conclusive proof universe has beginning
Moderator:Metacrock
How does the universe having a beginning benefit theists, in the realm of apologetics?
Whether or not the universe has a temporal beginning evokes a "so what" reaction from me.
There seem to be some theists who feel like magicians pulling a rabbit out of a hat, when they assert that if the universe had a beginning, then voila! -- here's God!
Whether or not the universe has a temporal beginning evokes a "so what" reaction from me.
There seem to be some theists who feel like magicians pulling a rabbit out of a hat, when they assert that if the universe had a beginning, then voila! -- here's God!
- fleetmouse
- Posts:1814
- Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am
Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning
Theories about our universe having a definite beginning and theories about the existence of multiple universes are both inferential in nature. Is there any scientific reason you'd reject one but not the other - when both are from the same source? Are your objections scientific - in which case I'd expect you to be able to understand the math and explain to a poor non-physicist like myself why one idea holds up and the other does not - or are your objections theological?KR Wordgazer wrote:Fleetmouse, I think Metacrock was simply using the Vilenkin argument to support the idea that the universe had a beginning. Probably Metacrock should have mentioned that Vilenkin has an entirely different idea of the reason for this than Metacrock does-- but I have read over your link very carefully, and I find that the predictions he says support the idea of multiple island universes are anthropic arguments; thus they support just as well the idea of an eternal Creator. The multiple island universes, in and of themselves, are no more "provable," by the article's own admission, than the existence of God, but the predictors he uses do not necessarily imply multiple universes; in fact, the exact same predictors also imply a purposeful Will desiring that the universe support life.
It just depends which you'd rather believe in.
- KR Wordgazer
- Posts:1410
- Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning
I'm no scientist, I was an English major. My points all came from a close reading of the Vilenkin article you posted a link to. His article appears to "take as read" some earlier discussion as to the necessity for the universe having a beginning. Because I have not read his reasons for that, I can make no comment, and have made no comment to date.fleetmouse wrote: Theories about our universe having a definite beginning and theories about the existence of multiple universes are both inferential in nature. Is there any scientific reason you'd reject one but not the other - when both are from the same source? Are your objections scientific - in which case I'd expect you to be able to understand the math and explain to a poor non-physicist like myself why one idea holds up and the other does not - or are your objections theological?
The article you posted a link to wasn't about the universe having a definite beginning; it was about the existence of multiple universes. My objections to that are neither theological or scientific, but come from a plain reading of what he said.
Quoting the article:
This says quite plainly that the existence of multiple universes is not observable. That means he's not talking about scientific conclusions made from observable data. He's talking about something else. He's talking about "predictions" he has made which he expects to be borne out in observable ways if the predictions are true. But then he says his predictions involve "anthropic considerations." I was merely pointing out that "anthropic considerations" are the same observable phenomenon which would be expected to be borne out if there was a purposeful Will behind the whole thing. The predictors he gives, therefore, don't lead us inescapably to the idea of multiple universes-- they lead just as well to the idea of a Creator.The initial response of other colleagues was also less than enthusiastic. Physics is an observational science, they said, so we should refrain from making claims that cannot be observationally confirmed. We cannot observe other big bangs, nor can we observe distant inflating regions. They are all beyond our horizon, so how can we verify that they really exist?
However, surprising as this may seem, the existence of unobservable island universes can be used to make testable predictions in our local region. Even more surprisingly, some of the predictions have already been confirmed! These tests of eternal inflation involve anthropic considerations, which have recently become a subject of great controversy.
To quote some more:
So Vilenkin says "anthropic selection" is an indicator of multiple universes. "Anthropic selection" means that the universe as we know it appears to be pre-conditioned for life, and even intelligent life, to come into being. Vilenkin appears to me to be saying that our particular universe among the multiple universes has factors that are in part "determined by how suitable they are for the evolution of life." He then says multiple universes may be the reason for this-- a thing which by his own admission is unobservable and unverifiable except by these predictors. And these predictors do not lead inescapably to his inference.Quantum fluctuations in the course of eternal inflation ensure that all possible values of the constants are realized somewhere in the universe. As a result, remote regions of the universe may drastically differ in their properties from our observable region. The values of the constants in our vicinity are determined partly by chance and partly by how suitable they are for the evolution of life. The latter effect is called anthropic selection.
No need to roll your eyes at me, fleetmouse. The idea that in thousands of other universes I am typing these words right now, and perhaps in thousands more I am typing different ones, is not a scientifically obervable or provable theory-- any more than the existence of God is. Both are possible explanations for the anthropic principles in our universe. Neither are provable by scientific methods. It really does come down to which seems to you, or me, to be more plausible.It just depends which you'd rather believe in.
Wag more.
Bark less.
Bark less.
- fleetmouse
- Posts:1814
- Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am
Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning
Who says the two ideas are mutually exclusive? I don't know of any scripture where God promises not to make other O-regions and universes.KR Wordgazer wrote:The idea that in thousands of other universes I am typing these words right now, and perhaps in thousands more I am typing different ones, is not a scientifically obervable or provable theory-- any more than the existence of God is.
- KR Wordgazer
- Posts:1410
- Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning
Oh, they certainly are not mutually exclusive-- but it seems far-fetched to me, and I see no real reason to believe in mutual universes. On the other hand, I have plenty of reasons to believe in God, including my own experiences.fleetmouse wrote:Who says the two ideas are mutually exclusive? I don't know of any scripture where God promises not to make other O-regions and universes.KR Wordgazer wrote:The idea that in thousands of other universes I am typing these words right now, and perhaps in thousands more I am typing different ones, is not a scientifically obervable or provable theory-- any more than the existence of God is.
Wag more.
Bark less.
Bark less.
- fleetmouse
- Posts:1814
- Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am
Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning
Looking at the advances in physics in the 20th century, a lay person's common sense of what's far fetched is a really, really bad standard of judgement for modern physics and cosmology. I freely admit that I'm not in a position to understand the math but from what I've seen from the sidelines, theories concerning multiple universes are widely viewed as plausible - not just Vilenkin here, but also Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees and a bunch of others I saw on a Charlie Rose special where he re-ran a series of interviews with physicists.KR Wordgazer wrote:Oh, they certainly are not mutually exclusive-- but it seems far-fetched to me, and I see no real reason to believe in mutual universes.
Now that's a much better reason to believe in God, in my humble opinion. I cannot and would not attempt to impeach your personal experience, though hearing about it probably isn't enough to change my mind on the issue of God and the supernatural.On the other hand, I have plenty of reasons to believe in God, including my own experiences.
On the other hand, god of the gaps arguments, like the one the OP links to, make me wince a little. What happens when a gap closes? What happens when multiple universes inflating from false vacuum are experimentally validated (at least as well as, say, the big bang is by cosmic background radiation)? Then cosmology no longer needs a first domino to fall, and God has to move on to the next horizon of ignorance. God looks a little silly retreating eternally, no? Why not let science explore nature and reserve a different place in your life for God?
- KR Wordgazer
- Posts:1410
- Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning
Well, Fleetmouse, no Christian that I know, or know of, has ever believed in God just because there was some "gap" in the study of nature or the universe that was unexplainable by science (or, as materialists would have it, that science has not yet explained). Belief in God is not about explaining things that happen, or about comfort for our fears, or any of those sorts of things. I agree with Metacrock (because of my own experience) that the primary reason people believe in God is because of experience of the numinous-- that transcendent sense of awe in the face of the sublime. Once I had a few personal, numinous experiences of God, then things like the anthropic principles in the universe, or the comfort I take from belief, simply became further reasons to believe. But no, I don't think most of us theists are desperately defending an ever-retreating God as nature pushes God back. That's just not what it's about.
Wag more.
Bark less.
Bark less.
Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning
fleetmouse wrote:Looking at the advances in physics in the 20th century, a lay person's common sense of what's far fetched is a really, really bad standard of judgement for modern physics and cosmology. I freely admit that I'm not in a position to understand the math but from what I've seen from the sidelines, theories concerning multiple universes are widely viewed as plausible - not just Vilenkin here, but also Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees and a bunch of others I saw on a Charlie Rose special where he re-ran a series of interviews with physicists.KR Wordgazer wrote:Oh, they certainly are not mutually exclusive-- but it seems far-fetched to me, and I see no real reason to believe in mutual universes.
Now that's a much better reason to believe in God, in my humble opinion. I cannot and would not attempt to impeach your personal experience, though hearing about it probably isn't enough to change my mind on the issue of God and the supernatural.On the other hand, I have plenty of reasons to believe in God, including my own experiences.
On the other hand, god of the gaps arguments, like the one the OP links to, make me wince a little. What happens when a gap closes? What happens when multiple universes inflating from false vacuum are experimentally validated (at least as well as, say, the big bang is by cosmic background radiation)? Then cosmology no longer needs a first domino to fall, and God has to move on to the next horizon of ignorance. God looks a little silly retreating eternally, no? Why not let science explore nature and reserve a different place in your life for God?
It's not a gap argument. Craig's point was not that there's a gap in knowledge that can only be filled with God. It was that none of the modern theories actually do posit a non beginning. when some say they do, if we examine the theories themselves, they don't actually do it.
the point of a beginning is really overemphasized in my view. i think Craig tries too hard to save kalam when he could be going with a version that doesn't require a beginning like that of St. Tom. but beginnings have persuasive appeal because they imply creation.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning
KR Wordgazer wrote:Well, Fleetmouse, no Christian that I know, or know of, has ever believed in God just because there was some "gap" in the study of nature or the universe that was unexplainable by science (or, as materialists would have it, that science has not yet explained). Belief in God is not about explaining things that happen, or about comfort for our fears, or any of those sorts of things. I agree with Metacrock (because of my own experience) that the primary reason people believe in God is because of experience of the numinous-- that transcendent sense of awe in the face of the sublime. Once I had a few personal, numinous experiences of God, then things like the anthropic principles in the universe, or the comfort I take from belief, simply became further reasons to believe. But no, I don't think most of us theists are desperately defending an ever-retreating God as nature pushes God back. That's just not what it's about.
right on sis! well said. You know I think the arguments we make for God and the reasons we blieve in God are two different things. we make arguments for many reasons, let us say the best of them is because we want others to share in the joy of knowing Christ that we have found ourselves. But we can't give them our reasons for belief because they are too inward. so we have to come up with reasons, and when you have a group that is actively seeking to discredit belief and working at not believing it's hard to find reasons that strike them well.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: conclusive proof universe has beginning
fleetmouse wrote:Theories about our universe having a definite beginning and theories about the existence of multiple universes are both inferential in nature. Is there any scientific reason you'd reject one but not the other - when both are from the same source? Are your objections scientific - in which case I'd expect you to be able to understand the math and explain to a poor non-physicist like myself why one idea holds up and the other does not - or are your objections theological?KR Wordgazer wrote:Fleetmouse, I think Metacrock was simply using the Vilenkin argument to support the idea that the universe had a beginning. Probably Metacrock should have mentioned that Vilenkin has an entirely different idea of the reason for this than Metacrock does-- but I have read over your link very carefully, and I find that the predictions he says support the idea of multiple island universes are anthropic arguments; thus they support just as well the idea of an eternal Creator. The multiple island universes, in and of themselves, are no more "provable," by the article's own admission, than the existence of God, but the predictors he uses do not necessarily imply multiple universes; in fact, the exact same predictors also imply a purposeful Will desiring that the universe support life.
It just depends which you'd rather believe in.
I have 26 answers to this argument on my anthropic page. But the one I like the best Wordgazer hints at, there is no need to reject a multi verse to keep God because Multiverse is anthropic and needs creator; we can expand that as well to say it is also a product of being and thus requires beingiself.
besides I keep saying the mutiverse was destroyed just read "Crisis on Infinite Earth's." why wont people bleieve me???
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief