How is the Bible the Word of God?

[metis]

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

If you are open to another book that is more compatible with what most cosmologists are leaning towards, you might consider "The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory" by Maurizio Gasperini. In the book, he outlines numerous cosmological hypotheses on what may have led to the BB, and most of them hypothesize that the singularity of our infant universe emerged from a larger context, such as what M-Theory hypothesizes.

 

[1robin]

If you are open to another book that is more compatible with what most cosmologists are leaning towards, you might consider "The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory" by Maurizio Gasperini. In the book, he outlines numerous cosmological hypotheses on what may have led to the BB, and most of them hypothesize that the singularity of our infant universe emerged from a larger context, such as what M-Theory hypothesizes.

I am not opposed to reading any scientific material on hard science. I however developed such a mistrust of theoretical science when I was in college that I eventually find it almost painful to listen to pure theory (even if much of it is sincere and rational). I can't explain in a post all the times theoretical science has broken my trust as there are too many to even know where to begin.

However since you asked I will make you a deal. If you can show me an alternative in the work you mentioned that is based on as accessible and well established science as the BGVT was and that counters it I will read that portion. IOW let me know what the best claims are and I will read them, if I find them well founded I might read on. Let me give you one example of a relevant instance where I have found theoretical science so unreliable.

I have actually looked into M-theory and string theory. TO be honest I don't understand them so I looked into hem with my boss who is a Phd. Penrose I have learned to trust and Hawking I have learned to distrust and almost resent over the years. This is what Penrose said about M-theory:

Speaking on the station’s weekly faith debate program Unbelievable? on Saturday 25 September, Penrose described Hawking’s new book The Grand Design as “misleading” adding that M-theory, which Hawking claims has made God redundant as a cause of the universe, was “not even a theory” and “hardly science” but instead “a collection of hopes, ideas and aspirations.”

Penrose was in dialogue on the program with Alister McGrath, professor of theology at Kings College London. The two men joined host Justin Brierley to respond to the question of whether Hawking’s new theory had made God redundant as a potential explanation of the origin of the universe.

Criticizing M-theory, Penrose said: “It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. The book is a bit misleading. It gives you this impression of a theory that is going to explain everything; it’s nothing of the sort. It’s not even a theory.”

Our “Universe has not been shown to “create itself from nothing.”

Asked whether science shows that the universe could “create itself from nothing” as claimed in the book, Penrose was strong in his condemnation of the ‘string’ theory that lies behind Hawking’s statement: “It’s certainly not doing it yet. I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many. It’s not an uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto an idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observation. They are just nice ideas.” He added that such ideas are “”very far from any testability. They are hardly science.”

As a former colleague who worked closely alongside Hawking in developing gravitational singularity theorems, Penrose is perhaps the most high profile scientist yet to dismiss Hawking’s views.

“Multi-verse” has not superseded God

He also responded to the so-called “multi-verse” hypothesis that Hawking’s theory also posits. Christians, including Professor McGrath, have pointed towards the fact that our universe is incredibly “fine-tuned” for life to come into existence, thus providing evidence of a transcendent designer. Hawking’s “multi-verse” hypothesis is a form of the ‘anthropic principle': since ours is one in an array of universes, we inevitably only observe a universe with the correct ‘settings’ that support conscious life.

Responding to the ‘multi-verse’ hypothesis, Penrose, a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association who describes himself as having “no religious beliefs,” said: “Its overused, and this is a place where its overused. It’s an excuse for not having a good theory.” [These ideas are not supportive of ‘no God is needed’ ideas either — although sometimes put forth in such a manner as to shed doubt on the God idea.
Roger Penrose | the Hunt for Truth

Keep in mind his response was not to your author but to Hawking' book, but the same theories are used by both.

Anyway thanks for the suggestion and since it was you, if you point out which part is the most compelling I will give it a shot but I really really am suspicious of theoretical science like strings, something from nothing, and anything prior to the singularity (which we have no understanding of at all).

 

[metis]

I am not opposed to reading any scientific material on hard science. I however developed such a mistrust of theoretical science when I was in college that I eventually find it almost painful to listen to pure theory (even if much of it is sincere and rational). I can't explain in a post all the times theoretical science has broken my trust as there are too many to even know where to begin.

However since you asked I will make you a deal. If you can show me an alternative in the work you mentioned that is based on as accessible and well established science as the BGVT was and that counters it I will read that portion. IOW let me know what the best claims are and I will read them, if I find them well founded I might read on. Let me give you one example of a relevant instance where I have found theoretical science so unreliable.

I have actually looked into M-theory and string theory. TO be honest I don't understand them so I looked into hem with my boss who is a Phd. Penrose I have learned to trust and Hawking I have learned to distrust and almost resent over the years. This is what Penrose said about M-theory:

Speaking on the station’s weekly faith debate program Unbelievable? on Saturday 25 September, Penrose described Hawking’s new book The Grand Design as “misleading” adding that M-theory, which Hawking claims has made God redundant as a cause of the universe, was “not even a theory” and “hardly science” but instead “a collection of hopes, ideas and aspirations.”

Penrose was in dialogue on the program with Alister McGrath, professor of theology at Kings College London. The two men joined host Justin Brierley to respond to the question of whether Hawking’s new theory had made God redundant as a potential explanation of the origin of the universe.

Criticizing M-theory, Penrose said: “It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. The book is a bit misleading. It gives you this impression of a theory that is going to explain everything; it’s nothing of the sort. It’s not even a theory.”

Our “Universe has not been shown to “create itself from nothing.”

Asked whether science shows that the universe could “create itself from nothing” as claimed in the book, Penrose was strong in his condemnation of the ‘string’ theory that lies behind Hawking’s statement: “It’s certainly not doing it yet. I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many. It’s not an uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto an idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observation. They are just nice ideas.” He added that such ideas are “”very far from any testability. They are hardly science.”

As a former colleague who worked closely alongside Hawking in developing gravitational singularity theorems, Penrose is perhaps the most high profile scientist yet to dismiss Hawking’s views.

“Multi-verse” has not superseded God

He also responded to the so-called “multi-verse” hypothesis that Hawking’s theory also posits. Christians, including Professor McGrath, have pointed towards the fact that our universe is incredibly “fine-tuned” for life to come into existence, thus providing evidence of a transcendent designer. Hawking’s “multi-verse” hypothesis is a form of the ‘anthropic principle': since ours is one in an array of universes, we inevitably only observe a universe with the correct ‘settings’ that support conscious life.

Responding to the ‘multi-verse’ hypothesis, Penrose, a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association who describes himself as having “no religious beliefs,” said: “Its overused, and this is a place where its overused. It’s an excuse for not having a good theory.” [These ideas are not supportive of ‘no God is needed’ ideas either — although sometimes put forth in such a manner as to shed doubt on the God idea.
Roger Penrose | the Hunt for Truth

Keep in mind his response was not to your author but to Hawking' book, but the same theories are used by both.

Anyway thanks for the suggestion and since it was you, if you point out which part is the most compelling I will give it a shot but I really really am suspicious of theoretical science like strings, something from nothing, and anything prior to the singularity (which we have no understanding of at all).

The point was that most cosmologists do lean in the direction that something was in existence prior to be BB, so we simply cannot assume that something appeared out of nothing for no natural reason.

 

[1robin]

The point was that most cosmologists do lean in the direction that something was in existence prior to be BB, so we simply cannot assume that something appeared out of nothing for no natural reason.

I do not know for certain but I do not think they lean that way, if they do they are doing so in spite of the evidence not because of it. I also would suspect their theological motivations or lack there of may be forcing this. An absolute beginning is a hard pill to swallow for an atheist scientist. Anyway, you can copy and paste the best claim your link contained if you want. If I find it compelling I will read the whole article. Up to you.

 

[metis]

I do not know for certain but I do not think they lean that way, if they do they are doing so in spite of the evidence not because of it. I also would suspect their theological motivations or lack there of may be forcing this. An absolute beginning is a hard pill to swallow for an atheist scientist. Anyway, you can copy and paste the best claim your link contained if you want. If I find it compelling I will read the whole article. Up to you.

My information comes from about a dozen or so books I've read on cosmology written by researchers, plus what I've read in Scientific American over the years, so it's not possible for me to cut-and-paste. Gasperini's book covers a variety of hypotheses, often linking some names to them. I'll see what I can find on-line shortly.

 

[metis]

OK, while my dinner is cooking, here's one source:

The 20th century saw a giant leap in how humans perceive the cosmos. No longer did people assume that the universe was static in size. By looking at how distant galaxies recede from us, we learned instead that the universe is expanding in volume. Tracing the expanding universe backward in time, we imagined a dense, hot beginning of our universe in a finite past. In the middle of the century, we found out that the nuclear reactions in this hot early universe accurately account for the previously mysterious abundance of helium and deuterium. Moreover, we detected a faint afterglow of the big bang that occurred billions of years ago. That the universe began with a big bang is essentially conclusive and may stand as the most profound discovery humans have ever made.

The big bang, however, is merely a global description of the origin of the universe. Today, particle physicists have consistent theories about the history of the universe down to only a trillionth of a second after its birth or even earlier. They can test their theories experimentally with particle accelerators that can simulate events involving enormous energies similar to the condition at the beginning. To learn more about how exactly the universe began, physicists must develop a theory that works at even earlier times after the big bang. Such theory must combine both the general relativity (because of the extreme gravitational field at the beginning) and quantum mechanics (because of the extreme compactness of the universe at the beginning). The goal of physics today is to develop this quantum theory of gravity so that we may one day understand what exactly happened around the moment of the big bang to get the universe started. -- Big Bang: How Did the Universe Begin?

 

[metis]

This next one is too lengthy to quote since it gets into various hypotheses, including theistic: What caused the Big Bang? - asdfScience

 

[metis]

Another:

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside. -- The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

Anyhow, just to make it clear that I do not have an opinion on what caused the BB since what would I base my opinion on? I do not assume a theistic causation, but nor do I discount the possibility.

Notice that I have "I don't know" down to a science.

 

[viole]

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.

I am in good company. Einstein was also a strong determinist. Maybe we are not determinists despite our intelligence, but because of that. Who can say? Lol.

And holding a tenseless theory of time entails determinism, for the simple reason that under this theory the future is not open, but ontologically equivalent to the past. Whatever you decide to do, and do, is already written in the fabric of timespace. So, no sorprise that I am a determinist. And any annihilating argument you find would annihilate the B-theory of time, as well. Good luck with that.

You make it sound as if the debate in the intellectual community is settled. I would say it never raged like today.

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).

Well, i got that. But the reasonable question to ask is: why on earth the very creator of this theorem (past finiteness of the Universe) postulates INFINITE Universes in the same book (you quoted)? They are the same person and even the title betrays its contests. Either he is insane, or things are much subtler than you think. Considering the caliber of the author, I would tend for the latter.

Usually, such answers come from actually reading the book instead of quote mining it and selecting only the part we like. Did you read it?

But the spoiler is obvious: time finiteness of the Universe does not entail finitess of other things, even if we assume the theorem's premises true. Things like its spacial size or the number of instances that the same mathematics used for the theorem do not forbid but actually suggest.

Truth is: nobody knows whether the Universe is infinite or not even under the premises of the theorem. Could be, could be not. Nobody (Vilenkin included apparently) will say we know because of the Big Bang, Vilenkin theorem, Kalam, Acquinas, WL Craig, impossbility of infinities, or whatever. For obvious reasons. A little googling of cosmological articles around should show that. Only some theists believe that for a-priori reasons.

Or do you think that the Universe started as a small finite, possibly point like ball, and therefore it stayed, and will stay finite, for all its evolution?

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

OK, while my dinner is cooking, here's one source:

The 20th century saw a giant leap in how humans perceive the cosmos. No longer did people assume that the universe was static in size. By looking at how distant galaxies recede from us, we learned instead that the universe is expanding in volume. Tracing the expanding universe backward in time, we imagined a dense, hot beginning of our universe in a finite past. In the middle of the century, we found out that the nuclear reactions in this hot early universe accurately account for the previously mysterious abundance of helium and deuterium. Moreover, we detected a faint afterglow of the big bang that occurred billions of years ago. That the universe began with a big bang is essentially conclusive and may stand as the most profound discovery humans have ever made.

The big bang, however, is merely a global description of the origin of the universe. Today, particle physicists have consistent theories about the history of the universe down to only a trillionth of a second after its birth or even earlier. They can test their theories experimentally with particle accelerators that can simulate events involving enormous energies similar to the condition at the beginning. To learn more about how exactly the universe began, physicists must develop a theory that works at even earlier times after the big bang. Such theory must combine both the general relativity (because of the extreme gravitational field at the beginning) and quantum mechanics (because of the extreme compactness of the universe at the beginning). The goal of physics today is to develop this quantum theory of gravity so that we may one day understand what exactly happened around the moment of the big bang to get the universe started. -- Big Bang: How Did the Universe Begin?

I thought your claim was that scientists had posseted some kind of history before the big bang. This looks more like their speculation about what took place in the singularity. I of course grant the proposition that the universe began in a singularity event. This occurred between T=0 and T = 10^-47. No one knows what happened during this time because the laws we use to investigate things do not work in that period of time. The first fraction of a second is a mystery, the link you provided must be theories and evidence about what that first tiny flash that created the universe was like. I doubt they have any idea but even if they do it would not affect my point, that being that the universe INCLUDING the singularity began to exist a finite time ago. That is what the evidence shows and I mean all the evidence. Any theory about what happened before time, matter, and space began to exist in the singularity event is not supported by any meaningful evidence. IOW the dominant model of a finite universe that began a finite time ago is unaffected by whatever occurred in the first fractions of a second, even if we did know what had occurred, which we don't.

The absolute origin of the universe, of all matter and energy, even of physical space and time themselves, in the Big Bang singularity contradicts the perennial naturalistic assumption that the universe has always existed. One after another, models designed to avert the initial cosmological singularity--the Steady State model, the Oscillating model, Vacuum Fluctuation models--have come and gone. Current quantum gravity models, such as the Hartle-Hawking model and the Vilenkin model, must appeal to the physically unintelligible and metaphysically dubious device of "imaginary time" to avoid the universe's beginning. The contingency implied by an absolute beginning ex nihilo points to a transcendent cause of the universe beyond space and time. Philosophical objections to a cause of the universe fail to carry conviction.

Source: Astrophysics and Space Science 269-270 (1999): 723-740



As a GTR-based theory, the Friedman-Lemaitre model does not describe the expansion of the material content of the universe into a pre-existing, empty, Newtonian space, but rather the expansion of space itself. This has the astonishing implication that as one reverses the expansion and extrapolates back in time, space-time curvature becomes progressively greater until one finally arrives at a singular state at which space-time curvature becomes infinite. This state therefore constitutes an edge or boundary to space-time itself. P. C. W. Davies comments,

An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . . On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.11

The popular expression "Big Bang," originally a derisive term coined by Fred Hoyle to characterize the beginning of the universe predicted by the Friedman-Lemaitre model, is thus potentially misleading, since the expansion cannot be visualized from the outside (there being no "outside," just as there is no "before" with respect to the Big Bang).12

The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,--and this deserves underscoring--the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo." On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity

1 Metaphysics A. 2. 982b10-15.

2 Derek Parfit, "Why Anything? Why This?" London Review of Books 20/2 (January 22, 1998), p.24.

3 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, "The Principles of Nature and of Grace, Founded on Reason," in The Monadology and Other Philosophical Writings, trans. Robert Latta (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 415; idem, "The Monadology," in Monadology and Other Philosophical Writings, pp. 237-39.

4 David Hume, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, ed. with an Introduction by Norman Kemp Smith, Library of Liberal Arts (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1947), pt. IX, p. 190.

5 Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, "The Existence of God," in The Existence of God, ed. with an Introduction by John Hick, Problems of Philosophy Series (New York: Macmillan, 1964), p. 175.

6 A. Einstein, "Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity," in The Principle of relativity, by A. Einstein, et. al., with Notes by A. Sommerfeld, trans. W. Perrett and J. B. Jefferey (rep. ed.: New York: Dover Publications, 1952), pp. 177-88.

7 A. Friedman, "Über die Krümmung des Raumes," Zeitschrift für Physik 10 (1922): 377-86; G. Lemaitre, "Un univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant, rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques," Annales de la Société scientifique de Bruxelles 47 (1927): 49-59.

8 Gregory L. Naber, Spacetime and Singularities: an Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 126-27.

9 E. Hubble, "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-galactic Nebulae," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15 (1929): 168-73.

10 John A. Wheeler, "Beyond the Hole," in Some Strangeness in the Proportion, ed. Harry Woolf (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1980), p. 354.

11 P. C. W. Davies, "Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag ).

12 As Gott, Gunn, Schramm, and Tinsley write,

"the universe began from a state of infinite density about one Hubble time ago. Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the big bang; it is somewhat like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the big bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the only answer can be that the big bang happened everywhere" (J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, "Will the Universe Expand Forever?" Scientific American [March 1976], p. 65).

13 John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 442.

14 For this analysis, see John Hick, "God as Necessary Being," Journal of Philosophy 57 (1960): 733-34.

15 Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe (New York: Macmillan, 1933), p. 124.

16 Ibid., p. 178.

17 Hubert Reeves, Jean Audouze, William A. Fowler, and David N. Schramm, "On the Origin of Light Elements," Astrophysical Journal 179 (1973):

18 Fred Hoyle, Astronomy Today (London: Heinemann, 1975), p. 165.

19 Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology: A Modern Course (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1975), p. 658.

20 H. Bondi and T. Gold, "The Steady State Theory of the Expanding Universe," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108 (1948): 252-70; F. Hoyle, "A New Model for the Expanding Universe," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108 (1948): 372-82.

 

[metis]

I thought your claim was that scientists had posseted some kind of history before the big bang. This looks more like their speculation about what took place in the singularity. I of course grant the proposition that the universe began in a singularity event. This occurred between T=0 and T = 10^-47. No one knows what happened during this time because the laws we use to investigate things do not work in that period of time. The first fraction of a second is a mystery, the link you provided must be theories and evidence about what that first tiny flash that created the universe was like. I doubt they have any idea but even if they do it would not affect my point, that being that the universe INCLUDING the singularity began to exist a finite time ago. That is what the evidence shows and I mean all the evidence. Any theory about what happened before time, matter, and space began to exist in the singularity event is not supported by any meaningful evidence. IOW the dominant model of a finite universe that began a finite time ago is unaffected by whatever occurred in the first fractions of a second, even if we did know what had occurred, which we don't.

The absolute origin of the universe, of all matter and energy, even of physical space and time themselves, in the Big Bang singularity contradicts the perennial naturalistic assumption that the universe has always existed. One after another, models designed to avert the initial cosmological singularity--the Steady State model, the Oscillating model, Vacuum Fluctuation models--have come and gone. Current quantum gravity models, such as the Hartle-Hawking model and the Vilenkin model, must appeal to the physically unintelligible and metaphysically dubious device of "imaginary time" to avoid the universe's beginning. The contingency implied by an absolute beginning ex nihilo points to a transcendent cause of the universe beyond space and time. Philosophical objections to a cause of the universe fail to carry conviction.

Source: Astrophysics and Space Science 269-270 (1999): 723-740



As a GTR-based theory, the Friedman-Lemaitre model does not describe the expansion of the material content of the universe into a pre-existing, empty, Newtonian space, but rather the expansion of space itself. This has the astonishing implication that as one reverses the expansion and extrapolates back in time, space-time curvature becomes progressively greater until one finally arrives at a singular state at which space-time curvature becomes infinite. This state therefore constitutes an edge or boundary to space-time itself. P. C. W. Davies comments,

An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . . On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.11

The popular expression "Big Bang," originally a derisive term coined by Fred Hoyle to characterize the beginning of the universe predicted by the Friedman-Lemaitre model, is thus potentially misleading, since the expansion cannot be visualized from the outside (there being no "outside," just as there is no "before" with respect to the Big Bang).12

The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,--and this deserves underscoring--the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo." On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity

1 Metaphysics A. 2. 982b10-15.

2 Derek Parfit, "Why Anything? Why This?" London Review of Books 20/2 (January 22, 1998), p.24.

3 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, "The Principles of Nature and of Grace, Founded on Reason," in The Monadology and Other Philosophical Writings, trans. Robert Latta (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 415; idem, "The Monadology," in Monadology and Other Philosophical Writings, pp. 237-39.

4 David Hume, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, ed. with an Introduction by Norman Kemp Smith, Library of Liberal Arts (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1947), pt. IX, p. 190.

5 Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, "The Existence of God," in The Existence of God, ed. with an Introduction by John Hick, Problems of Philosophy Series (New York: Macmillan, 1964), p. 175.

6 A. Einstein, "Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity," in The Principle of relativity, by A. Einstein, et. al., with Notes by A. Sommerfeld, trans. W. Perrett and J. B. Jefferey (rep. ed.: New York: Dover Publications, 1952), pp. 177-88.

7 A. Friedman, "Über die Krümmung des Raumes," Zeitschrift für Physik 10 (1922): 377-86; G. Lemaitre, "Un univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant, rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques," Annales de la Société scientifique de Bruxelles 47 (1927): 49-59.

8 Gregory L. Naber, Spacetime and Singularities: an Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 126-27.

9 E. Hubble, "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-galactic Nebulae," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15 (1929): 168-73.

10 John A. Wheeler, "Beyond the Hole," in Some Strangeness in the Proportion, ed. Harry Woolf (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1980), p. 354.

11 P. C. W. Davies, "Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag ).

12 As Gott, Gunn, Schramm, and Tinsley write,

"the universe began from a state of infinite density about one Hubble time ago. Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the big bang; it is somewhat like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the big bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the only answer can be that the big bang happened everywhere" (J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, "Will the Universe Expand Forever?" Scientific American [March 1976], p. 65).

13 John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 442.

14 For this analysis, see John Hick, "God as Necessary Being," Journal of Philosophy 57 (1960): 733-34.

15 Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe (New York: Macmillan, 1933), p. 124.

16 Ibid., p. 178.

17 Hubert Reeves, Jean Audouze, William A. Fowler, and David N. Schramm, "On the Origin of Light Elements," Astrophysical Journal 179 (1973):

18 Fred Hoyle, Astronomy Today (London: Heinemann, 1975), p. 165.

19 Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology: A Modern Course (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1975), p. 658.

20 H. Bondi and T. Gold, "The Steady State Theory of the Expanding Universe," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108 (1948): 252-70; F. Hoyle, "A New Model for the Expanding Universe," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108 (1948): 372-82.

The problem with the above is that you're stating certain concepts as being gimmes when they're simply not. There are numerous concepts about what may have existed before the BB and what caused it, so it is at this time impossible to nail things down. And quoting some scientists from many decades ago when so much has been discovered and calculated since really doesn't cut it. For example, we now know that Einstein's opposition to quantum mechanics and belief in the steady-state theory is wrong.

Right now, the BB is more of a question than an answer, and much more information is needed, and some of this may be forthcoming shortly because of the study of the "afterglow".

Gotta cut this short.

 

[leibowde84]

I thought your claim was that scientists had posseted some kind of history before the big bang. This looks more like their speculation about what took place in the singularity. I of course grant the proposition that the universe began in a singularity event. This occurred between T=0 and T = 10^-47. No one knows what happened during this time because the laws we use to investigate things do not work in that period of time. The first fraction of a second is a mystery, the link you provided must be theories and evidence about what that first tiny flash that created the universe was like. I doubt they have any idea but even if they do it would not affect my point, that being that the universe INCLUDING the singularity began to exist a finite time ago. That is what the evidence shows and I mean all the evidence. Any theory about what happened before time, matter, and space began to exist in the singularity event is not supported by any meaningful evidence. IOW the dominant model of a finite universe that began a finite time ago is unaffected by whatever occurred in the first fractions of a second, even if we did know what had occurred, which we don't.

The absolute origin of the universe, of all matter and energy, even of physical space and time themselves, in the Big Bang singularity contradicts the perennial naturalistic assumption that the universe has always existed. One after another, models designed to avert the initial cosmological singularity--the Steady State model, the Oscillating model, Vacuum Fluctuation models--have come and gone. Current quantum gravity models, such as the Hartle-Hawking model and the Vilenkin model, must appeal to the physically unintelligible and metaphysically dubious device of "imaginary time" to avoid the universe's beginning. The contingency implied by an absolute beginning ex nihilo points to a transcendent cause of the universe beyond space and time. Philosophical objections to a cause of the universe fail to carry conviction.

Source: Astrophysics and Space Science 269-270 (1999): 723-740



As a GTR-based theory, the Friedman-Lemaitre model does not describe the expansion of the material content of the universe into a pre-existing, empty, Newtonian space, but rather the expansion of space itself. This has the astonishing implication that as one reverses the expansion and extrapolates back in time, space-time curvature becomes progressively greater until one finally arrives at a singular state at which space-time curvature becomes infinite. This state therefore constitutes an edge or boundary to space-time itself. P. C. W. Davies comments,

An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . . On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.11

The popular expression "Big Bang," originally a derisive term coined by Fred Hoyle to characterize the beginning of the universe predicted by the Friedman-Lemaitre model, is thus potentially misleading, since the expansion cannot be visualized from the outside (there being no "outside," just as there is no "before" with respect to the Big Bang).12

The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,--and this deserves underscoring--the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo." On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity

1 Metaphysics A. 2. 982b10-15.

2 Derek Parfit, "Why Anything? Why This?" London Review of Books 20/2 (January 22, 1998), p.24.

3 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, "The Principles of Nature and of Grace, Founded on Reason," in The Monadology and Other Philosophical Writings, trans. Robert Latta (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 415; idem, "The Monadology," in Monadology and Other Philosophical Writings, pp. 237-39.

4 David Hume, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, ed. with an Introduction by Norman Kemp Smith, Library of Liberal Arts (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1947), pt. IX, p. 190.

5 Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, "The Existence of God," in The Existence of God, ed. with an Introduction by John Hick, Problems of Philosophy Series (New York: Macmillan, 1964), p. 175.

6 A. Einstein, "Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity," in The Principle of relativity, by A. Einstein, et. al., with Notes by A. Sommerfeld, trans. W. Perrett and J. B. Jefferey (rep. ed.: New York: Dover Publications, 1952), pp. 177-88.

7 A. Friedman, "Über die Krümmung des Raumes," Zeitschrift für Physik 10 (1922): 377-86; G. Lemaitre, "Un univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant, rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques," Annales de la Société scientifique de Bruxelles 47 (1927): 49-59.

8 Gregory L. Naber, Spacetime and Singularities: an Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 126-27.

9 E. Hubble, "A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-galactic Nebulae," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 15 (1929): 168-73.

10 John A. Wheeler, "Beyond the Hole," in Some Strangeness in the Proportion, ed. Harry Woolf (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1980), p. 354.

11 P. C. W. Davies, "Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag ).

12 As Gott, Gunn, Schramm, and Tinsley write,

"the universe began from a state of infinite density about one Hubble time ago. Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the big bang; it is somewhat like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the big bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the only answer can be that the big bang happened everywhere" (J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, "Will the Universe Expand Forever?" Scientific American [March 1976], p. 65).

13 John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 442.

14 For this analysis, see John Hick, "God as Necessary Being," Journal of Philosophy 57 (1960): 733-34.

15 Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe (New York: Macmillan, 1933), p. 124.

16 Ibid., p. 178.

17 Hubert Reeves, Jean Audouze, William A. Fowler, and David N. Schramm, "On the Origin of Light Elements," Astrophysical Journal 179 (1973):

18 Fred Hoyle, Astronomy Today (London: Heinemann, 1975), p. 165.

19 Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology: A Modern Course (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1975), p. 658.

20 H. Bondi and T. Gold, "The Steady State Theory of the Expanding Universe," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108 (1948): 252-70; F. Hoyle, "A New Model for the Expanding Universe," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108 (1948): 372-82.

Why do you think that the theories of scientists over 50 years ago (or even 20 years for that matter) should be preferred to theories from scientists now (or even the same scientists now)? The great thing about science is that it constantly second guesses itself. We are constantly finding issues with assumptions and then doing our darndest to fix them. Since we've learned a monumental amount since 1948, wouldn't those scientists views be "outdated?" Either way, they certainly do not provide too much of a backing for any argument. It is always best not to rely on the opinions of others, especially when those opinions are more than a generation old. Just a thought.

 

[leibowde84]

The problem with the above is that you're stating certain concepts as being gimmes when they're simply not. There are numerous concepts about what may have existed before the BB and what caused it, so it is at this time impossible to nail things down. And quoting some scientists from many decades ago when so much has been discovered and calculated since really doesn't cut it. For example, we now know that Einstein's opposition to quantum mechanics and belief in the steady-state theory is wrong.

Right now, the BB is more of a question than an answer, and much more information is needed, and some of this may be forthcoming shortly because of the study of the "afterglow".

Gotta cut this short.

Well put.

 

[viole]

However since you asked I will make you a deal. If you can show me an alternative in the work you mentioned that is based on as accessible and well established science as the BGVT was and that counters it I will read that portion.

I have actually looked into M-theory and string theory. TO be honest I don't understand them so I looked into hem with my boss who is a Phd. Penrose I have learned to trust ....

Here we go, directly from Penrose himself:


"Penrose, however, takes issue with the inflationary picture and in particular believes it cannot account for the very low entropy state in which the universe was believed to have been born – an extremely high degree of order that made complex matter possible. He does not believe that space and time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang but that the Big Bang was in fact just one in a series of many, with each big bang marking the start of a new "aeon" in the history of the universe."

Source: physicsworld.com

An infinitely old universe. Do you still trust him?


Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

I am in good company. Einstein was also a strong determinist. Maybe we are not determinists despite our intelligence, but because of that. Who can say? Lol.

Non-theists will always wind up in a self contradicting paradox if left alone long enough. If you believe in determinism it is either the case you are wrong, or it is true and because it is had no choice but to believe in it. It is not because you were so smart you could figure it out, that situation your own world view annihilates.

And holding a tenseless theory of time entails determinism, for the simple reason that under this theory the future is not open, but ontologically equivalent to the past. Whatever you decide to do, and do, is already written in the fabric of timespace. So, no sorprise that I am a determinist. And any annihilating argument you find would annihilate the B-theory of time, as well. Good luck with that.

This is that theory you transfer from a model to reality and I beg you not to put me through that again.

You make it sound as if the debate in the intellectual community is settled. I would say it never raged like today.

I did not say the issue has been settled, but I think the dominant position is the compatibilist view.

Well, i got that. But the reasonable question to ask is: why on earth the very creator of this theorem (past finiteness of the Universe) postulates INFINITE Universes in the same book (you quoted)? They are the same person and even the title betrays its contests. Either he is insane, or things are much subtler than you think. Considering the caliber of the author, I would tend for the latter.

Look these are two subjects.

1. What is true of the one universe we know exists.
2. What may be true of a fantasy land we have no evidence exists. Since a fantasy land has no rules we do not invent ourselves it can be anything we want. However until strong evidence is found for these fantasy lands they hold no persuasive power what so ever unless it is to persuade us of desperation.

Usually, such answers come from actually reading the book instead of quote mining it and selecting only the part we like. Did you read it?

I read the theorem. I have also seen several professional hours long critiques of it.

But the spoiler is obvious: time finiteness of the Universe does not entail finitess of other things, even if we assume the theorem's premises true. Things like its spacial size or the number of instances that the same mathematics used for the theorem do not forbid but actually suggest.

I kept asking you if you meant something other than time but you never suggested you did. I assume here your tentatively agreeing that time is finite in this universe. Other arguments limit other theoretical infinites. Take your pick and I will try and explain why whatever you picked is not infinite. Please for pity sake keep your potential infinite in the one universe we actually know exists.

Truth is: nobody knows whether the Universe is infinite or not even under the premises of the theorem. Could be, could be not. Nobody (Vilenkin included apparently) will say we know because of the Big Bang, Vilenkin theorem, Kalam, Acquinas, WL Craig, impossbility of infinities, or whatever. For obvious reasons. A little googling of cosmological articles around should show that. Only some theists believe that for a-priori reasons.

True, but the truth is also that every piece of evidence we do have suggests we have a finite universe in time, space, and material.

Or do you think that the Universe started as a small finite, possibly point like ball, and therefore it stayed, and will stay finite, for all its evolution?

If anything starts, even if it grows indefinitely it will at al times be finite. From now on please state what property of a thing it is your suggesting is infinite.

I want to now further annihilate your determinism to have faith in determinism.

Please give me a simple but theoretical process by which my causal chain and yours which are different even if they merge at some point in the past can both get me to ask a question (that one I grant is at least possible) and then allow you to respond to it within a few hours with a rational contention? Keep in mind your causal chain has absolutely no interests in answering my question at all, much less in a rational manner. It does not even know what rational means. Why are our separate causal chains able to interact in a rational manner over and over and over in a Chronological way without freely willed intent being in the mix at some point?

Let me give you one more. Lets say we have 100 pool balls that will represent a system lacking intent (blind). If I roll them on a table enough times they will eventually line up in a pattern that will spell out 1 + 1 =. However the next time I roll them they will have one chance in almost an infinity of doing anything except lining up to form the number 2. However the blind systems in our brains can get 1 + 1 = and then arrive at 2 with the next thought, billions of times every day. How does determinism explain the latter when it cannot accomplish to former?

If you keep defending determinism after it has so clearly been shown to be false I am going to start think maybe you live in one of those fantasy universes you keep mentioning. I don't know how any theory can be shown more clearly to be false.

 

[1robin]

The problem with the above is that you're stating certain concepts as being gimmes when they're simply not. There are numerous concepts about what may have existed before the BB and what caused it, so it is at this time impossible to nail things down. And quoting some scientists from many decades ago when so much has been discovered and calculated since really doesn't cut it. For example, we now know that Einstein's opposition to quantum mechanics and belief in the steady-state theory is wrong.

If the singularity defies modern science because physics no longer describes it then things before are even less examinable. I am not talking about certainties. I am talking about the consensus view on where the evidence points. Vilenkin did not say be believed the universe had a beginning he said every piece of evidence we have is consistent with it. You can't get any evidence for anything before the big bang. We have no access to it even if it existed. The same with multiple universes. We cannot access other universes, if we could they would be a part of this universe. Can you give me an example of hard evidence suggesting that anything existed prior to the BBTs singularity?

Right now, the BB is more of a question than an answer, and much more information is needed, and some of this may be forthcoming shortly because of the study of the "afterglow".

Right now the BBT is the consensus model and all the significant evidence is consistent with it, the BGVT just piled on more confirmation. I am not saying we close the book, but I am saying that the hard evidence all points in that direction. I would say it's probability was over 90% but I am not a physicist.

Gotta cut this short.

I am glad I am way behind on my responses.

 

[metis]

If the singularity defies modern science because physics no longer describes it then things before are even less examinable.

Yes, and that's why any concept about what may have occurred prior to the BB may never be known, but as I mentioned, some feel that the current study of the "afterglow" may give us at least a good hint at what may have caused the BB. However, even that, if found, would have no impact on the question of theistic causation because of the chaining of cause-and-effect.

We cannot access other universes, if we could they would be a part of this universe.

Not a proper conclusion, although hypothetically it could be true. What you are proposing is that our universe is the one and only, but more and more cosmologists and quantum physicists are leaning towards the multiverse concept because of the ramifications of quantum mechanics.

Right now the BBT is the consensus model and all the significant evidence is consistent with it, the BGVT just piled on more confirmation. I am not saying we close the book, but I am saying that the hard evidence all points in that direction. I would say it's probability was over 90% but I am not a physicist.

Close the book? The book is wide open, as it should be.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The Bible contains credible statements that are consistent with scientific discoveries.

The Scripture predicted that the earth is round before science confirmed it. “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in” (Isaiah 40:22). The book of Isaiah was written about 2500 years ago.

More can be read from this book:

Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's will (Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's Will

I think that is a very elegant way to describe greater dimensions being unfolded from lesser ones- and the universe 'spreading out' and 'stretching' as we can now observe. Not long ago atheists believed the universe was static, that a beginning, a creation event was 'pseudo-science'

 

[leibowde84]

I think that is a very elegant way to describe greater dimensions being unfolded from lesser ones- and the universe 'spreading out' and 'stretching' as we can now observe. Not long ago atheists believed the universe was static, that a beginning, a creation event was 'pseudo-science'

They are again starting to think that the big bang was merely one in an eternal process of expansion and retraction.

 

[viole]

I did not say the issue has been settled, but I think the dominant position is the compatibilist view.

Well, if you really possessed annihilating arguments, then it should be settled. Otherwise they are not annihilating at all.

By the way, i think that compatibilism is to determinism what agnosticism is to atheism. Just a politically correct term saying the same thing. And in some cases motivated by the irrational fear that taking reality at face value would entail loss of moral responsability.

Carroll, for instance, is a compatibilist. He uses the difference between microscopic mechanisms and macroscopic ones as an analogy. The macroscopic ones have different qualities. But I doubt he will admit that the ones are not one-to-one reducible into the other.

And by the way, where does this freedom of will come from. Are we talking of something that began to exist without a cause? If not, what caused it? And what caused its cause, etc.

Like Schopenauer woukd say: we have the freedom to do, not the freedom to will.

Look these are two subjects.

1. What is true of the one universe we know exists.
2. What may be true of a fantasy land we have no evidence exists. Since a fantasy land has no rules we do not invent ourselves it can be anything we want. However until strong evidence is found for these fantasy lands they hold no persuasive power what so ever unless it is to persuade us of desperation.

Not my point really. I am not talking of evidence. I am talking of X true implies Y false. You used his theorem to rule out infinite universes or this universe to be infinite. If evidence is all you need, you do not need the theorem to start with.

But obviously, the validity of the theorem does not entail the finiteness of the Universes or the not existence of infinite Universes. Otherwise Vilenkin would never write a book based on his theorem and extrapolating from it the possible existence of infinite (sic) universes. It would be like proving that Jesus was really who He claimed and deduce from it that God does not exist. Either Vilenkin contradicts himsef or he might (conditional) be right. Isn't that obvious?

It is very simple actually: nobody rules out the existence of infinite natural things, even if the theorem is true. With the possible exception of some theists that have a priori reasons to do so.

I read the theorem. I have also seen several professional hours long critiques of it.

You should read his book book and tell us what is wrong with his deduction. If he is logically wrong.

I kept asking you if you meant something other than time but you never suggested you did. I assume here your tentatively agreeing that time is finite in this universe. Other arguments limit other theoretical infinites. Take your pick and I will try and explain why whatever you picked is not infinite. Please for pity sake keep your potential infinite in the one universe we actually know exists.

Of course I meant something more than time. My challenge was neutral. You used the time past finiteness to rule out general infinities.

Let's cut through the chase: do you agree that time finitess of this Universe does not entail that this Universe cannot be infinite or that there cannot be infinite universes?

True, but the truth is also that every piece of evidence we do have suggests we have a finite universe in time, space, and material.

That hardly justifies the blanket statement that because of that our Universe cannot possibly have other infinite properties (e.g. Spacial extension).

If anything starts, even if it grows indefinitely it will at al times be finite. From now on please state what property of a thing it is your suggesting is infinite.

Nope. You make the assumption that our Universe "started" finite. Maybe you have in mind the naive intuition of the Big Bang showing a pointlike Universe that started expanding. If that was the case we would be sure the Universe is finite. But we don't. And this is why Big Bang cosmologists will never tell you that the Universe is surely finite because of the Big Bang. The reasons of that are obvious.

I want to now further annihilate your determinism to have faith in determinism.

Your annihilation means look more like a weapon of mass distraction, lol.

Please give me a simple but theoretical process by which my causal chain and yours which are different even if they merge at some point in the past can both get me to ask a question (that one I grant is at least possible) and then allow you to respond to it within a few hours with a rational contention? Keep in mind your causal chain has absolutely no interests in answering my question at all, much less in a rational manner. It does not even know what rational means. Why are our separate causal chains able to interact in a rational manner over and over and over in a Chronological way without freely willed intent being in the mix at some point?

What? my causal chain has no interest to do a lot of things, whatever that means. Unless you can define for me the set of what a causal chain has interest to do. Has, for instance, a causal chain interest in creating dinosaurs that eat other dinosaurs?

Let me give you one more. Lets say we have 100 pool balls that will represent a system lacking intent (blind). If I roll them on a table enough times they will eventually line up in a pattern that will spell out 1 + 1 =. However the next time I roll them they will have one chance in almost an infinity of doing anything except lining up to form the number 2. However the blind systems in our brains can get 1 + 1 = and then arrive at 2 with the next thought, billions of times every day. How does determinism explain the latter when it cannot accomplish to former?

Simple. Our brain is not even close to a pool table with 100 balls. Mine, at least. Lol.

If you keep defending determinism after it has so clearly been shown to be false I am going to start think maybe you live in one of those fantasy universes you keep mentioning. I don't know how any theory can be shown more clearly to be false.

Do you think you can really annihilate anything by using obviously ridicolous analogies?

Ciao

- viole