Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem...

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

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

Yes, I know you do. And I mentioned why you are making this basic cognitive error in this post.

And regardless of how personally upsetting it is not to know something, the universe does not owe us an explanation for anything. On the contrary, it's entirely up to us to find out what's going on by hard work and application. And until we do, the only honest answer is "we don't know".

Though you will find many clerics who make an good, and occasionally excellent, living by inventing silly answers, dressing them up in fancy words, then selling them to people who don't know any better.

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...

As you believe that admitting that one doesn't know something is "illogical", would you mind telling us what will be the winning numbers for next Saturday's Lotto?

kelly1

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.

So assuming the theorem is correct, can someone please point out the flaw in my reasoning?

Naz_st

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...

Hold on a second - you think that it's illogical to say "I don't know" when asked a question to which there is no known answer?

Actually, this statement typifies thousands of years of religious thinking and indoctrination and is one of the main reasons why religion and science often find themselves at loggerheads. It is precisely by saying "I don't know" and attempting to find out the answer that science progresses. The religious approach of simply making sh1t up and claiming "God did it" for any unexplained phenomenon really gets us nowhere. If our scientists throughout history inserted "God did it" in place of "I don't know" then we would really know jack sh1t about how the world works. No physics, computers, electricity, space exploration, etc. And we'd have some very short phd papers:

Title: How gravity works
Abstract: God makes it work.
Full paper: God makes it work.

Sam Vimes

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.

So assuming the theorem is correct, can someone please point out the flaw in my reasoning?

The implication of this is that we have no idea what brought the universe into being.

We were all already of the opinion that the universe most likely had a beginning because we've all heard of the big bang. Do you think you are bringing us some brand new idea that we never thought of and you're now going to convert us all?

toiletduck

kelly1 wrote: »

. 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.

So assuming the theorem is correct, can someone please point out the flaw in my reasoning?

The part in bold. A massive leap right there into wild assumptions.

By and by, a google search on said theorem puts this thread a few times on the first page :pac:

toiletduck

Naz_st wrote: »

Title: How gravity works
Abstract: God makes it work.
Full paper: God makes it work.

Citations:
[1] The Bible

robindch

toiletduck wrote: »

a google search on said theorem puts this thread a few times on the first page :pac:

Ah, we in A+A like to think we're on the cutting edge

pinksoir

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.

So assuming the theorem is correct, can someone please point out the flaw in my reasoning?

How did this non-natural non-physical being bring matter into existence? Are you saying that it created matter from non-matter? How did it do this?

Sam Vimes

pinksoir wrote: »

How did this non-natural non-physical being bring matter into existence? Are you saying that it created matter from non-matter? How did it do this?

Magic, presumably

CerebralCortex

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.

So assuming the theorem is correct, can someone please point out the flaw in my reasoning?

Highlighted it for ya.

Edit someone else pointed it out.

pinksoir

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Magic, presumably

Oh, ok then. No more questions, your honour.

toiletduck

robindch wrote: »

Ah, we in A+A like to think we're on the cutting edge

Indeed. Interesting though that most of the results (for a paper that's been around a while, 2001) are creationist, Christian apologetic sites and of course our beloved A&A.

kelly1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The implication of this is that we have no idea what brought the universe into being.

But how can the cause be physical? If the cause were physical, then we'd be talking about a change of state, not creation from nothing. Is that not a reasonable and logical argument?

Again in the context of the theorem being true...

pinksoir wrote: »

How did this non-natural non-physical being bring matter into existence? Are you saying that it created matter from non-matter? How did it do this?

Yes I'm saying that the creator must have created matter out of nothing. But don't ask me to explain this!

EDIT: CerebralCortext, when I say supernatural, I mean something which has existence but is not physical/natural/created.

The Mad Hatter

The universe had a beginning.
Therefore there must have been something before the beginning of the unvierse (whatever that means).
We don't know what that something was.
Therefore god.

You don't see where this line of thinking falls down? Really?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

But how can the cause be physical? If the cause were physical, then we'd be talking about a change of state, not creation from nothing. Is that not a reasonable and logical argument?

Again in the context of the theorem being true...

Is that what the theorem actually says?

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

But how can the cause be physical? If the cause were physical, then we'd be talking about a change of state, not creation from nothing. Is that not a reasonable and logical argument?

Again in the context of the theorem being true...

EDIT: CerebralCortext, when I say supernatural, I mean something which has existence but is not physical/natural/created.

I don't know. That is the only answer you're going to get from any of us because it's the only answer that it is humanly possible to give. Just because the idea of a God fits nicely into your brain does not mean that one actually exists.

Think about it this way kelly1. The words natural and supernatural are just labels that humans apply to phenomena. Just because something appears to us to be breaking the laws of nature and is completely beyond our comprehension, does not mean that it is supernatural in the way that humans mean the word.

Even if we were to accept that the laws of nature as we know them were broken in order for the universe to come into being, it is a massive leap in logic to assign the word "God", with all the connotations that implies, to whatever it was that apparently broke the laws. It may not have broken the laws at all and in all likelihood we just don't understand the laws properly

kelly1

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The implication of this is that we have no idea what brought the universe into being.

I think you can do better than that. Maybe you don't like the logical conclusion?

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

I think you can do better than that. Maybe you don't like the logical conclusion?

The only people who can currently do better than that are religious people. They don't come to the logical conclusion, instead they make one up.

I know that it's not satisfying to you to be left with the answer "I don't know" but unfortunately, human beings are not currently equipped to come to any logical conclusion to that question.


Also, even if I were to absolutely accept that a supernatural being created the universe, how do you get from that to accepting a bronze age story book as being the nature of this being? Do you honestly think that is the logical conclusion?

pinksoir

kelly1 wrote: »

I think you can do better than that. Maybe you don't like the logical conclusion?

Look it, our brains cannot possibly conceive of what existed 'before' the universe. Even the term 'before' is the wrong use of language. We are temporal, spacial beings and as a result our minds can only understand things in terms of the temporal and spacial. We will in all likeliness never understand what brought the universe into being.

Saying that it is some non-physical, non-natural being/entity explains nothing, nor is it a logical conclusion. All that it does is raise more questions. How did this entity create matter from non-matter? What are the properties of this entity if it is non-physical? The answer to these questions is obviously "I don't know".

The Mad Hatter

kelly1 wrote: »

I think you can do better than that. Maybe you don't like the logical conclusion?

You've already had several other scenarios suggested, each as unlikely as another and each as unlikely as your own. The only logical - and the only honest - thing we can say is 'we don't know'. To say anything else is guesswork at best and flagrantly dishonest at worst.

pts

Hi Noel, I've posted this comic before, but it is very appropriate for this discussion.



It is a bit tongue in cheek, but what it says is very true. Religion is probably our collective way of explaining things we don't understand. However we are not actually explaining anything. You can't label something supernatural, and say that that is an explanation, it isn't. If you can explain how God created the Universe, then the God hypothesis would carry some weight.

"I don't know" is therefore not only a better answer, but the only intelectually honest one too.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

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

<cough>!

kelly1 wrote: »

According the BGK theorem, the universe began at some finite time in the past

I'm no cosmologist, but my reading of the end of the abstract:

BGV wrote:

Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.

...suggests in fairly basic language that if they're right, then the standard mathematical model (describing inflation) which applies after the big bang does not apply before the big bang.

kelly1 wrote: »

So assuming the theorem is correct, can someone please point out the flaw in my reasoning?

Assuming that the BGV mathematical model is correct, then the flaw in your reasoning is that you appear to believe that a non-inflationary mathematical model as predicted by BGV predicts the existence of your deity.

BGV doesn't say that. It just says that the maths before the standard model of the big bang are different to the maths after it. There's nothing weird about that, and there are certainly no deistic implications at all.

The whole thing is just a case of Mr Craig and his friends taking something they don't understand, dressing it up in confusing and unhelpful language, solely for the purpose of making it look like it supports the pre-ordained conclusion they want to reach. Nothing weird about that either. Happens all the time.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

BGV doesn't say that. It just says that the maths before the standard model of the big bang are different to the maths after it. There's nothing weird about that, and there are certainly no deistic implications at all.

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.

DapperGent

I personally would like to apologise for my bullshít illiteracy.

Rev Hellfire

kelly1 wrote: »

I think it's unforunate that you won't engage in any kind philosophical argument.

You're confusing debating on a philosophical level with blindly agreeing with you.

Sam Vimes

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 to put forward the hypothesis that a supernatural being might exist, all of us I'm sure will accept that because we don't know enough about the universe to rule that out.

However, if you want to say that a supernatural being must exist, we will ask you to back up that assertion with something other than "the universe was created, therefore a supernatural being exists" and wordplay with the words natural and supernatural

And if you want to make the leap from "a supernatural being exists" to "the bible is true" and suggest that one adds any validity to the other we'll collectively do a facepalm and walk away from the thread

kelly1

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

You're confusing debating on a philosophical level with blindly agreeing with you.

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.

Sam Vimes

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.

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.

So assuming the theorem is correct, can someone please point out the flaw in my reasoning?

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?

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

CerebralCortex

See post #143.

Sam Vimes

CerebralCortex wrote: »

See post #143.

See the entire thread tbh. We're just repeating ourselves because kelly1 doesn't like the answers he's getting