Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

[PruePhillip]

Why would a "creator God" make a difference unless that God was dishonest?

There is actually evidence against Moses at least as told in the Bible and no evidence for him. There is endless evidence for evolution and no evidence against it. Very few question the "reality of Jesus". What they do not believe are the mythical tales of Jesus.

And I see we have the favorite creationist strawman. Just because a God did not do it does not mean "no reason etc.".

When a person cannot debate the evidence this is the sort of rant that they go off on.

I was pointing out how some argue.
Having one of these on Quora about slavery. Me mentioning how the whole world once having slaves offended him - he wanted to show AMERICAN CHATTEL SLAVERY was evil. But it's out of context as everyone is 'evil.' Thus it's a 'fact' that America did something 'evil' but its THE TRUTH that America was doing what everyone, including Amerca's indigenous people, were all doing - therefore America can't really be described as 'evil.'
Same with 'arguments' about religion.

ps do you believe there was a 'reason' for our universe if there was no creator and no physical laws?

 

[PruePhillip]

And let me put it this way: in a lecture, why would bringing your beliefs in a deity be relevant?

Your *belief* is irrelevant to the evidence for Moses, or the evidence for when David was written, or whether evolution occurred, or what the evidence points to for the Big Bang.

Even in questioning the reality of Jesus, the question is one of evidence, not of belief in a creator God.

So, yes, I would agree with the Lecturer in your skit: don't change the subject to your beliefs as opposed to what the evidence is.

I was pointing out how some argue.
Having one of these on Quora about slavery. Me mentioning how the whole world once having slaves offended him - he wanted to show AMERICAN CHATTEL SLAVERY was evil. But it's out of context as everyone is 'evil.' Thus it's a 'fact' that America did something 'evil' but its THE TRUTH that America was doing what everyone, including Amerca's indigenous people, were all doing - therefore America can't really be described as 'evil.'
Same with 'arguments' about religion.

ps do you believe there was a 'reason' for our universe if there was no creator and no physical laws?

My point was that the lecturer WAS TALKING RELIGION but he had atomised it to the point that you had no way of answering back. Thus 'It's not about religion, we are only talking about the historicity of Moses, and ps, there is no evidence for Moses! And next we will look at the evidence for Jews in the Bronze Age. BUT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT RELIGION.'
But you see, the lecturer IS talking about religion. It's just that his terms of reference prevent you from answering back to his quite open challenge to religion.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Again misrepresenting it.
Nobody is INVOKING anything.

The inflation model just tries to model the early stages of the expansion of the universe.

This is simply not true, on a number of levels. Firstly, it is flat out wrong about the origins of inflationary cosmology and its purpose. Guth coined the term and proposed the first model in the paper I've attached in section III with these words:
"In this section I will describe a scenario which is capable of avoiding the horizon and flatness problems."
The paper is appropriately titled "Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems"
Linde's paper a year later ("A new inflationary universe scenario: a possible solution of the horizon, flatness, homogeneity, isotropy and primordial monopole problems") was similar.
Inflation was an attempt at proposing a mechanism to get rid of perceived philosophical and metaphysical problems that were at the core of cosmology and were supported by empirical evidence (not to mention our best, actually tested physical theories at cosmic scales, in particular GR).

Many scientists don't even like their own inflation model because they in fact don't like the idea of the multi-verse. Just like Einstein didn't like his theory because he didn't like the idea of black holes.

Would you say Einstein "invoked" black holes? No, he did not. He modeled the behavior of light and gravity and the model he came up with just spit out black holes.

Just like inflation models try to model the early expansion of the universe and the models they come up with just happen to spit out a multi-verse.

The analogy is flawed. What actually happened was more akin to cosmologists not liking "black holes" that appeared in GR and deliberately changing the physics of GR without any evidence other than that theory yielded black holes.
Only in this case the theory yielded fine-tuning problems. So Guth and Linde started working on a proposal that would make the fine-tuning go away (like trying to make black holes disappear by changing equations or altering them). Inflation was worked out specifically to avoid initial conditions and fine-tuning that seemed problematic to the founders of inflationary cosmology.
Even now, after it has been shown this artificially introduced mechanism (inflation) can for certain classes of models also yield results that are compatible with inhomogeneities in the observed distribution of matter and radiation, inflationary models rely on a physical mechanism for which we have no empirical evidence. Instead, it was dreamt up based on the convenience of working with scalar fields (no issues with non-abelian gauge theories and related problems when a scalar field with spin-0 is automatically covariant). This inflaton field responsible for inflation has no empirical foundations. It suffers from all the issues that remain unresolved in quantum field theories more generally and with the additional issues due to the need to formulate QFTs in curved spacetimes (CST), but unlike the "fields" of the standard model nobody has ever observed any inflaton field. There is very little constraining inflationary models except what people want to get out of them.
So, for example, one can easily avoid the multiverse by not assuming any inflaton field existed. In a very real way, the reason way inflationary models tend to lead to multiverse scenarios is due to the original intention of the inflationary cosmology proposal: You can get rid of seemingly highly "special" initial conditions and finely-tuned parameters if you propose that "something" must result in a wider range of conditions.

Before we observed black holes, they were only theoretical. But all the evidence in support of relativity that we COULD obtain, provided indirect evidence for the existence of black holes. Even though we never observed one until much later.

Again, the analogy is flawed. The theory in this case supported a particular cosmology (the standard big bang) that some cosmologists found aesthetically abhorrent, philosophically problematic, and/or metaphysically distasteful. So they worked out a way to make the "black holes" (fine-tuning) of cosmology go away. They weren't led there in anything like the way we were led to black holes. Inflationary cosmology didn't "pop out" of Einstein's field equations or models of the CMB or astrophysical observations or any combination of these. Instead, it was worked out to make metaphysical or philosophical issues disappear without any physical evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was pointing out how some argue.
Having one of these on Quora about slavery. Me mentioning how the whole world once having slaves offended him - he wanted to show AMERICAN CHATTEL SLAVERY was evil. But it's out of context as everyone is 'evil.' Thus it's a 'fact' that America did something 'evil' but its THE TRUTH that America was doing what everyone, including Amerca's indigenous people, were all doing - therefore America can't really be described as 'evil.'
Same with 'arguments' about religion.

ps do you believe there was a 'reason' for our universe if there was no creator and no physical laws?

Getting back to your slavery comment. Slavery was always evil. Whether the chattel slavery of the Hebrews or the US. The difference was that we knew that it was evil. The Hebrews did not appear to know that.

If God is anywhere as intelligent as people he would have known what he was doing was evil too. By the way this is one of the ways we know that the Bible is just he writings of incompetent men. The poor morals of God were the same terribly flawed morals of the time that it was written.

 

[PruePhillip]

Getting back to your slavery comment. Slavery was always evil. Whether the chattel slavery of the Hebrews or the US. The difference was that we knew that it was evil. The Hebrews did not appear to know that.

If God is anywhere as intelligent as people he would have known what he was doing was evil too. By the way this is one of the ways we know that the Bible is just he writings of incompetent men. The poor morals of God were the same terribly flawed morals of the time that it was written.

Interesting these 'poor' morals of God.
Ever read the Gospels? This defines Christian behavior.

 

[joelr]

There's a huge amount of copy and paste here - stuff that's been around for years.
I will copy and paste Daniel itself, using the New King James Version

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The Messiah shall be cut off (destroyed)
but not for himself (he didn't die for himself but for others)
the people of the prince - Titus' people, the son of the Emperor Vespasian
shall come - from the north through Galilee and the south through Egpt
shall destroy the city - Rome didn't desecrate anything, it levelled Jerusalem
and the sanctuary - as Jesus warned, not one stone upon another (you can still see the huge temple blocks the Romans pushed into the streets below)
and the end with a flood - a flood of people, the Roman campaign was huge
unto the end of the war - this war was in three stages over some 50 or so years, about two million Jews died, the rest exiled
desolations are determined - these desolations continued for 1800 years until the Jews were allowed to return to Israel and take back Jerusalem.

WAS DANIEL WRITTEN AFTER 1967 AD ?????

Yes this lecture contains most of the historical information on Daniel so I'm trying to make it easy to find the relevant sections.

This is from the 70 weeks prophecy? At 41:05 an overview is given as to what parts were written by the Aramaic writer, Hebrew or Greek. Pink is Hebrew, Purple is Aramaic and yellow is Greek.
This was written by the Hebrew redactor in 167 BC. His prophecies are correct up until 167 BC then all fail after that date.
so that quote was written 167 BC.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes this lecture contains most of the historical information on Daniel so I'm trying to make it easy to find the relevant sections.

This is from the 70 weeks prophecy? At 41:05 an overview is given as to what parts were written by the Aramaic writer, Hebrew or Greek. Pink is Hebrew, Purple is Aramaic and yellow is Greek.

I referred to the Messianic prophecy itemized above. I think this was 'redacted' after the First Century.

 

[Polymath257]

My point was that the lecturer WAS TALKING RELIGION but he had atomised it to the point that you had no way of answering back. Thus 'It's not about religion, we are only talking about the historicity of Moses, and ps, there is no evidence for Moses! And next we will look at the evidence for Jews in the Bronze Age. BUT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT RELIGION.'
But you see, the lecturer IS talking about religion. It's just that his terms of reference prevent you from answering back to his quite open challenge to religion.

No, the lecturer is NOT talking baout religion. At most, the lecturer is talking about the *evidence* for religion. and tha is a very different thing.

Religion is a belief. It often does not depend on evidence; it is an emotional thing. So you can deny or ignore the evidence and still believe in your religion. You can believe even if there is no evidence for it.

So, your belief in Yahweh is irrelevant. Someone else believing in Athena is irrelevant. What is relevant for the class is the evidence. And belief is often not based on evidence, but on faith.

 

[Polymath257]

If they are giving models where the BGV theorem does not apply, then that in itself is a testament to how strong the theorem is.

They do the same thing with many other no-go theorems.

Second, again, "what if" or "perhaps maybe" scenarios are not evidence...it is speculation.

As is anything dealing with anything previous to nucleosynthesis.

But speculating about causality outside of the universe is going far, far further beyond the evidence we have.

Third, that paper is from 2007, and if the implications of the paper were true, then why do I have a quote from Vilenkin from 2015, where he stated..

Excerpt..

“We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.”

Under the BGV subtitle in the link..

The Beginning of the Universe | Alexander Vilenkin | Inference

And just to put icing on the cake...in the same article above...Vilenkin actually addressed that model..

Excerpt..

"The problem with this scenario is that, on average, the volume of the universe still grows, and thus the BGV theorem can be applied. This leads immediately to the conclusion that a cyclic universe cannot be past-eternal."

And if you check the references, your article relies heavily on Steinhardt and Neil Turok and is basically the same model..a cyclic universe.

Vilenkin has already addressed that outdated proposal.

Next...

Haha.

Well, Vilenkin can be wrong, can't he? In this instance, the model does NOT have geodesic incompleteness.

Cyclic universes have already been dealt with, sir...and they do not avoid the theorem, unless you have any new developments with those scenarios within the past..eh, 5 years?

Vilenkin *speculates* that they still are subject to the theorem even though they don't satisfy the hypotheses.

Guess what: you don't.

Looks to me like I just did.

No charge for the lesson.

The model (and variations) are still being discussed. That was certainly NOT the end of it.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, the lecturer is NOT talking baout religion. At most, the lecturer is talking about the *evidence* for religion. and tha is a very different thing.

Religion is a belief. It often does not depend on evidence; it is an emotional thing. So you can deny or ignore the evidence and still believe in your religion. You can believe even if there is no evidence for it.

So, your belief in Yahweh is irrelevant. Someone else believing in Athena is irrelevant. What is relevant for the class is the evidence. And belief is often not based on evidence, but on faith.

I today encountered a similar argument with slavery. Someone was railing against American chattel slavery and casting aspersion upon the American ideal. My attempt to show how Africa had slaves (black and white) and Arabs had slaves, and Nth American Indians had slaves, and Rome had slaves etc was met with his insistence his claim was about American perfidity: America is bad because it had slaves. And he had the evidence.
My context to a wider picture (including a Civil War to stop slavery and Britain banning slavery world wide) was me tampering with his evidence.

Scholars do that. They won't debunk the IDEA of religion, they target specific aspects which will white-ant it, then throw up the 'evidence' thing. But for every bit of 'no evidence' there's also bits of 'some evidence' or even 'plenty of evidence' which won't be studied, curiously.

 

[Polymath257]

If they are giving models where the BGV theorem does not apply, then that in itself is a testament to how strong the theorem is.

Second, again, "what if" or "perhaps maybe" scenarios are not evidence...it is speculation.

But it is NOT speculation that

1. A quantum theory of gravity will be necessary to understand the early universe.

2. BGV does not apply to quantum theories of gravity.

3. Some version of quantum gravity we already have as *speculative* models do not have a beginning.

None of these three points is speculative. And the most important are the first two. We *know* that quantum gravity is something we need to figure out. We *know* that BGV does not apply to quantum gravity because it is a semi-classical theorem.

So, unless you can extend the BGV result to quantum theories of gravity, it is useful *primarily* as a demarcation of how the classical theory might fail or for where to look for more comprehensive classical approximations.

 

[Polymath257]

I was pointing out how some argue.
Having one of these on Quora about slavery. Me mentioning how the whole world once having slaves offended him - he wanted to show AMERICAN CHATTEL SLAVERY was evil. But it's out of context as everyone is 'evil.' Thus it's a 'fact' that America did something 'evil' but its THE TRUTH that America was doing what everyone, including Amerca's indigenous people, were all doing - therefore America can't really be described as 'evil.'

Well, we can ask if America was doing slavery in a particularly brutal or savage way compared to other cultures at the time. Even in the context of a world run on slavery, we can ask if the American system was worse that others.

Same with 'arguments' about religion.

ps do you believe there was a 'reason' for our universe if there was no creator and no physical laws?

I don't think that causality applies to the universe a whole. So, NO.

But, again, *my* beliefs are irrelevant to the science. If it is discovered that there is a sense in which causality applies to the univ a whole, I would admit I was wrong and see what the consequences are.

 

[PruePhillip]

Well, we can ask if America was doing slavery in a particularly brutal or savage way compared to other cultures at the time. Even in the context of a world run on slavery, we can ask if the American system was worse that others.




I don't think that causality applies to the universe a whole. So, NO.

But, again, *my* beliefs are irrelevant to the science. If it is discovered that there is a sense in which causality applies to the univ a whole, I would admit I was wrong and see what the consequences are.

Re slavery. Ever see that movie The Ghost and the Darkness? 1996. Based upon a true story. The British stopped the slave trek through Kenya. African slaves trekked to the Middle East - those who couldn't make the trip were left for the lions. Those men who survived were castrated wthout modern surgers and many died of shock, blood loss or infection. Those who survived the second ordeal became slaves. Not sure what happened when they were old.
So no, I doubt America was any more brutal than any other culture. In Mexico they sometimes ate their slaves. And my distant relative Cynthia Parker was kidnapped by Comanches as a slave. And Comanches loved to shove men's genitals into their mouths while they were still alive.

 

[Polymath257]

Re slavery. Ever see that movie The Ghost and the Darkness? 1996. Based upon a true story. The British stopped the slave trek through Kenya. African slaves trekked to the Middle East - those who couldn't make the trip were left for the lions. Those men who survived were castrated wthout modern surgers and many died of shock, blood loss or infection. Those who survived the second ordeal became slaves. Not sure what happened when they were old.
So no, I doubt America was any more brutal than any other culture. In Mexico they sometimes ate their slaves. And my distant relative Cynthia Parker was kidnapped by Comanches as a slave. And Comanches loved to shove men's genitals into their mouths while they were still alive.

And again, all this is a matter of looking at the history and making the comparisons. it allows for us to say that *all* cases were evil even if they were all part of a world in which slavery was common.

So, the next question is whether *any* of these cultures should be considered a moral standard on the question of slavery. Would *any* of them be able to say that they got their culture from a 'good deity'? I would say not.

 

[PruePhillip]

And again, all this is a matter of looking at the history and making the comparisons. it allows for us to say that *all* cases were evil even if they were all part of a world in which slavery was common.

So, the next question is whether *any* of these cultures should be considered a moral standard on the question of slavery. Would *any* of them be able to say that they got their culture from a 'good deity'? I would say not.

Slavery did not come the Christian diety. Anymore than war, adultery, murder, hate etc came from a diety.
Pointing to slavery in the bible is usually accompanied with a pretence of ignorance concerning the moral demands of the bible.

 

[Polymath257]

Slavery did not come the Christian diety. Anymore than war, adultery, murder, hate etc came from a diety.
Pointing to slavery in the bible is usually accompanied with a pretence of ignorance concerning the moral demands of the bible.

But slavery was certainly *perpetuated* by the Christian deity. Rules for it were given and it was seen as perfectly moral *by that deity* if those rules were followed.

That, in my mind, is enough to say that even if the Christian deity exists, it is immoral.

 

[PruePhillip]

But slavery was certainly *perpetuated* by the Christian deity. Rules for it were given and it was seen as perfectly moral *by that deity* if those rules were followed.

That, in my mind, is enough to say that even if the Christian deity exists, it is immoral.

The moral demand of the 'Christian diety' is summarized in Matthew 5,6 and 7. The Christian attitude towards slavery is given in Paul's letter to Philemon.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Yes, ALL of this is speculation. You speculate that time cannot be infinite into the past.

Speculation? Do you call proving beyond a reasonable doubt, speculation?

Cosmologists speculate that it can.

Then perhaps they also need to be schooled on how infinite regress is impossible.

At this point, the *evidence* is that General relativity gives a very good model for the times where we have evidence from.

The evidence *also* shows that quantum mechanics is part of how the universe works. So the *evidence* is that *some* version of quantum gravity will be necessary.

Already addressed this argumentation.

If God exists, NOTHING in science changes at all. Why would it?

If God exists, then things changes from "nature did it", to "God did it".

Pretty significant change, don't you think?

If God exists, I would not live my life any differently. Why would I?

Because of a quite lengthy Hell sentence that is coming your way if you dont.

Some models have a part-eternal universe and others do not.

So the answer is *possibly*. And that mean the possibility needs to be considered.

You correct, it needs to be considered...so I will consider it..

*considers a past-eternal universe*

Ok, I considered it, and I reject it.

I disagree. And I find your philosophical argument incredibly weak and lacking of understanding of the issues involved.

Gotcha.

But philosophical arguments are notorious for being wrong. That is because they mostly play off of intuitive biases as opposed to strong reasoning.

You are generalizing...while I am specific.

And I disagree. there is nothing self-contradictory about an infinite space or time.

There is. I already explained why and unless you can adequately address it, then it stands.

Even you admit that it is possible that time is infinite into the future.

Keyword: future.

The argument is against an infinite past, not the future.

Well, you can convince yourself of that, at least. Have you actually read and understood the BGV paper? or are you replying on its interpretation by others?

D: all of the above.

No, it didn't. And the semi-classical result is both interesting and important. At the very least, it shows where classical ideas will likely break down.

And?

I think it is more of a tempest in a teapot, frankly. In my discussions with cosmologists, the BGV theorem never comes up. It seems to only come up with theists.

Funny..considering the fact that Vilenkin ain't a theist...and it is his theorem lol.

They do care. But they are much more subtle thinkers than you. One of the issues is the limits of classical reasoning. And, in this case, one of those limits is that it predicts singularities.

A beginning is a beginning, regardless of whether or not the beginning came from a singularity point.

Sorry, but the philosophical arguments carry *much* less weight than even theoretical physics arguments like BGV. The reason? Philosophical arguments have been proved to be wrong too many times. They tend to be based on intuitions as opposed to actual logic (intuitions like 'traversing time').

Syllogism test..

1. Philosophical arguments have been proven to be wrong too many times.

2. Therefore, this philosophical argument (infinite regress) is wrong.

Non sequitur. Does not follow.

Test: FAILED.

And besides faulty logic, you are being dismissive instead of simply addressing the point/argument.

Philosophy did not realize the nature of time revealed by relativity, nor the problems with causality revealed by quantum mechanics.

Philosophical arguments are independent of relativity and quantum mechanics..so they need not realize or even acknowledge those things.

And that is the beauty of it.

So, for most scientists, mere philosophical arguments carry almost no weight, other than to clarify intuitions that usually need to be modified and/or discarded.

Nonsense. Scientists depend on philosophy.

"Philosophy carries almost no weight other than to clarify intuitions".

Obviously. You cant be a scientist if you are unable to use deductive reasoning or draw conclusions based on inference.

I have no idea what you mean by a 'two sided stick'. it seems to me most painting sticks are two-sided.

I meant one-sided sticks. My bad.

And circles can be squares in some geometries, as I have pointed out before and that you have ignored.

Can you provide a picture of this squared circle in these geometries??

I would love to see a full round shape with an additional four sides.

Please...enlighten me of these geometries.

Logic alone simply does not get you very far. In addition, you need facts upon which that logic can work. But, for facts about the universe, you then need observation and testing and they are *always* tentative.

I agree..and the fact that I can agree with you while also maintaining my position goes to show how moot your point is.

LMAO! You think that is *better* than actually reading and understanding the paper itself? Watching a 7 minute video? Really?

Hmm, lets see...

1. Read and understand the paper of theorem..

Or..

2. Watch and understand the video of theorem..

All depends on which learning method you prefer...which makes it subjective.

maybe, instead, you should take some time to actually learn the basis for that paper and what it says. Maybe you should think critically about that paper and the assumptions it makes (don't just take popular accounts as valid--read the actual work).

Maybe, instead, you should work out the kinks on quantum gravity since you speak so highly of it.

Until then..BGV.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

The paper *is* the 'horses mouth'. it is the carefully written down results of thought about the topic, as opposed to off-the-cuff comments that can include misstatements and inaccuracies.

Whether you read the paper about the theorem, or you watch a video presentation about the theorem...regardless, you should wound up at the same place at the end...which is a universe that began to exist.

And the BGV theorem is part of those speculations. In particular, it gives the limits of classical ideas and shows what sorts of things might arise when quantum effects are considered.

Red herrings and filibustering.

Well, yes, that is how science works. Models are made that are consistent with the evidence. Then the models are tested by *new* observations to see which ones 'stick' to the facts.

Well so far, the Standard Model of the big bang has the most evidence/facts supporting it..so lets let that one stick for now until you can find another with more evidence supporting it.

Loop quantum gravity.

"What if"

"Perhaps maybe".

That is not evidence. You have to show that the model is true.

That is like me finding my dog dead in the backyard from obvious violent means.

And I hypothesize that Big Foot came into my yard and killed my dog.

Sure..could that be possible? Maybe. But what proof do I have that it actually occured?

Zero.

Possibilities can not be used as evidence.

Nope. Once again, your philosophical arguments carry very little weight in these matters. Much more important is internal consistency of the theory and agreement wtith observations and the evidence collected so far.

Filibustering. I gave you a simple, DIRECT reason why infinite regression is impossible.

Please, address my reasons, or I shall conclude that you've got NOTHING and are now just filibustering away.

Assuming an average expansion of the multiverse and that it is explained by classical concepts. Neither is likely.

Pretty safe assumption, according to Vilenkin..and then you've still got a fine-tuning problem with the multiverse, according to Penrose.

So, either way you look at it.

But did not read the scholarly paper.

1. I watched Vilenkin give a presentation of the paper/theorem.

2. Ive read commentary on the paper.

3. I am aware of the scientific community proposing models to violate the theorem.

All three taken together, and we have a fire-proof theorem that will take a lot to be violated.

BGV is one interesting result. But it is not the be-all and end-all of cosmology by a LONG shot.

Well, when you present your model which violates the BGV theorem, I will be in attendence clapping for you.

Until then..

Nope. As you have pointed out, a model avoiding its assumptions is all that is required. Such do exist and are being investigated.

Yeah and if the one sister that I have was born with a different reproductive system, she would be my brother.

Possibilities and hypotheticals are not evidence.

And you go way beyond that. At least the scientific speculation is limited to those theories consistent with the *known* facts of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

I go way beyond that, because the evidence takes me way beyond that.

You, on the other hand, are going *way* beyond the evidence in postulating something non-material that has the capabilities of making universes, etc. There is NO evidence for any of that. Only speculation.

I have a universe which began to exist..and I am smart enough to know that the origins of the universe must exist beyond the universe.

And Christians call a creative entity that exists beyond the universe God.

WLC is an idiot. he is highly regarded by some theists, but that only shows how low theism must go to look reasonable.

Sean Carroll said, in his opening statement of their debate, that William Lane Craig is the one guy who put the fear in all of his friends.

That, my friend, is high regard.

Where?

Where what?

Boy, do you have a lot to learn. There are many types of singularity. Not all imply a beginning.

First off, what a singularity is or isn't has no bearing on the argument...and I can care less what other types of singularities there are.

Loop Quantum Gravity.

Already addressed this.

ANYTHING involving anything before the period of nucleosynthesis is speculation. Anything involving the geometry or structure of the universe before that time is speculation.

So ALL of this discussion is speculation on both sides. The difference is that I am trying to sticj to the scientific theories that have been *speculated*, but that agree with the known facts.

Nonsense. What the BGV theorem did was take what we know to be true, based on observation and formulated a mathematical proof based on these observations.

Your proposals are based on stuff we haven't and probably CANNOT observe...such as multiverses an quantum gravity...both of which has yet to be proven and is speculation at best.

So no, we are not on the same playing field, here. My stuff is based on what we know, your stuff is based on ignorance and what we are trying to figure out.

Goes both ways. Speculation about causality outside of the universe is just that: speculation.

Speculation about something before the universe is exactly that: speculation.

if you want to avoid speculation, don't discuss questions about the origin of the universe.

Nope. You cannot use anything within your car to explain the origins of your car.

That isn't speculation; that is Logic 101.

First show that the phrase 'allowed our universe to begin' even is meaningful.

If I say the 32 degree temperature in the freezer allowed the water to freeze...that is meaningful, isn't it?

If you have no problem accepting that meaningfulness, then what I said about the universe in the same way shouldn't be an issue.

Then show that such conditions actually existed (evidence, please).

Obviously, the conditions which allowed our universe to exist must have been existed...otherwise, there would be no universe, would there be?

Then give more deail about why it makes no 'logical sense' for the universe to have 'begun to exist' a finite time ago.

Example: if the conditions which allows water to freeze has existed for an infinite amount of time...then why would the water begin to freeze just yesterday?

Answer that question, please.

You are making fundamental assumptions even in your statement of the problem. But those assumptions may not be valid.

Your questions were answered, sir.

Right now, it is obvious that youve got NOTHING and now you are just filibustering, just clinching on to me and hoping the bell will sound soon..as I continue to bomb you with haymakers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting these 'poor' morals of God.
Ever read the Gospels? This defines Christian behavior.

So you reject the OT?

And even the NT morals are far from perfect.