• 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!

Why the Cosmological Argument Fails

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Quote where any scientist has claimed that s/he believes "the multiverse" has no beginning.

Again, another source

The 'Eternal Inflation model of the multiverse translates directly to an eternal multiverse in plan English.

From: Eternal Inflation and the Multiverse

“Inflationary cosmology therefore suggests that, even though the observed universe is incredibly large, it is only an infinitesimal fraction of the entire universe” states Alan Guth, the original father of the inflationary Big Bang, in his article from 2007, “Eternal inflation and its implications”.

Inflation is the very brief – yet extremely significant – period in our own universe’s history, perhaps of duration only a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. During the inflation event, a very submicroscopic bubble of energy and space expanded tremendously, doubling in scale perhaps 100 times or more in each of the 3 spatial dimensions. That’s an increase in volume of around 90 factors of 10! This inflationary epoch drove the universe to become macroscopic in scale, and also to become highly homogeneous and topologically flat at large scales.

The inflationary Big Bang models solved a number of outstanding problems in cosmology, such as the horizon problem and the flatness problem. Basically at large scales we see a homogeneous and topologically flat universe in all directions. Without inflation, parts of the universe seen on opposite ends of the sky would never have been casually connected. However, with the inflation models, those regions were originally within each others’ casually connected ‘light cones’, prior to the inflation phase, before it pushed them out to much larger physical scale, at which point they become highly separated.

Andrei Linde is another one of the fathers of inflationary Big Bang theory, and the originator of the chaotic inflation models. Chaotic inflation, and another leading model, ‘new’ inflation, both appear to result in eternal inflation; this gives rise to the multiverse scenario. That is, inflation keeps going in most of space, while multiple universes form and separate from the inflation process.

The multiverse scenario states that our universe is only one of a very large number of universes, and in such a case, our particular universe may be referred to as a ‘mini-universe’ or ‘pocket universe’. Of course our universe is already enormously large, it’s just that the multiverse is giaganormously larger than that. With eternal inflation the multiverse keeps inflating in other regions, portions of which will later settle out into other ‘pocket universes’.

Linde has recently published a summary “A Brief History of the Multiverse” which describes the developments in inflationary Big Bang theory and models for the multiverse since 1982. I encourage those who are interested in multiverses to read his paper.

With this eternal inflation our universe was (most likely) not the first, it was just one of many and inflation has been going on for a very long time. Inflation would continue forever into the future. New mini-universes would continue to be spawned and settle out from the overall inflation. It appears that eternal inflation is not eternal into the past, however, just into the future (see Guth paper referenced below).

Each of these mini-universes could have different values of the fundamental physical parameters. This ties into string theory models which admit of a very large number of possibilities for physical parameters.

Some sets of these parameters are favorable to life, but many (most) would not be. In order to get life as we know it we need carbon and other heavy elements, formed in stars (and not during the Big Bang nucleosynthesis), and we need a long-lived mini-universe. Other mini-universes might have different values of dark matter and dark energy than in our own universe. This could lead to very short lifetimes with no chance to form galaxies and stars.

Sidebar: These models are motivated by string theory and inflationary cosmology. It makes more sense in this context to think of ‘mini-universes’ rather than ‘parallel universes’ that often get popularized in discussions of quantum physics e.g. the Many Worlds discussions. Sorry to break the news to you, but there is not another you in each of these other mini-universes, since, even though they are endless in number, they all have different physical conditions and different histories.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
In my opinion it's a strong argument because you're pushing the problem further back. You're not really getting rid of the problem entirely. So you can say an alien kid made the experiment or a metaphysical dragon barfed it out. But, who made them? So, at some point you have to get to the very first Cause. The Cause that was not caused by anything else.
Cause exists in a dualistic universe. What goes on, if anything called "going on" even exists in other dimensions, is unknown in the natural world.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
I know nothing of syllogisms, so I will posit a silly-gism:

The so-called "cosmological argument" is something which is trotted out by ignorant theists in order to prove the existence of this "god-thing" that they worship.

I have proven, through my flawless logic and superior intellect, that the cosmological argument is bunk.

Therefore, there is no God.
Bunk.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Sorry to break the news to you, but there is not another you in each of these other mini-universes, since, even though they are endless in number, they all have different physical conditions and different histories.

:musicnotes:I could search the whole multiverse over, until my life is through...but I know I'll never find another you...:musicnotes:
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I actually gave examples in the Quantum world of Quantum zero point energy. Observed Quantum fluctuations have no known cause other than the nature of the Quantum Mechanics at Quantum zero point energy. This is the ground zero of our physical existence.
Just so.

Which is why, as @sandy whitelinger was asking, and @Hubert Farnsworth more generally, the emission of any particle (as @Polymath257 mentioned) is authentically random and hence, in classical terms, causeless; and why each particle-antiparticle creation and annihilation behind the Casimir effect is also random and (classically) causeless.

And as long as science thinks that's the case, it's not true that all things that have a beginning have a cause, and the Cosmo Argument never gets off the ground.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Each of these mini-universes could have different values of the fundamental physical parameters. This ties into string theory models which admit of a very large number of possibilities for physical parameters.
. . .
Sidebar: These models are motivated by string theory and inflationary cosmology. It makes more sense in this context to think of ‘mini-universes’ rather than ‘parallel universes’ that often get popularized in discussions of quantum physics e.g. the Many Worlds discussions. Sorry to break the news to you, but there is not another you in each of these other mini-universes, since, even though they are endless in number, they all have different physical conditions and different histories.

This conclusion fits the observed fractal nature of the outcomes of cause and effect events. This is Chaos Theory where nature is uniform based on natural laws but fractal variation assures the the outcomes vary, but uniformly. For example; no two Fern leaves are exactly alike, but all fern leaves of the same species look the same. In the same way no two universes would alike, but they would all be universes. The fractal nature functions the same within our universe with the similarity and differences between galaxies, solar systems and planets are similar but no two are exactly alike.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Shoot, replace "universe" with "life", something a lot more complex.

Science has clearly demonstrated the natural origins of the complexity of life by gradual evolving changes.
Given the factual objective verifiable evidence there is no other hypothesis that may be tested other than evolution and abiogenesis.

Can you propose an alternate hypothesis that may be falsified by the evidence?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No, I would not. I don't see a reason to bow at all. Deference, as in respecting power, is different than worship.

Maybe this universe was made by that kid as an art exercise and discarded as uninteresting after he got a 'C' on the assignment. Maybe this type of 'power' is considered ordinary and normal for these aliens. And, if they use the laws of physics they are aware of, this doesn't even require a 'supernatural'.

So, why would *you* bow to such a kid?

One of us would bow before one who has power over stars and the Earth, and one wouldn't, based on wisdom or lack of wisdom. You might as well ask me if I would be obey the instructions of a five-year-old pointing a live weapon at my head! There's a lot of pride in your response to the cosmic creator IMHO.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I bow to no one and to no force----for I am not a Slave.

To bow is to submit, as a slave does for his master. I acknowledge no master--again, I'm not a slave.

From Romans 6:

Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. 18 And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. 19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.

Romans 6 is saying here that whatever sin has you is your master.
 
Top