RE: Big Bang Theory
November 9, 2012 at 6:30 pm
(This post was last modified: November 9, 2012 at 6:49 pm by Truth Matters.)
[quote='DoubtVsFaith' pid='360787' dateline='1352496042']
[quote='Truth Matters' pid='360767' dateline='1352492718']
Timelessness must exist or you would have an actual infinity of time in the past - a true metaphysical absurdity.[/quote]
There was never a time "before" time of course, because a time "before" time is still time - so time has always existed. And therefore the opposite to time: Timelessness, has never existed and never can.
[quote]Energy is matter (presupposes matter). There is no reason to believe energy exists apart from space and time or causally prior to Physical beginnings. Where would energy exist? There is no physical space?[/quote]
And as I said, as for timelessness, timelessness never exists, and time always exists. "Time always exists" means "time exists at all times" which is a tautology because there can never be a time when time doesn't exist. "Timelessness never exists" means "timelessness doesn't exist at any time at all" which is also a tautology because there can never be a time when timelessness exists. Therefore it makes no sense to say that timelessness ever exists, or that time ever doesn't.
[quote]You miss the point. The inference is from what we DO KNOW from science - the necessity of a causal agency with attributes normally ascribed to God. [/quote] Not only doesn't science have evidence for God but science can't have evidence for God. God is outside the realms of science because he's unfalsifiable.
[quote] God has perfect explanatory power and scope.[/quote] And where is the evidence for this God that is supposed to have this explanatory power?
[quote]Atheist Materialism is simply incongruent with reason and evidence.[/quote] Atheism is the rejection of god(s). It doesn't have to be materialistic.
[quote]It's perfectly in evidence that a metaphysical reality transcends physical reality.[/quote] What constitutes something non-physical to you then?
[quote]Well, yes! But be careful. I agree with the thrust of your statement. However, any such reality would be metaphysical - not physical. This is the stuff Theism believes - not the committed Materialists.
I absolutely believe a metaphysical reality transcends and gives being to physical reality.[/quote]
So do you believe, then, that metaphysical reality is reality that physicists can't detect? That doesn't imply theism.
[/quote
I suppose it is quite possible that some non-physically dimensioned 'time' exists. However it cannot be prime. The physical Time, space and matter Universe we experience is tensed, but has an absolute physical beginning.
Whatever ultimately exists as causally prime, cannot exist contingently in time, but must self-exist. Time has no causal capacity, so we cannot rationally conclude that time is the prime reality. We also know that something must self-exist without beginning in time as causally prime of all things contingent. Nothing cannot cause something, therefore, Nothing cannot exist in time, therefore something exists transcendent to time.
I agree, there is no reason to believe that something can exist without space, as it wouldn't exist anywhere. But in that case how could anything non-physical exist anywhere either? It's the same argument: Where would it exist? Nowhere."
Not unless you get in to metaphysical detection. A metaphysical reality certainly is consistent with God and certainly does undermine the Materialistic understanding of the Universe that Atheists rest upon
{I agree, there is no reason to believe that something can exist without space, as it wouldn't exist anywhere. But in that case how could anything non-physical exist anywhere either? It's the same argument: Where would it exist? Nowhere.}
No, there is no reason to believe something PHYSICAL can exist without space. You are simply conflating categories. Metaphysical behavior is not bound by physical law.
{And where is the evidence for this God that is supposed to have this explanatory power?}
You just got one of the evidences. Did you miss it?
Here is a very cursory outline of some of the best evidences for God. The full arguments and evidences are not NOT adequately explained here. This is a very compacted outline I put together - not comprehensive.
Contingency – God is the best explanation for why something exists rather than nothing? Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause. Therefore, Something necessarily self-exists. Self-existence is logically necessary. A Universe from Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime.
Cosmological – Absolute beginning confirmed by Big Bang cosmology requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.
Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.
Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.
Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.
Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?
Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?
Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul.
Chemicals have no moral duties.
Moral Truth / Apprehension of Objective moral truth. Is rape really wrong or just an illusion? Is rape just a natural chemical byproduct caused by electrochemical activity (Atheism) – or an act of will.
Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,.
Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena
Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.
Absolute failure of Naturalism to explain a Finely tuned Universe, Finite Universe, Sentience, Rational truth and natural order, Moral Law (morality), intuition, intention, intelligence, purpose, free-will…
[quote='DoubtVsFaith' pid='360809' dateline='1352499105']
Science doesn't deal with proof or absolute certainty, it deals with evidence and probability.
The big bang is where existence expanded rapidly. And apparently it still is expanding. I don't see how you get from there to "The big bang comes from God".
[/quote]
So what? I never claimed otherwise. Mathematics proves an absolute physical beginning. There is no more absolute proof than Mathematical proof.
The Big Bang gets you to the necessity of God's attributes of timelessness, spaceless immateriality with the capacity to bring a contingent Universe into being.
It's certainly one evidence for God - among many.
Now where is your evidence and arguments to justify your belief that No God exists? Why do you believe it?
BTW The Bertrand Russel quote is silly: God doesn't require a cause. God does not begin or exist contingently. God is Prime. Prime self-existence is rationally necessary for the same reason we just discussed. Nothing cannot exist.
[quote='Ben Davis' pid='360798' dateline='1352497825']
[quote='Truth Matters' pid='360618' dateline='1352477293']
Then actually debunk me - don't just claim it happened somewhere with some link. Tell me exactly where I am wrong on the science? Try to debunk my arguments and watch how badly things end for you. I guarantee it.[/quote]
No problem. Regarding your claim that the universe has a beginning, you refer to WLC's induction from the 'Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe' claim. That claim is false. No scientist has ever reputably claimed that 'the universe definitely has a beginning' without caveats which make the claim purposeless. In fact, even Vilenkin has been quoted as saying (with Borde & Guth's approval):
[quote]...if someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.[/quote]
The most obvious of the 'subtleties' is that their models can only be applied to the universe in its current state (i.e. expanding etc.) and can make no inference about the possible previous states of the universe due to a lack of data. When their models make reference to the universe, their definition is 'the current, expanding universe from which we can take data'. The best than can be said in favour of your argument using the BGV models is 'the universe may have had a beginning but there's no way to be sure'. This is not the same as saying 'the universe definitely had a beginning'. Since science can't yet tell us that the term 'the universe' must necessarily refer to it's current state, we don't even know if the term 'beginning' makes sense in reference to it.
[/quote]
More rubbish!
Here is Vilinkin's exact quote
======
"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)."
======
At what point do you Atheists hold yourselves accountable to fact?
[quote='Ben Davis' pid='360798' dateline='1352497825']
No problem. Regarding your claim that the universe has a beginning, you refer to WLC's induction from the 'Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe' claim. That claim is false. No scientist has ever reputably claimed that 'the universe definitely has a beginning' without caveats which make the claim purposeless. In fact, even Vilenkin has been quoted as saying (with Borde & Guth's approval):
[quote]..
[/quote]
Nonsense
Vilenkins quote:
====
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).
====
Deal with it
[quote='Truth Matters' pid='360767' dateline='1352492718']
Timelessness must exist or you would have an actual infinity of time in the past - a true metaphysical absurdity.[/quote]
There was never a time "before" time of course, because a time "before" time is still time - so time has always existed. And therefore the opposite to time: Timelessness, has never existed and never can.
[quote]Energy is matter (presupposes matter). There is no reason to believe energy exists apart from space and time or causally prior to Physical beginnings. Where would energy exist? There is no physical space?[/quote]
And as I said, as for timelessness, timelessness never exists, and time always exists. "Time always exists" means "time exists at all times" which is a tautology because there can never be a time when time doesn't exist. "Timelessness never exists" means "timelessness doesn't exist at any time at all" which is also a tautology because there can never be a time when timelessness exists. Therefore it makes no sense to say that timelessness ever exists, or that time ever doesn't.
[quote]You miss the point. The inference is from what we DO KNOW from science - the necessity of a causal agency with attributes normally ascribed to God. [/quote] Not only doesn't science have evidence for God but science can't have evidence for God. God is outside the realms of science because he's unfalsifiable.
[quote] God has perfect explanatory power and scope.[/quote] And where is the evidence for this God that is supposed to have this explanatory power?
[quote]Atheist Materialism is simply incongruent with reason and evidence.[/quote] Atheism is the rejection of god(s). It doesn't have to be materialistic.
[quote]It's perfectly in evidence that a metaphysical reality transcends physical reality.[/quote] What constitutes something non-physical to you then?
[quote]Well, yes! But be careful. I agree with the thrust of your statement. However, any such reality would be metaphysical - not physical. This is the stuff Theism believes - not the committed Materialists.
I absolutely believe a metaphysical reality transcends and gives being to physical reality.[/quote]
So do you believe, then, that metaphysical reality is reality that physicists can't detect? That doesn't imply theism.
[/quote
I suppose it is quite possible that some non-physically dimensioned 'time' exists. However it cannot be prime. The physical Time, space and matter Universe we experience is tensed, but has an absolute physical beginning.
Whatever ultimately exists as causally prime, cannot exist contingently in time, but must self-exist. Time has no causal capacity, so we cannot rationally conclude that time is the prime reality. We also know that something must self-exist without beginning in time as causally prime of all things contingent. Nothing cannot cause something, therefore, Nothing cannot exist in time, therefore something exists transcendent to time.
I agree, there is no reason to believe that something can exist without space, as it wouldn't exist anywhere. But in that case how could anything non-physical exist anywhere either? It's the same argument: Where would it exist? Nowhere."
Not unless you get in to metaphysical detection. A metaphysical reality certainly is consistent with God and certainly does undermine the Materialistic understanding of the Universe that Atheists rest upon
{I agree, there is no reason to believe that something can exist without space, as it wouldn't exist anywhere. But in that case how could anything non-physical exist anywhere either? It's the same argument: Where would it exist? Nowhere.}
No, there is no reason to believe something PHYSICAL can exist without space. You are simply conflating categories. Metaphysical behavior is not bound by physical law.
{And where is the evidence for this God that is supposed to have this explanatory power?}
You just got one of the evidences. Did you miss it?
Here is a very cursory outline of some of the best evidences for God. The full arguments and evidences are not NOT adequately explained here. This is a very compacted outline I put together - not comprehensive.
Contingency – God is the best explanation for why something exists rather than nothing? Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause. Therefore, Something necessarily self-exists. Self-existence is logically necessary. A Universe from Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime.
Cosmological – Absolute beginning confirmed by Big Bang cosmology requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.
Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.
Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.
Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.
Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?
Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?
Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul.
Chemicals have no moral duties.
Moral Truth / Apprehension of Objective moral truth. Is rape really wrong or just an illusion? Is rape just a natural chemical byproduct caused by electrochemical activity (Atheism) – or an act of will.
Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,.
Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena
Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.
Absolute failure of Naturalism to explain a Finely tuned Universe, Finite Universe, Sentience, Rational truth and natural order, Moral Law (morality), intuition, intention, intelligence, purpose, free-will…
[quote='DoubtVsFaith' pid='360809' dateline='1352499105']
Science doesn't deal with proof or absolute certainty, it deals with evidence and probability.
The big bang is where existence expanded rapidly. And apparently it still is expanding. I don't see how you get from there to "The big bang comes from God".
[/quote]
So what? I never claimed otherwise. Mathematics proves an absolute physical beginning. There is no more absolute proof than Mathematical proof.
The Big Bang gets you to the necessity of God's attributes of timelessness, spaceless immateriality with the capacity to bring a contingent Universe into being.
It's certainly one evidence for God - among many.
Now where is your evidence and arguments to justify your belief that No God exists? Why do you believe it?
BTW The Bertrand Russel quote is silly: God doesn't require a cause. God does not begin or exist contingently. God is Prime. Prime self-existence is rationally necessary for the same reason we just discussed. Nothing cannot exist.
[quote='Ben Davis' pid='360798' dateline='1352497825']
[quote='Truth Matters' pid='360618' dateline='1352477293']
Then actually debunk me - don't just claim it happened somewhere with some link. Tell me exactly where I am wrong on the science? Try to debunk my arguments and watch how badly things end for you. I guarantee it.[/quote]
No problem. Regarding your claim that the universe has a beginning, you refer to WLC's induction from the 'Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe' claim. That claim is false. No scientist has ever reputably claimed that 'the universe definitely has a beginning' without caveats which make the claim purposeless. In fact, even Vilenkin has been quoted as saying (with Borde & Guth's approval):
[quote]...if someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.[/quote]
The most obvious of the 'subtleties' is that their models can only be applied to the universe in its current state (i.e. expanding etc.) and can make no inference about the possible previous states of the universe due to a lack of data. When their models make reference to the universe, their definition is 'the current, expanding universe from which we can take data'. The best than can be said in favour of your argument using the BGV models is 'the universe may have had a beginning but there's no way to be sure'. This is not the same as saying 'the universe definitely had a beginning'. Since science can't yet tell us that the term 'the universe' must necessarily refer to it's current state, we don't even know if the term 'beginning' makes sense in reference to it.
[/quote]
More rubbish!
Here is Vilinkin's exact quote
======
"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)."
======
At what point do you Atheists hold yourselves accountable to fact?
[quote='Ben Davis' pid='360798' dateline='1352497825']
No problem. Regarding your claim that the universe has a beginning, you refer to WLC's induction from the 'Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe' claim. That claim is false. No scientist has ever reputably claimed that 'the universe definitely has a beginning' without caveats which make the claim purposeless. In fact, even Vilenkin has been quoted as saying (with Borde & Guth's approval):
[quote]..
[/quote]
Nonsense
Vilenkins quote:
====
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).
====
Deal with it
