What if a god does exist?

[Deleted member 619]

Many physicists and cosmologists seem to think the Universe, our Universe, and Time, our time, has a beginning.

Very few, actually. Here's Alan Guth, formulator of the currently most widely-accepted iteration of Big Bang theory, namely inflationary cosmology, on that very point:

So far, it's been made to sound, I think for the purposes of simplifying things, that until the cyclic model, all scientists had believed that the big bang was the origin of time itself. That idea is certainly part of the classic theory of the big bang, but it's an idea which I think most cosmologists have not taken seriously in quite a while. That is, the idea that there's something that happened before what we call the big bang has been around for quite a number of years... In what I would regard as the conventional version of the inflationary theory, the Big Bang was also not in that theory the origin of everything but rather one had a very long period of this exponential expansion of the universe, which is what inflation means, and, at different points, different pieces of this inflating universe had stopped inflating and become what I sometimes call pocket universes.

He goes on to say:

What we call the Big Bang was almost certainly not the actual origin of time in either of the theories that we’re talking about. … The main difference I think [between the inflationary theory and Neil and Paul's theory] is the answer to the question of what is it that made the universe large and smooth everything out. … The inflationary version of cosmology is not cyclic. … It goes on literally forever with new universes being created in other places. The inflationary prediction is that our region of the universe would become ultimately empty and void but meanwhile other universes would sprout out in other places in this multiverse.

Source, an interesting radio interview with Alan Guth and Neil Turok.

The idea that time began at the big bang actually stems from the singularity theorem of Hawking and Penrose. The problems with it are many, stemming from the fact that their theorem didn't take quantum effects into account. Neither man supports the conclusion any longer. The most that can be said is that if our local cosmic expanse began with a singularity, then the singularity didn't experience time, saying nothing about whether time exists for other entities apart from the singularity. Thing is, though, that QM tells us that the singularity is asymptotic.

Until we have a quantum theory of gravity, this will remain very much an open question.

 

[australopithecus]

As Austra (or "the man who used to have a cool avatar") [...]

Wait, what?

 

[tuxbox]

...and Hawking has a track record with being wrong about stuff. Regardless, my point stands. No one knows.

WHAT! That is just freakin blasphemy.

 

[australopithecus]

WHAT! That is just freakin blasphemy.

No.

Perhaps you should read Hack's posts.

 

[tuxbox]

WHAT! That is just freakin blasphemy.

No.

Perhaps you should read Hack's posts.

I did read his post and if he is correct, then Hawking needs to update his website.

 

[tuxbox]

I take that back, I just need to read more of it... Sorry, my bad.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

WHAT! That is just freakin blasphemy.

No.

Perhaps you should read Hack's posts.

Perhaps you all should read 'MANY WORLDS INTERPRETATION' by Alexander Vilenkin -"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" (p. 176).

 

[australopithecus]

Perhaps you all should read 'MANY WORLDS INTERPRETATION' by Alexander Vilenkin -"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" (p. 176).

Joe appears to be a WLC fan boy. Also, what was being discussed was if time predated the Big Bang, not "did the universe have a beginning".

Funny how you miss this part of the quote of, Joey...

So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.

Or Vilenkin's further explanation:

f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

...and regardless, they're asserting that the universe had a beginning, not that there was "nothing" before the universe. In fact, Vilenkin wrote a nice little paper about how the universe could arise from quantum mechanical processes in 1982. I imagine it's not too dissimilar to Krauss' hypothesis that you've still yet to refute, Joe. Perhaps you can refute Vilenkin's instead?

Vilenkin's paper contends there was a prior quantum mechanical state from which the universe arose. No deity required.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Perhaps you all should read 'MANY WORLDS INTERPRETATION' by Alexander Vilenkin -"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" (p. 176).

Bzzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing.

The problem with citing BVG theorem in this is that it specifically applies only to inflationary cosmologies, and shows that, due to entropy, they must be complete in the past time direction.

Not all cosmologies are inflationary cosmologies. Moreover, the problem only lies in the generation of a low-entropy inflaton field, something for which there may yet be a mechanism.

Gotta love people who steal their arguments from idiots like Kalamity Kraig and Frank Turek. Really lets you know your opponent has prepared...

NOT!

Edit: Incidentally, the many-worlds interpretation is not Vilenkin's, but Hugh Everett's. Vilenkin did write a book called Many Worlds in One. Available in most good bookshops, and a few rubbish ones.

 

[Frenger]

If posting a video is considered objective enough then I guess I should address the video then.

Not only was the video linked, but Infy very kindly linked you his outline of the theory here and here, as well as abrief synopsis of it.

So, there you go. No video to watch, just you and the text. The link I set up for you to debunk the theory is here . Enjoy!

I just don't think you guys even understand what Krauss is saying in the video.

I'm not a physicist, but yes, I did understand what he was saying.

I gave the chance for someone to tell me what his hypothesis is and got no response just a video

You actually got all those outlines from Infy. You must have missed them the first, second and third time. Happy to help.

It's suspicious to me. Why waste time refuting something that the person posing the argument does not understand his own argument? Ya Know?

The reason, my side stepping little friend, was because you said it was wrong, you also said you understood it so why do you need anyone to outline it again for you? Would that not be an insult to your intellect?

what is krauss's hypothesis in his video? Does anyone know? I have seen the video a while back and it's nothing but a huge conflation of theories.

It does seem odd to me that you claim to know the theory, claim everyone else has no understanding of it and then ask "what is Krauss's hypothesis in his video? Does anyone know?".

Yes, we do know and more importantly, we know you don't. You happened to show everybody this when you wrote;

what is the hypothesis of Krauss? Please explain and I'd be happy to debunk his nonsense.

The reason I ask what I Krauss's hyposthesis is because I don't think that you understand what he is even talking about. I happen to know what his theory is already, I just want to see if you understand it. So give me something to work with other than a video

Laurence Kraus has a theory called 'Something Form nothing' where in his explanation he states that long ago all that existed where numbers. All these numbers swirled around until they started forming into mathematic formulas and eventually the mathematic formulas formed the universe

Therefore something came from nothing.

There is an easy way out of this Joe, it's simple. All you need to do is say "I don't know". Or you could carry on with this ridiculous façade and I can keep my appointment to have my sides reattached from all the LOLZ you're providing.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Ever play Sudoku? You know how if one number is wrong somewhere you almost have to completely start over? When doing science and coming up with theories it is nearly impossible to ever have anything that should ever be consider true or factual. Unlike Sudoku, science is far more complex and leads to acrimonious attitudes. The only thing that should be considered factual about quantum theorem is the fact that it has more holes in it Tupac and that it is so far from reality that it is baseless to even think of considering it to be anything other than a myth. Just like the ancient myths of the Egyptians one day theorems of quantum mechanics will be looked back on and future people will wonder at the dogma that stemmed from smashing atoms just like the we see the dogma of the Mayans believing that smashing babies on rocks would keep the sun from going away.
If you want to place unreasonable faith in the myths of Vilenkin and his comrades than that is your peril. I prefer the use of logic and sound reasoning.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Re: What if a god does exist?
Josephhasfun01 wroteerhaps you all should read 'MANY WORLDS INTERPRETATION' by Alexander Vilenkin -"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" (p. 176).

Joe appears to be a WLC fan boy. Also, what was being discussed was if time predated the Big Bang, not "did the universe have a beginning".

Funny how you miss this part of the quote of, Joey...

Vilenkin wrote:” Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.

Actually I did not miss it. I rather left it for you to bring up. I was hoping you would.
Let’s look at this quote of Vilenkin’s:

“So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic.

Too simplistic? Ever since the big ‘rave’ over quantum level particles Ockham’s razor can say goodbye because only incoherent logical paradox’s are accepted in secular science anymore. I could fill up a hundred thousand pages with face palms and it still would not do justice for this atrocious philosophy that is being done. I find it hypocritical for atheists to claim to be logically superior when they have to repudiate classical logic in order to posit that there is no need for a theistic deity to create the universe. Talk about grasping at strings! Literal string theories at that! You have the right to be Godless but why all the effort to repudiate His existence. It’s undeniable! All you can do is suppress.

I also found it amusing that there is a website dedicated to debunking WLC. However I see that it fails at its’ objective. I digress. It has it’s work cut out for them I will grant it that. That work load is equivalent to asking a little kid to pick a hundred acre bean field in 1 hour.

Or Vilenkin's further explanation:

Vilenkin wrote:f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.


...and regardless, they're asserting that the universe had a beginning, not that there was "nothing" before the universe. In fact, Vilenkin wrote a nice little paper about how the universe could arise from quantum mechanical processes in 1982. I imagine it's not too dissimilar to Krauss' hypothesis that you've still yet to refute, Joe. Perhaps you can refute Vilenkin's instead?

There is much I have still yet to do. I have a project I am working on write now that won’t be done any time soon. Refuting the quantum mechanical theories of Krauss and Vilenkin or Everette, borde, and guth is pointless as they are self-refuting. You might as well ask me why the tooth fairy doesn’t exist. I simply don’t care to waste my time with baseless meaningless things.

Vilenkin's paper contends there was a prior quantum mechanical state from which the universe arose. No deity required.

How about you keep your faith in inexplicable nerd science paradoxes’ and I will leave you to it? I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.

 

[australopithecus]

Joe used splash. It's not very effective.

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Joe used splash. It's not very effective.

the beauty of it is in the eye of the beholder

 

[australopithecus]

Good news, Joe. I've just made sure you can't retroactively edit any of your posts. Ever.

 

[Frenger]

Ever play Sudoku? You know how if one number is wrong somewhere you almost have to completely start over? When doing science and coming up with theories it is nearly impossible to ever have anything that should ever be consider true or factual. Unlike Sudoku, science is far more complex and leads to acrimonious attitudes. The only thing that should be considered factual about quantum theorem is the fact that it has more holes in it Tupac and that it is so far from reality that it is baseless to even think of considering it to be anything other than a myth. Just like the ancient myths of the Egyptians one day theorems of quantum mechanics will be looked back on and future people will wonder at the dogma that stemmed from smashing atoms just like the we see the dogma of the Mayans believing that smashing babies on rocks would keep the sun from going away.
If you want to place unreasonable faith in the myths of Vilenkin and his comrades than that is your peril. I prefer the use of logic and sound reasoning.

We've been through this Joe, if you don't like quantum mechanics, turn your computer off.

If you do that, it'll give you a nice excuse as to why you continue to ignore the Lawrence Krauss debunking thread that I kindly set up for you. Although you seem to be doing ok so far without an excuse.

 

[australopithecus]

Perhaps Joe would be so kind as to point out exactly what these myths of quantum mechanics are exactly?

 

[Josephhasfun01]

Good news, Joe. I've just made sure you can't retroactively edit any of your posts. Ever.

congradulations to you. You must be so proud of your accoplishment!

 

[australopithecus]

Thanks, I am. Now, those myths of QM you referred to? Any chance of you listing them?

 

[Frenger]

Thanks, I am. Now, those myths of QM you referred to? Any chance of you listing them?

Hey, get in line, I'm still waiting for Joseph to debunk Krauss here

I suppose first I'll have to wait for Joe to actually understand what it is he is trying to debunk, but hey, something tells me you're in the same boat.