Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
April 29, 2016 at 7:50 am (This post was last modified: April 29, 2016 at 7:53 am by Jehanne.)
(April 29, 2016 at 12:49 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: My knowledge of God, comes from the scriptures.
I don't believe in any of that; you can start another thread on that topic, if you wish.
As for "uncaused events," some things in physics are counter-intuitive. Imagine that you are standing alongside a track, and train is approaching you at 50 mph. You have a tennis ball, which you throw directly at the train at 30 mph, hitting it dead center. How fast will the tennis ball rebound back towards you? (No cheating!) Write your answer down before proceeding.
130 mph
Here's the explanation:
We need to consider how fast the tennis ball is moving relative to the train -- what does the engineer perceive? From his/her perspective, the train is moving at 50 mph and the tennis ball is moving at 30 mph, but in opposite directions; therefore, they are approaching each other at 80 mph. Per the conservative of momentum, V(in) = V(out), as the tennis ball is not going to slow the train down, hence, the tennis ball will leave the train at the same velocity that it approached it, 80 mph. Since the tennis balls is leaving the train at 80 mph while it is approaching you, on the ground, at 50 mph, you will see the tennis ball approach you at 130 mph (80 + 50).
Now, if you solved this problem on the first try, I salute you; if not, take note that not everything in Nature is "common sense". The World looked designed, at least until Darwin came along.
(April 29, 2016 at 12:49 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: My knowledge of God, comes from the scriptures.
I don't believe in any of that; you can start another thread on that topic, if you wish.
Fair enough.... I've talked a little bit about it in the past (it always seems to bring out the conspiracy theory nuts). However it doesn't change the arguments from the evidence found science about the cause.
Quote:As for "uncaused events," some things in physics are counter-intuitive. Imagine that you are standing alongside a track, and train is approaching you at 50 mph. You have a tennis ball, which you throw directly at the train at 30 mph, hitting it dead center. How fast will the tennis ball rebound back towards you? (No cheating!) Write your answer down before proceeding.
Why is it, that every time I ask this question (why it is believed that something can come from nothing) I get an interesting but completely unrelated anecdote?
Now a key principle in science is causality; and part of that principle is that the cause(s) need be sufficient for the effect. Now in your example, you explained where the possibly unexpected acceleration came from. But if I where to try this as an experiment, and I come up with a result that I didn't expect. Even after I study the data, I may not understand or be able to reason where this unexpected momentum came from. So, what I would do is insert an unknown variable in the equation, that requires an explanation. As we are dealing with a lot of theoretical physics in this conversation, you may see this (where a constant is added, to balance out the equation). Now I believe that a good scientist see's this as in need of a reason.
In you example, you start out with a train moving at a set speed, and a tennis ball moving at a set speed in the opposite direction along the same plane. And you explained why the equation balanced out to give you a tennis ball moving at 130 MPH on the other side of the equation. Now lets add nothing to the equation.... do we get the same answer? Would it be reasonable that by adding nothing to causal side of the equation, that I would get a tennis ball moving away at 200MPH now?
(April 28, 2016 at 3:24 pm)SteveII Wrote: I posted this way back in this thread:
------- For reference, the BVG paper was 2003.
Vilenkin in his book (which comes 3 years after the paper): "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)."
In the Youtube video I posted (2012) Vilenkin showed that models which do not meet this one condition (any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past) still fail for other reasons to avert the beginning of the universe. Vilenkin concluded, “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”
You are simply refusing to call the space-time boundary the beginning of our universe. And then somehow you conclude because WLC calls it the beginning (as does Vilenkin), WLC does not understand the science.
It is unavoidable. If you need "new physics", a universe generator, or some other mechanism (a cause) to move across the boundary than you have a beginning of our universe. -------
You are correct, science breaks down as you pass through the singularity (not a thing but a boundary) and models do not help us. So, we cannot use science prior to that point. Now the only way to ponder that question is to use metaphysics.
Regarding the universe includes God: that would not be the definition of the universe. The universe is all space-time and physical matter that came into being 13 billion years ago.
And I posted this rebuttal 'way back in the thread' which negates your conclusions regarding Vilenkin in his own words...
Vilenkin also agrees with Hawking that, "the most promising approach appears to be the Quantum nucleation of the universe from nothing." ~35:15 Furthermore, when asked "Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?" by Victor Stenger, Vilenkin replied, "No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. [emphasis mine]" Vilenkin then goes on to quote the work of Gratton, Carroll and Chen who propose that the universe could very well have been contracting before it started expanding. (Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p.128).
Clearly Vilenkin doesn't draw the same conclusions about God you do.
And you ignore Jehanne's post on Velinkin:
Vacuum bubbles may nucleate and expand during the inflationary epoch in the early universe. After inflation ends, the bubbles quickly dissipate their kinetic energy; they come to rest with respect to the Hubble flow and eventually form black holes. The fate of the bubble itself depends on the resulting black hole mass. If the mass is smaller than a certain critical value, the bubble collapses to a singularity. Otherwise, the bubble interior inflates, forming a baby universe, which is connected to the exterior FRW region by a wormhole. A similar black hole formation mechanism operates for spherical domain walls nucleating during inflation. As an illustrative example, we studied the black hole mass spectrum in the domain wall scenario, assuming that domain walls interact with matter only gravitationally. Our results indicate that, depending on the model parameters, black holes produced in this scenario can have significant astrophysical effects and can even serve as dark matter or as seeds for supermassive black holes. The mechanism of black hole formation described in this paper is very generic and has important implications for the global structure of the universe. Baby universes inside super-critical black holes inflate eternally and nucleate bubbles of all vacua allowed by the underlying particle physics. The resulting multiverse has a very non-trivial spacetime structure, with a multitude of eternally inflating regions connected by wormholes. If a black hole population with the predicted mass spectrum is discovered, it could be regarded as evidence for inflation and for the existence of a multiverse.
You should quit trying to quote Vilenkin, because his actual stance on these matters is NOT what you want it to be!
I also posed this question, which you have not answered...
(April 28, 2016 at 3:24 pm)SteveII Wrote: God could have decided to exist timelessly in the past and then decide to create the universe and in doing so became temporal.
When exactly did God decide to exist timelessly? Perhaps this is better rephrased, "when exactly in the past prior to creating the universe did God decide to exist "timelessly"?
(April 28, 2016 at 7:08 am)SteveII Wrote: You have no reason to think that whatsoever. Don't confuse metaphysics with physics.
I'm not thinking anything. I'm showing that you're applying principles in an inappropriate matter. Cause and effect does not apply when time does not exist, period.
And unfortunately for you, metaphysics is entirely reliant upon what physics says is possible. Stop abusing philosophy to try to make it conform to your desires.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
April 29, 2016 at 11:10 am (This post was last modified: April 29, 2016 at 11:17 am by JesusHChrist.)
Time Traveler Wrote:And you ignore Jehanne's post on Velinkin:
Vacuum bubbles may nucleate and expand during the inflationary epoch in the early universe. After inflation ends, the bubbles quickly dissipate their kinetic energy; they come to rest with respect to the Hubble flow and eventually form black holes. The fate of the bubble itself depends on the resulting black hole mass. If the mass is smaller than a certain critical value, the bubble collapses to a singularity. Otherwise, the bubble interior inflates, forming a baby universe, which is connected to the exterior FRW region by a wormhole. A similar black hole formation mechanism operates for spherical domain walls nucleating during inflation. As an illustrative example, we studied the black hole mass spectrum in the domain wall scenario, assuming that domain walls interact with matter only gravitationally. Our results indicate that, depending on the model parameters, black holes produced in this scenario can have significant astrophysical effects and can even serve as dark matter or as seeds for supermassive black holes. The mechanism of black hole formation described in this paper is very generic and has important implications for the global structure of the universe. Baby universes inside super-critical black holes inflate eternally and nucleate bubbles of all vacua allowed by the underlying particle physics. The resulting multiverse has a very non-trivial spacetime structure, with a multitude of eternally inflating regions connected by wormholes. If a black hole population with the predicted mass spectrum is discovered, it could be regarded as evidence for inflation and for the existence of a multiverse.
After reading all of the vacuum bubbles this and epochs and very non-trivial spacetime structures with a multitude of eternally inflating regions connected by wormholes, can't we just cut to the chase and say God Did It and move on with our lives? I mean, cosmology is SO complicated it makes my head spin around like I was puhzested by them thar demon fellas. All them collage boys think they is so smart, what with their physics and such when the answer is easy!
Mister Agenda Wrote:And you ignore Jehanne's post on Velinkin:
Vacuum bubbles may nucleate and expand during the inflationary epoch in the early universe. After inflation ends, the bubbles quickly dissipate their kinetic energy; they come to rest with respect to the Hubble flow and eventually form black holes. The fate of the bubble itself depends on the resulting black hole mass. If the mass is smaller than a certain critical value, the bubble collapses to a singularity. Otherwise, the bubble interior inflates, forming a baby universe, which is connected to the exterior FRW region by a wormhole. A similar black hole formation mechanism operates for spherical domain walls nucleating during inflation. As an illustrative example, we studied the black hole mass spectrum in the domain wall scenario, assuming that domain walls interact with matter only gravitationally. Our results indicate that, depending on the model parameters, black holes produced in this scenario can have significant astrophysical effects and can even serve as dark matter or as seeds for supermassive black holes. The mechanism of black hole formation described in this paper is very generic and has important implications for the global structure of the universe. Baby universes inside super-critical black holes inflate eternally and nucleate bubbles of all vacua allowed by the underlying particle physics. The resulting multiverse has a very non-trivial spacetime structure, with a multitude of eternally inflating regions connected by wormholes. If a black hole population with the predicted mass spectrum is discovered, it could be regarded as evidence for inflation and for the existence of a multiverse.
After reading all of the vacuum bubbles this and epochs and very non-trivial spacetime structures with a multitude of eternally inflating regions connected by wormholes, can't we just cut to the chase and say God Did It and move on with our lives? I mean, cosmology is SO complicated it makes my head spin around like I was puhzested by them thar demon fellas. All them collage boys think they is so smart, what with their physics and such when the answer is easy!
God. Did. It.
Done.
I wish I could take credit for the post that you have me as the source of; alas, I can not. Probably an issue with the quoty thingy.
(April 29, 2016 at 11:13 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I wish I could take credit for the post that you have me as the source of; alas, I can not. Probably an issue with the quoty thingy.
(April 29, 2016 at 12:08 am)wiploc Wrote: What one thing is that? And how do you conclude that I believe it didn't begin to exist? Your knowledge of my opinions that I didn't know I had fascinates me.
Aren't you the one claiming that only one thing didn't begin to exist? Does that make you guilty of affirming the consequent?
Contrary to your fantasies about my mental state, I don't have an opinion on this topic.
Wiploc, I'd say you've gotten mixed up replying to this post. Simon was replying to Steve.
[/quote]
