How is the Bible the Word of God?

[viole]

We are not dealing with absolutes here. Fallacies usually depend on someone making a claim to fact. I am not (at least ultimately). We have three choices. A. We can see that cause and effect are true without except in all observations, we can see no dependence on the natural associated with it (it appears to be like math, etc.... to simply be furniture in but not of the universe), we can also examine supernatural theory given in theological texts and also see cause and effect in operation there though it may differ somewhat from what we know it to be. or B. we can for some reasons suspend practices that have grounded science for centuries like extrapolating from the known to the unknown, and can do so in spite of having no compelling reason to do so. or C. We can declare that anything les than certain has no value, turn out the light, and give up.

I believe A to be perfectly reasonable though less than certain. B is the next best but far behind A. and C. is just silly.

Well let me pick one. We deal with space which a relation between two concepts. They can be separated into their two respective components. I cannot see space having an application the supernatural as it has no physical needs or demands, but time I can easily imagine. It would not be space time, it would time related to some other concept. It probably would not be recognized by us but I have no reason to think it would not exist. However I don't see any of these things as necessary. I saw an argument from a naturalist that separated mind from brain, he had a very good way of doing so. The relevant point here was that he said minds are related to brains as we know them but appear to not be dependent on them. The same with every factor you noted. Causations does seem to interact in the universe with those elements but I see no reason to think it bound by them nor dependent on them. It is like if we only saw ships at sea, we could only say that they appear to only interact with water and to sit on it's surface but unlike the natural we can peer beyond what we may have only seen of ships at sea and conclude that they can exist completely independent of water and extend far below the water line. In other words appearances can be and seem to be in the case of causation deceiving.

I don't think I am going against science. At best, I am going against the science believed by scientists when they were wearing funny wigs. Which funnily corresponds to the science held by the average debating theist today, lol.

If we renounced things like time and space locality, the objectivity of time and space when taken separately, etc. I mean, why not the general applicability of causality? I cannot even make sense of causal relationships in a classical system at equilibrium, for Boltzmann sake. Can you?

Yes, we have already been there. And postulating a block Universe, in accordance to relativity, annihilates the necessity of all these arguments at once.

So, I guess we need to agree to disagree, in order to avoid pointless discussion loops.

So, let's have a look at the premises. Just for fun

They say that an infinite chain of causal relationships cannot exist. Why is that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Neither Matthew nor Luke have any part of the Jewish tradition. Nor can Joseph have a part as he did not father Christ. In Jewish lore, the line has to come from paternal lines. I am merely stating what I have learned.

Matthew and Luke would have access to the Jewish genealogical temple records in Jerusalem.
Jerusalem and its temple records were Not destroyed until the year 70.

Mary gave Jesus the ' fleshly natural ' right, while Joseph would have given Jesus the ' legal ' right because Joseph was Jesus' adoptive or foster father.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't think I am going against science. At best, I am going against the science believed by scientists when they were wearing funny wigs. Which funnily corresponds to the science held by the average debating theist today, lol.

If we renounced things like time and space locality, the objectivity of time and space when taken separately, etc. I mean, why not the general applicability of causality? I cannot even make sense of causal relationships in a classical system at equilibrium, for Boltzmann sake. Can you?

Yes, we have already been there. And postulating a block Universe, in accordance to relativity, annihilates the necessity of all these arguments at once.

So, I guess we need to agree to disagree, in order to avoid pointless discussion loops.

So, let's have a look at the premises. Just for fun

They say that an infinite chain of causal relationships cannot exist. Why is that?

Ciao

- viole

This is the whole point. With what we can prove about the necessity for the supernatural and our limited scientific knowledge, I think it would be foolish to say anything other than ... "we just don't know yet."

 

[1robin]

I don't think I am going against science. At best, I am going against the science believed by scientists when they were wearing funny wigs. Which funnily corresponds to the science held by the average debating theist today, lol.

I don't the guys in the wigs actually proved to be right. If you really want to see extrapolation from the known to the unknown see the modern theoretical scientists. Universal rationality is assumed even to do science and yet we have actually measured less than .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%. Talk about extrapolating I would bet the paper required to print just the theories derived from the idea of evolution weighs more than all the fossil evidence combined.

If we renounced things like time and space locality, the objectivity of time and space when taken separately, etc. I mean, why not the general applicability of causality? I cannot even make sense of causal relationships in a classical system at equilibrium, for Boltzmann sake. Can you?

Even Boltzman is a causal effect. I don't find the idea of God causing a thing to begin to exist a challenge to anything.

Ambrose Fleming asserts that there is nothing in the Gospels that would cause a man of science to have problems with the miracles contained therein, and concludes with a challenge to intellectual honesty, asserting that if such a "...study is pursued with what eminent lawyers have called a willing mind, it will engender a deep assurance that the Christian Church is not founded on fictions, or nourished on delusions, or, as St. Peter calls them, 'cunningly devised fables,' but on historical and actual events, which, however strange they may be, are indeed the greatest events which have ever happened in the history of the world."

If miraculous events were a challenge to a man of science why have 78% of the Nobel's been Christians?

Yes, we have already been there. And postulating a block Universe, in accordance to relativity, annihilates the necessity of all these arguments at once.

I readily concede a fantasy can be contrived to defeat any argument.

So, I guess we need to agree to disagree, in order to avoid pointless discussion loops.

So, let's have a look at the premises. Just for fun

They say that an infinite chain of causal relationships cannot exist. Why is that?

They add a clarifier onto that particular claim. I can't remember if I included it or not. No natural infinite causal chain can exist. (actually that may be true in any context but I only know why it is in a naturalistic one). Natural causal chains are chronological. If for instance every second produced the next and the causal chain was infinite in the past then we could never have gotten to this particular second. Infinite causal chains simply disappear in the past without ever having produced anything. Suppose you ask me for a dollar. If I say I do not have one but will ask bill, he says he does not but will ask Jim, and so infinitely into the past you will never have a dollar. If you have a dollar the borrowing causal chain ended at someone who had a dollar and produced it for the next to borrow and so on. In fact there is no known natural infinite of any kind.

If you want more formal arguments from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell you can see this link but I am not defending their paradoxical examples. Against Infinite causal regress

 

[sojourner]

Matthew and Luke would have access to the Jewish genealogical temple records in Jerusalem.
Jerusalem and its temple records were Not destroyed until the year 70.

Mary gave Jesus the ' fleshly natural ' right, while Joseph would have given Jesus the ' legal ' right because Joseph was Jesus' adoptive or foster father.

How would Matt and Luke have access to records that were destroyed at least 10 and as many as 40 years before they wrote their gospels?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

How would Matt and Luke have access to records that were destroyed at least 10 and as many as 40 years before they wrote their gospels?

How old would Matt and Luke have been in the year 80, or the year 110 ?
How did you conclude Matt and Luke wrote at such an old age ?
Didn't the Romans armies destroy Jerusalem in the year 70 ?
How could the Christians know to leave Jerusalem for Pella in the year 66 if Luke wrote after the year 70 ? - Luke 19 vs 43,44
Gospel writer John was the last to write. John wrote around the very end of the first century.
In other words, John was the only one who wrote after the year 70.
The rest of the Christian writers wrote from the 40's to the middle 60's.

 

[sojourner]

How old would Matt and Luke have been in the year 80, or the year 110 ?
How did you conclude Matt and Luke wrote at such an old age ?
Didn't the Romans armies destroy Jerusalem in the year 70 ?
How could the Christians know to leave Jerusalem for Pella in the year 66 if Luke wrote after the year 70 ? - Luke 19 vs 43,44
Gospel writer John was the last to write. John wrote around the very end of the first century.
In other words, John was the only one who wrote after the year 70.
The rest of the Christian writers wrote from the 40's to the middle 60's.

How did you conclude Matthew and Luke wrote Matthew and Luke?
Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Mark was written just post-70. Matthew and John were written sometime between 80-90 or so. Luke/Acts was written late 1st, possibly 2nd century. Paul wrote 1 Thess. about 45-50 -- the other epistles were written later than that.

 

[viole]

They add a clarifier onto that particular claim. I can't remember if I included it or not. No natural infinite causal chain can exist. (actually that may be true in any context but I only know why it is in a naturalistic one). Natural causal chains are chronological. If for instance every second produced the next and the causal chain was infinite in the past then we could never have gotten to this particular second. Infinite causal chains simply disappear in the past without ever having produced anything. Suppose you ask me for a dollar. If I say I do not have one but will ask bill, he says he does not but will ask Jim, and so infinitely into the past you will never have a dollar. If you have a dollar the borrowing causal chain ended at someone who had a dollar and produced it for the next to borrow and so on. In fact there is no known natural infinite of any kind.

Mmh. I can very easily imagine an infinite chain of causal relationships that takes place in one day. it is not clear to me whether you reject them because they would take infinite time or because they are infinite.

Which one is it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Mmh. I can very easily imagine an infinite chain of causal relationships that takes place in one day. it is not clear to me whether you reject them because they would take infinite time or because they are infinite.

I highly doubt it, and don't think it even theoretically possible. You can not an infinite number of Chronological events into a finite time if the parallel chains of causation are finite themselves.

Which one is it?

Both. Either is a logical impossibility. There are no known nor even evidenced theoretical natural infinites. The universe is not infinite, space is not, time is not. Give me a natural infinite anything?

 

[viole]

I highly doubt it, and don't think it even theoretically possible. You can not an infinite number of Chronological events into a finite time if the parallel chains of causation are finite themselves.

I see X.

X has been caused by X1 half a day ago.
X1 has been caused by X2 one fourth of a day before X1
X2 has been caused by X3 one eigth of a day before X2
X3 has been caused by X4 one sixteenth of a day before X3

And so on.

One half + one fourth + one eigth + one sixteenth + one 32th + one 64th + ,,,, = 1 (day).

An infinite causation chain that covers one day. And no more than one day.

Easy. Now what?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

I see X.

X has been caused by X1 half a day ago.
X1 has been caused by X2 one fourth of a day before X1
X2 has been caused by X3 one eigth of a day before X2
X3 has been caused by X4 one sixteenth of a day before X3

And so on.

One half + one fourth + one eigth + one sixteenth + one 32th + one 64th + ,,,, = 1 (day).

An infinite causation chain that covers one day. And no more than one day.

Easy. Now what?

Ciao

- viole

Now your done in. I have heard of this argument in many forms, most commonly in suggesting that an infinite number of points can fit in a finite distance. This is a result of our educating our selves into imbecility, and if you read my little post by Chesterton above you would find another reason why we come up with stuff like this. The problem here is that if you actually have an X1 instead of a hypothetical variable that in this case is meaningless then you have an actual thing of a certain type. It may have the properties of length, of duration, or volume, Chronological order, etc...... The instant you get out of your head and actually apply any dimensional properties of any kind to X1 it is no longer so pliable that an infinite number can actually fit anywhere. Reality is a lot more demanding and binding than thought experiments. Lets take the infinite points defining an infinite number of segments in a finite distance to see this more clearly. That sounds good in the theoretical fantasy land many of us like to ground ourselves but once you assign an actual length to any of those segments no matter how small you can only fit a finite amount of them in a finite space. You did not even bother to tell me what properties your imaginary cause came in so I can't tell you the specific reason they cannot be infinite but no matter what they are they have a duration and no matter how small only a finite number can fit in one day.

I ask for an actual natural infinite and you give me a hypothetical thought experiment which not only does not exist but can't exist. Let mas ask again. Find me a natural thing that is infinite or may be argued for theoretically. A thing not an idea about a thing which does not exist.

Sorry you really picked two losing horses here, determinism and natural infinites never finish the race.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

How did you conclude Matthew and Luke wrote Matthew and Luke?
Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Mark was written just post-70. Matthew and John were written sometime between 80-90 or so. Luke/Acts was written late 1st, possibly 2nd century. Paul wrote 1 Thess. about 45-50 -- the other epistles were written later than that.

How did you arrive at the ^ above ^ years ?
How could Luke live long enough to be alive in the 2nd century?

 

[sojourner]

How did you arrive at the ^ above ^ years ?
How could Luke live long enough to be alive in the 2nd century?

The issue of approximate dates of writing of the NT material has been settled by the scholastic community for a long time. Luke didn't live long enough to be alive then, but that's not a problem, because there's no reason to believe that Luke wrote Luke/Acts. the appellation doesn't appear on the earliest copies of the text.

 

[viole]

Now your done in. I have heard of this argument in many forms, most commonly in suggesting that an infinite number of points can fit in a finite distance. This is a result of our educating our selves into imbecility, and if you read my little post by Chesterton above you would find another reason why we come up with stuff like this. The problem here is that if you actually have an X1 instead of a hypothetical variable that in this case is meaningless then you have an actual thing of a certain type. It may have the properties of length, of duration, or volume, Chronological order, etc...... The instant you get out of your head and actually apply any dimensional properties of any kind to X1 it is no longer so pliable that an infinite number can actually fit anywhere. Reality is a lot more demanding and binding than thought experiments. Lets take the infinite points defining an infinite number of segments in a finite distance to see this more clearly. That sounds good in the theoretical fantasy land many of us like to ground ourselves but once you assign an actual length to any of those segments no matter how small you can only fit a finite amount of them in a finite space. You did not even bother to tell me what properties your imaginary cause came in so I can't tell you the specific reason they cannot be infinite but no matter what they are they have a duration and no matter how small only a finite number can fit in one day.

I ask for an actual natural infinite and you give me a hypothetical thought experiment which not only does not exist but can't exist. Let mas ask again. Find me a natural thing that is infinite or may be argued for theoretically. A thing not an idea about a thing which does not exist.

Sorry you really picked two losing horses here, determinism and natural infinites never finish the race.

What do you mean with "this is a result of our educating our selves into imbecility"? I hope you are not getting too emotional now. If I were equally mean, I would say you never ran that additional risk, lol.

Well, the rational thing to do in these cases is first to check for logical consistency and when we achieved logical clearance (we have, pending logical defeaters), we can take a look at the nomological aspects of the situation. It could be that something logically possible cannot be instantiated here under more restrictive natural laws, as you suspect.

So, let's see under which conditions my example cannot be instantiated in this world with its natural laws, whatever they are. I can see only one:

- There is a (natural/nomological) minimal time t-min so that, during any time smaller that t-min, no cause-effect relationship can be completed.

Only in this case every infinite causal chain will take infinite time.

Do you agree? If not, why not?

The universe is not infinite, space is not, time is not. Give me a natural infinite anything?

How do you know that the Universe is not infinite? You seem to possess knowledge that escaped the whole scientific community.

Ciao

- viole

P.S. Who on earth is Chesterton?

 

[1robin]

What do you mean with "this is a result of our educating our selves into imbecility"? I hope you are not getting too emotional now. If I were equally mean, I would say you never ran that additional risk, lol.

I meant collectively not you specifically and was more or less joking around, nice comeback. I will leave it here as it was not really important.

Well, the rational thing to do in these cases is first to check for logical consistency and when we achieved logical clearance (we have, pending logical defeaters), we can take a look at the nomological aspects of the situation. It could be that something logically possible cannot be instantiated here under more restrictive natural laws, as you suspect.

It is not necessary to be fractionally this rigorous to find the problem here. You did not supply an actual infinite, you supplied a hypothetical infinite. The reason you can do this hypothetically and not in reality is that hypothetical variable have no actual properties or dimensions. The moment you take your hypotheticals and assign them any actual properties they instantly cease to be able to able fit into finites an infinite number of times. I am not saying your hypothetical fails any rigorous test of logic, I am saying it cannot possibly represent an actual thing.

So, let's see under which conditions my example cannot be instantiated in this world with its natural laws, whatever they are. I can see only one:

- There is a (natural/nomological) minimal time t-min so that, during any time smaller that t-min, no cause-effect relationship can be completed.

Well you have the right idea but your not stating it as I would. Natural causation always has a time span of finite dimension and is chronological (for the moment let's leave out the theoretical possibility of simultaneous causation because it has not be proven or claimed). Now as long as your hypothetical X1 and X2s are abstract they have no dimensions but any actual causes do. I do not care how small a time span they require you are not going to fit an infinite number of finite's into a total finite. Even if it was only fractions of a pico-second your only going to fit a finite number into a 24 hour day.

Only in this case every infinite causal chain will take infinite time.

Now your on fire, I could not have put it better. We do not have infinite time to put any infinite causal chains in.

Do you agree? If not, why not?

I do agree.

How do you know that the Universe is not infinite? You seem to possess knowledge that escaped the whole scientific community.

A finite universe is the dominant cosmological model. I will give one example of an eminent cosmologist who supports the view but there is a consensus on this matter.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
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).
Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Theo-sophical Ruminations

I use his model as my example because it was designed to be so robust that any vagary that people like Hawking can throw in the mix without justification does not affect it, he is not a Christian, and he is very emphatic. The BGV I second only to TBBT in dominance and both pose a finite universe.

P.S. Who on earth is Chesterton?

Holy heck, you never heard of him? He is like a theistic Mark Twain. He is one of a handful of true wordsmith's in history. He, Tolkien, and C. S. Lewis came up together. He is called the apostle of common sense and is a widely regarded literary master and philosophical wizard, but most importantly he is witty and entertaining. Read the book Orthodoxy or see his debate with Clarence Darrow if you want to learn and be entertained by a true master of reason and wit.

 

[Parsimony]

About the idea of an infinite number of events happening in a finite period of time, one of the leading proposals in modern science is that time itself is quantized: you can't divide it into ever smaller pieces without limit (that limit usually being recognized as the "Planck Time"). I don't know how well this has been tested (the Planck Time is extraordinarily small), but it sure does seem satisfying to me. Matter, energy, charge, and spin have already been found to be quantized, so extending that to space-time is probably right on.

 

[viole]

I meant collectively not you specifically and was more or less joking around, nice comeback. I will leave it here as it was not really important.

It is not necessary to be fractionally this rigorous to find the problem here. You did not supply an actual infinite, you supplied a hypothetical infinite. The reason you can do this hypothetically and not in reality is that hypothetical variable have no actual properties or dimensions. The moment you take your hypotheticals and assign them any actual properties they instantly cease to be able to able fit into finites an infinite number of times. I am not saying your hypothetical fails any rigorous test of logic, I am saying it cannot possibly represent an actual thing.

Well you have the right idea but your not stating it as I would. Natural causation always has a time span of finite dimension and is chronological (for the moment let's leave out the theoretical possibility of simultaneous causation because it has not be proven or claimed). Now as long as your hypothetical X1 and X2s are abstract they have no dimensions but any actual causes do. I do not care how small a time span they require you are not going to fit an infinite number of finite's into a total finite. Even if it was only fractions of a pico-second your only going to fit a finite number into a 24 hour day.

Now your on fire, I could not have put it better. We do not have infinite time to put any infinite causal chains in.

I do agree.

Good, if there is a minimal amount of time for causality to take place, then an infinite causal chain will entail an infinite time from its beginning. That is obvious, independently from what causality means.

So, how much is that this minimal time? One picosecond, a femtosecond, a billionth of a femtosecond? A poster suggested Planck time (very very short, but still greater than zero) is a good candidate. For time intervals less than Planck time causality is not applicable because nothing is applicable: our current theories just break down for time shorter than that. Ergo, we do not know anything about what happens at such scale.

Would you agree to take Planck time as a good candidate for the minimal amount of time causality needs,in order to be instantiated?

If not, What other candidates do you have i mind?

A finite universe is the dominant cosmological model. I will give one example of an eminent cosmologist who supports the view but there is a consensus on this matter.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
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).
Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Theo-sophical Ruminations

I use his model as my example because it was designed to be so robust that any vagary that people like Hawking can throw in the mix without justification does not affect it, he is not a Christian, and he is very emphatic. The BGV I second only to TBBT in dominance and both pose a finite universe.

What I asked is not "what makes you think that the Universe had a beginning?". What I asked is "What makes you think that the Universe is not infinite?"

I think it is pretty obvious that even if the Universe had a beginning, that does not say anything about it being finite or not. What makes you think that Vilenkin's theorem entails a finite Universe? It is very puzzling to me, what kind of mental processes you might have used to come to this conclusion.

I actually read the Vilenkin's book you posted (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006]). It does not say anything about the Universe being finite. It actually advertises the existence of INFINITE universes, ours being just one of them (which, by the way provides a good defeater of any fine-tuning argument).

This is a couple of short reviews of his work (source: Amazon), just in case you did not read the book:

"Cosmologists ask many difficult questions and often come up with strange answers. In this engagingly written but difficult book, Vilenkin, a Tufts University physicist, does exactly this, discussing the creation of the universe, its likely demise and the growing belief among cosmologists that there are an infinite number of universes. Vilenkin does an impressive job of presenting the background information necessary for lay readers to understand the ideas behind the big bang and related phenomena. Having set the stage, the author then delves into cutting-edge ideas, many of his own devising. He argues persuasively that, thanks to repulsive gravity, the universe is likely to expand forever. He goes on to posit that our universe is but one of an infinite series, many of them populated by our "clones." Vilenkin is well aware of the implications of this assertion: "countless identical civilizations [to ours] are scattered in the infinite expanse of the cosmos. With humankind reduced to absolute cosmic insignificance, our descent from the center of the world is now complete." Drawing on the work of Stephen Hawking and recent advances in string theory, Vilenkin gives us a great deal to ponder. B&w illus. (July)"

"Cosmology has moved from establishing that there was a finite start to the cosmos to theorizing about the initial conditions that kicked off the whole shebang. Vilenkin is a leading theorist whose scenarios about the enigma of the big bang emerge in this estimably clear, personable treatment. Vilenkin explains the idea of inflation, a phenomenal increase in the volume of space in the first infinitesimals of time, propounded by physicist Alan Guth (The Inflationary Universe, 1997). Inflation solved some theoretical problems but left others dangling, such as inducing inflation to stop; if it didn't, life could not have begun. Explaining that his solutions to the "graceful exit problem," as it is whimsically called, involve the concept of "eternal inflation," Vilenkin guides readers through its bizarre and head-spinning propositions. One is that our observed universe is embedded in a suprauniverse that infinitely spawns an infinite number of other universes. This and other gigantic ideas concisely presented will provoke the interest of readers intrigued by the origin of the big bang. "


So, either you never read Vilenkin's work, or you never understood it, or we are not talking of the same Vilenkin.

What is more likely?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Good, if there is a minimal amount of time for causality to take place, then an infinite causal chain will entail an infinite time from its beginning. That is obvious, independently from what causality means.

That is probably true of natural causation and if true defeats what you tried to prove. I don't know how supernatural causation would work since the supernatural is independent of space time.

So, how much is that this minimal time? One picosecond, a femtosecond, a billionth of a femtosecond? A poster suggested Planck time (very very short, but still greater than zero) is a good candidate. For time intervals less than Planck time causality is not applicable because nothing is applicable: our current theories just break down for time shorter than that. Ergo, we do not know anything about what happens at such scale.

Take your pick, if it requires time of any length then there can only be a finite number of the events since we only have a finite amount of space time for them to have occurred in. I do not have to know what happens given whatever scale, will I need to know is it requires a scale.

Would you agree to take Planck time as a good candidate for the minimal amount of time causality needs,in order to be instantiated?

That is fine, you can even divide it by a trillion, it won't help your cause.

If not, What other candidates do you have i mind?

That is fine as far as I know. However I suspect some kind of trick coming.

BTW let me ask because I still cannot believe you believe it. Do you think both my statements and your responses were determined by initial conditions? IOW given the singularity our debate and everything in them was a given.

What I asked is not "what makes you think that the Universe had a beginning?". What I asked is "What makes you think that the Universe is not infinite?"

Have you not read the BBT or the BGVT? The summary would be that any universe on average expending cannot possibly be infinite in the past. This simplistic thing ruins all contending theories except for the one with no evidence. This universe had a beginning but the other science fiction universe may not have, but science fiction is no grounds for debate.

I think it is pretty obvious that even if the Universe had a beginning, that does not say anything about it being finite or not. What makes you think that Vilenkin's theorem entails a finite Universe? It is very puzzling to me, what kind of mental processes you might have used to come to this conclusion.

What? Think a thing with a beginning in time is finite is inescapable. If it began at T = 0 it will always and forever be inescapably only a finite time in age. Are you asking about space (as in size) or something cause I don't get it?

I actually read the Vilenkin's book you posted (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006]). It does not say anything about the Universe being finite. It actually advertises the existence of INFINITE universes, ours being just one of them (which, by the way provides a good defeater of any fine-tuning argument).

It does allow for infinite universes but ours is not among them. I think he was sort of hedging his bet. If you allow for other universes and they exist you can't lose, even if they don't exist you still don't lose. We are talking about the only universe we actually know exists, not fantasies.

This is a couple of short reviews of his work (source: Amazon), just in case you did not read the book:

"Cosmologists ask many difficult questions and often come up with strange answers. In this engagingly written but difficult book, Vilenkin, a Tufts University physicist, does exactly this, discussing the creation of the universe, its likely demise and the growing belief among cosmologists that there are an infinite number of universes. Vilenkin does an impressive job of presenting the background information necessary for lay readers to understand the ideas behind the big bang and related phenomena. Having set the stage, the author then delves into cutting-edge ideas, many of his own devising. He argues persuasively that, thanks to repulsive gravity, the universe is likely to expand forever. He goes on to posit that our universe is but one of an infinite series, many of them populated by our "clones." Vilenkin is well aware of the implications of this assertion: "countless identical civilizations [to ours] are scattered in the infinite expanse of the cosmos. With humankind reduced to absolute cosmic insignificance, our descent from the center of the world is now complete." Drawing on the work of Stephen Hawking and recent advances in string theory, Vilenkin gives us a great deal to ponder. B&w illus. (July)"

I know his work. What you bolded does nothing to make this universe infinite. It suggests that if there are other universes then the theoretical panoply of universes may be infinite. Anytime these theoretical guys go beyond the single universe we don't even understand that well I tune out and it is irrelevant here. We are talking about this universe.

Did you miss what I posted by him?
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).

"Cosmology has moved from establishing that there was a finite start to the cosmos to theorizing about the initial conditions that kicked off the whole shebang. Vilenkin is a leading theorist whose scenarios about the enigma of the big bang emerge in this estimably clear, personable treatment. Vilenkin explains the idea of inflation, a phenomenal increase in the volume of space in the first infinitesimals of time, propounded by physicist Alan Guth (The Inflationary Universe, 1997). Inflation solved some theoretical problems but left others dangling, such as inducing inflation to stop; if it didn't, life could not have begun. Explaining that his solutions to the "graceful exit problem," as it is whimsically called, involve the concept of "eternal inflation," Vilenkin guides readers through its bizarre and head-spinning propositions. One is that our observed universe is embedded in a suprauniverse that infinitely spawns an infinite number of other universes. This and other gigantic ideas concisely presented will provoke the interest of readers intrigued by the origin of the big bang. "

I know all of this, your having another conversation or something. Anything can be true of a fantasy panoply of universes, but not ours (you know the one we actually know exists).

So, either you never read Vilenkin's work, or you never understood it, or we are not talking of the same Vilenkin.

Your talking about what is sometimes said is not impossible (though it actual is)
of a fantasy collection of mythical universes, which has no evidence, and which even if true we can never get any evidence for them. I am talking about what is true of the one universe we know does exist. I asked you for an actual natural infinite thing. You have given me one thought experiment and one fantasy which has no evidence nor probably ever will. We are having two conversations. Me about known reality and you about everything else.

What is more likely?

No likely to it, I have faced every accusation or quote that used Vilenkin atheists can dig up and I know his work well. You are not talking about what is true of known reality, and I am. If we discuss fantasies anything is possible because only our imagination binds them. That is why I distrust theoretical science so much.

 

[viole]

That is fine as far as I know. However I suspect some kind of trick coming.

Of course you do. I would as well, LOL
But I have planned something funny with my kids this weekend, so it will take a couple of days before hitting you with it

BTW let me ask because I still cannot believe you believe it. Do you think both my statements and your responses were determined by initial conditions? IOW given the singularity our debate and everything in them was a given.

Sure. Every single bit. My conception, birth, kid experiences, education, being born again, dating a guy, marriage, my kids, my getting atheist, my writing in this forum, my planning something with my kids this weekend, getting older and slower, maybe getting Alzheimer, because of that becoming born again again, lol..... Why? I am a machine determined by the physical environment and the electrochemical/hormonal level driving its current computation state. And that state is reducible to the initial conditions of the universe.

No likely to it, I have faced every accusation or quote that used Vilenkin atheists can dig up and I know his work well. You are not talking about what is true of known reality, and I am. If we discuss fantasies anything is possible because only our imagination binds them. That is why I distrust theoretical science so much.

There is not much to debate here. The author of the Vilenkin's theorem writes a book about infinite universes (which is even stronger than claiming that this universe is infinite). So, we have only two cases:

1) His theorem does not entail that this Universe is finite (nobody knows whether this Universe is finite or not, independently from the theorem's thesis). It does not even entail that there are not infinite Universes, as the author explains in his book
2) The author is schizophrenic. self contracting, and, therefore, unreliable

Your call, really

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Of course you do. I would as well, LOL
But I have planned something funny with my kids this weekend, so it will take a couple of days before hitting you with it

Are you planning on using them as guinea pigs for his effort? Either way have a good time.

Sure. Every single bit. My conception, birth, kid experiences, education, being born again, dating a guy, marriage, my kids, my getting atheist, my writing in this forum, my planning something with my kids this weekend, getting older and slower, maybe getting Alzheimer, because of that becoming born again again, lol..... Why? I am a machine determined by the physical environment and the electrochemical/hormonal level driving its current computation state. And that state is reducible to the initial conditions of the universe.

Ok then I can use this debate as proof of my annihilation of determinism. But I still cannot believe a person as intelligent as you believes this. Of course Germany was the most educated country and on earth and they went diabolically insane and started a war.

There is not much to debate here. The author of the Vilenkin's theorem writes a book about infinite universes (which is even stronger than claiming that this universe is infinite). So, we have only two cases:

There is no way that even in any of these other universes theories about universes we have no evidence for is stronger than the inescapable facts of our actual universe.

1) His theorem does not entail that this Universe is finite (nobody knows whether this Universe is finite or not, independently from the theorem's thesis). It does not even entail that there are not infinite Universes, as the author explains in his book

Maybe you do have Alzheimer's. LET ME POST THIS FOR THE THIRD TIME:

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).

Read more: Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe | Reasonable Faith

Anything with a beginning, a stick, a time line, a causal chain, etc....... is finite.

I don't know why your not getting this. Are you talking about some other property of the universe like dimensions or something? I can defeat them all but I will not do so with Vilenkin. Do you at least get he is saying the universe is not finite in the past? He actually used those exact words.

2) The author is schizophrenic. self contracting, and, therefore, unreliable

I did not understand this.

Your call, really

My call is that you can really use a break with the kids. You have been "unviole-ish" lately.