(April 28, 2016 at 2:02 am)wiploc Wrote: - I'm not sure this is true. Asimov said the universe began at the big bang, but then he immediately hedged, saying something like, "At least we can call it the beginning, since we don't know what happened before that." Hawking made the same move in A Brief History of Time.I posted this way back in this thread:
But I keep reading this claim, made by Christians, as if the beginning of the big bang was literally the beginning of all. They often talk as if this issue were scientifically settled. They often talk as if doubting them on this is unscientific. But they are often the same people who say that begun things have to have causes, so I have to wonder if they don't support science only when they think it supports them. Often enough they'll say first that nothing comes from nothing, and then turn around and say that Jehovah created the universe from nothing.
So I went on campus and found a cosmologist and put the question to him. He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."
Bertrand Russell said something like this: "When the experts are agreed, the layman does well not to hold the opposite opinion; when the experts are not agreed, the layman does well not to hold any opinion at all."
So here's my opinion as to whether the beginning of the big bang was the ultimate beginning: I don't know.
I'm not aware of a scientific consensus on the matter, and I don't have the expertise that would warrant me having my own opinion.
-
I have some concern about equivocation on the word "universe." To me, this usually means everything that exists. So, if a god exists, it is part of the universe. So I don't see how a god could create the universe. That would mean, among other things, creating itself.
But if we only mean some things, rather than all things -- for clarity, we can call it a partaverse as opposed to the allaverse -- then I don't see what this premise gets you.
"P2: Some things had a beginning." Yes, I'm happy to agree with that, but I don't think you can build a first cause argument on that foundation.
-------
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.