• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What caused the Big Bang?

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You are wrong. I am doing science, you are making up weird rules for analysis, and you keep changing definitions. You can't arbitrarily select time lines based on nonscientific criteria. Who every heard of a time line based on the evaporation of water, etc.?
Every geologist or climatologist who do research on global water cycle will provide you with timelines for transformation of water from atmosphere to ground to oceans to underground and back to atmosphere. Crucial estimates of ground water levels, weather patterns etc depend upon such timelines. Cosmologists working on stellar chemistry will give timelines of formation of water in stars and their collection in galactic clouds etc. So on and so forth. How many books do you want on hydrological cycles?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I am sorry, but I don't understand dysfunctional ideas. Well, maybe I do. I know they are dysfunctional. Your idea is based on false assumptions, or arbitrary selection of data to create time lines. You''re making up stories about what you think happens to atoms after things change, etc. It is not a time line, it is a theory about causal relationships.

I think we better quite. You stated, "If I collected that water from rain, them once again the timeline continues uninterrupted from the condensation of steam to water in the clouds, and so on indefinitely to the formation of this water in the stars and beyond that to the formation of the protons and neutrons in that water a lititle after the Big Bang , to beyond that to original portion of energy of the onflationary field that transformed into the quarks through the Big Bang. The timeline continues through each such transformation uninterrupted forever before and foreevet after. Now do you understand?" No I don't understand, and I don't think anyone else reading it understands. Your statement needs a lot of work.
Do a poll. Everyone should find what I have written perfectly clear. Since you are doing science, go to your local university and ask any teacher or professor in any scientific field and show them what I have written word for word. What I am saying is absolutely elementary and uncontroversial.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The time-line is endless, and thus the physical reality, defined as the entire sequence of events in that that endless and beginingless timeline, eternal.
Perhaps that is right. Sayak, what would you say about time when the inflationary field was folded into 'nothing'?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Perhaps that is right. Sayak, what would you say about time when the inflationary field was folded into 'nothing'?
Unfortunately the nothing of cosmologists is not really nothing.

What we would lose in such a "nothing" is a macroscopic sense of time. Microscopically, localized times would still be present in the quantum fluctuations (or string vibrations ) of this nothing. But those microscopic times would not cohere together to create a macroscopic sense of time as is found in this universe. Of course, for us, this coherence is produced by the coherence of the Big Bang event itself, where inflation blew up microscopic regions of space-time-matter-energy that had localized coherence of time etc. into ginormous scales.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You are wrong. I am doing science, you are making up weird rules for analysis, and you keep changing definitions. You can't arbitrarily select time lines based on nonscientific criteria. Who every heard of a time line based on the evaporation of water, etc.? If you are going to use that kind of criteria we might as well discussion a time line for lollipops.
There does exist a timeline for lollipops and each and every atom within it. That beginingless and endless timeline tells of all the transformations and events associated with the lollipop and each of its components through physical reality upto the Big Bang and beyond in the past to the heat death of the universe and afterwards in the endless future. We can depict this exactly as a worldline in the Minkowski diagram that Einstein used for his special and general theory of relativity. The vertical component of this worldline (extending from - infinity to +infinity) is the timeline of the lollipop (and its atoms).
Minkowski diagram - Wikipedia

U34I5.png


Now if you want to call Einstein stupid then...

Anyways, you might get more out of videos. So here is another excellent one, on time. What is being said here is very standard physics, well established from Einstein's work.

 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Infinity, of course, means forever, or without limit. Yet, there is no evidence for that assertion.

I just provided you with one. A universe whose curvature is zero is necessarily infinite.

What is the Shape of the Universe?


All measurements made so far support this conclusion.

Would infinity include heaven?
No infinite space implied infinite physical and material space. It will be composed of vanilla physical things i..e space-time-matter-energy. No non-physical stuff.

We don't need the supernatural if we are part of infinity.
You are confused. Infinity is not some mystical concept. It simply means that space goes on forever in any direction. An infinite and flat universe is actually the simplest way a physical universe can be. One does not have boundaries and hence does not need boundary conditions. It will be completely symmetric as all points in space are equivalent, while for bounded flat space some points will be closer to the edge than other, braking symmetry. The laws of physics absolutely depend on symmetry and equivalency of all points in space and hence a flat universe simply has to be infinite.
A finite universe has to be spherical to do the job, which means curvature of space must be positive, and so far its zero.




There would have to be no ending as well. How can the universe expand forever?
The universe is indeed going to expand forever, in fact the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating and will exponentially increase with time. In what is called the heat "death" of the universe, the universe will expand so much that all matter and energy will dilute away and only space-time will be left that will go on expanding and expanding endlessly. Calling it death will be a misnomer everything in it continues to exist forever, just it becomes more and more dilute. It is going to expand forever because empty space has an inherent energy in it whose impact, according to General Theory of Relativity and confirmed by observation, is to continually exert a repulsive pressure on space and hence stretching or expanding it at ever increasing rates.
What happens as the universe expands? | The Naked Scientists
WMAP- Fate of the Universe

Space is infinitely compressible and/or stretchable depending on the pressures exerted upon it by various energy fields. Again this is according to well established laws of General Relativity. Gravity tries to compress space, while certain scalar fields (inflaton field and dark energy of space) tries to stretch it. See more here,
Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia

Let me emphasize..all of this is based on very well established laws of physics validated through countless experiments ( detection of gravity waves from colliding black holes that momentarily stretched and compressed space is the latest example). So however non-intuitive it seems, this is what reality is truly like. None of this is speculative at all.


Where does space come from?
Again it always existed. It can stretch and compress, but creation of space is impossible (as far as we know).


How much time is infinity? If there is no limit, the universe must be eternal.
Correct

It must have created itself.
No. it always existed. You are artificially using an absurd language. That which exist eternally was never created nor ever destroyed. When you say that your God is eternal, does that mean He created Himself? Same for the universe , or the physical reality of an eternal existence through endless and beginning-less time.

We can go on and on with all the absurdities.
There are no absurdities. Your mind is creating absurdities where none exist for it wants to reject a something it finds upsetting. This is what happens when people are set in their ideologies and locked into certain modes of thinking.
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Parable, Simile, Metaphor, Hyperbole, Anthropomorphism, Irony, and Apocalyptic ...

Silly Mr. god ... Now how could you expect an illiterate population to understand such terms ... especially us cherry pickers!

The core message of the bible is so simple a elementary schoolchild could get it (as a 'text book' about living well and how to save souls, hopefully your own!). However, if one wants to delve into more advanced studies the bible can entertain that as well. The problem that most often arises is when a hater with a primary goal of destroying the faith of believers etc attempts comment on anything except the simple biblical message of grace love and forgiveness.
 
Last edited:

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
I just provided you with one. A universe whose curvature is zero is necessarily infinite.

What is the Shape of the Universe?


All measurements made so far support this conclusion.


No infinite space implied infinite physical and material space. It will be composed of vanilla physical things i..e space-time-matter-energy. No non-physical stuff.


You are confused. Infinity is not some mystical concept. It simply means that space goes on forever in any direction. An infinite and flat universe is actually the simplest way a physical universe can be. One does not have boundaries and hence does not need boundary conditions. It will be completely symmetric as all points in space are equivalent, while for bounded flat space some points will be closer to the edge than other, braking symmetry. The laws of physics absolutely depend on symmetry and equivalency of all points in space and hence a flat universe simply has to be infinite.
A finite universe has to be spherical to do the job, which means curvature of space must be positive, and so far its zero.





The universe is indeed going to expand forever, in fact the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating and will exponentially increase with time. In what is called the heat "death" of the universe, the universe will expand so much that all matter and energy will dilute away and only space-time will be left that will go on expanding and expanding endlessly. Calling it death will be a misnomer everything in it continues to exist forever, just it becomes more and more dilute. It is going to expand forever because empty space has an inherent energy in it whose impact, according to General Theory of Relativity and confirmed by observation, is to continually exert a repulsive pressure on space and hence stretching or expanding it at ever increasing rates.
What happens as the universe expands? | The Naked Scientists
WMAP- Fate of the Universe

Space is infinitely compressible and/or stretchable depending on the pressures exerted upon it by various energy fields. Again this is according to well established laws of General Relativity. Gravity tries to compress space, while certain scalar fields (inflaton field and dark energy of space) tries to stretch it. See more here,
Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia

Let me emphasize..all of this is based on very well established laws of physics validated through countless experiments ( detection of gravity waves from colliding black holes that momentarily stretched and compressed space is the latest example). So however non-intuitive it seems, this is what reality is truly like. None of this is speculative at all.



Again it always existed. It can stretch and compress, but creation of space is impossible (as far as we know).



Correct


No. it always existed. You are artificially using an absurd language. That which exist eternally was never created nor ever destroyed. When you say that your God is eternal, does that mean He created Himself? Same for the universe , or the physical reality of an eternal existence through endless and beginning-less time.


There are no absurdities. Your mind is creating absurdities where none exist for it wants to reject a something it finds upsetting. This is what happens when people are set in their ideologies and locked into certain modes of thinking.

Superb answers sayak83, even though our religions are different we are of the same mind in other things. Also I feel since religions are a construct of man there is no 100% accurate religion (in its description of God(s). However until there is evidence that the universe was not created by an intelligence I remain a believer intelligent design, and personally my belief is that the ID is of a christian flavor.
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
No it doesn't at all...this argument (arising from medieval Islamic philosophy says nothing about why God is the best answer for anything - it simply defines God as the cause of the Big Bang. But it follows the same pattern as all other CAs - it stands on premises that deny the possibility of the infinite and then concludes that the cause must be infinite. (IOW the conclusion refutes the premises - which is a dead giveaway for faulty logic)

The premises are faulty to start with: The first states that anything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence...(OK - fine, I suppose, but there may of course be things - perhaps even many things that do not have a beginning of existence).

Ok that is strike one (for you of course!)

The second states that the the universe had a beginning of its existence (but we don't know that this is true - we just don't know - we can say "the Big Bang" but we just do not know that this was really a beginning at all - and scientific evidence and theory are beginning to weigh against this notion - we can argue the impossibility of the actual infinite mathematically - but that argument has been raging for centuries and remains unresolved) - the truth is we just don't know, so the second premise is not a premise at all but, at best, a more or less sound conjecture.

Strike two! Well, not true. The 'go to theory of how the universe began is the big bang theory. I have watched the atheist physicists stumble and almost in a hysteria attempt to discredit the big bang theory (the standard hot model) every since its theistic implications were noticed and made public in debate and by papers written by philosophers and others. The most troubling thing for atheists is that the Big Bang describes a beginning dare I say a creation point? I am sure by the weight of everything including Newtons Chair that atheist Hawking sits in a no beginning theory may be brow beaten into place that supersedes the standard big bang theory. However as of today even Hawking's awful rehash of the rebounding universe theory the standard model of the BB is still the most popular.

Even if the premises of the argument were sound, there is no need to conclude with God, we could just as easily conclude with anything we care to define as infinite - I could, for example, say that the universe began to exist because the eternal, unchangeable and immaterial Laws of Physics caused it to begin to exist. There is no way you can prove that conclusion to be any more or less sound than Lane Craig's "God dunnit" conclusion.

Strike three, your out my friend! Btw, there are no unchangeable and immaterial Laws of Physics. Physics by its very nature describes the material universe. And its that reason the tools of physics can not tell us what caused the big bang 'singularity' to begin to exist. Also if you have read any of Craig papers you will know he arrives at 'God did it' by deductive and other very rational logic. Also Kurt Godel developed a Ontological argument that used high order modal logical in his system. However I still think Craig's rendition of the KCA is the best.

It has now!

Source please. And please do not use the bug in Craigs argument that was written by a friend of mine that has been making rounds in the net for the last two years or so. Its already been discredited.

That part of your statement, at least, is true - such stunning stupidity from such a respected theological 'philosopher' is apt to leave one utterly speechless.

The truth hurts doesn't it? Lastly I don't think Craig is worried nor is Kurt Godel turning in his grave because of your grasping at straws. Would you like a vid link where Craig destroys Dr A. Flew (the famous atheist) argument against the KCA?
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Strike two! Well, not true. The 'go to theory of how the universe began is the big bang theory. I have watched the atheist physicists stumble and almost in a hysteria attempt to discredit the big bang theory (the standard hot model) every since its theistic implications were noticed
There are no theistic implications. Even

"Lemaître always differentiated between religious and scientific "levels of cognition" or "orders of reasoning." This can clearly be seen in his opposition to mixing physical and theological "levels" in the Big Bang hypothesis:

We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations."
Library : The Faith and Reason of Father George Lemaître
However I still think Craig's rendition of the KCA is the best.
Craig's rendition is valid if you like circular reasoning.

 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
There are no theistic implications. Even

"Lemaître always differentiated between religious and scientific "levels of cognition" or "orders of reasoning." This can clearly be seen in his opposition to mixing physical and theological "levels" in the Big Bang hypothesis:

We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations."
Library : The Faith and Reason of Father George Lemaître

If there is enough circumstantial evidence empirical evidence is not needed. Unless a theory other than the BB can be shown to be true there is enough circumstantial evidence to say that the universe was created and that it was designed. I don't think logical positivists especially atheists would ever admit the obvious. So instead of typing page after page of head banging argument I only correct the falsehoods or blatant mistakes that harm religious belief as well as 'spiritual' metaphysics.

Craig's rendition is valid if you like circular reasoning.

The KCA is a valid logical argument for the existence of God. Thanks for your reply. Btw, have you read or do you know about the Vienna Circle? If things had been just a bit different, such as maybe having a few more Kurt Godel's there metaphysics as it pertains to what we call supernatural may today be another branch of science and instead of supernatural it would be the study of the super-normal. Thanks for your reply! I will check out your link when I find my computer speakers.....

[/QUOTE]
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
If there is enough circumstantial evidence empirical evidence is not needed. Unless a theory other than the BB can be shown to be true there is enough circumstantial evidence to say that the universe was created and that it was designed.
Suppose all cosmologists said "The universe was created and designed". Then what? How would cosmology change?
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
I just provided you with one. A universe whose curvature is zero is necessarily infinite.

What is the Shape of the Universe?


All measurements made so far support this conclusion.


No infinite space implied infinite physical and material space. It will be composed of vanilla physical things i..e space-time-matter-energy. No non-physical stuff.


You are confused. Infinity is not some mystical concept. It simply means that space goes on forever in any direction. An infinite and flat universe is actually the simplest way a physical universe can be. One does not have boundaries and hence does not need boundary conditions. It will be completely symmetric as all points in space are equivalent, while for bounded flat space some points will be closer to the edge than other, braking symmetry. The laws of physics absolutely depend on symmetry and equivalency of all points in space and hence a flat universe simply has to be infinite.
A finite universe has to be spherical to do the job, which means curvature of space must be positive, and so far its zero.





The universe is indeed going to expand forever, in fact the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating and will exponentially increase with time. In what is called the heat "death" of the universe, the universe will expand so much that all matter and energy will dilute away and only space-time will be left that will go on expanding and expanding endlessly. Calling it death will be a misnomer everything in it continues to exist forever, just it becomes more and more dilute. It is going to expand forever because empty space has an inherent energy in it whose impact, according to General Theory of Relativity and confirmed by observation, is to continually exert a repulsive pressure on space and hence stretching or expanding it at ever increasing rates.
What happens as the universe expands? | The Naked Scientists
WMAP- Fate of the Universe

Space is infinitely compressible and/or stretchable depending on the pressures exerted upon it by various energy fields. Again this is according to well established laws of General Relativity. Gravity tries to compress space, while certain scalar fields (inflaton field and dark energy of space) tries to stretch it. See more here,
Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia

Let me emphasize..all of this is based on very well established laws of physics validated through countless experiments ( detection of gravity waves from colliding black holes that momentarily stretched and compressed space is the latest example). So however non-intuitive it seems, this is what reality is truly like. None of this is speculative at all.



Again it always existed. It can stretch and compress, but creation of space is impossible (as far as we know).



Correct


No. it always existed. You are artificially using an absurd language. That which exist eternally was never created nor ever destroyed. When you say that your God is eternal, does that mean He created Himself? Same for the universe , or the physical reality of an eternal existence through endless and beginning-less time.


There are no absurdities. Your mind is creating absurdities where none exist for it wants to reject a something it finds upsetting. This is what happens when people are set in their ideologies and locked into certain modes of thinking.
Obviously, we will never agree, there are convincing arguments on both sides. I find no logic argument based on physical laws for the universe being eternal. Presently, science agrees the big bang began the universe. It confirms my theological explanation for God creating the universe. I have a radical theory which is out of order for mainstream theology. however, what I know from dreams and visions is not incompatible with scientific theories about the universe. I don't believe you can find consensus for your claim for the universe being eternal or infinite. Scientific theory lacks credibility without evidence. It seems to be a strong temptation to apply mathematic routines and formulas to prove absurd possibilities. I know, I have ventured into the field of math and found those tempting possibilities. In particular, math formulas allow for a lot opportunities for applying infinity assumptions for proving equations and far out speculations. It is like testing a space ship before launching.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Obviously, we will never agree, there are convincing arguments on both sides. I find no logic argument based on physical laws for the universe being eternal. Presently, science agrees the big bang began the universe. It confirms my theological explanation for God creating the universe. I have a radical theory which is out of order for mainstream theology. however, what I know from dreams and visions is not incompatible with scientific theories about the universe. I don't believe you can find consensus for your claim for the universe being eternal or infinite. Scientific theory lacks credibility without evidence. It seems to be a strong temptation to apply mathematic routines and formulas to prove absurd possibilities. I know, I have ventured into the field of math and found those tempting possibilities. In particular, math formulas allow for a lot opportunities for applying infinity assumptions for proving equations and far out speculations. It is like testing a space ship before launching.
You should watch the video on time. You have made a lot of statements on time that are not supported by well established science.
I seriously doubt that you have the expertise to work with transfinite math. Very few people do. It is however a very well established and, frankly, one of the most exciting fields of mathematics. But here is how infinity figures in physics
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
You should watch the video on time. You have made a lot of statements on time that are not supported by well established science.
I seriously doubt that you have the expertise to work with transfinite math. Very few people do. It is however a very well established and, frankly, one of the most exciting fields of mathematics. But here is how infinity figures in physics
The video presents both perspectives, finite and infinity. Apparently, there is no real method except in mathematics to assume infinite. My argument is the idea is an assumption rather than a reality. It is as if the universe were in the middle of an infinite paradigm, but it has not completed trajectories to become infinite. However. this is incorrect because matter and energy are composed of finite substances. A line goes off into space and comes to the boundary of the universe, but it is stops, it doesn't go into infinity. Perhaps, the reason is the universe is a chip off the old block, God used His eternity to create the universe, but He didn't make the universe eternal. The idea of the universe being eternal is theoretical, not real. Applying basic logic, the universe would have to be limitless for it to be eternal, and it would have to be circular to complete the infinity loop. An infinity line cannot go forward without stopping because it can never have an ending. Therefore, it loops around in a circle without the constraint of time. Furthermore, because there is no time or distance constraints for the line, it becomes a circle without limits. The perfect example of eternity would be a speck of God's holiness, it never changes form or size, it is perfectly eternal. One may conclude, there is no eternity apart from God's holy light, or sparks of holy substance. I derive these conclusions based on experiences. I have seen a spark of God's holy light. The most convincing argument for the absence of infinity in the universe are laws of entropy, matter and energy continue to change and deteriorate, there seems to be no phenomena in the universe to alter these processes. Therefore, we find no eternal particles in the universe. If we could see them, we would be in heaven. As for heaven, there is no change or deterioration, every holy particle is eternal.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The video presents both perspectives, finite and infinity. Apparently, there is no real method except in mathematics to assume infinite. My argument is the idea is an assumption rather than a reality. It is as if the universe were in the middle of an infinite paradigm, but it has not completed trajectories to become infinite. However. this is incorrect because matter and energy are composed of finite substances. A line goes off into space and comes to the boundary of the universe, but it is stops, it doesn't go into infinity. Perhaps, the reason is the universe is a chip off the old block, God used His eternity to create the universe, but He didn't make the universe eternal. The idea of the universe being eternal is theoretical, not real. Applying basic logic, the universe would have to be limitless for it to be eternal, and it would have to be circular to complete the infinity loop. An infinity line cannot go forward without stopping because it can never have an ending. Therefore, it loops around in a circle without the constraint of time. Furthermore, because there is no time or distance constraints for the line, it becomes a circle without limits. The perfect example of eternity would be a speck of God's holiness, it never changes form or size, it is perfectly eternal. One may conclude, there is no eternity apart from God's holy light, or sparks of holy substance. I derive these conclusions based on my experiences. I have seen a spark of God's holy light. The most convincing argument for the absence of infinity in the universe are laws of entropy, matter and energy continue to change and deteriorate, there seems to be no phenomena in the universe to alter these processes. Therefore, we find no eternal particles in the universe. If we could see them, we would be in heaven. As for heaven, there is no change or deterioration, every holy particle is eternal.
This entire reply seems to be devoid of a single iota of sense.
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
This entire reply seems to be devoid of a single iota of sense.
If you don't following it, here is a brief version. If scientific theories or mathematical models conclude the universe to be infinite or eternal, there should be evidence. Where is the evidence? What we finding are matter and energy changing and deteriorating according to laws of entropy. There is no evidence for the universe being infinite or eternal! Without evidence, mathematical models and scientific theories result in new methodologies to change bad outcomes into possibilities.

God created the universe from holy substance. According to human perception or understanding, God's holy substance is nothing. In heaven, there is no matter, energy, subatomic particles, physical laws, or anything else which may be found in the universe.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
If you don't following it, here is a brief version. If scientific theories or mathematical models conclude the universe to be infinite or eternal, there should be evidence. Where is the evidence? What we finding are matter and energy changing and deteriorating according to laws of entropy. There is no evidence for the universe being infinite or eternal! Without evidence, mathematical models and scientific theories result in new methodologies to change bad outcomes into possibilities.

God created the universe from holy substance. According to human perception or understanding, God's holy substance is nothing. In heaven, there is no matter, energy, subatomic particles, physical laws, or anything else which may be found in the universe.
What has presence of change got to do with eternity or infinity. An endless and beginingless sequence of changes and transformations of matter energy also constitutes an eternal and infinite universe. Does one see either time or space beginning or ending anywhere? No. So why presume that it begins or ends at all? Without actual observation of either time or space being finite or beginning or ending, and with the fact that all the laws of physics that govern our universe takes time and space as quantities that can vary from negative infinity to positive infinity, and given the fact that the curvature of the universe is flat, and that all current formulations of quantum gravity predicts the existence of physical reality and time before the Big Bang....we have 4 lines of evidence for the idea that the physical reality is spatio-temporally infinite.

What is your evidence that the universe is finite? Given the fact that most cosmologists no longer think that Big Bang is an absolute beginning?
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Source please.
Source for what? I refuted Craig's argument in my post. Please try and pay attention.

Lastly I don't think Craig is worried nor is Kurt Godel turning in his grave because of your grasping at straws.
I don't suppose they are - Craig is still making a living out of spouting the KCA and Godel has nothing whatsoever to do with it. No thanks on the vid link - I've probably seen it already - but it makes not difference at all to me WHO said this or that because I'm more interested in WHAT was said and determining if it is a load of old baloney or not. With the KCA I have and it is - for the reasons I have already stated. Your post, likewise - my friend.
 

Repox

Truth Seeker
What has presence of change got to do with eternity or infinity. An endless and beginingless sequence of changes and transformations of matter energy also constitutes an eternal and infinite universe. Does one see either time or space beginning or ending anywhere? No. So why presume that it begins or ends at all? Without actual observation of either time or space being finite or beginning or ending, and with the fact that all the laws of physics that govern our universe takes time and space as quantities that can vary from negative infinity to positive infinity, and given the fact that the curvature of the universe is flat, and that all current formulations of quantum gravity predicts the existence of physical reality and time before the Big Bang....we have 4 lines of evidence for the idea that the physical reality is spatio-temporally infinite.

What is your evidence that the universe is finite? Given the fact that most cosmologists no longer think that Big Bang is an absolute beginning?
It is not what scientist think, it was what they can prove. Your argument doesn't prove the universe is eternal. Anyone can select a bunch of phenomena form the universe and say it proves infinity. It is BS. How does the disintegration of matter and energy as per laws of entropy relate to infinite? How does laws of physics related to infinity?
If you don't following it, here is a brief version. If scientific theories or mathematical models conclude the universe to be infinite or eternal, there should be evidence. Where is the evidence? What we finding are matter and energy changing and deteriorating according to laws of entropy. There is no evidence for the universe being infinite or eternal! Without evidence, mathematical models and scientific theories result in new methodologies to change bad outcomes into possibilities.

God created the universe from holy substance. According to human perception or understanding, God's holy substance is nothing. In heaven, there is no matter, energy, subatomic particles, physical laws, or anything else which may be found in the universe.

What has presence of change got to do with eternity or infinity. An endless and beginingless sequence of changes and transformations of matter energy also constitutes an eternal and infinite universe. Does one see either time or space beginning or ending anywhere? No. So why presume that it begins or ends at all? Without actual observation of either time or space being finite or beginning or ending, and with the fact that all the laws of physics that govern our universe takes time and space as quantities that can vary from negative infinity to positive infinity, and given the fact that the curvature of the universe is flat, and that all current formulations of quantum gravity predicts the existence of physical reality and time before the Big Bang....we have 4 lines of evidence for the idea that the physical reality is spatio-temporally infinite.

What is your evidence that the universe is finite? Given the fact that most cosmologists no longer think that Big Bang is an absolute beginning?
Your argument doesn't prove the universe is eternal. Anyone can select a bunch of phenomena form the universe and say it proves infinity. It is BS. How does the disintegration of matter and energy as per laws of entropy relate to infinite? How does laws of physics related to infinity? They prove nothing about it. You have no argument for infinity. It is amusing how you string a lot of unrelated things together and say, there is INFINITY.

I presented evidence for the universe being finite and you ignored it. The disintegration of matter and energy as per laws of entropy prove the universe is not infinite. And you can't make a logical argument by throwing it all together and saying, look there, it is infinite.

Here is an example of one of your many false statements. "and that all current formulations of quantum gravity predicts the existence of physical reality and time before the Big Bang."
There is no evidence for "the existence of physical reality and time before the Big Bang."
 
Top