Hi Jeff, have to call you out on this one.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:15 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: Christians get a lot of "guff" for trying to explain the beginning of the universe.

That's because the typical explanations are supernatural.

Quote:It got me to thinking, what would be your explanation for the beginnings of the universe?

I don't have my own, personal explanation nor should anyone. Instead I pay attention to the facts/evidence and take advantage of the consequent explanations put forward by knowledgable experts.

Quote:Given that atheism is true, how did this universe begin?

Atheism has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. Your question could be better phrased thusly: 'regarding what we can perceive as 'the universe', given the observable/measurable facts available, what is the best, current explanation for it's origin (if the term is applicable)'. You'd need to include definitions of the terms 'perceive' (to illustrate what techniques are available for gathering data), 'universe' (to cross-reference existing knowledge regarding it's state, age etc.), 'best' (how would an observer tell that the explanation is the most comprehensive) and 'origin' (what is the scope of the explanation).

Quote:Also please keep in mind that science has proven that the universe did in fact have a beginning.

No it hasn't. Don't be ridiculous. This indicates that you don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:Three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

Ahhhhh, this explains where your misinformation is coming from. You're using WLC's failed arguments. This one has been debunked many times. Here are some examples:

http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/0...-vilenkin/
http://www.theaunicornist.com/2012/02/mi...cists.html

Quote: I'm conscious

Debatable.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:15 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: Christians get a lot of "guff" for trying to explain the beginning of the universe.

I have to say the guff is for pretending to know the beginning of the universe.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:15 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: It got me to thinking, what would be your explanation for the beginnings of the universe?

If science ever settles it, I'll go with that. Until then it remains unknown, although there are some intriguing hypotheses.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:15 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: Given that atheism is true, how did this universe begin?

I'll read that as 'if there was no God to create the universe, how did this universe begin?' Atheists not knowing with certainty the ultimate cause of the universe in no way increases the probability that the Christian 'explanation' is correct.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:15 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: Also please keep in mind that science has proven that the universe did in fact have a beginning.

Science has proven that our universe was once very small, it hasn't proven that it once did not exist at all. Events before the Planck Time remain mysterious.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:15 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: Three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

There is a big difference between hypothesizing something and proving it. If they've proved it, it will become a dominant paradigm of physics because a reasonable person has to accept as true something that has been proven. We don't know that the universe has been expanding throughout its history because we don't know the state of affairs before the Planck Time.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:15 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time.

As long as it's always been expanding.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:15 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.

As long as the multiverse has always been expanding.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:15 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

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).

I think you would find Vilenkin's idea of the ultimate origin of the universe would greatly differ from yours. Do you not see the contradiction of citing someone as an authority on the topic you are making claims about and rejecting their authority when it's inconvenient for your position?

I happen to think the universe had a beginning. I am not personally qualified to evaluate the evidence and math these cosmologists bring, but there are a lot of other cosmologists and other physicists who can, and I will be happy to accept their findings if they reach a consensus.

That happening would still not support a supernatural being as causing the universe. I'm not surprised if an ancient culture guessed right on the beginning/no beginning question on the origin of the universe: it's binary. If the universe had an ultimate beginning, a coin-toss would give you a 50% chance of getting it right. It would be surprising if absolutely no ancient culture went with 'it had a beginning.'

(October 17, 2012 at 8:29 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(October 17, 2012 at 8:23 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Why shouldn't consciousness exist in the cause?

Why should it?

Because then we'd have an effect greater than it's cause. Like, I threw a nail out of my window, and when I looked outside, there was a brand new car - that doesn't make sense.

And whether it's proven or not, it's not logical to automatically take a supreme consciousness off the table as a live possibility.

(October 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote:

(October 17, 2012 at 8:29 am)Faith No More Wrote: Why should it?

Because then we'd have an effect greater than it's cause. Like, I threw a nail out of my window, and when I looked outside, there was a brand new car - that doesn't make sense.

And whether it's proven or not, it's not logical to automatically take a supreme consciousness off the table as a live possibility.

1. That analogy doesn't make sense.

2. What isn't logical is putting it on the table with no evidence or rationale beside anecdotal fuzzy-feelings.

(October 17, 2012 at 9:48 am)Shell B Wrote:

(October 17, 2012 at 8:23 am)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: But we see that there is consciousness in the effect - I'm conscious, I imagine you are too.

Why shouldn't consciousness exist in the cause?

When I use a cake mix, cake is the result. Holy shit! There is cake in cake mix! Oh, wait. Phew. That's just ingredients.

Consistency in your reasoning could help you solve half of your "questions." Simply take your silly reasoning, apply it to something that does not involve your faith and look at how horribly it doesn't work.

Weird argument that supports my point. Cake = the ingredients you made it out of. It does not = stuff you didn't make it out of.

If I bake a chocolate cake, I get a cooked version of the ingredients I put in it. I don't get pizza.

(October 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Because then we'd have an effect greater than it's cause.

Really? All 'the start of the universe' is would be the big bang. Nothing that happens afterward would be influenced any further by the "first cause", it would just follow the laws of physics.

Here's a new analogy for you: I press a button, a rocket launches. Pretty amazing for just moving my finger.

(October 17, 2012 at 1:02 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: If I bake a chocolate cake, I get a cooked version of the ingredients I put in it. I don't get pizza.

What I can make out of cake mix that isnt cake:

Crepes
Cupcakes
I could make pizza, but it was be kinda gross.
Brownies


You know how you make each of these things? Differing how much water/milk you put in it.

Just off the top of my head. Not only do you not have a firm grasp of science, but baking seems to elude you as well.

(October 17, 2012 at 12:58 pm)Annik Wrote:

(October 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Because then we'd have an effect greater than it's cause. Like, I threw a nail out of my window, and when I looked outside, there was a brand new car - that doesn't make sense.

And whether it's proven or not, it's not logical to automatically take a supreme consciousness off the table as a live possibility.

1. That analogy doesn't make sense.

2. What isn't logical is putting it on the table with no evidence or rationale beside anecdotal fuzzy-feelings.

1. Sure it does.

2. You know how everyone is always telling me I need to learn more science? Well, ok. But some of you really need to learn more about epistemology. I think you'd figure out why your point is silly if you even just read a wikipedia entry on what epistemology even is.

Your sentence would be better if it said "there is no evidence that is accepted by modern science" or "there is no evidence or rationale that me and my friends like." There is tons (and tons and tons and tons) of evidence. If you've bothered to investigate, the most truthful thing you could say is "I don't like the evidence", not "there is no evidence." Really important difference. Otherwise you're locked in a weird dogma where you assume only modern science produces truth (although modern science can't prove that only modern science produces truth).

The real point is that science simply can't help with these questions.

---

(October 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm)Annik Wrote:

(October 17, 2012 at 1:02 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: If I bake a chocolate cake, I get a cooked version of the ingredients I put in it. I don't get pizza.

What I can make out of cake mix that isnt cake:

Crepes
Cupcakes
I could make pizza, but it was be kinda gross.
Brownies


You know how you make each of these things? Differing how much water/milk you put in it.

Just off the top of my head. Not only do you not have a firm grasp of science, but baking seems to elude you as well.

If you made pizza, you'd need ingredients that don't usually go in cake - mozzarella cheese and tomato sauce. If you've got those ingredients on your final product, they must have been in the initial ingredients list.

If you've got consciousness in your final product, it must have been in the original list of ingredients.

---

(October 17, 2012 at 1:02 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(October 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Because then we'd have an effect greater than it's cause.

Really? All 'the start of the universe' is would be the big bang. Nothing that happens afterward would be influenced any further by the "first cause", it would just follow the laws of physics.

Here's a new analogy for you: I press a button, a rocket launches. Pretty amazing for just moving my finger.

Where did the Big Bang come from? And what banged out of that thing, anyway?

As for your analogy: Cool, except - who provided the ingredients for the rocket, engineered it and put it together? Who set it up that you can conveniently launch it with your button?

I move my fingers all the time, never launched a rocket...

(October 17, 2012 at 8:15 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: Also please keep in mind that science has proven that the universe did in fact have a beginning.

Has it now? I must have missed the memo.

(October 17, 2012 at 8:15 am)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: Three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

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).

I'm reminded of a quote from this very website. One that, I think, was actually addressed to you.

"Does William Craig approve of you going through his underwear drawer and using the most stained sample?"

Here's a comprehensive rebuttal of your argument.

http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/0...-vilenkin/

As is apparent, you didn't even use your own words, but copied directly from Craig's own argument. Here's a section from the page:

Quote:Whenever William Lane Craig is forced to retreat from his use of the Standard Big Bang model, he will often cite a paper by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin:

Quote: …three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

-W.L Craig “Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe”

The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (pdf) shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe (as opposed to Dr. Craig’s “any universe”) will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past.

Dr. Craig seems to interpret this information as “the universe definitely began to exist” although that is a bit presumptuous. For example, this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).