Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem...

Options
24567…11

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    Er... /thread?

    You would think......


  • Options
    #33
    togster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭togster


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    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?

    We've been over this but something must make it all work. Not a sentient being but something.

    Anyway i was just joking with ya ;)


  • Options
    #34
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    togster wrote: »
    We've been over this but something must make it all work. Not a sentient being but something.

    Anyway i was just joking with ya ;)

    Could this "something" be a natural process like gravity or electromagnetism that we haven't discovered yet or do you think it's supernatural?


  • Options
    #35
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    kelly1 wrote: »
    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.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    If the universe was created, then don't you agree it must have a creator....

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

    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.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Isn't creation by something far more likely?

    Everybody... hop on!

    11_06_14---Merry-go-round--The-Hopp.jpg


  • Options
    #36
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    I find the idea of an infinitely complex, all powerful, all knowing, all loving, eternal, timeless being who doesn't like people who masturbate, who created a trillion trillion trillion planets but only felt the need to put life on one of them and who deliberately wants to keep the knowledge of his existence from us because he values faith (ie gullibility) to be completely incomprehensible.

    Is it not far more likely that the universe was created through a natural process that we don't understand yet?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    toiletduck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    kelly1 wrote: »
    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.

    What's that gotta do with what happens when we die though?


    because something cannot come out of nothing.
    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.

    You seem to know an awful lot about an 'unknowable' being....

    The whole "everything must have a creator except <insert religious figure>" has to be one of the weakest arguments going. I really don't know what you expect us to say to it.


  • Options
    #38
    togster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭togster


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Could this "something" be a natural process like gravity or electromagnetism that we haven't discovered yet or do you think it's supernatural?

    I don't know ;)


    Electromagnetism is pretty fascinating in itself.


  • Options
    #39
    toiletduck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    To answer the question
    kelly1 wrote: »
    If science could definitively prove that all matter/universe(s) had a beginning, would that affect your stance on theism/deism?

    No not really. It would seem to imply further 'evidence' against a god(s) but that's all.


  • Options
    #40
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    togster wrote: »
    neither one is more likely than the other. Right?
    Look, the theorem proves that the universe had a beginning meaning that absolutely nothing existed beforehand. No time, no matter, no space, no energy. So which is more likely:

    a) The universe, culminating in the existence of humans capable of questioning the origins of the universe, sprang into existence without a cause

    b) Something immaterial created the universe

    Do you accept that the cause of the universe can't be physical/material? The substance or being which created the universe can't be physical because then there would be pre-existence instead of creation.
    20goto10 wrote: »
    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.
    No, the universe can't explain its own existence. It came into being at a point in time. That's what the theorem says.
    20goto10 wrote: »
    Saying the universe has a begining is not the same as saying it popped into existence from nothing.
    Yes it is. See my reply to togster. If there is a beginning, there can be nothing beforehand. Otherwise it's not a beginning is it?
    20goto10 wrote: »
    It simply suggests that there is something external. It doesn't have to be a God.
    It says nothing about the nature of the creator. I'm arguing that the creator is immaterial and eternal.
    20goto10 wrote: »
    the fact is nobody knows. Saying God did it explains nothing.
    You left out the word "precisely" Mr. Dawkins! :)
    fitz0 wrote: »
    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?
    Why not? I believe Heaven and Hell were created.
    robindch wrote: »
    Happens all the time. That's what particle accelerators study.
    Why then does it take incredibly high energy level to create these particles? Is it not energy being converted into matter?
    robindch wrote: »
    See my post above. I have no opinion on it, since I don't understand it.
    Neither do I! But I'm assuming the theory hasn't been falsified.
    robindch wrote: »
    And even if BGV does show that the universe arose out of nothing. Well, fair enough.
    Do you think the universe(s) were created or spontaneously popped into existence for no reason?
    robindch wrote: »
    That means that god doesn't exist.
    I presume you meant to say "That doesn't mean god exists"?


  • Options
    #41
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    kelly1 wrote: »
    If the universe had a beginning, then it was created. Is that not so?

    No.
    If it was created, the it must have had a creator because something cannot come out of nothing.

    And your background in quantum field theory, particle physics and cosmology have led you to this inescapable conclusion?

    Even if the universe was "created", there are non-God explanations (e.g. anthropomorphic one due to retro-causality, universe created in a lab of a parent universe, etc)
    I don't see how the creator can be a physical being because matter can't create more matter from itself.

    I also don't see how the creator can be a physical being...
    So we must, to my mind, assume that the creator is made of a non-physical substance.

    A "non-physical substance" eh? Cf. "Oxymoron"
    What I'm saying is that everything which begins to exist must have a cause.

    Not quantum mechanically. And not necessarily with temporal consistency either.
    I'm also saying that God never had a beginning and has no need of a cause.

    My, how convenient.
    And since God has no "parts", nothing needed to come together to form Him.

    Well then, QED on your part I suppose.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    toiletduck wrote: »
    What's that gotta do with what happens when we die though?

    Because I've argued that God cannot be physical if He created the universe because matter can't create new matter. Matter can only be transformed. I've also argued that God can't be composed of parts because this would raise the question of where the parts came from and how they came together.

    So if such an eternal immaterial being exists, it's worth investigating whether we are annihilated at death or get to meet this eternal being. And does this eternal being have expectations of us etc, etc...


  • Options
    #43
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Can I also point out the absurdity of talking about 'before the beginning', as we're talking about the beginning of time too?


  • Options
    #44
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    because matter can't create new matter
    Again, yes it can. That's what particle accelerators do (see previous post).
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Why then does it take incredibly high energy level to create these particles? Is it not energy being converted into matter?
    There are plenty of other particles popping into and out of existence other than the ones that show up because high-energy protons or lead atoms bang into each other.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Do you think the universe(s) were created or spontaneously popped into existence for no reason?
    I've already answered this many times before, and at least once on this thread.

    Why did your deity pop into existence for no reason? Who created it?

    Surely something can't come from nothing?


  • Options
    #45
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Naz_st wrote: »
    And your background in quantum field theory, particle physics and cosmology have led you to this inescapable conclusion?
    No, I'm very much a layman here. I'm only going by what science is telling us.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    Even if the universe was "created", there are non-God explanations (e.g. anthropomorphic one due to retro-causality, universe created in a lab of a parent universe, etc)
    Not sure what you mean there but the theorem is independent of the model being used single universe, succession of universes, multiverse, nested universes etc. To use a techincal term, "the whole shebang" had a beginning.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    A "non-physical substance" eh? Cf. "Oxymoron"
    For the sake of argument, let's call it a spiritual substance.
    Naz_st wrote: »
    Not quantum mechanically. And not necessarily with temporal consistency either.
    Again not sure what this is about but in the case of quantum phenomena, we're talking about things which happen in existing matter. How does what you're saying apply to "nothing"?


  • Options
    #46
    DapperGent
    Registered Users Posts: 4,838 ✭✭✭DapperGent


    kelly1 wrote: »
    No, I'm very much a layman here. I'm only going by what science is telling us.
    No you're not. You're skimming popular science looking for any snippets you can marry to your preconceptions.


  • Options
    #47
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    No, I'm very much a layman here. I'm only going by what science is telling us.
    In all fairness, Noel, I think you're going by what William Lane Craig says.

    I don't think it's very wise to think that a religious preacher is a reliable source of information about physics. Look at what (diploma-mill-doctor) Ken Ham does to biology...


  • Options
    #48
    20goto10
    Registered Users Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    kelly1 wrote: »
    No, the universe can't explain its own existence. It came into being at a point in time. That's what the theorem says.
    Everything within the universe can be explained intrinsically. If the theorem is correct and the universe does indeed have a begining then it simply means there is more to the story than our universe. It doesn't prove there is a God. It doesn't even suggest that there is a God because the idea of a God in the first place makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Who created God? Oh yeah its just this magical invisible thing that doesn't need to explain itself, thats why its a God. It's like saying I'm not stupid because by being stupid in itself suggests that I am an intelligent being. Its just complete and utter nonsense no matter how you put it.


  • Options
    #49
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    kelly1 wrote: »
    No, I'm very much a layman here. I'm only going by what science is telling us.

    Please outline clearly what science is actually telling you and be honest.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    For the sake of argument, let's call it a spiritual substance.

    I can assure you that would do nothing for the argument. Remember where you are.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Again not sure what this is about but in the case of quantum phenomena, we're talking about things which happen in existing matter. How does what you're saying apply to "nothing"?

    A good question to ask yourself.


  • Options
    #50
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    robindch wrote: »
    Again, yes it can. That's what particle accelerators do (see previous post).There are plenty of other particles popping into and out of existence other than the ones that show up because high-energy protons or lead atoms bang into each other.
    OK, but does this happen outside particle accelerators or even beyond the edge of the universe where there really is nothing?
    robindch wrote: »
    I've already answered this many times before, and at least once on this thread.
    Sorry, which post number is your anwer in?
    robindch wrote: »
    Why did your deity pop into existence for no reason? Who created it?

    Surely something can't come from nothing?
    You're taking the piss now. I've answered this clearly a few times.


  • Options
    #51
    toiletduck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Look, the theorem proves that the universe had a beginning meaning that absolutely nothing existed beforehand.

    Admittedly I've only skimmed the paper (have plenty of other ones in front of me at the mo!) but I safely say it does no such thing.

    Because I've argued that God cannot be physical if He created the universe because matter can't create new matter. Matter can only be transformed. I've also argued that God can't be composed of parts because this would raise the question of where the parts came from and how they came together.

    So if such an eternal immaterial being exists, it's worth investigating whether we are annihilated at death or get to meet this eternal being. And does this eternal being have expectations of us etc, etc...

    I don't think this is related to the topic at hand so I'll leave it be.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    kelly1 wrote: »
    ...You're taking the piss now. I've answered this clearly a few times.

    With all due respect Kelly1 he isn't and you haven't suitably. You've just given us what you believe to be true.


  • Options
    #53
    toiletduck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    kelly1 wrote: »
    OK, but does this happen outside particle accelerators or even beyond the edge of the universe where there really is nothing?

    I think what you're getting at are virtual particles http://particle-physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/whats_in_a_vacuum


    Edit: Please someone more in the know feel free to correct me on this. Been a while!


  • Options
    #54
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Ok, so I'm kinda jumping in here without reading most of this thread but I have a question about the theory. Does the theory say that the universe has a beginning or that matter has a beginning? Maybe I'm wrong, but if it says that the universe has a beginning, doesn't that just apply to space-time having a beginning because, as far as I understand it, isn't the matter that's in the universe now supposed to have existed before the big bang, just in some kind of singularity state?


  • Options
    #55
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    kelly1 wrote: »
    For the sake of argument, let's call it a spiritual substance.
    Why not just call it a makey-uppy substance because that's exactly what it is.


  • Options
    #56
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Noel, you keep insisting that something can't come from nothing. How do you know this? By definition we cannot have any knowledge of or perform any experiments on 'nothing'.

    For all we know the universe did come from absolutely nothing. Nothing material, nothing supernatural, just nothing. For no reason. You might not like this observation, but that does not make it not so.

    I know you really really want this to be a great argument for God, but it's not, please listen to the people who are explaining why and stop repeating yourself.


  • Options
    #57
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Please outline clearly what science is actually telling you and be honest.

    The BGV paper has this to say:
    Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating -- or just expanding sufficiently fast -- must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.
    ......
    and later

    Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear
    that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow
    be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation
    alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of
    the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
    to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20].
    This is the chief result of our paper.

    And Vilenkin says this in his 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).
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    I can assure you that would do nothing for the argument. Remember where you are.
    All I'm doing is arguing that the creator can't be physical or natural.


  • Options
    #58
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    OK, but does this happen outside particle accelerators or even beyond the edge of the universe where there really is nothing?
    We've no reason to think it doesn't occur out there.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    You're taking the piss now. I've answered this clearly a few times.
    No, you haven't answered it at all. As far as I can understand what you've written, you've said that you think that your deity created the big bang. Fair enough. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.

    You've also said that your deity isn't "composed of parts because this would raise the question of where the parts came from and how they came together". In all fairness, it wouldn't so much "raise the question" as directly imply that your deity was derivative and created by something else and you don't want this to be true. Or even a possibility.

    In effect, you're simply declaring that your deity was not created, that it was not derivative, and most while it does not exist in the usual material sense, it is sufficiently materialistic to be able to build an entire universe.

    If you're going to do this and simply avoid any of the implications of what you want to be true, then I'm going to say that the big bang was created by the Great Patooty that exists in one hundred and six dimensions, is completely invisible, while being mottled purple and yellow and pleasantly both smooth and bumpy (a divine mystery, that one). Problem of the creation of the universe solved!

    Now, all I need is a holybook.


  • Options
    #59
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,404 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    All I'm doing is arguing that the creator can't be physical or natural.
    ...while saying that your deity isn't subject to the "something can't come from nothing" rule that you apply to everybody but yourself.


  • Options
    #60
    20goto10
    Registered Users Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    kelly1 wrote: »
    The BGV paper has this to say:



    And Vilenkin says this in his book:



    All I'm doing is arguing that the creator can't be physical or natural.
    But what has it got to do with a God? There may be something outside of the universe, I don't think anyone is arguing against you there. Its just the way you jump to the conclusion that it proves there is a God, because it doesn't. Even assuming the theory is true.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    kelly1 wrote: »
    No, I'm very much a layman here. I'm only going by what science is telling us.

    No, you're going by what you think some Christian apologist is saying by hijacking and bastardising random cosmological research papers.
    Not sure what you mean there but the theorem is independent of the model being used single universe, succession of universes, multiverse, nested universes etc. To use a techincal term, "the whole shebang" had a beginning.

    So? What has that got to do with:
    a) A God
    b) Your God

    And anyway, for the sake of argument let's accept the premise that the "succession of universes" (of which we are one) ultimately had a beginning. Since we don't know if we are in the "first" universe, our big bang could have been kicked off by some lab researcher in a parent universe. So our universe has a perfectly natural beginning, its creator being some mad scientist. The real "first" universe could be completely different fundamentally to ours and so much simpler as to be readily explainable in terms of it's origin.

    The point is: WE JUST DON'T KNOW YET!
    For the sake of argument, let's call it a spiritual substance.

    For the sake of argument, let's call it magic pixie dust.
    Again not sure what this is about but in the case of quantum phenomena, we're talking about things which happen in existing matter. How does what you're saying apply to "nothing"?

    What I'm saying is that cause need not necessarily precede effect.


Advertisement