Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem...

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

.....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?

If you start the whole "who created the creator" thing, then you fall foul of an absurd infinite regression of creators and creations. Actual infinities can't exist. You have to start somewhere, don't you?

Rev Hellfire

kelly1 wrote: »

You have to start somewhere, don't you?

Why ? Its as valid to assume the universe always existed, but perhaps in a different state.

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

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.

That's so juvenile, especially coming from a mod.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

If you start the whole "who created the creator" thing, then you fall foul of an absurd infinite regression of creators and creations. Actual infinities can't exist. You have to start somewhere, don't you?

Which is something that you fail to grasp! Sentient beings start simple and become more complicated. Your universal view works it's way back getting simpler and simpler just like everyone else's but then at the start makes a massive leap to the most complex thing that that can possibly be imagined. However the universe was created, it was almost certainly a very simple process involving simple natural laws, simple meaning that there was no sentient intelligence involved, because sentient intelligence cannot pop out of nowhere, it must develop slowly.

Basically you're saying "We're so complex and wonderful, we can't have come from nothing. We must have been created by someone far more complex and wonderful".

Do you not see the immediate problem with that logic?

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

That's so juvenile, especially coming from a mod.

I apologise. Sometimes (especially in the morning) frustration can get the better of me.

kelly1

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Why ? Its as valid to assume the universe always existed, but perhaps in a different state.

This can only be argued on philosophical grounds. If the universe had no beginning, then we would have an actual infinite series of events. But you can't add to infinity or in this case, you can't add more events meaning that nothing more can happen.

If there was no beginning to the universe, why is it still changing? Why is it still expanding? Why isn't it just one big black hole?

See http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

You have to start somewhere, don't you?

Er, I thought you said that your god didn't start?

toiletduck

We don't know.

Imagine a Christian apologist skimming the papers of his in the late 1910's. He'd see that the nucleus of an atom has been discovered to be composed of positively charged particles called protons. 'Aha! But like charges repel! he'd gasp 'this must surely be the work of God! Otherwise they'd move away from one other and no atom would be stable or even exist. But we see that in the universe this doesn't happen' Of course you may scoff at this noel, but isn't what you're doing the same thing?

Applying everyday notions (things must have a creator because things look like they were created/like charges repel always) to scientific discoveries in order to prove the hand of interference of your own particular god(s) is always a bad idea. Imagine how poorer the world would be if the question of "how do the protons stay together in an atom?" had been answered with the age old "God does it. No more to see here". I dunno what caused the big bang/space-time/multiverse (if at all)/the beginning (if there were one), but I'd sure as hell like to find out. We're not content with a Zeus on the mountain top causing lightening explanation.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

This can only be argued on philosophical grounds. If the universe had no beginning, then we would have an actual infinite series of events. But you can't add to infinity or in this case, you can't add more events meaning that nothing more can happen.

If there was no beginning to the universe, why is it still changing? Why is it still expanding? Why isn't it just one big black hole?

See http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

No one has said that the universe has no beginning. Some people have floated it as a possibility but no one has actually said it's the case. The only thing we have a problem with is that you're saying complexity can only come from more complexity and that creates an infinite loop of increasing complexity.

We're saying it started simple, without intelligence and gradually became more complex

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Er, I thought you said that your god didn't start?

/slaps forehead

When I said you have to start somewhere, I mean you have to start with something eternal e.g. God. God is outside of time and He created time. Before creation that was nothing but God. Geddit?

JC 2K3

kelly1 wrote: »

Since God isn't physical matter and isn't composed of any parts (i.e. entirely simple), what's to prevent Him being eternal and the ultimate source of all that exists?

Wait, where did you get this definition of God?
How did he create the universe?
What do you mean by "entirely simple"?
How can he be omnipotent, and omniscient, and have an image like a man (we're created in God's image, right?) if he's simple like this?
If he's not composed of any parts, then why do Christians say that he's composed of 3 parts: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
How can he not contain any physical matter if Jesus is part of God (as my understanding of the holy trinity goes)?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

/slaps forehead

When I said you have to start somewhere, I mean you have to start with something eternal e.g. God. God is outside of time and He created time. Before creation that was nothing but God. Geddit?

No because why?

Rev Hellfire

kelly1 wrote: »

If there was no beginning to the universe, why is it still changing? Why is it still expanding? Why isn't it just one big black hole?

Your argument pre-proposes that time (as far as we understand it) always existed, but there are arguments both for and against its existence before the big bang.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

/slaps forehead

When I said you have to start somewhere, I mean you have to start with something eternal e.g. God. God is outside of time and He created time. Before creation that was nothing but God. Geddit?

Why must we start at the most complex thing imaginable?

toiletduck

kelly1 wrote: »

If there was no beginning to the universe, why is it still changing? Why is it still expanding? Why isn't it just one big black hole?

Well leaving aside the other issues, black holes don't last forever. Despite what the name implies they do radiate (Hawking radiation) and eventually dissipate.

See http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

That whole line of reasoning seems to be presuppose that time has always existed.

JC 2K3

Another question:
Let's say this being you call God consisting of nothing physical and no parts and is outside time actually exists.

If he consists of nothing physical and has nothing physical, then where did he get the energy/matter to create the universe?

Quite a big hole in the theory that has to God exist because everything needs a creator is that by the same logic, every creator needs materials to create things with. If God does't have the physical matter to create the universe, he can't create the universe, if he does, it means this physical matter has existed eternally.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

When I said you have to start somewhere, I mean you have to start with something eternal e.g. God. God is outside of time and He created time. Before creation that was nothing but God. Geddit?

I understand entirely what you think you are saying, and I reject it as immensely silly.

You can play language games all you like -- by saying that god is "outside of time", is "eternal", exists as a spiritual makey-uppey-thing or whatever else you like -- but you can't escape the fact that you're simply saying that the game rules that you want everybody else to stick to, simply do not apply to you.

In a debate, that's not very fair.

Sam Vimes

Exactly robindch, kelly1 is pretty much saying "it can't have happened naturally, therefore there must be a supernatural being that none of these rules apply to".

Well kelly1, while the second statement follows perfectly logically from the first, human beings have nowhere near enough knowledge of the universe to make the first statement with any confidence, so we therefore cannot draw the conclusion with any confidence

Sam Vimes

toiletduck wrote: »

See http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...amey/kalam.htm

That whole line of reasoning seems to be presuppose that time has always existed.

Just reading that, I didn't care about the first two parts so I skipped straight to the part about whether the cause is personal or not. And may I say, what a load of crap:

This leads us to the final dilemma: if the universe had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal. Even if one should accept the (a) option of the first two dilemmas, why should one believe that the cause of the universe is a personal being? Some argue, for example, that even if the universe had a cause, its cause could have been a natural one. Presumably this means that the universe could be the product of an impersonal physical cause. The problem with this is twofold. First, what does it mean to say that the cause of the universe is a natural one? Natural causes exist within the universe, not outside of it. If something preceded the universe, then by definition it is not a natural cause, because the laws of nature came into existence after whatever preceded the universe.

Semantics, playing with the definition of the word natural. Natural in this sense means simply "not a sentient, personal being"

Second, if the cause of the universe is a sufficient cause, meaning that the existence of the cause alone guarantees the existence of the universe, the universe would always have existed. To make this clear consider the sufficient cause of lighting a match. When a match is struck against the proper surface, it ignites, and thus striking the match is the sufficient cause of an ignited match. Note that as soon as a sufficient cause exists, the effect follows immediately; there is no gap between the cause and the effect. This raises a question: if the sufficient cause of the universe has always existed, then why has the universe not always existed?

Just because the match and the proper ignition surface exist, does not mean they instantly have to meet and enact the effect that they are meant to cause and it in no way means that a personal agent must cause them to meet. This is evidenced by the fact that sh!t happens all the time without a personal entity causing it. Personal entities are not the only thing that set cause and effect into motion.

That, and as toiletduck pointed out, it presupposes that time always existed

AND of course it fails in the "what created the personal entity" area


That argument is:

kelly1

OK, we have people here who accept, what to my mind, are absurdities

Either

1) The universe/universes/multiverse(s) popped into existence from nothing and for no reason

or

2) That the universe is eternal implying an actual infinite series of events.

Now that is what I call a leap of imagination! I rest my case...

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, we have people here who accept, what to my mind, are absurdities

Either

1) The universe/universes/multiverse(s) popped into existence from nothing and for no reason

or

2) That the universe is eternal implying an actual infinite series of events.

Now that is what I call a leap of imagination! I rest my case...

or:

3) We have absolutely no idea and neither do you


and remember that your argument relies entirely on:

4)the most complex thing imaginable, a god, is eternal implying an actual infinite series of events.

To me is far less of a leap of imagination that to say that basic elementary particles are eternal or that energy is eternal which can be turned into matter. Or, of course, I refer you back to 3), we have absolutely no idea


edit: what you have there is called a false dichotomy. Those are not the only two options

The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

we have people here who accept, what to my mind, are absurdities

You forgot the following which is, I think, the position of everybody on this list. This is:

(3) We don't know.

kelly1 wrote: »

2) That the universe is eternal implying an actual infinite series of events.

That shouldn't cause you trouble, since that's pretty much your position with respect to your deity.

Sam Vimes

Great minds think alike

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, we have people here who accept, what to my mind, are absurdities

Either

1) The universe/universes/multiverse(s) popped into existence from nothing and for no reason

or

2) That the universe is eternal implying an actual infinite series of events.

Now that is what I call a leap of imagination! I rest my case...

Do you have everyone after page one of this thread on "ignore" or something?!

pinksoir

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Another question:
Let's say this being you call God consisting of nothing physical and no parts and is outside time actually exists.

If he consists of nothing physical and has nothing physical, then where did he get the energy/matter to create the universe?

Quite a big hole in the theory that has to God exist because everything needs a creator is that by the same logic, every creator needs materials to create things with. If God does't have the physical matter to create the universe, he can't create the universe, if he does, it means this physical matter has existed eternally.

Kelly1, I would give some thought to this problem raised.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

You forgot the following which is, I think, the position of everybody on this list. This is:

(3) We don't know.

It's clear that the universe obeys consistent and logical laws and now you want to throw logic out the window by saying we don't know. Head in sand...

Dades wrote: »

Do you have everyone after page one of this thread on "ignore" or something?!

No, why? I don't accept the arguments I'm hearing. I don't like "We don't know". I think there's a reason for everything.

toiletduck

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't like "We don't know". I think there's a reason for everything.

Your dislike doesn't really and shouldn't come into it. Plus the two aren't mutually exclusive at all.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

It's clear that the universe obeys consistent and logical laws and now you want to throw logic out the window by saying we don't know. Head in sand...

And saying that there's an omnipotent, omnipresent, sentient, personal being that says what kind of food we should eat and doesn't like gay marriage that none of the natural laws that we don't fully understand apply to isn't throwing logic out the window

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

No, why? I don't accept the arguments I'm hearing. I don't like "We don't know". I think there's a reason for everything.

Do you have anything to back up that assertion or is it just what you like to think? What's the reason for childhood cancer?

Watch now as you give the answer you don't like....."I don't know" with the added bit "but there must be a reason because I want there to be"

toiletduck

kelly1 wrote: »

It's clear that the universe obeys consistent and logical laws and now you want to throw logic out the window by saying we don't know. Head in sand...

What an awful statement. The beginning of all knowledge, science and discovery starts with stating that one doesn't know. No shame in that. We don't, nobody does.