(February 13, 2012 at 9:58 pm)brotherlylove Wrote: There are also many parameters where there would be a Universe and existence, but no life. Therefore, they are tunable.
Such as? How do you know that with these parameters there would be a universe, but no life - not just life as we know it, but no life at all?
(February 13, 2012 at 9:58 pm)brotherlylove Wrote: I think you need to actually read the paper rather than skim it and pretend you know what you're talking about. The title of the paper is "Did the Universe have a beginning?" not, "Did the observable Universe have a beginning?", and then it goes on to refute eternal inflation, cyclic evolution and static seed scenerios. These theories cover both what we can and cannot observe.
One cannot refute something that one doesn't know about. Currently, scientists can only talk about the observable universe, since they do not know of any limits to the actual universe. Therefore, it is implicit in all such theories that when they are talking about the universe, they are talking about the observable universe.
(February 13, 2012 at 9:58 pm)brotherlylove Wrote: Feel free to demonstrate this evidence at any time.
The past.
(February 13, 2012 at 9:58 pm)brotherlylove Wrote: Again, this all contradicts temporal becoming, and if you want to say the past is an actual infinite, then you have all the logical absurdities and contradictions that go with it. If we were to subject every third past event from the actual infinite, it would still be an actual infinite.
Even if I was to concede that an infinite past is possible, which I am not, the mere possibility of it is not persausive; the problem being that you don't have an argument. You don't even have a model to refer to.
What contradictions?
