INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[philbo]

The only thing objectively known is that we think. Everything else incorporates some level of faith. At least theists are honest enough to admit it.

That's marvellously solipsistic & more than a little self-serving.

But you obviously think there's very different levels of "faith" involved from your other posts: would you not agree that the things which have the lowest levels of faith required are the ones where you can a) think up some explanation, b) test this explanation against new scenarios, and c) find that others are capable of getting the same results when following the same sorts of tests?

 

[metis]

OK, this is from Valenkin:

"f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning...

What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event...

Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist." -- Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe | Debunking William Lane Craig

It is also important to note that this is only one of many hypothetical models.

BTW, in science, we don't work on "faith", we work on evidence.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, it has no absolute beginning. It is "infinitely finite", or "boundless".

It does have a beginning, it just doesn’t have a beginning at a singularity point, but a beginning is a beginning, regardless of whether it is a “beginning point” or otherwise. Time began to exist in the no boundary model just like it does in the standard model. It has a beginning but no end..but that is not an “actual” infinity. That is a “potential” infinity, and it is important to distinguish the two. Of course the future is potentially infinite, but the past has a beginning. Second, Hawking had to appeal to the concept of imaginary time to postulate this model, and even he said himself “Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities…When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities” (Hawking, Brief History of Time 138-39). Mathematically, once you convert back to real numbers, the singularities reappears, and so does an absolute beginning, and even without the singularity it STLL has a beginning. So the no- boundary model is not a realistic way of looking at the universe.

I'm sure he has. Unfortunately, nothing he has to say on the matter carries much weight, as he is speaking as a total layman in this respect.

The fact that he can stand in front of an audience full of physicists and give a lecture, and stand there and take questions from this same audience goes to show that he isn’t just some layman talking out of his buttocks. And also the fact that he has debated physicists and biologists such as Victor Stenger, Massimo Pigliucci, Lawrence Krauss, and even issued an unaccepted challenged to Richard Dawkins. Laymen don’t do things like this.

Craig is not a physicist.

And you are not a philosopher or a scientist, but has that stopped you from coming on here talking about science and philosophical topics?? Obviously not.

(and this is likely irrelevant anyways- if his response is anything like his other arguments, its likely to be heavy on the non-sequiturs)

LOL yeah, so a man that has a PHD in philosophy, teaches the subject, debates the subject, writes scholarly articles and books on the subject…is heavy on the non-sequiturs? Ha.

Of course there is, because you have misrepresented the state of science. There are credible scientific models which either contain no beginning, or contain a beginning but without any occult entities (like gods), thus your claim is mistaken.

Credible? Name me some models that isn’t subject to the BGV theorem or doesn’t have any other empirical problems plaguing it.

Talk about foot-in-the-mouth time; Vilenkin's reply to whether his theorem proves that the universe must have had a beginning-

"No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time."

Hmm, that is interesting, because here Vilenkin said:

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a proof is what it takes to convince 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 escaple, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, 176.)

My quote, unlike yours, is straight to the point. The very last sentence of the quote is very direct. No interpretation needed. So I don’t know what lame-duck quote you have, but it was obviously said out of context.

In other words, the BVG (not BGV) theorem

It is normally called the Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theoem. But whether you say BVG or BGV, doesn’t matter.

doesn't apply to cyclical models which include a contraction prior to the expansion of the Big Bang.

Hmm, something is fishy here. It is funny because in the same quote I gave you above, Vilenkin addressed cyclical models.

He said: “What about cyclic universes? It has alternating periods of expansion and contraction. Can this help the universe to escape the clutches of the theorem? The answer turns out to be no. An essential feature of the cyclic scenario, which allows it to avoid the heat-death problem, is that the volume of the universe increases in every cycle, so on average the universe is expanding…hence, the same conclusion apply”

And then he goes on to say the quote that I mentioned previously. Pay close attention to when he said “…the volume of the universe increases in every cycle, so on average the universe is expanding”.

Keep in mind that that is the ONLY requirement for the theorem to hold true. The only requirement is for the universe’ expansion rate to average a Hubble expansion greater than 0 ( H > 0). According to Vilenkin, it does, so therefore as he said, the same conclusion applies these cyclic models meets the requirements based on its expansion rates.

But having a beginning doesn't even get you where you want to go anyways (i.e. to the Christian creation myth) since, as we saw, there are models which do include a beginning- but without any supernatural entities playing any causal role (as in the zero-energy hypothesis).

Well, if they “do include a beginning”, then the question is HOW AND WHY. You can’t just stop there. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, either by the necessity of its own nature or by an external cause. There is no way around this. So all you are doing is pushing the question of origins back one step further. And then you still have the infinity problem. So your job is not done. Not only is it not done, but it isn’t based on facts anyway.

It's sort of funny- Craig mistakenly cites a scientific theorem he doesn't understand, in order to hang on to conclusions based on a theory that has proven to be mistaken (the initial singularity of classical physics), and which has completely fallen out of favor in the actual field it applies to.

First off, the singularity is not a requirement. The vast majority of all cosmological models are subject to the theorem. Either that or they have some other empirical problems. Either way you look at it, the universe began to exist. Second, I find it laughable that you accuse Craig of using a theorem he doesn’t understand. Yeah, as if he ignorantly uses the theorem to support his argument while not taking in to fact if his opponents will question him regarding it.

 

[metis]

Now, what's also important here is to realize that most cosmologists that I have read do believe there was a stage prior to the BB. Now, Wikipedia is not a scientific site, but at least they do provide links to such sites that could be checked on, so let me quote this:

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe.[1] According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago,[2][3][4][5][6][7] which is thus considered the age of the universe.[8][9][10][11] At this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly...

The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models the Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling." -- Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The fact that he can stand in front of an audience full of physicists and give a lecture, and stand there and take questions from this same audience goes to show that he isn’t just some layman talking out of his buttocks. And also the fact that he has debated physicists and biologists such as Victor Stenger, Massimo Pigliucci, Lawrence Krauss, and even issued an unaccepted challenged to Richard Dawkins. Laymen don’t do things like this.

Layman as conceited as Craig? Sure they do.

... so a man that has a PHD in philosophy, teaches the subject, debates the subject, writes scholarly articles and books on the subject…is heavy on the non-sequiturs?

Indeed- it's curious that he hasn't figured out this whole validity thing by now...

Hmm, that is interesting, because here Vilenkin said:

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a proof is what it takes to convince 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 escaple, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, 176.)

My quote, unlike yours, is straight to the point.

Apparently you have difficulty reading. Vilenkin was responding to the question of whether his theorem implies that the universe must have a finite past or a beginning, in other words, whether Craig's application of it is accurate, to which his answer was a clear and unequivocal "no"- the theorem implies that expansion must be finite, not the age of the universe. Couldn't get much more "straight to the point" than that. And, given Craig's propensity to misrepresent (or simply misunderstand) physics to try to prop up his arguments, this latest misrepresentation comes as no surprise.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause

Ah, this antiquated article of faith again, eh? Talk about being selective; you enthusiastically embrace any part of physics (or any other science) which appears to support your pet beliefs, but reject those that do not.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That is not the latest model. The latest model is the BGV past FINITE universes theory. Summed up it says that any universe on average expanding, is finite in the past.

No- as Vilenkin said, his theorem entails that for any universe that is expanding, the expansion is finite.

 

[metis]

OK, one final post-- at least for a short bit.

I am not an atheist, but neither am I a theist. When it comes to the issue as to whether there is a God or Gods, my typical response is "I don't know". Therefore, I tend to refer to myself as a "non-theist"-- "agnostic" if you prefer.

Now because of this, I try to deal with the issue objectively, and to some theists, I know that may appear to come off as an atheist. Not only doesn't that apply to me, I have taught theology for over 30 years and, as a matter of fact, I have a two-part seminar that I am teaching on "Jesus & Judaism" in October and November.

As a scientist, I work from the paradigm of the scientific method, therefore you'll almost never see me use the words "proof" or "proven", but most likely "evidence", or some similar wording. Therefore...

I don't know if there's a God, nor do I assume if there is a God that there can't be any other Gods. Nor do I know what happened at the Big Bang, but I have found some of the evidence fascinating, which is why I have read quite a bit in this area recently even though I'm not a cosmologist (I'm a retired anthropologist-- mostly cultural).

As I mentioned on another thread, at this point in my life I am willing to call whatever caused our universe/multiverse "God", and pretty much leave it at that. One of the teachings found in Buddhist dharma is that it really doesn't make much of a difference what might have caused our universe/multiverse because what occurred in the past has passed. As much as I like dealing with certain issues like the Big Bang, I'm also aware that the inquiry is mostly academic.

I thought I'd write this as a brief explanation of where I'm coming from in general.

Shalom & namaste.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

OK, this is from Valenkin:

"f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning...

What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event...

Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist." -- Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe | Debunking William Lane Craig

Another good, to-the-point quote. Clearly Vilenkin is aware of, and wishes to dispel, the misrepresentations of his theorem on the part of (either shameless or ignorant) apologists like Craig (which are, unfortunately, about par for the course).

 

[1robin]

No- as Vilenkin said, his theorem entails that for any universe that is expanding, the expansion is finite.

Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning”
Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning” | Wintery Knight
Alexander Vilenkin:
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

I know what you claimed did not mean but I wonder what it did mean. A universe that is expanding on average and has been shown to be accelerating in that expansion has no predicted finite boundary. Where did you get what you claimed. I am curious to see what it actually means.

 

[1robin]

Another good, to-the-point quote. Clearly Vilenkin is aware of, and wishes to dispel, the misrepresentations of his theorem on the part of (either shameless or ignorant) apologists like Craig (which are, unfortunately, about par for the course).

What are you talking about? What was posted I have posted before because it is consistent with what I have claimed. He is saying that unless we throw in all of the competing and mutually exclusive theories and fantasies then yes it is certain the universe had a beginning. Only when the sublime theory is confused to the point that nothing whatever can be resolved (which is probably the point) is the former conclusion less that reliably indicated. Which is why he stated the other points I supplied which were far more good, and too the point than even this misunderstood one was.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning”

And, as per what he also said, i.e.

""f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning..."

He's clearly giving the short answer in your quote, whereas the full answer is that his theorem does NOT prove what you claim it proves; as he states unequivocally..

 

[1robin]

And, as per what he also said, i.e.

""f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning..."

He's clearly giving the short answer in your quote, whereas the full answer is that his theorem does NOT prove what you claim it proves; as he states unequivocally..

Back up a bit, I have already covered that.

 

[metis]

I think part of the problem in communication here may well deal with the issue as to how are we interpreting the word "beginning". The cosmologists that I have read feel that our universe was in singularity 13.7 billion years ago, which obviously is existence. Now, what happened after that to cause the expansion is highly conjectural.

Let me put forth two theories proposed by cosmologists, but neither of these should be viewed as supposedly being the best or the only two. One is M-Theory, which supposedly works out mathematically (don't ask me how), whereas two huge energy membranes may have collided at the edges and spun off a particle that eventually became our universe.

Another, which I haven't seen a name for, is that at a time of singularity at 13.7 billion, some charges came into close proximity to each other, polarized and repelled, thus breaking the bonds that had confined our universe in singularity.

So, does this give evidence for a theistic causation? Of course not. Is it hypothetically possible? Of course. Which do I believe? Why do I have to believe either way?

BTW, Mikio Kaku believes that it might be possible that we could avtually find out gthe event(as) that caused the BB possibly within the next 10 years because of the current study of the "afterglow" (background radiation from the BB, quite possibly involving dark energy. Wanna see it? :yes: OK, this is just one of its affects: remove the cable with your t.v. on, and part of the "snow" you see is this background radiation from the BB being picked up.

 

[metis]

Another good, to-the-point quote. Clearly Vilenkin is aware of, and wishes to dispel, the misrepresentations of his theorem on the part of (either shameless or ignorant) apologists like Craig (which are, unfortunately, about par for the course).

This should not come as any surprise as some people "see" all sorts of things even in their tea leaves. I couldn't even begin to count how many times I've seen misrepresentations from such people, especially in the arena of evolutionary theory. Shameless" is the nice word for it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

What are you talking about?

The fact that Vilenkin has has explicitly addressed and repudiated the sort of interpretation being put forward of his theorem on this thread. Given that you're trying to misrepresent a scientific theorem to lend credibility to your religious views (which are quite unrelated), your (and CotW's) attempts at obfuscation here are understandable, even though they aren't really excusable.

He is saying that unless we throw in all of the competing and mutually exclusive theories and fantasies then yes it is certain the universe had a beginning.

This is vacuous, and could be said of any claim whatsoever, i.e. that if we discount all the competing alternatives, the claim is "certain".

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This should not come as any surprise as some people "see" all sorts of things even in their tea leaves. I couldn't even begin to count how many times I've seen misrepresentations from such people, especially in the arena of evolutionary theory. Shameless" is the nice word for it.

Funny you should mention evolutionary theory- ironically, it sometimes happens that the same folks who vehemently deny evolutionary theory (a well-established scientific theory) enthusiastically jump on the band wagon of any cosmological theory which appears congruent with their preferred flavor of religious creation mythology... This is known as "cherry picking".

And, I'll also mention one last time that even if we granted that the universe has had a finite duration and an absolute beginning (if only to be nice about it, since this is not well established at all), no religious conclusions would follow, and all the same objections to God-of-the-gaps reasoning would still apply. As in the zero-energy universe and other cosmological models which include a beginning of the universe as the result of quantum activity, no occult entities are postulated (such as God or gods).

 

[Thief]

And, as per what he also said, i.e.

""f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning..."

He's clearly giving the short answer in your quote, whereas the full answer is that his theorem does NOT prove what you claim it proves; as he states unequivocally..

And a position of 'no movement'......'never'...existed?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And a position of 'no movement'......'never'...existed?

Um... what?

 

[metis]

Funny you should mention evolutionary theory- ironically, it sometimes happens that the same folks who vehemently deny evolutionary theory (a well-established scientific theory) enthusiastically jump on the band wagon of any cosmological theory which appears congruent with their preferred flavor of religious creation mythology... This is known as "cherry picking".

And, I'll also mention one last time that even if we granted that the universe has had a finite duration and an absolute beginning (if only to be nice about it, since this is not well established at all), no religious conclusions would follow, and all the same objections to God-of-the-gaps reasoning would still apply. As in the zero-energy universe and other cosmological models which include a beginning of the universe as the result of quantum activity, no occult entities are postulated (such as God or gods).

Amen.

 

[metis]

And a position of 'no movement'......'never'...existed?

No way of telling with any certainty one way or another-- at this point at least. However, since all material items in our limited experience appear to change over time, I would tend to lean in direction that this may have always been true.