(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.'
