Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because from what we know the universe is, on average, in a state of expansion and the BGV theorem says such a universe must be geodesically incomplete in the past. And this is not the controversial stance. From the traditional Big Bang model to the post-BGV nucleated closed universe model, physicists have meant that contiguous spacetime had a beginning. As Barrow and Tipler (each of them eminent cosmologists as well as physicists) emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."
John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press), p. 442.
Stephen Hawking agreed in a lecture available online: “The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.” The Beginning of TIme - Stephen Hawking
Vilenkin (2015) “We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.”
And yes, Vilenkin means all of contiguous spacetime. From his article, "A nucleated closed universe is all the space there is, aside from the disconnected spaces of other closed universes. Beyond it, there is no space, and no time." He even throws in the question "What causes the universe to pop out of nothing?" to make it explicit that we're talking about creation ex nihilo.
There is creator and created. Creator using the process of creating, produces the created. The universe is created. Creator has no beginning no end, not bound by space and time, is infinite. Universe (created) has beginning and end is bound by space and time is finite.
There is creator and created. Creator using the process of creating, produces the created. The universe is created. Creator has no beginning no end, not bound by space and time, is infinite. Universe (created) has beginning and end is bound by space and time is finite.
If I may play devil's advocate (no pun intended), how do you know what created the universe wasn't a created creator? Because I can agree that it isn't special pleading to simply refrain from demanding a cause for god (since we have no evidence/good argument that any god which might exist must've had a beginning), but to assert that what created the universe is definitely without a beginning? I don't see the justification for that.
Because from what we know the universe is, on average, in a state of expansion and the BGV theorem says such a universe must be geodesically incomplete in the past. And this is not the controversial stance. From the traditional Big Bang model to the post-BGV nucleated closed universe model, physicists have meant that contiguous spacetime had a beginning. As Barrow and Tipler (each of them eminent cosmologists as well as physicists) emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."
John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press), p. 442.
Stephen Hawking agreed in a lecture available online: “The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.†The Beginning of TIme - Stephen Hawking
Vilenkin (2015) “We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.â€
And yes, Vilenkin means all of contiguous spacetime. From his article, "A nucleated closed universe is all the space there is, aside from the disconnected spaces of other closed universes. Beyond it, there is no space, and no time." He even throws in the question "What causes the universe to pop out of nothing?" to make it explicit that we're talking about creation ex nihilo.
The fallacy of your thinking has already been exposed by Harry.
If I may play devil's advocate (no pun intended), how do you know what created the universe wasn't a created creator? Because I can agree that it isn't special pleading to simply refrain from demanding a cause for god (since we have no evidence/good argument that any god which might exist must've had a beginning), but to assert that what created the universe is definitely without a beginning? I don't see the justification for that.
That's ok. Many people have difficulty grasping or are uncomfortable with that which is not bound by space and time, that which is outside of space and time, the existence and intelligence and sentience and activity of that which is not physical.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-11-2019 at 06:57 AM..
If I may play devil's advocate (no pun intended), how do you know what created the universe wasn't a created creator? Because I can agree that it isn't special pleading to simply refrain from demanding a cause for god (since we have no evidence/good argument that any god which might exist must've had a beginning), but to assert that what created the universe is definitely without a beginning? I don't see the justification for that.
Seems as though this reverts to the something out of nothing argument. But nothing is not a part of the known element table.
more flawed logic. "probably" is not evidence.
your post is evidence. of flawed logic.
I look forward to your paper refuting Bayes theorem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
"probably a product of the brain, not real events."
your logic is a product of your brain. so therefore your logic is not a real event.
according to your logic. which is flawed.
Go back and read what I wrote. Then try again without the straw.
I do *NOT* have an evidence and I do NOT need one because my religious belief is based on *FAITH* and religious faith is *NOT* based on evidence.
How hard is to understand?
How hard is it to understand something I understand?
How hard is it for you to understand :
1) you have just admitted to having no evidence,
2) that you are therefore probably wrong,
3) that I therefore have no reason to accept any claims of an after life, and
4) that you insist on arguing your "no evidence" is of equal value as us "having evidence".
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
I am adding 2 + 2 to get 4, and you are asking me where is the division sign?
You are asking me whats the coffee taste like that is with milk gotten from an Ox or a bull?
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
The universe is created.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
...
That is for you to show.
Because it is physical. Everything physical was created. By a creator (or Creator). Using the process of creating. Back of everything physical is the non physical intelligence and sentience that created it and sustains it.
If you don't understand the process of creating and want to stick with "stuff just is" "stuff just happens" "its all random" "its just there" "it just is" then that's OK. If that's where you're at then that's where you're at.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-11-2019 at 07:10 AM..
more flawed logic. "probably" is not evidence.
your post is evidence. of flawed logic.
"probably a product of the brain, not real events."
your logic is a product of your brain. so therefore your logic is not a real event.
according to your logic. which is flawed.
It can certainly appear as flawed logic, but it could be what some call back-engineering, or starting with a premise/agenda and working backward.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
