This needs to be corrected as energy must be expended to take your rock above the earth. This line of reasoning is difficult, as we accept the conservation of matter and energy. Our difficulty stems from our inability to obtain an accurate measure of the total mass and energy in the universe.
@ManiacalVesalius,
Thank you for your comment and support.
Do I understand this right? He postulates a âboundaryâ at the beginning of something that does not exist in space and time which do not exist.
Past-eternal is an expression that I am not familiar with. Could you explain.
Which is why I asked what the basis was. How could I have been clearer?
Claiming knowledge of things we donât know isnât either. And using that supposed but clearly unavailable knowledge to make logical conclusions about other things isnât anything but silliness.
From what Iâve seen, there are many ideas about it currently, with several examples having been given in this thread. You seem to me to be drawing definite conclusions about the situation, when that isnât warranted. We donât have the kind of information that would allow us to say âthe universe definitely began at this point and we know definitively that nothing else could have existed at any pointâ. Itâs not a question of being intuitive. As I said in another post, youâre going to run into something counter-intuitive whichever way you go here.
There is not one eternal model of the universe that does not have flaws. Which, in my view, makes the entire proposition of an eternal universe meaningless until this can be changed.
I agree. That being said, why anyone would think that a postulated, unknown, and unevidenced force, of a suggested character entirely outside our experience, with the power to create the very quandaries which the available evidence presents, and with no theory whatsoever to explain how it might even possibly exist, much less eternally, in fact no more support for the idea than a bald definition, does anything at all to add to our understanding of the situation, is beyond me.
The problem is that a beginning doesnât have to be a beginning to exist from a non-material state, and it hasnât been shown that it is. How would we know that the beginning of the universe wasnât in some way a reordering of things already in existence?
Thank you for your comment and support.
My pleasure!
Do I understand this right? He postulates a âboundaryâ at the beginning of something that does not exist in space and time which do not exist.
Iâm not sure I understand this. Carroll and other advocates of a past-eternal universe try to get around the BGV Theorem by saying that there was some sort of quantum state that originally eternally existed, which then transitioned into the universe we currently see at the big bang, the âboundaryâ between the quantum universe and our current one.
Past-eternal is an expression that I am not familiar with. Could you explain.
Past-eternal just means âeternal in the pastâ, as in it always existed and has no beginning.
I cannot understand this sentence; I am simply showing that to have an age (a length of time), we must have a scale of time, and all scales commence with 0 to whatever length as units. This does not require elaboration. The alternative is to claim that the age of the universe (given as a numerical value of years) is invalid, and I am unaware of anyone that says this.
We may speculate on other matters, but I hope my statement is clear - the universe is a given (or stated) number of billion years (with a given error in the method used).
If you want to propose a beginning that negates the age of the universe, I think you need to provide a alternate view which would change the age value - I cannot find anyone who is willing to reject the age, so we are left with a strange debate.
Well, you could have been clearer by not equivocating. You precisely did this when you said earlier:
However, if you seek to support the idea by suggesting that some things must be created, while making God exempt from that, all with insufficient evidence, then I believe that it is entirely proper to ask it.
Except no one said âall things must be createdâ. The first premise is clearly âeverything that begins to exist has a causeâ, since obviously things that donât begin to exist donât need a cause. And here, you claimed that because the universe needs a cause, God also needs a cause. Thatâs equivocating. Again, you gotta look at it case-by-case.
Claiming knowledge of things we donât know isnât either. And using that supposed but clearly unavailable knowledge to make logical conclusions about other things isnât anything but silliness.
I donât really know what youâre talking about here. The only way to get around the BGV Theorem and other evidences that clearly point to a beginning of the universe is to start making unfalsifiable claims. Iâm not claiming anything that I âdonât knowâ, Iâm just pointing out the strange nature of these eternalist positions.
From what Iâve seen, there are many ideas about it currently, with several examples having been given in this thread. You seem to me to be drawing definite conclusions about the situation, when that isnât warranted.
Examples of what? There definitely arenât examples of evidence for a past-eternal universe. So I donât see your point. You also seem to agree that, as Vilenkin said, there is not a single past-eternal model of the universe that doesnât have a flaw, which is exactly what we would expect if the universe isnât past-eternal.
I agree. That being said, why anyone would think that a postulated, unknown, and unevidenced force, of a suggested character entirely outside our experience, with the power to create the very quandaries which the available evidence presents, and with no theory whatsoever to explain how it might even possibly exist, much less eternally, in fact no more support for the idea than a bald definition, does anything at all to add to our understanding of the situation, is beyond me.
This is just a red-herring and has nothing to do with the premises Iâm discussing â that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and that the universe began to exist. If these two premises are guaranteed, then so is Craigâs Kalam argument. You also say something I plainly donât understand: âwith no theory whatsoever to explain how it might even possibly exist, much less eternallyâ. How God exists is irrelevant to whether or not God actually exists, and thus makes it a moot point.
1 Like
As a theist, I think Carroll won that debate
I do not intend to reject the age. Iâm saying that we cannot say that our knowledge of the universe is synonymous with knowledge of all possible physical reality. Even if the universeâs age is fixed, we donât know what happened beyond those limits. This is why I said that the beginning of the universe is not necessarily a beginning that represents an emergence from a completely non-material state.
I disagree that I equivocated.
You precisely did this when you said earlier:
However, if you seek to support the idea by suggesting that some things must be created, while making God exempt from that, all with insufficient evidence, then I believe that it is entirely proper to ask it.
Except no one said âall things must be createdâ. The first premise is clearly âeverything that begins to exist has a causeâ, since obviously things that donât begin to exist donât need a cause. And here, you claimed that because the universe needs a cause, God also needs a cause. Thatâs equivocating. Again, you gotta look at it case-by-case.
Thatâs not equivocating in any sense. I realize that no one said that âall things must be createdâ. The problem is that in my estimation, no sufficient explanation has been made as to why some things need a cause while God doesnât. If pointing this out is equivocating⌠I donât even know what to say. How would you ask the question? Itâs just bizarre.
Claiming knowledge of things we donât know isnât either. And using that supposed but clearly unavailable knowledge to make logical conclusions about other things isnât anything but silliness.
I donât really know what youâre talking about here.
Itâs not complicated. It hasnât been shown that the universe needs a cause, and using this idea to make further logical conclusions is silly. Noting that our knowledge is incomplete isnât making an unfalsifiable claim. Iâm pointing out that you are stretching the knowledge we do have about the universe in order to make claims that it canât adequately support.
Examples of what? There definitely arenât examples of evidence for a past-eternal universe. So I donât see your point.
There are example in this thread, and I have seen many elsewhere, which show that it is uncertain what the beginning of the universe truly represents. I have not seen conclusive evidence that it represents âa beginning from a non-material stateâ as Craigâs argument requires.
This is just a red-herring and has nothing to do with the premises Iâm discussing â that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and that the universe began to exist. If these two premises are guaranteed, then so is Craigâs Kalam argument. You also say something I plainly donât understand: âwith no theory whatsoever to explain how it might even possibly exist, much less eternallyâ. How God exists is irrelevant to whether or not God actually exists, and thus makes it a moot point.
Iâve already said that the universe hasnât been demonstrated to begin to exist in the sense required for the argument, and that therefore the argument is not sound. Iâm just going a bit further here, if you donât mind. I find it confusing and amusing that you are willing to insist on strict levels of scientific evidence with long explanations in order to support your idea of a universe which âbegan to exist etc.â, while not offering even a rudimentary theory of how the creative force could possible exist at all, AND while seeking to use it as an explanation for what we plainly know to exist. To put it mildly, the argument has no explanatory power. I fully understand a belief in God, but I am not understanding anything about this argument.
John, I think youâre misunderstanding everything Iâm saying.
Thatâs not equivocating in any sense. I realize that no one said that âall things must be createdâ. The problem is that in my estimation, no sufficient explanation has been made as to why some things need a cause while God doesnât. If pointing this out is equivocating⌠I donât even know what to say. How would you ask the question? Itâs just bizarre.
Of course what you said is equivocating. Your argument is that because people say the universe needs a cause, therefore that should also imply that God also needs a cause. Thatâs equivocating. You canât take a rule that applies to X and say therefore the rule should also apply to Y. The way you should have phrased your question is âDo you think God needs a cause to exist? If not, why not?â This way of phrasing the question avoids equivocation. Secondly, Iâve explained over and over why God doesnât need a cause. You seem to have entirely missed it, even after quoting me saying it. God doesnât need a cause because God never began to exist at one point, heâs eternal. There is not even a point in the time or reality of God where you could insert a cause, and therefore the entire idea of God needing to be caused to exist is logically incoherent. A second logically incoherent thing about God needing a cause is simply asking: what on Earth would such a cause be? What, that isnât God, can cause the existence of a maximally great being? There is no such thing, even in imagination. So itâs pretty obvious why âWhat did God come from?â is the worst objection to Godâs existence in Western history, as has been pointed out by theistic and atheistic philosophers alike.
Itâs not complicated. It hasnât been shown that the universe needs a cause, and using this idea to make further logical conclusions is silly. Noting that our knowledge is incomplete isnât making an unfalsifiable claim.
Thatâs not what I said. I never said âsaying our knowledge is incomplete is unfalsifiable.â If you think I did say that, please quote me doing so. What I did say was that the only way to get around the BGV Theorem is to postulate unfalsifiable claims about our universe, such as a hypothetical formula of quantum gravity that removes the existence of time. Thatâs the one condition where the BGV Theorem doesnât apply. And itâs unfalsifiable. And thereâs no reason to even use it as a second option, since there is, so far, not a single logically consistent model of quantum gravity that avoids time. So why do you even think its possible that the universe didnât begin to exist if your friends canât even come up with a logical scenario of our universe where this happens?
There are example in this thread, and I have seen many elsewhere, which show that it is uncertain what the beginning of the universe truly represents.
What do you mean âtruly representsâ? The universe came into existence. Simple. Whatever details you throw in the model, the basic confirmation of Craigâs premise doesnât change.
Iâve already said that the universe hasnât been demonstrated to begin to exist in the sense required for the argument, and that therefore the argument is not sound. Iâm just going a bit further here, if you donât mind. I find it confusing and amusing that you are willing to insist on strict levels of scientific evidence with long explanations in order to support your idea of a universe which âbegan to exist etc.â, while not offering even a rudimentary theory of how the creative force could possible exist at all, AND while seeking to use it as an explanation for what we plainly know to exist. To put it mildly, the argument has no explanatory power. I fully understand a belief in God, but I am not understanding anything about this argument.
As weâve seen earlier, 1) God doesnât have a cause, so asking âhowâ God exists is irrelevant, and 2) By any scientific analysis, if you come to any conclusion, youâll have to come to the (at least preliminary) conclusion that the universe began to exist. There is not a single valid model of the universe that postulates a past-eternal state. Which means that the hypothesis your backing hasnât even shown to be coherent. So why even think its possible that premise 2 of the KCA is not correct? Since it canât even be shown that itâs possible that the premise is incorrect, we must conclude, unless future evidence suggests otherwise, that the premise is correct. I donât know how any of this is controversial.
I honestly donât think so. I think Iâve said what I can as clearly as I can, so Iâll leave it there, and give thanks for the discussion!
I honestly donât think so. I think Iâve said what I can as clearly as I can, so Iâll leave it there, and give thanks for the discussion!
Very well. May you come to agreement with my words!
Even if you ask the question in that way, the answer is still, E = mc squared. This is the reason why the Big Bang is an absolute Beginning, a singularity, because it arose out of nothing, no matter, no energy, no space, no time. That is what the proven science says and that is how we know.
I think he means that the big bang arose out of a singularity.
But where did that singularity come from? If it even came from something?
I think you should leave it at this - anything beyond is not scientific.
Iâm fine with that, but the whole point of the thread seems to be to do so, soâŚ
1 Like
Hey @pevaquark you know alot about this.
The big bang shows that the universe came from a singularity right?
Do people who believe/Accept that the universe is past infinite say that this singularity has always existed? What do you think about this?
I would also love your opinions: @ManiacalVesalius @Relates @T_aquaticus
Kind of is my answer. I would even back up and say the Big Bang model of the universe describes what we see in reality quite well, especially in regards to the distribution of elements, the redshift of light, the distribution and wide-scale structure of galaxies, the cosmic microwave background, etc.
So all of these provide confidence that yes indeed our universe came from a very hot and dense initial state. However, the mathematical framework that allows for such confidence in this model, i.e. General Relativity, breaks down and fails to describe what happens in such cases (i.e. a singularity or singularity-like state). Generally speaking, physicists hate infinities and that is all we get at the beginning of the universe, indicating that there is something more to the picture. Hence the search for quantum gravity⌠This a-capella science video sums up the challenge pretty nicely:
Itâs a pretty deep video actually that makes more sense the more you learn about these topics and it even describes attempts at string theory to understand our universe and many of the problems that we face.
The BVG theorem gets way too much attention in apologetics arguments. We have several who use a version of the Kalam argument (like WLC or Hugh Ross with Reasons to Believe) who hold the Theorem over the heads of practicing cosmologists essentially implying that they know how to really apply this Theorem as absolute proof that God created the universe.
I was curious myself (not being a cosmologist) as to how people who professionally work in the field think of such a theorem. So one way to do this is search Google Scholar or something equivalent on who has cited the BVG theorem paper. I see some 300+ citations in my search. One thing I definitely see is that it isnât hailed as a grand apologetic that the only model of the universe is in fact the one where we have no explanation except god. But yet, that is how it is used by Christian apologists and then the rest of us might as well take their word for it because they definitely are quite confident.
At the end of the day though, I donât know. For all I know we will never find any explanations for the beginning of our universe (maybe not in our lifetime or ever) and maybe this really is finally clear evidence of God that since science canât explain something, God really did something in the natural world (without saying how or what he did or how he actually interacts with physical matter). Can someone believe by faith that God made the universe, yes of course! But that is a big difference from holding science over scientists heads and saying âwe know how to really understand your theoremsâ and claiming it as absolute proof of God.
@pevaquark basically pointed out whatâs going on here. At the earliest stage of the universe, there was a singularity, but beyond a certain point, we have no clue what was going on there because modern physics breaks down (discrepancy between quantum mechanics at small scales and Einsteinâs general relativity at large scales). So itâs pretty befuddling and the âholy grailâ of modern physics is to unite quantum mechanics with general relativity into a unified theory of quantum gravity and be able to resolve all of this.
The past-eternal people donât really have much leeway in all of this. The BGV Theorem (which contra pevaquark, is not said by Christians to be the final theorem that has put a total end to atheism) really only allows one possible approach to maintaining a past-eternal view of the universe: a theory of quantum gravity where time doesnât exist. Under this view (which has not yet been validly described in any models) it is not really possible to speak of the âexpansion of the universeâ in any real sense (since time doesnât exist), and they just throw a quantum boundary at the âsingularityâ point that, though this quantum boundary gives rise to our singularity, it itself is past-eternal. The problems speak for itself: no model is available that can describe such a universe (I donât think one exists), and to me, it seems like an attempt to explain away data rather than to explain data. I.e., postulating unfalsifiable ideas to avoid what all the evidence says: the universe began to exist. But thatâs my two cents.