Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem...

JC 2K3

kelly1 wrote: »

After much digression, let me go back to my original point.

According the BGK theorem, the universe began at some finite time in the past and if it had a beginning, it means that no physical matter or energy existed beforehand. The implication of this is that something super-natural brought the universe into being. The thing which brought the universe into being couldn't be natural because then something physical would already exist.

Right, so let's say the theorem says that no physical matter or energy existed before the universe.

The conclusion is that since we don't know how something can come from nothing, we have no idea how the universe came into being.

The term supernatural means nothing, or at least, we don't know of anything which is not natural, so to say that something supernatural created the universe is to say we don't know how the universe began.

5uspect

kelly1 wrote: »

Oh so the maths changed? What caused the maths to change and why is that not weird?

All,
I'm sure you've all had enough of me by now. It's clear that you guys only want a debate on scientific grounds. I think it's unforunate that you won't engage in any kind philosophical argument.

If you want a philosophical argument have a read of this:
http://astroph.persiangig.com/Time%20before%20Time0408111.pdf

Rev Hellfire

wot he said

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

The term supernatural means nothing, or at least, we don't know of anything which is not natural, so to say that something supernatural created the universe is to say we don't know how the universe began.

Excatly. We say "I don't know" but when someone uses the word supernatural what they're actually saying is "neither do I but I'll take a stab at it".

You're replacing something that appears impossible to our understanding with something that is by definition impossible.

The only difference is that you have said that it must break the laws of nature which is far less likely than the idea that it doesn't but we don't have a full understanding of the laws of nature.

And when you start tacking on things like the idea that this being gave us the bible, you're getting into fantasy territory.

kelly1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The parts in bold are the flaws. The first part is flawed because it makes a massive leap in logic and makes the incorrect assumption that your personal understanding of what is "natural" is correct and complete. Do you know everything about the universe?

It's not a massive leap of logic. If you have pre-existing matter, then there's no creation. So whatever caused matter to exist, can't be made of physical matter.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The second part is flawed because the theorem does not imply anything of the sort, it has merely been misinterpreted as robindch pointed out.

That's a different debate to the one above. And I'm not qualified to give a definite interpretation of the result of the theorem. But this is what Vilenkin says about it:

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 (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

Rev Hellfire

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Excatly. We say "I don't know" but when someone uses the word supernatural what they're actually saying is "neither do I but I'll take a stab at it".

Its actually worse than that, when someone says its supernatural, they're typically saying "we don't know and we'll never know so we should give up".

Rev Hellfire

kelly1 wrote: »

It's not a massive leap of logic. If you have pre-existing matter, then there's no creation. So whatever caused matter to exist, can't be made of physical matter.

If there's no creation then there's no need for something to create matter since its timeless by nature.

Zillah

kelly1 wrote: »

All,
I'm sure you've all had enough of me by now. It's clear that you guys only want a debate on scientific grounds. I think it's unforunate that you won't engage in any kind philosophical argument.

...

...


You are unbelievable.

You link a scientific article, then form some absurd philosophical arguments. We explain why it's both bad science and bad philosophy for eleven pages and you accuse us of not trying? What do you want, a parade down O'Connell Street with a different float for each flaw in your reasoning?

Naz_st

kelly1 wrote: »

All I'm looking for is an answer to post #123. I've had no real engagement with my line of reasoning and I don't see anyone refuting it by pointing out the flaw in my reasoning.

Ok, for the sake of argument, I'm going to accept the BGK paper and still point out the flaw in your argument. Here's how our universe came about (random explanation #1):

1) There is an elementary and infinitely large n-dimensional spacetime fabric of infinite mass that is both eternal and impossible to exist under the constraints of the physical laws of our universe. Let's call this the "Uber-Space".

2) Within the n-dimensional space-time manifolds of this uber-space there are random fluctuations in some fundamental parameters that produce localised pockets of finite dimensional spacetime. These localised pockets are "baby universes". Some fluctuations are 4-dimensional geodesic manifolds with random fundamental parameters (i.e. similar to our own universe)

3) Some of these manifolds have random fundamental physical parameters that allow for life forms to ultimately develop (like our own).

Therefore, our universe "began" a finite amount of time ago, but wasn't "created". It was a "natural" process under the fundamental physical laws of Uber-Space, but by definition "super-natural" under the localised physical laws of our universe. Since the BGK paper is based on the fundamental parameters of our universe (e.g. the Hubble parameter) and by definition is pointing out that the pre-bang physical model was different to our current universe, it cannot rule out the eternal Uber-space.

There you go - no God involved (unless you want to worship Uber-space, in which case I am now the head of the First Church of Uber-space and ergo infallible and in order to spread the one true word of Uber-space I'm going to need some cash donations ).

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

It's not a massive leap of logic. If you have pre-existing matter, then there's no creation. So whatever caused matter to exist, can't be made of physical matter.

Which does not automatically translate to something supernatural. For example, energy is not physical matter. What about the second part of my point: "you're making the incorrect assumption that your personal understanding of what is "natural" is correct and complete".

Do you have a complete understanding of the laws of nature and if not, how can you be sure sure that the laws of nature must be broken to create the matter?

kelly1 wrote: »

That's a different debate to the one above. And I'm not qualified to give a definite interpretation of the result of the theorem. But this is what Vilenkin says about it:

As has been pointed out, he does not understand the theorem.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Its actually worse than that, when someone says its supernatural, they're typically saying "we don't know and we'll never know so we should give up".

Exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks for that

Zillah

All hail the Uber-Space, the Endless Sea, the Blind Watchmaker. We thank you for your impersonal potential for existence.

May you fluctuate unpredictably forever.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Oh so the maths changed? What caused the maths to change and why is that not weird?

Didn't you read my response? The maths hasn't changed. The model has changed because you're dealing with a different system that isn't covered by the first model. That's all that Messrs BG and V have claimed.

kelly1 wrote: »

It's clear that you guys only want a debate on scientific grounds. I think it's unforunate that you won't engage in any kind philosophical argument.

As Zillah says, you were the guy who brought up a mathematical paper which, as far as I can figure out, you seemed to have sincerely believed destroyed any rational basis for non-belief. You seem to have believed this because you read Mr Craig and his friends and have not spent the time to understand the paper itself (which makes me wonder why you brought it up in the first place). With due deference to the yellow-jumpered Mr Craig, he is misleading you either intentionally or unintentionally and we have pointed out where this is happening in fairly minute detail. Not only have we shown that Mr Craig's notions are wrong at the mathematical level, we have also shown that the philosophical basis for Mr Craigs conclusions is broken too.

By all means start up a new thread on the philosophical implications of this, but for the moment, lets just try to stick to the discussion that you proposed at the beginning which is whether BGV being physically true would influence our non-belief in whatever current or former deity or deities that you happen to believe exist.

In my case, it certainly would not, for the simple reason that BGV and deities are as unrelated as chipmunks and cheese.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Didn't you read my response? The maths hasn't changed. The model has changed because you're dealing with a different system that isn't covered by the first model.

What you said was "It just says that the maths before the standard model of the big bang are different to the maths after it"! So did the maths change or not??

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

So did the maths change or not??

I didn't say that the maths had changed (because things that are proved correctly now remain proved for all time). What I said is that the maths is different in the same way that a journey that needs a submarine and not a car requires you to choose a different mode of transport, and doesn't require you to transmute a car into a submarine. If BGV are correct, then what has changed is the mathematical model, which is the mapping of mathematics to physical reality. And that shouldn't surprise anybody, since the physics would appear to be quite different.

To reduce it to the simplest possible terms: Let's call the mathematics that underlies the inflationary big bang model "blue maths".

Some people think that "blue maths" works "before" the big bang. BGV have claimed that "blue maths" doesn't work "before" the big bang, and that maths of some other color is needed.

What Craig -- neither a mathematician, nor a cosmologist, I note -- has said is that since "blue maths" doesn't work before the big bang, therefore his own "god maths" (for want of a better term) is the only solution. That's complete nonsense. I've no doubt that there are plenty of other solutions and very few of them indeed, and perhaps none, support Craig's position.

I don't think it can be made any simpler than that.

marco_polo

Zillah wrote: »

All hail the Uber-Space, the Endless Sea, the Blind Watchmaker. We thank you for your impersonal potential for existence.

May you fluctuate unpredictably forever.

I bet Uber-space doesn't judge me when I take a copy of Hustler and an odd sock into the jacks.

Zillah

robindch wrote: »

therefore his own "god maths" (for want of a better term)

I want a better term :pac:

Sam Vimes

Zillah wrote: »

I want a better term :pac:

How about "not maths"?

Rev Hellfire

Zillah wrote: »

I want a better term :pac:

Mysticamatics

A system where a + b can be whatever you want it to be.

Zillah

Yah they're both good.

More seriously, Noel, do you see how the Uber-Space idea can suggest that God is not an inevitable conclusion even if we know the universe as we know it had a beginning?

Dades

Zillah wrote: »

I want a better term :pac:

How about dogmathics.

Goduznt Xzst

Zillah wrote: »

More seriously, Noel, do you see how the Uber-Space idea can suggest that God is not an inevitable conclusion even if we know the universe as we know it had a beginning?

Our survey says...

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

Something cannot emerge from nothing.

Define "nothing"?

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Define "nothing"?

I don't know the definition according to physics, but I would define it as the complete absence of space-time/energy/matter/anti-matter. Not sure if that covers it all?

EDIT: i.e. that "state" which is beyond the boundary of the inflating universe.

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't know the definition according to physics, but I would define it as the complete absence of space-time/energy/matter/anti-matter. Not sure if that covers it all?

Of course it doesn't. You can only define nothing as an absence of things you know about.

So it's a human construct. Which is where the argument "how you can something from nothing?" falls apart.

Something and nothing could be the exact same thing, but it may just appear as "nothing" because you can't detect the "something".

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Of course it doesn't. You can only define nothing as an absence of things you know about.

So it's a human construct. Which is where the argument "how you can something from nothing?" falls apart.

Something and nothing could be the exact same thing, but it may just appear as "nothing" because you can't detect the "something".

So you think the universe could be inflating into something? Are any scientists making this claim?

EDIT: Couldn't we define nothing as the absence of everything, known and unknown?

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

So you think the universe could be inflating into something? Are any scientists making this claim?

Eh?

kelly1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Eh?

Tim, have I misunderstood you?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

[...]

Noel, did this post answer your question?

Zillah

Nothing isn't.

kelly1

I'll have to read the paper again but it's way beyond my knowledge. To be honest I'm going mostly by the quotation from Vilenkin's book i.e.

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 (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

robindch wrote: »

If BGV are correct, then what has changed is the mathematical model, which is the mapping of mathematics to physical reality. And that shouldn't surprise anybody, since the physics would appear to be quite different.

How can the model change before and after the big-bang? Is that what you're saying? I'd say the model is wrong and therefore needs modification, not that it changes at the instant of the big-bang.

Zillah

Edit: Clarification clarified!

What he's saying is that it actually changes, not that it was wrong all along. Welcome to the wacky world of physics.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

I'll have to read the paper again but it's way beyond my knowledge. To be honest I'm going mostly by the quotation from Vilenkin's book i.e.

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 (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

The thing is though that they had already faced the problem of a cosmic beginning and that hadn't led them to belief in the supernatural

I had heard the hypothesis of past-eternal universes but I don't think it was ever accepted as the leading theory. No one really knows. The possibilities are not as simple as eternal universe or god exists

kelly1 wrote: »

How can the model change before and after the big-bang? Is that what you're saying? I'd say the model needs modification, not that it changes.

Say you want to describe a ball rolling down a hill. You could develop a model that describes it's increasing velocity based on its air resistance, weight, objects in the way, the slope of the hill etc. Basically you account for all the factors involved

But if you want to describe the same ball bouncing down the hill, your rolling model doesn't work anymore and you have a whole new set of factors to account for.

My understanding is that the normal model describes an expanding universe only but 'before' the big bang it wasn't expanding so the model that only works if it's expanding doesn't work anymore.

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

More seriously, Noel, do you see how the Uber-Space idea can suggest that God is not an inevitable conclusion even if we know the universe as we know it had a beginning?

Probably not inevitable but surely it would be up there on a par in probability if not more probable than any other hypotheses which try to explain the origin of the universe? If all matter, energy, space and time just popping into existence at a finite time in the past from absolutely nothing at all cannot be defined as miraculous then what can?

All the scientific evidence seems to be pointing in that direction. The universe began to exist at a finite time in the past. So if it began to exist then it must have had a cause, and if it had a cause then it must also have a causer, and as the causer cannot not be part of the universe it caused (because it existed before the universe) then it must be immaterial, timeless, space-less and personal. Timeless (or eternal) because time began to exist at this moment. Iimmaterial because matter began to exist too. Personal because in its eternal state it freely chose to create something inconsistent with its own eternal nature, something temporal or something not eternal, the universe.

Only an unimaginably powerful force which can transcend space and time could have done it. No natural force could have done it because there was no such thing as nature, just like there was no such thing as the laws of physics. A transcendent personal force of this kind of unimaginable power sounds a lot like what we would call a God no? This doesn't prove that God exists of course but the God hypotheses is a much better explanation for the origin of the universe than any of the naturalistic explanations. I'd concede that even if I didn't believe in God.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Probably not inevitable but surely it would be up there on a par in probability if not more probable than any other hypotheses which try to explain the origin of the universe? If all matter, energy, space and time just popping into existence at a finite time in the past from absolutely nothing at all cannot be defined as miraculous then what can?

All the scientific evidence seems to be pointing in that direction. The universe began to exist at a finite time in the past. So if it began to exist then it must have had a cause and if it had a cause then it must also have a causer, and as the causer cannot not be part of the universe it caused (because it existed before the universe) then it must be immaterial, timeless, space-less and personal. Timeless (or eternal) because time began to exist at this moment. Iimmaterial because matter began to exist too. Personal because in its eternal state it freely chose to create something inconsistent with its own eternal nature, something temporal or something not eternal, the universe.

Only an unimaginably powerful force which can transcend space and time could have done it. No natural force could have done it because there was no such thing as nature, just like there was no such thing as the laws of physics. A transcendent personal force of this kind of unimaginable power sounds a lot like what we would call a God no? This doesn't prove that God exists of course but the God hypotheses is a much better explanation for the origin of the universe than any of the naturalistic explanations. I'd concede that even if I didn't believe in God.

Ah the cosmological argument. I repeat, that argument is:

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah the cosmological argument. I repeat, that argument is:

I didn't read all the posts in this thread so if would be so kind as to direct me to where you destroyed the cosmological argument or just repeat it again here for little old me please

Sam Vimes

If you want me to go point by point:

Soul Winner wrote: »

If all matter, energy, space and time just popping into existence at a finite time in the past from absolutely nothing at all cannot be defined as miraculous then what can

No one said "from nothing". Just because it's not what we define as matter does not mean it's nothing. An unfounded assumption.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if it began to exist then it must have had a cause, and if it had a cause then it must also have a causer, and as the causer cannot not be part of the universe it caused (because it existed before the universe)

The word causer makes it personal, which it need not be. Also we have no reason to believe that what we know as cause and effect even applied before the big bang, or even that the word 'before' applied

Soul Winner wrote: »

then it must be immaterial, timeless, space-less and personal.

immaterial, timeless and space-less only to our extremely limited understanding. There is nothing to suggest that it's personal

Soul Winner wrote: »

Timeless (or eternal) because time began to exist at this moment.

As we know it

Soul Winner wrote: »

Iimmaterial because matter began to exist too.

As we know it

Soul Winner wrote: »

Personal because in its eternal state it freely chose to create something inconsistent with its own eternal nature, something temporal or something not eternal, the universe.

Baseless wishful thinking. I can see no connection between "something happened" and "it must be a personal being". Stuff happens all the time that does not require a personal being

Soul Winner wrote: »

Only an unimaginably powerful force which can transcend space and time could have done it.

Baselss assumption

Soul Winner wrote: »

No natural force could have done it because there was no such thing as nature,

As we know it

Soul Winner wrote: »

just like there was no such thing as the laws of physics.

As we know them/baseless assumption

Soul Winner wrote: »

A transcendent personal force of this kind of unimaginable power sounds a lot like what we would call a God no?

No, you say God had a son called Jesus and doesn't like homosexuality. I see no connection. At most it suggests "creator"


Basically you're applying 21st century understanding, and not even well schooled 21st century understanding to something that is far beyond our comprehension and making assumptions that cannot be made to come to a conclusion that it is currently impossible to logically come to

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

How can the model change before and after the big-bang?

For the same reasons that you decide to paint a room blue instead of red -- because it suits better.

I have to say that you're making very, very heavy weather of the main point here (which isn't all that difficult). Out of interest, have you read a book on cosmology that's written by a cosmologist, rather than a religious person?

I suspect that a lot of the difficult that you're having is that you're making a sincere effort to synchronize what people like Craig have told you with what cosmologists (and ourselves) are telling you. I have a fairly good suspicion that this is actually impossible. So if you want to understand what cosmologists are really saying about the big bang, I would recommend that you put Craig's book back on the shelf and read a book about cosmology that's written by a cosmologist.

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

Probably not inevitable but surely it would be up there on a par in probability if not more probable than any other hypotheses which try to explain the origin of the universe?

For now they're all baseless guesses. We should mock and ridicule anyone who takes any of these guesses seriously.

If all matter, energy, space and time just popping into existence at a finite time in the past from absolutely nothing at all cannot be defined as miraculous then what can?

Nothing. "Miracle" is a stupid code for "I don't understand".

The universe began to exist at a finite time in the past.

The universe as we know it began to exist at a finite point in the past. That doesn't mean that there can't be some greater universe above and beyond what we can detect, such as the Uber-Space.

So if it began to exist then it must have had a cause

Why? Do you have knowledge of the nothing before cause and effect as a principle came into being? Who are you to so baselessly assert that the concept of cause and effect needs a cause?

Personal because in its eternal state it freely chose to create something inconsistent with its own eternal nature, something temporal or something not eternal, the universe.

I'm having trouble fathoming just how wrong this logic is. Why, by Odin's wise ravens, would it have to be personal? This is so retardedly circular. It must be personal because it chose to do something and it had to choose to do it because its personal...

Only an unimaginably powerful force which can transcend space and time could have done it. No natural force could have done it because there was no such thing as nature, just like there was no such thing as the laws of physics.

You seem to know a lot about the nature of the pre-big-bang non-space for some guy on the internet. You should send your paper that explains the nature of cause and effect in a non casual timeless nothing to MIT, I'm sure they'd be quite appreciative.

Goduznt Xzst

Soul Winner wrote: »

I didn't read all the posts in this thread so if would be so kind as to direct me to where you destroyed the cosmological argument or just repeat it again here for little old me please

I fear this will be like telling my nephew that his invisible friend does not exist and for my nephew to then request to see the body before accepting it.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

All the scientific evidence seems to be pointing in that direction. The universe began to exist at a finite time in the past. So if it began to exist then it must have had a cause, and if it had a cause then it must also have a causer, and as the causer cannot not be part of the universe it caused (because it existed before the universe) then it must be immaterial, timeless, space-less and personal. Timeless (or eternal) because time began to exist at this moment.

Sam Vimes

You and me both acknowledge that what we perceive as the beginning of the universe is beyond our comprehension but the difference between our positions is you say that it must by definition be supernatural with all the connotations that that word brings (ie God must have done it because the rules don't apply to him) and I'm saying we don't know enough about the universe to make that assumption. IT could be 'natural' but our understanding of natural could be wrong. Basically it doesn't have to be a god

I'd go as far as to say that just because the rules of the universe as we understand them don't apply to something does not mean it's a God. So it would technically be supernatural, as in outside nature, but without all the attached connotations like hearing prayers etc. String theory says there are 11 dimensions but we can't perceive anything outside out normal 4 (the 4th being time). That does not automatically mean these things are gods

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you want me to go point by point:

No one said "from nothing". Just because it's not what we define as matter does not mean it's nothing. An unfounded assumption.


The word causer makes it personal, which it need not be. Also we have no reason to believe that what we know as cause and effect even applied before the big bang, or even that the word 'before' applied


immaterial, timeless and space-less only to our extremely limited understanding. There is nothing to suggest that it's personal


As we know it

As we know it


Baseless wishful thinking. I can see no connection between "something happened" and "it must be a personal being". Stuff happens all the time that does not require a personal being


Baselss assumption


As we know it


As we know them/baseless assumption


No, you say God had a son called Jesus and doesn't like homosexuality. I see no connection. At most it suggests "creator"


Basically you're applying 21st century understanding, and not even well schooled 21st century understanding to something that is far beyond our comprehension and making assumptions that cannot be made to come to a conclusion that it is currently impossible to logically come to

Read my post again. I specifically called it a hypotheses which has as much going for it (more even) as the other naturalistic hypotheses.

pts

Soul Winner wrote: »

Read my post again. I specifically called it a hypotheses which has as much going for it (more even) as the other naturalistic hypotheses.

No it doesn't, do you know why? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING (sorry for the bolding and caps, but so many people have patiently explained their counter arguments so often in this thread, just to have them ignored that I felt it was justifed)

"God did it" does not in any way explain anything!

Sam Vimes

A better way of putting it:

i can see why the cosmological argument seems convincing (except for the personal bit. I don't follow it). The creation of the universe seems impossible to us and the only thing we know of that can do the impossible is a god.

But the important word there is 'seems'. We have no idea what's possible and impossible on a universal scale, our limited understanding simply cannot be applied to it. And just because something appears to break the laws of nature or even if it does break the laws of this particular universe, does not mean we should automatically assign it the title of god, with all the connotations that brings such as omnipotence, omniscience and most importantly the bible

The cosmological argument is not as valid as any other hypothesis because it makes a number of assumptions that cannot logically be made and some others that make no sense, such as the personal part

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

Read my post again. I specifically called it a hypotheses which has as much going for it (more even) as the other naturalistic hypotheses.

1 - We have no good hypotheses yet, let's just stick with "I don't know" until we have more information.
2 - It is worse than other hypotheses because of the amount of assumptions and logical jumps required.

The most egregious of which are the assertions that it must be all powerful, benevolent, personal and intelligent. Even if we accept the concept of a supernatural creator of some sort, that creator doesn't need to be all powerful, it needs to be exactly powerful enough to cause a big bang, nothing more. It doesn't need to be intelligent, it just needs to trigger a big bang for any or no reason. It doesn't need to be benevolent because...well it just doesn't, at all, it could be evil beyond belief. Nor does it need to be personal, once again, simply because that isn't required, it's a baseless assertion.

And this doesn't even come anywhere near the whole Jesus/praying/heaven stuff either.

JC 2K3

Soul Winner wrote: »

if it had a cause then it must also have a causer

Stop there.

Why?

eoin5

Soul Winner wrote: »

Read my post again. I specifically called it a hypotheses which has as much going for it (more even) as the other naturalistic hypotheses.

It contains a contradiction that invalidates it completely. Everything has a cause and yet the original creator doesnt?! At least some others are consistant within themselves like the serial multiverse hypothesis. I think its reasonable to hold the belief where there is an original creator as its still anyones guess but wouldnt "I believe an original creator did it because thats what I want to believe untill the evidence is in?" be much better than contradictory logic?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Probably not inevitable but surely it would be up there on a par in probability if not more probable than any other hypotheses which try to explain the origin of the universe?

Why?

Given the disconnect between how humans tend to view the universe and how the universe actually is, I find it highly unlikely that a human like concept of an intelligence creating something for some purpose to be a probable explanation to the formation of this universe.

The only reason such a hypotheses is appealing is because it is pleasing to our way of thinking, it has nothing to do with how likely it is.

If we ever do find out what process, if any, formed the universe as we understand it, I would imagine (going on past discoveries) that it will be mind bendingly unnatural and difficult for humans to imagine or think about.

You can see this already with theories such as M-Theory (a wider field encompassing string theory), where dimensions jump to much higher numbers and you start viewing the universe in very weird ways.

To say that it is likely that all this around us comes down to a human like intelligence doing a human like thing for a human like reason (thus making it easy for humans to understand and process) would seem wishful thinking on an extreme level.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If all matter, energy, space and time just popping into existence at a finite time in the past from absolutely nothing at all cannot be defined as miraculous then what can?

Depends on how you define a miracle.

Do you accept that mircles could happen without a god producing them? If not then you are just setting up a circular argument (that was a miracle, miracles can't exist without God, therefore God exists), which supposes things you can't determine (such as miracles cannot happen without God)

If you can accept that miraclous things can happen without needing a god then you obviously don't need a god for them to take place.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The universe began to exist at a finite time in the past.

But time began to exist also, so a finite time in the past becomes some what of a troubling concept.

In fact it is possible that the universe formed due to something that happened after the universe formed, given that time may not be linear.

You can say that something in the future cannot cause something in the past to happen, but that is simply human experience. We don't know if that is true and certain models appear to work where it isn't true.

So if you ask What causes the universe to be created? and the answer The universe (more specifically something that happened in the universe, say 2 microseconds after the universe was formed) how does that work in terms of the probability of a creator? How does that work with humans visualising and thinking about the formation of the universe.

Such models, while not been demonstrated accurate enough to be called theories, certain would lead me to my conclusion above, that what ever took place to form the universe I find it highly unlikely that it is going to be some easy to understand and relate to event such as Intelligence X created Universe Y for reason Z

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if it began to exist then it must have had a cause, and if it had a cause then it must also have a causer, and as the causer cannot not be part of the universe it caused (because it existed before the universe) then it must be immaterial, timeless, space-less and personal.

That is all a bit of a leap. What do you mean by "causer". That to me would imply a human like intelligence, and at the moment you have presented no real reason to believe that this is what must have caused the universe.

If the universe was caused by two higher dimensional branes collapsing into each other (an idea from M-theory) would you call these a "causer", considering they are "just" fields of interdimensional energy with no purpose or intelligence behind them? They didn't choose to create the universe, they just did.

Your assumption that the causer must exist "outside" of the universe it caused is also rather unfouned. For a start "outside" starts to have little meaning beyond rather complex mathematical models. There is certainly no outside as we would imagine it.

Also, as I stated above, it is possible (though whether or not likely is unknown) that an event inside the universe, which took place after the universe formed, "caused" the universe to form.

This is mathematically possible with some versions of physics models.

So basically all your assumptions fall out the window when we start applying them to very alien events such as the Big Bang. These are not events that human intuition about the universe and how it should work can help us with. Again this to me would suggest that it is rather unlikely that any answer we discover is going to fit a nice human idea of how things happen.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Only an unimaginably powerful force which can transcend space and time could have done it. No natural force could have done it because there was no such thing as nature, just like there was no such thing as the laws of physics. A transcendent personal force of this kind of unimaginable power sounds a lot like what we would call a God no?

No, actually it doesn't sound anything like what you would call God, which is my whole point.

What you call "God" is a human like being that does human like things for rather human like reasons, which makes him relatable to humans (surprisingly enough).

What reason is there to think that a fundamental force would be anything like a human, which is ultimately what this boils down to. Not like a god, since are gods as a concept, are simply powerful versions of humans, but like a human.

(the answer that God made us like him is circular and avoiding the issue since you can't demonstrate that without supposing that God exists in the first place)

We have a desire to view things as human like simply because that makes them easier to understand. In the case of things like the Big Bang, a huge amount easier to understand.

But if physics has taught us nothing in the last 100 years it is that the universe is not actually human like. Day to day we see a very particularly view of the universe framed in a very particularly way which is actually very restrictive in what is exposed to us.

How we think the universe works is not how it works. This has causes a lot of problems for scientists over the last 100 years but realising this has also opened up secrets of the universe that we could not have possibly imagined before we started looking properly.

So I've no idea that fundamental process produced the universe, but I can be almost certain that it will not turn out to be human like, it will not turn out to be something humans can easily understand and relate to. It is going to be something that we all sit back and look at and go "Wow, that is really really freaking weird"

Sam Vimes

In light of the above cogent arguments I would like to refer the honorable gentleman to my previous statement on the matter:

That argument is:

Mark Hamill

Soul Winner wrote: »

and if it had a cause then it must also have a causer,

Lightning has a cause.... So which thunder god do you believe in? (I like Thor, he has a big hammer)

Soul Winner wrote: »

and as the causer cannot not be part of the universe it caused (because it existed before the universe) then it must be immaterial, timeless, space-less and personal. Timeless (or eternal) because time began to exist at this moment. Iimmaterial because matter began to exist too. Personal because in its eternal state it freely chose to create something inconsistent with its own eternal nature, something temporal or something not eternal, the universe.

How do you know the part in bold? How do you know that the causer made a free choice? (just assuming there was a causer). How do you know the causer wasn't restricted in some way?