The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[polymath257]

Angrboda. Did you watch your own video? Around 20-30 seconds, Dr. Lincoln says: "the Big Bang, which is the Beginning of the Universe itself". Lol. And again, the description in the video: "The Big Bang is the term that scientists use to describe the beginning of the universe. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln clears up many common misconceptions about this fascinating topic."

This is from Alexander Villenkin: "Loosely speaking, our theorem states that if the universe is, on average, expanding, then its history cannot be indefinitely continued into the past." He also wrote: "the answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed ... my own view is that the theorem does not tell us anything about the existence of God"

OK. Now, what assumptions was Vilenkin (and company) using to get that theorem? Have you actually read the paper? or are you simply taking someone else's word for what it says (perhaps WLC)?

In actuality, the assumptions that Vilenkin made were classical assumptions based in general relativity. But, it is no surprise to anyone that GR is wrong when it comes to the quantum mechanical aspects of gravity. In fact, we still do not have a tested theory of quantum gravity.

So, while Vilenkin's result (and similar results by Penrose and Hawking) are very relevant to the models based on general relativity, we *know* that such models are not going to be the end of the story.

And, in fact, in some of the models of quantum gravity, there is (wait for it) and infinite regress of time in an anti-deSitter space (do you know what that is?). The Big bang is merely a type of phase transition in one smallish part of the whole of spacetime.

Look, I get that you don't like the clearly Theistic implications of the Universe's having a Beginning. Even those who are Neutral or Undecided on the particular question of God's Existence quite openly say that the Universe had a Beginning is quite certain. The Big Bang is a Theory first proposed by a devout and highly learned Catholic Priest, a Master of Science, Fr. Georges Lemaitre; it was criticized in the early days by those who believed it was a Creation Theory. Ultimately, it essentially is one, as Physicists are discovering more and more.

Maybe you should take the advice of the theologian that actually came up with the Big bang model? Lemaitre roundly criticized the Pope for saying the BB model was a support for theology.

You, Angrboda, are conflating or misunderstanding two things (1) Given the current state of physics, our measurements break down at around an infinitesimal time after the Big Bang, and (2) We cannot therefore, allegedly, know the Universe had a beginning. Your conflation of the 2, or your allegation that 2 is a necessary consequence of 1, is a simple non sequitur on your part.

Actually, it goes further than that. We *know* that general relativity breaks down at some  point in the early universe. Our best hypotheses for what *does* happen at that point are, by necessity, theories of quantum gravity. And, in at least some versions of quantum gravity, the BB is NOT the start of existence.

Physicists reason like this, as the above excerpt also shows: (1) the universe is constantly expanding, (2) extrapolating backward, said expansion could not have been indefinitely continued in the past (3) Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Planck time, etc, is irrelevant to this conclusion.

Unless there was a bounce, or a phase transition, or an uncaused event based on quantum effects, or any number of other things that get in the way of your preferred conclusion.

Since Eternal Happiness is not formed by successive addition, nor is it a collection like an alleged infinite number of balls, that's another non sequitur. Rather, it's a Spiritual State of Perfect Bliss, that comes from God's Free Choice to allow us to participate in His Divine Presence in Heaven.

Bucky, I didn't study in a Catholic College, I studied in a Secular One, NIT, Trichy, the best Engineering Institutes in India after the IIT's. I did Engg. in Undergrad, and Mgmt in Post-Graduation, quite a common combination in B-School. Anyway, some don't like the implication that the observed Expansion of the Universe cannot be continued indefinitely in the past, which itself is like the Thomistic Argument; so they try to evade the conclusion. Other Astronomers and Physicists say it quite explicitly and openly, yes, the Universe had a beginning, and is not infinite in the past

At least partly this is because most cosmologists are not familiar with the conclusions of quantum gravity as well as the  fact that such conclusions cannot be tested currently. There is also the issue that if the BB was a phase transition, it would *still* be the beginning of our universe (the expanding part) even if not the beginning of all of existence.