INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Enai de a lukal]

Yet is the basis for 99.99999999999% percent of every thing humans claim to be true.

No, not really.

I also see even the attempt to prove that claim is entirely absent.

Because it is a matter of public record that the BBT does not include a beginning of the universe, and is consistent with eternal or cyclical models. This is corroborated by any credible source you care to pick. The only sources that even imply otherwise are gross oversimplifications of the theory by popular science publications (i.e. dumbing it down for a general audience) or deliberate misrepresentations by theologians and apologists.

And even though this is a basic piece of public knowledge, I've provided references for this fact in the past on other threads, as you well know, so this request is disingenuous in the first place. But since your positions are impervious to facts, there's little point in banging my head up against the wall further- my comment was for the benefit of other poster's, not yours.

 

[1robin]

No, not really.

You have adopted a minimalist approach to evidence I see.

Because it is a matter of public record that the BBT does not include a beginning of the universe, and is consistent with eternal or cyclical models. This is corroborated by any credible source you care to pick. The only sources that even imply otherwise are gross oversimplifications of the theory by popular science publications (i.e. dumbing it down for a general audience) or deliberate misrepresentations by theologians and apologists.

It posits a finite universe. How does it escape a beginning to a finite exactly? If you mean the source of a beginning that was not part of what I said the model included.

And even though this is a basic piece of public knowledge, I've provided references for this fact in the past on other threads, as you well know, so this request is disingenuous in the first place. But since your positions are impervious to facts, there's little point in banging my head up against the wall further- my comment was for the benefit of other poster's, not yours.

Evidence for what facts? A finite without a beginning that lies within the domain of time? If you feel other posters derive value from "nu-uh" then I am sure they were satisfied.



Stephen Hawking



The Beginning of Time. In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.



The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You have adopted a minimalist approach to evidence I see.

You made a bare assertion, I responded with a flat denial. This is called "tit-for-tat".

It posits a finite universe.

Finite in size, yes. In time? Not necessarily. As you well know, since we've covered it any number of times, on several different threads on this board. But once again, the Big Bang Theory holds that about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was in a very hot, dense state, and subsequently expanded. So it holds that the universe is finite in size, was once very small, dense, and hot, and is expanding- but doesn't specifically entail any conclusions about the duration of the universe. The hot dense early state is not "the beginning of the universe"- perhaps it was preceded by such an event, but that is not part of the accepted theory.

Stephen Hawking



The Beginning of Time. In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.



The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

This is Stephen Hawking discussing his own views and his No Boundary hypothesis, which are not part of the standard Big Bang theory... they are his attempt to reconcile Big Bang cosmology with QM. Hawking and Hartle's proposal, while interesting, is not well-established nor widely accepted- it remains a viable hypothesis only.

Of course, given your remarkable invulnerability to facts, I suspect we'll see you making this same dishonest claim again on a different thread before too long.

 

[1robin]

You made a bare assertion, I responded with a flat denial. This is called "tit-for-tat".

I have backed up every claim I have made many times in many threads in many ways.

Finite in size, yes. In time? Not necessarily. As you well know, since we've covered it any number of times, on several different threads on this board. But once again, the Big Bang Theory holds that about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was in a very hot, dense state, and subsequently expanded. So it holds that the universe is finite in size, was once very small, dense, and hot, and is expanding- but doesn't specifically entail any conclusions about the duration of the universe. The hot dense early state is not "the beginning of the universe"- perhaps it was preceded by such an event, but that is not part of the accepted theory.

So how does something that is expanding have a finite size but no beginning?

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.
Vilenkin

So the shortest, best, and most reliable conclusion is it had a beginning but since it makes God more probable we must go with the more ambiguous, less reliable, and far more theoretical conclusion even though in another posts I provided Vilenkin's rejection of all other prominent models without beginnings as virtually impossible.

This is Stephen Hawking discussing his own views and his No Boundary hypothesis, which are not part of the standard Big Bang theory... they are his attempt to reconcile Big Bang cosmology with QM. Hawking and Hartle's proposal, while interesting, is not well-established nor widely accepted- it remains a viable hypothesis only.

I have never had confidence in Hawking but I never thought a non-theist would contend with him.

Of course, given your remarkable invulnerability to facts, I suspect we'll see you making this same dishonest claim again on a different thread before too long.

The Heck with it, lets just get this over with.

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

Did the cosmos have a beginning? The Big Bang theory seems to suggest it did, but in recent decades, cosmologists have concocted elaborate theories – for example, an eternally inflating universe or a cyclic universe – which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos. Now it appears that the universe really had a beginning after all, even if it wasn’t necessarily the Big Bang.
At a meeting of scientists – titled “State of the Universe” – convened last week at Cambridge University to honor Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday, cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston presented evidence that the universe is not eternal after all, leaving scientists at a loss to explain how the cosmos got started without a supernatural creator. The meeting was reported in New Scientist magazine (Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event, 11 January 2012). I’ve quoted a few brief highlights below.
In his presentation, Professor Vilenkin discussed three theories which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos.
One popular theory is eternal inflation. Most readers will be familiar with the theory of inflation, which says that the universe increased in volume by a factor of at least 10^78 in its very early stages (from 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds), before settling into the slower rate of expansion that we see today. The theory of eternal inflation goes further, and holds that the universe is constantly giving birth to smaller “bubble” universes within an ever-expanding multiverse. Each bubble universe undergoes its own initial period of inflation. In some versions of the theory, the bubbles go both backwards and forwards in time, allowing the possibility of an infinite past. Trouble is, the value of one particular cosmic parameter rules out that possibility:

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn’t work (Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.90.151301). “You can’t construct a space-time with this property,” says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past,” says Vilenkin. “There must be some kind of boundary.”
​

​

A second option explored by Vilenkin was that of a cyclic universe, where the universe goes through an infinite series of big bangs and crunches, with no specific beginning. It was even claimed that a cyclic universe could explain the low observed value of the cosmological constant. But as Vilenkin found, there’s a problem if you look at the disorder in the universe:

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists – nothing like the one we see around us.
One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.
​

However, Vilenkin’s options were not exhausted yet. There was another possibility: that the universe had sprung from an eternal cosmic egg:

Vilenkin’s final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg. This finally “cracked” to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096). If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed – and therefore also after a finite amount of time.
“This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe,” Vilenkin concludes.
​

So at the end of the day, what is Vilenkin’s verdict?

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

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I have backed up every claim I have made many times in many threads in many ways.

Except for that one, I guess.

So how does something that is expanding have a finite size but no beginning?

That's certainly a question one can raise, but the answer does not lie within the standard BBT. This is why there are hypotheses which include the BBT but also include a beginning of the universe, and no beginning.

I have never had confidence in Hawking but I never thought a non-theist would contend with him.

My opinion on Hawkings views or the Hartle/Hawking proposal are not relevant- you've claimed that the standard accepted cosmological theory- the BBT- states that the universe had a beginning, not that Stephen Hawkings thinks the universe had a beginning.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

We've also covered your misrepresentation of Vilenkin's views, given that Vilenkin himself has explicitly qualified this view and repudiated your interpretation of his views. But once again, Vilenkin's views are no more relevant than Hawkings- yet another attempt to change the subject, I guess- you made a claim about the BBT, not about the specific views of this or that physicist.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

(from quote)"...in recent decades, cosmologists have concocted elaborate theories – for example, an eternally inflating universe or a cyclic universe – which claim to avoid the need for a beginning of the cosmos. Now it appears that the universe really had a beginning after all..."

In addition to the unwarranted rhetorical and clearly biased language ("concocted"), one would be astute to also note irony in the equally elaborate distortions, deceptions, and misrepresentations of modern science by apologists attempting to salvage an outdated and discredited worldview, one which has steadily retreated from any explanatory function whatsoever, to its current (and well-deserved) fringe status. In other words, rhetoric born of desperation and sour grapes.

And, at the end of the day, this is a moot point, because as I said before cosmologists are split on the issue of whether the universe had a beginning or not (there are credible- neither established nor discredited- hypotheses either way), but there are no theistic implications either way. Proposals which do include a beginning of the universe (i.e. not the BBT) do not include anything like God or gods. But as with everything else here, I've pointed out this exact point to you in the past, probably more than once, and it didn't seem to sink in then so I don't have alot of confidence it will take this time either.

 

[1robin]

Except for that one, I guess.

Getting evidence for a single claim from you is just a bridge too far is it not.

That's certainly a question one can raise, but the answer does not lie within the standard BBT. This is why there are hypotheses which include the BBT but also include a beginning of the universe, and no beginning.

You think? The ones that include a beginning are the most accepted.

My opinion on Hawkings views or the Hartle/Hawking proposal are not relevant- you've claimed that the standard accepted cosmological theory- the BBT- states that the universe had a beginning, not that Stephen Hawkings thinks the universe had a beginning.

I used an additional source to indicate the prevalence of the opinion even among non-theistic scientists. How are more sources less convincing?

We've also covered your misrepresentation of Vilenkin's views, given that Vilenkin himself has explicitly qualified this view and repudiated your interpretation of his views. But once again, Vilenkin's views are no more relevant than Hawkings- yet another attempt to change the subject, I guess- you made a claim about the BBT, not about the specific views of this or that physicist.

I gave Vilenkins views on his opinion not mine. Is he biased against himself? He mostly certainly did qualify his remarks. All in my arguments favor. Their views are the most accepted. I do not care what you take by faith concerning science buts hat is the most consistent with the most evidence is the concern of this discussion.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

How does that become the universe probably did not have a beginning? Is he schizophrenic? That same place where that quote was given was one long discussion about how every popular non-finite argument was most likely impossible.

The best science we have suggests a finite universe with a beginning. There are no close seconds. Why are you going against the wealth of evidence only in cases where it posits God more likely? If this was macro-evolution then even my suggesting it's partial reliance on faith alone would be called anathema. The double standards are atrociously obvious and prevalent.

 

[1robin]

In addition to the unwarranted rhetorical and clearly biased language ("concocted"), one would be astute to also note irony in the equally elaborate distortions, deceptions, and misrepresentations of modern science by apologists attempting to salvage an outdated and discredited worldview, one which has steadily retreated from any explanatory function whatsoever, to its current (and well-deserved) fringe status. In other words, rhetoric born of desperation and sour grapes.

I have a ton of claims and not one ounce of evidence again. You used to be far more interested in justifying your claims (that I am sure will be put down to my fault some how).

And, at the end of the day, this is a moot point, because as I said before cosmologists are split on the issue of whether the universe had a beginning or not (there are credible- neither established nor discredited- hypotheses either way), but there are no theistic implications either way. Proposals which do include a beginning of the universe (i.e. not the BBT) do not include anything like God or gods. But as with everything else here, I've pointed out this exact point to you in the past, probably more than once, and it didn't seem to sink in then so I don't have alot of confidence it will take this time either.

There are in fact perfect theological implications. That is the basis why non-theists have even claimed they made one conclusion or the other. There exists no claim possible that the nature of the universe has no theological implications. Almost every book that comes out that is supposed to be a scientific commentary on the universe is packed for of theological implications even by the atheist community. This was one sad claim. They are not evenly split. I never suggested consensus existed just that more evidence suggest finite than infinite by a good margin. What does certainty have to do with either faith or apparently science anyway?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Getting evidence for a single claim from you is just a bridge too far is it not.

"You're black" says the crow to the raven.

You think? The ones that include a beginning are the most accepted.

LOL, ok. I'm not going to get into a ******* match over this, at least you've backed off your initial claim that the BBT includes a beginning of the universe, rather than this claim, that hypotheses which include a beginning of the universe are more popular than ones which do not. (also since you've made so much of evidence, where's the evidence for this claim anyways? got a survey of physicists, or something, to prove this?)

I used an additional source to indicate the prevalence of the opinion even among non-theistic scientists. How are more sources less convincing?

Because they don't have anything to do with the claim in question. You claimed that the standard theory in cosmology- the BBT- claims that the universe had a beginning, not that Hawking or Vilenkin thinks it did.

I gave Vilenkins views on his opinion not mine. Is he biased against himself? He mostly certainly did qualify his remarks. All in my arguments favor. Their views are the most accepted. I do not care what you take by faith concerning science buts hat is the most consistent with the most evidence is the concern of this discussion.

More dishonesty. You were provided with his remarks which explicitly contradict what you're saying here, and you've ignored them. There's nothing else to say- you either don't care, or you think Vilenkin was lying (in which case its curious you would cite him at all, if he's a liar).

 

[mystic64]

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

How would you like to define time? In physics time is relative to movement and without movement time does not exist. Genesis: "In the beginning God the Creator caused His spirit to move over the "Deep"". If the "Deep" was an ocean of matter in a state of non movement (perfectly at rest), then the movement of His spirit created movement in an ocean of matter that was in a state of perfect rest. Genesis: "God the Creator called this movement "Light"." Time as we know it started when "Light" (movement in an ocean of mass that was perfectly at rest) was created. Genesis: "God called the movement "Light" and the non movement "Darkness" and then separated the "Light" (matter in movement) from the "Darkness" (matter at perfect rest). "Darkness" has no time because it has no movement. Because "Light" (matter in movement) has movement, it has time and because it was separated from non movement it has no "Darkness" (non time) contained within it.

Genesis: "God separated the movement "Light" into two sections, an above section and a below section, and then He dried up the lower section." He did this by accelerating the mass of the lower section of "Light" (mass in movement) into a faster velocity time frame. Passing through the velocity time frame barrier with a certain vector of approach created the necessary turbulence (time eddies/gravity wells) to cause the condensation of "light" (the original matter in movement) into what we perceive as solid matter (Big Bang) and the birth of our galaxy and the second birth of time as we know it.

The question is, "Can an ocean of matter in a state of absolute rest spontaneously develop movement in an organized and controlled way?" "Can non time (no movement) create time (movement)?", which also brings up the question of, "Where did the Creator come from originally?" and, "Where did the ocean of matter that is in a state of perfect rest come from?" With that said, the science of physics does not care where the Creator came from or where the ocean of matter in a state of non movement came from, all the science of physics cares is, "How was it done so that we also can do it." Once we understand how the Creator did it, which will prove that the Creator exists, we then will be able to do it also.

Stephen Hawking said in his younger days that God was not necessary, because once we understand how it is done, then we can do it and do no longer need God. The hard part is understanding how He did it or how the natural processes at work did it (should it happen to be that God the Creator does not exist, which I personally doubt and feel will be proven wrong). And Stephen Hawking's "Black Hole" math is the jumping off place to figuring it all out because we now know that Creation is bigger than what science thought that it was and that what God the Creator did wasn't a miracle, it was based on the laws of physics both known and unknown at this time.

 

[1robin]

How would you like to define time? In physics time is relative to movement and without movement time does not exist. Genesis: "In the beginning God the Creator caused His spirit to move over the "Deep"". If the "Deep" was an ocean of matter in a state of non movement (perfectly at rest), then the movement of His spirit created movement in an ocean of matter that was in a state of perfect rest. Genesis: "God the Creator called this movement "Light"." Time as we know it started when "Light" (movement in an ocean of mass that was perfectly at rest) was created. Genesis: "God called the movement "Light" and the non movement "Darkness" and then separated the "Light" (matter in movement) from the "Darkness" (matter at perfect rest). "Darkness" has no time because it has no movement. Because "Light" (matter in movement) has movement, it has time and because it was separated from non movement it has no "Darkness" (non time) contained within it.

Genesis: "God separated the movement "Light" into two sections, an above section and a below section, and then He dried up the lower section." He did this by accelerating the mass of the lower section of "Light" (mass in movement) into a faster velocity time frame. Passing through the velocity time frame barrier with a certain vector of approach created the necessary turbulence (time eddies/gravity wells) to cause the condensation of "light" (the original matter in movement) into what we perceive as solid matter (Big Bang) and the birth of our galaxy and the second birth of time as we know it.

The question is, "Can an ocean of matter in a state of absolute rest spontaneously develop movement in an organized and controlled way?" "Can non time (no movement) create time (movement)?", which also brings up the question of, "Where did the Creator come from originally?" and, "Where did the ocean of matter that is in a state of perfect rest come from?" With that said, the science of physics does not care where the Creator came from or where the ocean of matter in a state of non movement came from, all the science of physics cares is, "How was it done so that we also can do it." Once we understand how the Creator did it, which will prove that the Creator exists, we then will be able to do it also.

Stephen Hawking said in his younger days that God was not necessary, because once we understand how it is done, then we can do it and do no longer need God. The hard part is understanding how He did it or how the natural processes at work did it (should it happen to be that God the Creator does not exist, which I personally doubt and feel will be proven wrong). And Stephen Hawking's "Black Hole" math is the jumping off place to figuring it all out because we now know that Creation is bigger than what science thought that it was and that what God the Creator did wasn't a miracle, it was based on the laws of physics both known and unknown at this time.

The more we do know the more impossible natural origins becomes. The trend is in God's favor. However time is defined it is irrational to think of it as eternal nor to have natural origins.

 

[1robin]

"You're black" says the crow to the raven.

The absurdity of refusing to supply what is necessary are only exceeded my expectations of it.

LOL, ok. I'm not going to get into a ******* match over this, at least you've backed off your initial claim that the BBT includes a beginning of the universe, rather than this claim, that hypotheses which include a beginning of the universe are more popular than ones which do not. (also since you've made so much of evidence, where's the evidence for this claim anyways? got a survey of physicists, or something, to prove this?)

Where did I do that? In what way is finite consistent with infinite? The Big bang cosmologists and Velankin are more qualified than me. I said it is the most accepted model and you seem to admit this. I did not say it was objective fact and so have no burden for proof. I have no idea what took place back then and no one else does. More evidence suggests there was a beginning than not. That is all I claimed and provided sufficient evidence that is true.

Because they don't have anything to do with the claim in question. You claimed that the standard theory in cosmology- the BBT- claims that the universe had a beginning, not that Hawking or Vilenkin thinks it did.

I already gave Vilenkin's quotes. Obviously you think he is not an authority on his own theorem so I gave the most rabid and credentialed atheist scientist I could think of. You are really reaching now are you not?

More dishonesty. You were provided with his remarks which explicitly contradict what you're saying here, and you've ignored them. There's nothing else to say- you either don't care, or you think Vilenkin was lying (in which case its curious you would cite him at all, if he's a liar).

1. I was the first one to post his slightly remarks that at best allowed for the possibility that a beginning is not true. Not you.
2. I then added the full context of what that statement most likely meant.
3. I then added all kinds of information that suggested that while Vilenkin is open to possibilities has rejects the most prevalent ones as impossible.

You are dishonestly construing what is at best an allowance for the unknown into validation for it's non-existent evidence. This is getting absurd.

Post it again and I will show this in detail again. Have a good one. That is all I can take for one day.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I already gave Vilenkin's quotes. Obviously you think he is not an authority on his own theorem so I gave the most rabid and credentialed atheist scientist I could think of. You are really reaching now are you not?

Oh dear, this is pathetic. We are not talking about Vilenkin's theorem, or Hawking/Hartle's proposal, but the standard theory in cosmology- the BBT- and whether it claims any beginning of the universe. Your quotes of Vilenkin and Hawking talking about their own theories, not the BBT, are irrelevant for this reason. I'll probably need to make this painfully obvious point about six more times in order for it to take, but I haven't the patience.

 

[McBell]

Oh dear, this is pathetic. We are not talking about Vilenkin's theorem, or Hawking/Hartle's proposal, but the standard theory in cosmology- the BBT- and whether it claims any beginning of the universe. Your quotes of Vilenkin and Hawking talking about their own theories, not the BBT, are irrelevant for this reason. I'll probably need to make this painfully obvious point about six more times in order for it to take, but I haven't the patience.

Only six more times?
that seems rather optimistic....

 

[mystic64]

The more we do know the more impossible natural origins becomes. The trend is in God's favor. However time is defined it is irrational to think of it as eternal nor to have natural origins.

The potential for time will always exist whether anybody is messing with it or not.

 

[1robin]

Oh dear, this is pathetic. We are not talking about Vilenkin's theorem, or Hawking/Hartle's proposal, but the standard theory in cosmology- the BBT- and whether it claims any beginning of the universe. Your quotes of Vilenkin and Hawking talking about their own theories, not the BBT, are irrelevant for this reason. I'll probably need to make this painfully obvious point about six more times in order for it to take, but I haven't the patience.

No we have been talking about Vilenkin's theorem more than any other. It was my original claims and his theorem is what I had in mind. I have no problem with your including the Big Bang as it belongs there but there exists no reason to exclude what Velinkin and his fellow scholars claimed. They are both part of the most accepted cosmological model and are perfectly consistent. Neither can be excluded from the most reliable cosmology there currently is and the effort to do so is invalid by any standard. The BBT also either directly posits a finite past or directly infers it.

 

[1robin]

The potential for time will always exist whether anybody is messing with it or not.

There is no concept beyond God that explains the existence of anything. Not one aspect of the natural is known to be able to bring into existence anything from non-existence. No there is no potential for time without a creator. However let's pretend there was. It would not matter anyway because the latest cosmology and philosophy for the past few thousand years both indicate time is not nor can it ever be eternal. However lets say none of that was true for a second. What does what you posted mean anyway. Let's say instead of it being a logical absurdity it is actually true. What do you think that means?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No we have been talking about Vilenkin's theorem more than any other. It was my original claims and his theorem is what I had in mind.

Neither Vilenkin's theorem, nor Hawking/Hartle's proposal, are the standard or accepted model in cosmology- that is the Big Bang Theory. So your claim that the standard model in cosmology includes a beginning of the universe is mistaken on one of two fronts; either you're making a false claim about the BBT, which does not include a beginning of the universe, or you've confused Hawking/Vilenkin's work with the BBT. One way or the other, your claim was mistaken.

 

[1robin]

Neither Vilenkin's theorem, nor Hawking/Hartle's proposal, are the standard or accepted model in cosmology- that is the Big Bang Theory. So your claim that the standard model in cosmology includes a beginning of the universe is mistaken on one of two fronts; either you're making a false claim about the BBT, which does not include a beginning of the universe, or you've confused Hawking/Vilenkin's work with the BBT. One way or the other, your claim was mistaken.

I never mentioned Hawking's theorem as I have never trusted him. I might have used a quote from it so maybe we can leave whatever his theory was out of this. IN an attempt to sidestep what it looks like is a favorite bone which make resolution possible I will restate my claim another way. It is right the way it was but apparently beyond resolution. I claim that the past finite universe theorem is accepted as reliable or likely by more scholars than any competing theory. I hope I have taken away the semantic technicality involved in what a model is. I also claim that the BBT is far more consistent with a finite past.

To avoid these technicalities I will restate my claim in an officially different version. The vast majority of reliable cosmology suggests that the single known universe's past is finite. Virtually all science that is consistent with additional universes and eternity is extremely speculative, based on far less reliable types of theoretical claims concerning evidence, and has been adopted as a reliable probability by few cosmologists.

BTW, one of (if not the) father of the BBT is a Christian and one of the greatest cosmologists of all time.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I never mentioned Hawking's theorem as I have never trusted him.

You explicitly quoted Hawking, talking about his no-boundary proposal, to corroborate your claim (mistakenly, as it happens).

I claim that the past finite universe theorem is accepted as reliable or likely by more scholars than any competing theory. I hope I have taken away the semantic technicality involved in what a model is. I also claim that the BBT is far more consistent with a finite past.

You've moved the goalposts, as I've pointed out once already. You initially claimed that THE standard or most widely accepted theory in cosmology (which happens to be the BBT) posits a beginning of the universe- it does not. You've now changed this to the claim that models which DO posit a beginning of the universe are more popular than those that do not. That may well be the case, but it isn't especially relevant, and I'd be curious on what basis you're basing that claim anyways (as I asked before, can you cite a survey of physicists?).

BTW, one of (if not the) father of the BBT is a Christian and one of the greatest cosmologists of all time.

Ok... And?