conclusive proof universe has beginning

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

conclusive proof universe has beginning

Post by Metacrock » Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:48 pm

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/Pag ... me=q_and_a
Craig:
With respect to the alternative of Eternal Inflation, it was suggested by some theorists during the 1980s that perhaps the inflationary expansion of the universe was not confined to a brief period early in the history of the universe but is eternal in the past, each inflating region being the product of a prior inflating region. Although such models were hotly debated, something of a watershed appears to have been reached in 2003, when 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.

What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. (One scientist has compared it to the regions on ancient maps labeled “Here there be dragons!”—it can be filled with all sorts of fantasies.) But 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.


quotes this guy:


Vilenkin (he's an atheist) 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).

Image
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
ChumpChange
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning

Post by ChumpChange » Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:15 pm

Nice. Very interesting information. Thanks.
"Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices."

-Ecclesiastes 7:29

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning

Post by Metacrock » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:34 pm

ChumpChange wrote:Nice. Very interesting information. Thanks.

If Only I had had that a couple of years ago. use it, if you are still going to argue with them. I'm going to focus on other things now.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Antimatter
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning

Post by Antimatter » Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:00 pm

A few questions:
  • How many cosmologists were "hiding behind" an eternal universe model?
  • How is this argument conclusive?
  • Why is a cosmic beginning a problem?
  • How does an eternal god get around this problem?

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning

Post by Metacrock » Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:25 pm

Antimatter wrote:A few questions:
  • How many cosmologists were "hiding behind" an eternal universe model?
  • How is this argument conclusive?
  • Why is a cosmic beginning a problem?
  • How does an eternal god get around this problem?

don't you mean why isn't a cosmic non beginning a problem?

First of all. I don't necessarily agree with Craig that the cosmologists that guy talked to are spinning it around to gloss over the absolute beginning. I think they are not apologists, they are not atheists arguing on message boards, so their primary concern is just not the cosmological argument. I doubt that they ever think in those terms.

Secondly, to your second question, well I don't know how "conclusive it is." But it seems that all the theories I can find, and I have made this observation my self before, allt he one's I can find require a singularity or some kind of beginning.

The view Hans always argues for I found on the website of the guy who invented it, and it was under a section called "just for fun." The admitted up front it was a wild idea with no real justification. That's the no beginning theory.

Cosmic beginning is not problem for me. Not having one is a problem for the Kalam argument but not really so much for my argument.


what problem? a beginning is good for religion because it can be confused whit the moment of creation. It's not having a beginning that's a problem for Craig. AS I say it is not a problem for me becasue my version of the cos argument isn't Kalam and oesn't begin "whatever begins to exist....blah blah blah."
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Antimatter
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning

Post by Antimatter » Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:51 am

Actually, I was referring to the Vilenkin quote, "There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." I'm wondering why a beginning would pose a problem to cosmologists or non-theists.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning

Post by ZAROVE » Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:20 pm

I'd advance tht it doesn't pose a PRoblem, in and of itself, for Atheists. ( Non-Theist is another of those Quaint terms the New Atheist ovement likes ot create, that is superfluous) However, it does provide intellectual grounds for Theists who maintain the Universe had a beginning, somethign many Atheists have denied in their attemto to undermine Theism by statign the Universe is Eternal and self-existant. If the Universe had a beginnign, it is not Eternal.

This does not, of coruse, prove God exists, but it does secure the notion of a COmmic beginning, which in turn validates a spacific claim made by those who woudl maintain that God created the Universe.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning

Post by Metacrock » Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:12 pm

Antimatter wrote:Actually, I was referring to the Vilenkin quote, "There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." I'm wondering why a beginning would pose a problem to cosmologists or non-theists.
He;s probably assuming they want to avoid the cosmological argument. I know I said they probably don't' think about it. I know some do. Tippler talked about that. Most of these high priced wavy gravy theories were hatched out to escape the creationist consequences of the big bang. I still your average physicist doesn't think about that.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

GarrettQ
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:45 pm

Words of caution...

Post by GarrettQ » Thu Apr 10, 2008 5:40 pm

I strongly recommend looking the theorem up in a search engine to research how the theorem is actually being used in physics. We must also remember that this theorem is not a purely deductive proof as some philosophers attempt, but a theorem of science.

It must therefore not be mistaken for absolute proof, and it must be remembered that what ontological necessities may exist is not a matter of likelihood but necessity.

This theorem might however be a VERY good opportunity to help people realize that not all knowledge has to be empirical, but that some can be of metaphysical truths that are non-arbitrarily necessary and only absolutely knowable by reason alone. (for example logic dictates that reality had no beginning, but those who accept only empirical knowledge as valid have no right to any such 'life line' if they should even need it)

Garrett

User avatar
Antimatter
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:17 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning

Post by Antimatter » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:41 pm

ufcarazy wrote:Does the singularity hypothesis explain parsimoniously why the singularity exists? God exists because He wants to, which seems as simple of a reason as one can have.
That reason seems just as arbitrary and unsupported as the notion that a singularly simply existed. Atheists prefer the latter explanation because it makes fewer ad hoc assumptions. A singularity is much simpler than a deity with intelligence, the desire to exist, the capacity to make himself exist, and the capacity to create a singularity.

Post Reply