the assertion that a First Cause Event is necessary in explaining the onset of physical reality.

    Here is the logical argumentation



1) Physical reality comprises a series of sequential steps of continuously changing states of being.

2) Actualized Infinity does not, in a "real" sense  exist (one cannot “reach” an infinite number of countable items or discrete finite measues).  Infinity only exists in theory in the field of mathematics.

3 The series of sequential steps leading from our past to our present state cannot therefore be infinitely long, and the start of the chain of events cannot exist quiescently for an eternal period  (another type of disallowed infinity) prior to emerging into activity, hence physical reality at some point began to exist.

4) All things which begin to exist, based on observation, always have a cause or an unstable temporal state before it, to serve as explanation as to how it came into existence in the first place.

5) That which caused physical reality, cannot be "physical" in itself, because that is what is being brought into being. Nor can it be an infinite continuation of prior temporal steps of any “non-physical” kind, because actualized infinity also cannot exist. So ultimately there must be a first step or cause to all changes of state.

6) The ultimate cause of physical reality, must be ultimately a timeless, non-physical ground state.

7) Such non-physical “first” cause must be selective (or selectively “turned on”), because if it were timeless and “always active or turned on”, physical reality would be expected to extend to the eternal past (again a disallowed infinity).

8) Selective agents, particularly which act in a “one off” way suggest – or are suspicious for, purpose and intelligence.

9) Therefore there is reasoned hope, that God exists.


    See link to Figure Below, A graphical illustration of the traditional Theistic argument of how God, starting out as a timeless plan (Logos), mysteriously morphs into action to create and fine tune our Universe.
                                 
                       ~Image taken with permission from "Does Ggod Exist? A disspassionate treatise", Hoffmann, Springer publisher, 2021.

    As mentioned at the outset, there are logical problems with this argument, one being how can a define-ably "non-physical" agent effect a physical cause?  Indeed, once the mechanism is understood how such agent acted would this not just become a newly discovered form of physics?

    Also, and most importantly, Atheist's these days simply counter the reasoning by saying - INFINITY CAN BE ACTUALIZED!

    That destroys the entire Theistic argument, and more so their “hope”!

    But hold your horses!

    What is not commonly considered is, that if one assumes Infinity does exist – then one can most certainly postulate our Universe, or Multiverse is infinitely old, or large or both.  In fact many Cosmologists these days, are favoring the truth of Infinity, and many plausible cosmological models are presented where our Cosmos indeed, may be past eternal and is of infinite size.

    But isn’t it well known that if you have a process with substantial variants (such as molecules, atoms, energy fields etc. ) running and interacting with each other “forever” all possible combinations will eventually form, no matter how unlikely, or how absurd?  Moreover, if a Multiverse is infinitely large, with infinite stuff, wouldn’t all possible forms and configurations of matter, inherently be in existence at any one moment, right from the earliest possible moment?

    See Figure below.  A schematic representation of an infinitely old and infinitely large Universe, which inherently manifests all possibilities, including a maximally powerful consciousness (an image of the Holy Trinity of the Christian Faith is shown).    

                                         ~Image taken from "Does Ggod Exist? A dispassionate treatise.", Hoffmann, Springer publisher, 2021

    After the evidence is laid out – one can decide for one-selves, but maybe the Atheist’s have painted themselves into a corner, by asserting the truth of Infinity?

    After all, can’t a god, a naturally derived one, "born from infinity so to speak" at least potentially exist?

The only thing you've shown is that you know fuckall about the subject except the flawed arguments of theists. Yeah, I'm calling it. You are not an agnostic. You're a stealth theist.

@Skeptic201

As I said, Dr. Craig, if he was sincere (and, you, too), could bring this matter to the attention of the APS. Apparently, Dr. Craig is of the opinion that eternal, beginningless models of cosmology are intrinsically flawed. If so, one must wonder what the Nobel committee was thinking when they awarded Sir Roger Penrose the Nobel Prize in physics??

Of course, Dr. Craig is absolutely correct when he claims that one cannot "count" one's way to infinity, and, by Craig's reasoning, our Universe must be finite, not only in time but also in volume. But, yet, our Universe, per the BGV theorem, is expanding, which means that "the increase in distance between any two given gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time." (Wikipedia, Expansion of the universe) And, yet, what is the Universe, per Dr. Craig, expanding "into"? "Nothing"? If Dr. Craig is going to claim that actual infinites cannot exist in Nature, then how can our Universe be finite without a spatial center? Please explain that one. And, if our Universe is finite, where's its surface or edge?? Explain that.

If you live by Science, that's fine. Just be honest about it.