Hey MK, maybe rather than just look for whatever confirms what you already believe and then posting that, you could take like five minutes to actually look up the work of the physicists you reference? Because if you did that in this case, you'd get an entirely different result than what you're claiming here.
Like, did you actually read any of what you posted here? It makes this big claim, that physicists "can't avoid a creation event," but it then goes on to completely ignore that what the physicists are talking about, there, is universal inflation needing a beginning, not the universe itself. That's literally all they're talking about, in the thing you cited; how it then spins off to talk about the universe having a beginning, I don't know.
Now, Vilenkin is also on record as saying that his work does not favor or even imply theistic creation, so I guess if you're taking Vilenkin's work as authoritative then you need to abandon the idea that what he's saying helps your case, or else I guess Vilenkin is only a good source when he's saying things you already agree with, and untrustworthy the rest of the time, but actually looking at Vilenkin's work provides some non-trivial subtleties that also puts the lie to what you're claiming. Have you heard of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem? It's Vilenkin's thing, written with Alan Guth and another physicist, and being that it's his professional work it sheds light on what he actually thinks pretty well. The "chief result" of that paper, which can be read here, is that "inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary." Not that the universe had a beginning, just that, at the point that universal inflation began, we require new physics models to describe what goes on beyond that boundary. There wouldn't be anything to measure beyond that boundary if your assertion that Vilenkin favors a creation model in his work were true. Vilenkin is merely discussing the beginning of universal inflation though, not the universe itself; he's on record as saying he doesn't know whether the universe proper had a beginning.
Seriously, did you look into any of this before you posted, or was it enough that you'd found something that seems to confirm what you already believe at first glance?
Like, did you actually read any of what you posted here? It makes this big claim, that physicists "can't avoid a creation event," but it then goes on to completely ignore that what the physicists are talking about, there, is universal inflation needing a beginning, not the universe itself. That's literally all they're talking about, in the thing you cited; how it then spins off to talk about the universe having a beginning, I don't know.
Now, Vilenkin is also on record as saying that his work does not favor or even imply theistic creation, so I guess if you're taking Vilenkin's work as authoritative then you need to abandon the idea that what he's saying helps your case, or else I guess Vilenkin is only a good source when he's saying things you already agree with, and untrustworthy the rest of the time, but actually looking at Vilenkin's work provides some non-trivial subtleties that also puts the lie to what you're claiming. Have you heard of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem? It's Vilenkin's thing, written with Alan Guth and another physicist, and being that it's his professional work it sheds light on what he actually thinks pretty well. The "chief result" of that paper, which can be read here, is that "inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary." Not that the universe had a beginning, just that, at the point that universal inflation began, we require new physics models to describe what goes on beyond that boundary. There wouldn't be anything to measure beyond that boundary if your assertion that Vilenkin favors a creation model in his work were true. Vilenkin is merely discussing the beginning of universal inflation though, not the universe itself; he's on record as saying he doesn't know whether the universe proper had a beginning.
Seriously, did you look into any of this before you posted, or was it enough that you'd found something that seems to confirm what you already believe at first glance?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
