| |
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Bork
Executive Hillbilly
Location: Vinson Mountain, GA
|
- #241
- Posted: 12/07/2011 17:23
- Post subject:
|
| SquishypuffDave wrote: | If you wish to argue for a past-eternal universe, you might want to check out the Borde/Guth/Valenkin theorem published in 2003, which gives that theory a substantial pummeling. This includes multiple universe theories.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012
Here's just a quote from Valenkin's book "Many Worlds in One":
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (, pg. 176).
"Nothing but a guess" wouldn't be quite the term I'd use. |
Actually, the Borde Guth Vilenkin paper doesn't really prove this but is often exaggerated by religious proponents to try and get some backup for their claims. The paper shows that ALMOST all inflationary models of the universe will reach a boundary in the past and Vilenkin himself has said that the paper does not really imply that the universe has a beginning.
And in case it went by unnoticed here's another quote from the very same page of Vilenkin's book:
"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."
| SquishypuffDave wrote: | | The short of it is: the universe cries out for an explanation. Even if it had no beginning, it would still require an explanation of its existence, either from an external cause, or by its own necessity. And if you assert that the universe is necessary, you are taking an extremely radical view held by very few philosophers which is incompatible with its having a beginning, and the burden of proof would be on you to show what about the universe is necessary. |
I agree with this and it's what I have been arguing all along, albeit in a modified version: If you argue that God is necessary the burden of proof to show why is on you. If you can have a timeless and infinite God you can just as well have a timeless and infinite turtle at the bottom of the stack. Or, turned around, if you can accept God as an explanation for the universe you could just as well accept the universe itself as the explanation.
I stand by the claim that it is still guesswork.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
RFNAPLES
Level 8
Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
SquishypuffDave
Gender: Male
Age: 33
|
- #243
- Posted: 12/08/2011 07:04
- Post subject:
|
"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."
I'm aware of that quote. Notice he repeats the statement that the beginning is unavoidable, so that's hardly a misrepresentation! Obviously it's not proof of God. I never claimed that. Valenkin isn't a philosopher, he's a scientist, so I don't consider him to be an authority on the philosophical implications of their findings.
"Vilenkin himself has said that the paper does not really imply that the universe has a beginning."
Where? He said the opposite up there ^. This is the closest I could find:
"...if 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."
Every alternative hypothesis is rife with problems, on top of being counter-intuitive in the first place. If you want to point to any alternative inflationary model specifically, go ahead. Also: entropy!
"If you can accept God as an explanation for the universe you could just as well accept the universe itself as the explanation."
The explanation of itself? As in it caused itself to exist? As in it existed causally prior to its own existence? I'm going to guess you mean that maybe it exists necessarily?
In regards to that point, the universe does not exhibit the traits of a necessary entity. It very probably has a beginning (would you at least concede that?), which would entail it being contingent. None of its components individually exhibit traits of being necessary. It could have not existed. It could have been completely different.
But at the same time, there is a logical need for some sort of necessary entity, in order for anything to exist at all. That's all I need to do in order to posit that something exists necessarily beyond the universe itself. I haven't even said it has to be God, I've just described some of the qualities it would have to possess.
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
  |
All times are GMT
|
| Page 25 of 25 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
| |
