Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem...

kelly1

Hello, just wondering if anyone has heard of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem?

The paper is available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

and William Lane Craig discusses it here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115

If science could definitively prove that all matter/universe(s) had a beginning, would that affect your stance on theism/deism?

Regards,
Noel.

P.S. I wondering if Godel's incompleteness theorem has similar implications?

pts

Not really, since it would imply that God has to have a beginning too.
I've often heard that "God doesn't require a beginning, he (it?) was always there" however if you take that to its logical conclusion it doesn't make sense. Why would you be willing to say that a God can appear from nowhere, but matter can not? You would be making an exception to the rule for an extremely complex being (God) but not willing to make an exception for a much less complex thing like matter.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

If science could definitively prove that all matter/universe(s) had a beginning, would that affect your stance on theism/deism?

I can certainly see how such a proof might spark interest in Deism, but I can't see how it would validate any one of hundreds of defined human religions.

The problem theistic religion has is not that they can't yet prove the universe has a beginning, it's that the stories that they are composed of are frankly crackers.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

The problem theistic religion has is not that they can't yet prove the universe has a beginning, it's that the stories that they are composed of are frankly crackers.

amen

kelly1

pts wrote: »

Not really, since it would imply that God has to have a beginning too.

Why? Nobody is saying that God is made of physical matter. The theorem applies to physical matter.

pts wrote: »

I've often heard that "God doesn't require a beginning, he (it?) was always there" however if you take that to its logical conclusion it doesn't make sense. Why would you be willing to say that a God can appear from nowhere, but matter can not? You would be making an exception to the rule for an extremely complex being (God) but not willing to make an exception for a much less complex thing like matter.

Theologians don't claim that God appeared from nowhere. They claim that God is eternal and exists outside of time and that God created time.

If the entire universe (all matter) had a beginning i.e. it was created, then something must have created it. Something cannot emerge from nothing. So it's reasonable to ask who or what created the universe.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

If science could definitively prove that all matter/universe(s) had a beginning, would that affect your stance on theism/deism?

No. The idea of a creator god as described by christians fails because of basic logic, not science.

kelly1 wrote: »

I wondering if Godel's incompleteness theorem has similar implications?

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says that if you have a formal theory which supports certain basic arithmetic operations, there exist statements which are true within the system, but not provable within the system. Or as Gödel himself said:

Kurt G&#246 wrote: »

For every ω-consistent recursive class κ of forumulae, there are recursive class signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg(v Gen r) belongs to Flg(κ), where v is the free variable of r.

Unless you believe that the christian god is a formal system which supports basic arithmetic, I don't immediately see how he would tie in here.

kelly1

Dades wrote: »

I can certainly see how such a proof might spark interest in Deism, but I can't see how it would validate any one of hundreds of defined human religions.

The problem theistic religion has is not that they can't yet prove the universe has a beginning, it's that the stories that they are composed of are frankly crackers.[/QUOTE]
Leaving the nature of God aside, doesn't the necessary existence of a Creator raise the question of what happens to us when we die?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Something cannot emerge from nothing. So it's reasonable to ask who or what created the universe.

If something cannot emerge from nothing, then what created the christian god?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

doesn't the necessary existence of a Creator raise the question of what happens to us when we die?

No, they're completely unrelated topics.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Leaving the nature of God aside, doesn't the necessary existence of a Creator raise the question of what happens to us when we die?

Necessary existence of a Creator? Big jump there Noel. Also there is no question about what happens when we die scientists and the public alike know what happens when we die and its called being dead.

toiletduck

kelly1 wrote: »

Leaving the nature of God aside, doesn't the necessary existence of a Creator raise the question of what happens to us when we die?

No, I really don't see the connection

pts

Let's play a bit with your quotes:

kelly1 wrote: »

They claim that God is eternal and exists outside of time and that God created time.

Then we've got

kelly1 wrote: »

Something cannot emerge from nothing.

Can you not see that you've created two rules. One rule, which applies to everything except "God" is that "nothing can come from nothing" (name the Shakespeare Quote )

But then there is the 2nd rule, which applies to God, which says he (it?) can come from nothing. If you are going to argue that God has existed forever I would be curious to why God can exist forever but some kind of primeval matter can not.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

No. The idea of a creator god as described by christians fails because of basic logic, not science.

Robin, I didn't mention Christianity. If the universe was created, then don't you agree it must have a creator. And if the universe has a creator, then the validity of atheism must come under scrutiny.

robindch wrote: »

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says that if you have a formal theory which supports certain basic arithmetic operations, there exist statements which are true within the system, but not provable within the system. Or as Gödel himself said:Unless you believe that the christian god is a formal system which supports basic arithmetic, I don't immediately see how he would tie in here.

I brought this up because we are inside the system trying to find a theory of everything and according to Godel, it sounds like we will always have unprovable theories. So maybe God (who is outside the system) is the missing factor? Anyways, I shouldn't have brought this up, it's distracting from the discussion at hand.

robindch wrote: »

If something cannot emerge from nothing, then what created the christian god?

If the Christian God were created, then he's still inside the created system and can't be the cause of all that exists.

Since God isn't physical matter and isn't composed of any parts (i.e. entirely simple), what's to prevent Him being eternal and the ultimate source of all that exists?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

...Since God isn't physical matter and isn't composed of any parts (i.e. entirely simple), what's to prevent Him being eternal and the ultimate source of all that exists?

Because I can still ask the question why?

Zillah

Oh my God Noel not this again. How many times are we going to do this?

The fact that the universe has a beginning in no way supports the existence of God. Your entire argument is based on the unsustainable assertion "Something can't come from nothing", which when contemplating the nature of space-time is a big assumption.

And even if we accepted this assumption for the sake of argument, it still in no way points towards a sentient, loving, all-powerful entity. All that it would lead to is the conclusion that X caused the universe, where X is anything that is timeless.

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Necessary existence of a Creator? Big jump there Noel.

If the universe had a beginning, then it was created. Is that not so? If it was created, the it must have had a creator because something cannot come out of nothing. For an atheist to claim that the universe emerged our of nothing, smacks of hypocrisy.

toiletduck wrote: »

No, I really don't see the connection

Don't you? I don't see how the creator can be a physical being because matter can't create more matter from itself. So we must, to my mind, assume that the creator is made of a non-physical substance.

pts wrote: »

Can you not see that you've created two rules. One rule, which applies to everything except "God" is that "nothing can come from nothing" (name the Shakespeare Quote )

But then there is the 2nd rule, which applies to God, which says he (it?) can come from nothing. If you are going to argue that God has existed forever I would be curious to why God can exist forever but some kind of primeval matter can not.

What I'm saying is that everything which begins to exist must have a cause. I'm also saying that God never had a beginning and has no need of a cause. And since God has no "parts", nothing needed to come together to form Him.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Robin, I didn't mention Christianity. If the universe was created, then don't you agree it must have a creator. And if the universe has a creator, then the validity of atheism must come under scrutiny.

Not at all. The big bang could have arisen from within another universe (in fact, many physicists believe this is a simplistic understanding of what might have happened). And so on back. No need for any deities.

kelly1 wrote: »

I brought this up because we are inside the system trying to find a theory of everything and according to Godel, it sounds like we will always have unprovable theories.

Gödel was talking about formal mathematical systems, not about god, and as I said above, unless you believe that the universe is a formal mathematical system which supports arithmetic, his interesting results have nothing whatsoever to do with the universe we live in.

kelly1 wrote: »

Since God isn't physical matter and isn't composed of any parts (i.e. entirely simple), what's to prevent Him being eternal and the ultimate source of all that exists?

You're certainly free to propose a deity which is not bound by your "something cannot come from nothing" rule. However, within gentlemanly debate, if you're going to permit yourself an exception, then you can't stop others from using the same exception. See the first sentence in this post.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

For an atheist to claim that the universe emerged our of nothing, smacks of hypocrisy.

Atheists do not make this claim. And despite pointing this out many times, religious people seem unable to remember it. Weird but true!

kelly1 wrote: »

If the universe had a beginning, then it was created. Is that not so?

No, it certainly isn't. See the first sentence of my previous post.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

If the universe had a beginning, then it was created. Is that not so? If it was created, the it must have had a creator because something cannot come out of nothing. For an atheist to claim that the universe emerged our of nothing, smacks of hypocrisy.....

Oh yes how silly of me I forgot. It does clearly state in the hallowed Book of Atheism chapter 2 verse 10: The Universe emerged out of nothing, believe it!
:pac:

kelly1

Zillah wrote: »

Oh my God Noel not this again. How many times are we going to do this?

Don't get involved if you don't want to. You're free to ingore this thread.

Zillah wrote: »

The fact that the universe has a beginning in no way supports the existence of God. Your entire argument is based on the unsustainable assertion "Something can't come from nothing", which when contemplating the nature of space-time is a big assumption.

Do you accept therefore that the universe/spacetime could have spontaneously popped into existence where nothing at all existed beforehand? How likely is that? Isn't creation by something far more likely?

Zillah wrote: »

And even if we accepted this assumption for the sake of argument, it still in no way points towards a sentient, loving, all-powerful entity. All that it would lead to is the conclusion that X caused the universe, where X is anything that is timeless.

I think X would have to sentient and all-powerful, don't you?

robindch wrote: »

Not at all. The big bang could have arisen from within another universe (in fact, many physicists believe this is a simplistic understanding of what might have happened). And so on back. No need for any deities.

But the BGV theorem rules out any such prior universes.

Quote from Vilenkin's book:

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 (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

robindch wrote: »

Atheists do not make this claim.

Some do Robin. And the BGV theorem rules out the eternal universe/successive universes/multiverse option. Do you reject the BGV theorem?

togster

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you accept therefore that the universe/spacetime could have spontaneously popped into existence where nothing at all existed beforehand? How likely is that? Isn't creation by something far more likely?

neither one is more likely than the other. Right?

20goto10

it still doesn't change the fact that everything in the universe can be explained intrinsically. You do not need an external force in order to explain the stars, planets and life or anything else in the cosmos.

Zillah

kelly1 wrote: »

Don't get involved if you don't want to. You're free to ingore this thread.

Well it's just annoying considering that I've explained all of this in great detail in the past.

Do you accept therefore that the universe/spacetime could have spontaneously popped into existence where nothing at all existed beforehand? How likely is that? Isn't creation by something far more likely?

I don't know, you don't know, we don't know anything about the nature of the non-before timelessness that was pre-big bang. Let's not make shit up, shall we Noel?

I think X would have to sentient and all-powerful, don't you?

Pfffbhwwahahaha why? Why not some timeless super particle that creates big bangs? Why on earth would it need to be an intelligence? And surely very powerful would suffice, rather than all powerful?

20goto10

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you accept therefore that the universe/spacetime could have spontaneously popped into existence where nothing at all existed beforehand? How likely is that? Isn't creation by something far more likely?

Saying the universe has a begining is not the same as saying it popped into existence from nothing. It simply suggests that there is something external. It doesn't have to be a God.

the fact is nobody knows. Saying God did it explains nothing.

stevejazzx

This makes painful reading.

Even if there is a God, introduing him at this point only makes the eqaution more difficult as his presence casues more questions than it answers.

fitz0

kelly1 wrote: »

And the BGV theorem rules out the eternal universe/successive universes/multiverse option.

Let me get this straight, you accept that, in line with the BGV theorem, that eternal/successive universes/multiverse are all impossible but you willingly believe in heavan and hell? How can you possibly reconcile that?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you accept therefore that the universe/spacetime could have spontaneously popped into existence where nothing at all existed beforehand?

Happens all the time. That's what particle accelerators study.

kelly1 wrote: »

How likely is that? Isn't creation by something far more likely?

Only if you accept your "something cannot come from nothing" rule which you don't apply to yourself. See my post above.

kelly1 wrote: »

But the BGV theorem rules out any such prior universes. And the BGV theorem rules out the eternal universe/successive universes/multiverse option. Do you reject the BGV theorem?

I have no opinion on it, since I don't understand it. If a suitably-qualified physicist other than the author tells me that this is a reasonable point of view, then I've no doubt that I'll probably accept what's said. But until cosmologists settle down with a single, well-supported theory of what happened before the big bang, I'm not likely to invest much time or effort in understanding the luxuriant variety of theories currently on offer. I have a job and a kid too and other technical stuff to keep up to date with.

And even if BGV does show that the universe arose out of nothing. Well, fair enough. That means that god doesn't exist.

Which seems a fair enough conclusion to me.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

If the universe had a beginning, then it was created. Is that not so? If it was created, the it must have had a creator because something cannot come out of nothing. For an atheist to claim that the universe emerged our of nothing, smacks of hypocrisy.

Sand dunes are created. Who is their creator?

The vast majority of atheists do not say that the universe came from nothing, when asked they'll mostly say "I don't know". You're the only one saying something came from nothing, your god

Also, if your creator is "something" and something cannot come from nothing, you might want to update your statement to "only one thing can come from nothing"

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sand dunes are created. Who is their creator?

The wind.

Sam Vimes

togster wrote: »

The wind.

kelly1 wrote: »

I think X would have to sentient and all-powerful, don't you?

Is the wind sentient and all-powerful, or is it a natural process that is capable of creating something that does not require an all-powerful intelligence?

The Mad Hatter

20goto10 wrote: »

Saying the universe has a begining is not the same as saying it popped into existence from nothing. It simply suggests that there is something external. It doesn't have to be a God.

the fact is nobody knows. Saying God did it explains nothing.

Er... /thread?