Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem...

kelly1

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ok, so I'm kinda jumping in here without reading most of this thread but I have a question about the theory. Does the theory say that the universe has a beginning or that matter has a beginning? Maybe I'm wrong, but if it says that the universe has a beginning, doesn't that just apply to space-time having a beginning because, as far as I understand it, isn't the matter that's in the universe now supposed to have existed before the big bang, just in some kind of singularity state?

If matter did exist before the big-bang, that wouldn't be a beginning, it would just be a change of state. To my mind beginning implies a coming into existence.

Zillah wrote: »

Noel, you keep insisting that something can't come from nothing. How do you know this? By definition we cannot have any knowledge of or perform any experiments on 'nothing'.

For all we know the universe did come from absolutely nothing. Nothing material, nothing supernatural, just nothing. For no reason. You might not like this observation, but that does not make it not so.

How can you not reject such a ludicrous notion that a universe can just spring into existence from nothing and for no reason?! I think belief in an eternal creator is far more logical. Atheists accuse theists of being illogical - Pot, kettle, black. I actually think you're grasping at straws.

Robin, can I ask you again please, where did you answer my question i.e. "Do you think the universe(s) were created or spontaneously popped into existence for no reason?"?

This is a crucial question, isn't it? Which is the more likely? Can one of them be ruled out etc...

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

...while saying that your deity isn't subject to the "something can't come from nothing" rule that you apply to everybody but yourself.

Let me say this again. What I'm saying is that anything which has a beginning must have a cause. And since God didn't come into being, He doesn't need a cause.

And why did you use the word "yourself"? Didn't you mean to say God?

20goto10 wrote: »

But what has it got to do with a God? There may be something outside of the universe, I don't think anyone is arguing against you there. Its just the way you jump to the conclusion that it proves there is a God, because it doesn't. Even assuming the theory is true.

I'm not really trying to bring God, in a religious sense, into this argument. Like I said already, I'm arguing that the being/entity/substance which created the universe and is the ultimate source of everything (except itself) had no beginning and is non-physical. I believe this entity is what theists call God, but that's besides the point.

MrPudding

kelly1 wrote: »

How can you not reject such a ludicrous notion that a universe can just spring into existence from nothing and for no reason?! I think belief in an eternal creator is far more logical.

You think that an all powerful, all knowing, eternal, always been there super being that happens to be inflicted with many of the attributes considered to be flaws in humans, IE, pettiness, vindictiveness, cruelty, small mindedness and also apparently short man syndrome, is a more likely and less ludicrous proposition that “we don’t know yet…?”

kelly1 wrote: »

Atheists accuse theists of being illogical - Pot, kettle, black. I actually think you're grasping at straws.

Yes, the well known “we don’t know yet” straw.

MrP

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

If matter did exist before the big-bang, that wouldn't be a beginning, it would just be a change of state. To my mind beginning implies a coming into existence.

Yes, a coming into existence of the laws of space-time. Isn't it possible that matter has "always" existed, "first" as a singularity not subject to the constraints of space and time, and then it underwent a change of state so radical that it created the laws of space-time that it is subject to, at least until the point at which all matter contracts into the singularity again?

kelly1

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, a coming into existence of the laws of space-time. Isn't it possible that matter has "always" existed, "first" as a singularity not subject to the constraints of space and time, and then it underwent a change of state so radical that it created the laws of space-time that it is subject to, at least until the point at which all matter contracts into the singularity again?

That of course raises the question what caused the change of state and what was this matter doing before the big-bang and did it have a beginning and if not why did it change after an infinite period of time. Seems a tad absurd...

Zillah

kelly1 wrote: »

How can you not reject such a ludicrous notion that a universe can just spring into existence from nothing and for no reason?! I think belief in an eternal creator is far more logical. Atheists accuse theists of being illogical - Pot, kettle, black. I actually think you're grasping at straws.

Yeah I'm desperate, you're tearing down the pillars of my belief system.

You just don't get it do you? Cause and effect as we know it is part of the universe. The universe doesn't necessarily need a cause. I know it's a very uncomfortable notion but we can't rule it out. But it's just a suggestions, my only real answer is...yet again, I don't know, nor do you.

And once again (perhaps if enough people will say it you'll address it), even if we accept your assertion that the universe needs an initial cause there is no reason to believe that that cause is intelligent, benevolent or all-powerful.

20goto10

kelly1 wrote: »

That of course raises the question what caused the change of state and what was this matter doing before the big-bang and did it have a beginning and if not why did it change after an infinite period of time.

God did it.

kelly1 wrote: »

Seems a tad absurd...

Uh-Huh

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

That of course raises the question what caused the change of state and what was this matter doing before the big-bang and did it have a beginning and if not why did it change after an infinite period of time. Seems a tad absurd...

Only if you are considering it in terms that have nothing to do with it. How can it be doing anything for an infinite amount of time, if it is existing outside of time (time only began at the big bang, to try to consider something "before" the big bang in terms of time is a bit absurd)?

Alternatively, think of it like this. Before the big bang, there was no time or space or any of the laws we associate with either-ie no constraints on the matter. This means that the matter has infinite possibility (no physical laws to follow) and infinite opportunity (no time laws to follow), so therefore its perfectly possible that this matter is never not doing anything, and that ultimately, it does everything.
(while this is almost definitely nonsense, as I just made it up, its still as likely as god existing)

stevejazzx

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I'm very much a layman here. I'm only going by what science is telling us.

It's impossible for you to do both well.

noelkelly1 wrote:

To create an argument, let's call it a spiritual substance.

FTFY :pac:


Posible Answers:

Re: Universe popping into existence

1) We simply don't understand
2) Muliple universes exists - this universe was casued by another
3) Extra terrrestial intervention in space time!
4) An agent who has belief systems similar to those that Arab men had about 5 thousand years ago

Re: Reason

1) Why should there be a reason - who owes who what
2) Exterrestial experimentation
3) Multiple universe
4) An agent who wanted one of the gazillions of planets and stars he made to be called earth becasue he wanted to fill it billions of confused squabbling beings that would kill and plunder one another until they destroyed the planet..in which case he would judge them and take them to either a) heaven with angels and harps or b) hell, a firey place where avant guarde swedish jazz music plays non stop.

Naz_st

kelly1 wrote: »

That of course raises the question what caused the change of state and what was this matter doing before the big-bang and did it have a beginning and if not why did it change after an infinite period of time.

On reflection, doesn't it seem interesting that the creation of the universe in religious terms has gone from "let there be light" and 6 "days" of God popping random things into existence, to a discussion on the finer points of when "God" decided to interfere in the pre/post big bang cosmological system of roughly 14 billion years ago?

Strange that...

kelly1

Zillah wrote: »

The universe doesn't necessarily need a cause. I know it's a very uncomfortable notion but we can't rule it out.

I don't understand this mindset. You're seem happy to accept the above but the possibility of the existence of a creator is anathema to you. Why?

I just find the notion that the complex/wonderful universe we see today popping into existence for no reason to be totally absurd!

aidan24326

kelly1 wrote: »

Let me say this again. What I'm saying is that anything which has a beginning must have a cause. And since God didn't come into being, He doesn't need a cause.

And how do you know that God didn't come into being? Or even that he did? Aren't you just making wild assumptions here? It's the most nonsensical of all theistic arguments (and there's a few of those), that the universe had to have had a cause/beginning, but God is immune from this problem as he was always there! No actually I take it back that isn't nonsense it's pure genius lol.

'm not really trying to bring God, in a religious sense, into this argument. Like I said already, I'm arguing that the being/entity/substance which created the universe and is the ultimate source of everything (except itself) had no beginning and is non-physical. I believe this entity is what theists call God, but that's besides the point.

You see no atheist entirely rules out the possibility of there having been some sort of creator/creative influence for the universe. We can't as we just don't know. What we have a problem with is your MASSIVE leap of logic from a straight to z, in implying that this creative event was definitely brought about by the God of christianity, despite such a God being extremely unlikely based on logic and on everything that we know.

kelly1

stevejazzx wrote: »

It's impossible for you to both well.

I'll certainly concede that.

stevejazzx

kelly1 wrote: »

I'll certainly concede that.

Aww...was just getting into this now..

Sam Vimes

How are you so absolutely sure it couldn't have been some natural process that we don't know about yet? How can you be so sure it must have been an intelligent entity? Do you know something that no one else on the planet knows about particle, nuclear and/or quantum physics?

Years ago exactly the same logic you're using was employed to make up Thor, the god of thunder, with his mighty hammer. Sure how can light just shoot from the heavens without a cause? Is it not far more logical to say it's a sentient entity with a hammer?

Luckily nowadays we have science and don't anthropomorphise natural phenomena anymore.....oh wait!


And anyway, even if we were to absolutely accept that the universe was created, what does that mean for the validity of a 2000 year old book?

dvpower

kelly1 wrote: »

I just find the notion that the complex/wonderful universe we see today popping into existence for no reason to be totally absurd!

I just find the notion that the complex/wonderful creator we see today popping into existence for no reason to be totally absurd!

Sam Vimes

And actually, the complex/wonderful part can pretty much be completely explained even with 21st century knowledge but that doesn't make it any less wonderful.

The only part we can't explain yet is where all this matter came from but that doesn't mean we should make the same mistake as our ancestors and invent an all powerful entity to explain something just because we don't understand it

Zillah

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't understand this mindset. You're seem happy to accept the above but the possibility of the existence of a creator is anathema to you. Why?

Why? Because one requires no assumptions (there appears to be nothing before the universe to cause it's existence, therefore nothing caused the universe) where as the other does (YAHWEH! He who thinks seafood is dirty! The tyrant of the Middle East! Grand obliterater of Sodom and Gemorrah! That's right, he who sacrificed himself to himself to convince himself to forgive humanity for something that was just a metaphor anyway, the one, the only, Jehovah!). That colourful character is so obviously of human invention that the idea of even considering His existence is laughable.

There's a reason I don't get into heated debates with Deists dude. I think they're wrong and have no good reason to believe an intelligent entity created the universe, but my level of disagreement with them is nothing compared to the scorn I pour upon your ilk.

I just find the notion that the complex/wonderful universe we see today popping into existence for no reason to be totally absurd!

That's because you're used to thinking about issues that occur within the universe. Now we're talking about the possibility of something 'outside' the universe, where our universes rules don't necessarily apply.

kelly1

God, you are a stubborn lot!

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

God, you are a stubborn lot!

Indeed. We're stubbornly saying "no one has any idea how the universe came into being so stop making out that you do because you picked one of thousands of old story books to believe in". Yes, that's stubborn

pts

kelly1 wrote: »

God, you are a stubborn lot!

We are stubborn You crack me up.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

I just find the notion that the complex/wonderful universe we see today popping into existence for no reason to be totally absurd!

Yes, because your brain was designed by evolution to be the universe's finest intention-seeking machine. You're simply having a really hard time breaking out of this evolutionary headlock.

Though you can probably manage it if you raise your head above the guns that you're currently stuck to

Wacker

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't understand this mindset. You're seem happy to accept the above but the possibility of the existence of a creator is anathema to you. Why? !

As many people have pointed out, and that I doubt you'd even deny yourself, is that the 'creator' you speak of above would be deistic, not theistic. Now, I can only speak for myself, and I'll happily admit that there is much of Christianity that I have complete contempt for, but that is theism. I don't find deism 'anathema' at all; I just don't think it's right!
I would imagine that's the majority view around these parts, but what do I know?

Zillah

It's funny that you think "stubborn" has anything to do with it

There is no point at which we will choose to give in. That's not how it works. Present us with convincing evidence or a sound philosophical argument and we'll be compelled to accept what you're saying.

You've yet to do either of those things.

pH

Wow this place has changed, we're now arguing about this?

Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating -- or just expanding sufficiently fast -- must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.

kelly1

Zillah wrote: »

Present us with convincing evidence or a sound philosophical argument and we'll be compelled to accept what you're saying.

I'm saying that the universe was created and you're saying it just popped into existence from nothing and for no reason. In all seriousness, which is the more likely? Just look at the world around you and ask if it all came from nothing and for no reason. Let's be reasonable here.

marco_polo

kelly1 wrote: »

Let me say this again. What I'm saying is that anything which has a beginning must have a cause. And since God didn't come into being, He doesn't need a cause.

And why did you use the word "yourself"? Didn't you mean to say God?



I'm not really trying to bring God, in a religious sense, into this argument. Like I said already, I'm arguing that the being/entity/substance which created the universe and is the ultimate source of everything (except itself) had no beginning and is non-physical. I believe this entity is what theists call God, but that's besides the point.

So let me get this straight.

Matter = Something.
Not Something = Nothing
God = Not Matter
Nothing = Creator of Universe

So we are all really just arguing about exactly what the nothing is :cool:

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm saying that the universe was created and you're saying it just popped into existence from nothing and for no reason. In all seriousness, which is the more likely? Just look at the world around you and ask if it all came from nothing and for no reason. Let's be reasonable here.

No, you're not saying the universe was created, you're saying it was created by a single sentient, omnipotent, benevolent being that exists outside the laws of nature, always existed, didn't itself have to be created and that this being wrote the bible with all that entails.

And we're saying "we have no idea how the universe came into being and neither do you and just because no one has an answer yet does not entitle you to make one up".


Very big difference there. The argument "I don't know so it must be God" has always been and will always be ridiculous. Humans beings do not have the necessary knowledge to say anything about how the universe "must" have been created

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm saying that the universe was created and you're saying it just popped into existence from nothing and for no reason. In all seriousness, which is the more likely? Just look at the world around you and ask if it all came from nothing and for no reason. Let's be reasonable here.

Well actually if you scale it down to something more digestible (for me anyway) like evolution there is no reason involved in our existence or for want of a better word creation through that process. I'm not saying thats the case with the existence of the universe, but is it not unreasonable to want us to accept that while the universe has to have a creator according to you the creator doesn't need one? And that where your argument falls apart and becomes nothing more than wishy washy wishful thinking.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm saying that the universe was created and you're saying it just popped into existence from nothing and for no reason.

In the same way you're saying GOD popped into existence from nothing and for no reason.

Oh no, I forgot. He was always there, cooking up the laws of physics and deciding what type of animals humans will be allowed eat and not incur his wrath.