Has Hawking anything important to say....?

[shunyadragon]

Of course the ultimate nature of our physical existence is unknown, but it depends on what you call evidence in science for the eternal and infinite physical existence. Almost all cosmologists, physicists, and mathmaticians support an eternal physical existence based on our current knowledge. It is interesting that the only ones who object to this concept are traditional theists.

[Jedidiah]

Almost all cosmologists, physicists, and mathmaticians support an eternal physical existence based on our current knowledge.

Our current knowledge does not include any evidence for an eternal physical universe. None. There is lots of speculation, but no scientific evidence. The "Almost all cosmologists, physicists" who support this idea do it on a philosophical basis. What do (sic)"mathmaticians" have to do with the argument anyhow?

[shunyadragon]

Our current knowledge does not include any evidence for an eternal physical universe. None. There is lots of speculation, but no scientific evidence. The "Almost all cosmologists, physicists" who support this idea do it on a philosophical basis.

False, this has been covered in many threads in the past, please explain . . .

WHY ONLY TRADITIONAL THEISTS ARE THE ONES TO OBJECT TO THE CONCEPT OF AN ETERNAL INFINITE UNIVERSE?????

What do (sic)"mathmaticians" have to do with the argument anyhow?

Reflects your lack of knowledge of the role math plays in cosmology. Math is one of the foundation concepts in modeling our universe.

[Jedidiah]

I remember why I don't respond to your posts. You always have lots to say, but with no substance.

[The Pixie]

Jedidiah

Thus far there is no evidence for any macro objects to come into existence. And the particles that do exist, do not exist for long.

We are talking about universes coming into existence. How could we possibly observe that from inside one? The truth is that we do not know either way.

You seem to be saying it is easier for you to believe in an eternal "energy soup" than to believe in an eternal creating intelligence. Why? There is no scientific evidence for either.

I am just offering it as an alternative explanation. It is just as likely to be something else. Perhaps the whole universe is running inside a computer at a pan-dimensional science fair. We have no way of knowing

Almost all cosmologists, physicists, and mathmaticians support an eternal physical existence based on our current knowledge.

Our current knowledge does not include any evidence for an eternal physical universe.

All the evidence points to the universe having a beginning. However, that does not rule out an eternal physical existence.


Enigma121

seems to me that all the philosophical objections lodged against an eternal universe could easily be used against the "eternal energy soup" hypothesis as well..

Or against an eternal God.

[Jedidiah]

JedidiahWe are talking about universes coming into existence. How could we possibly observe that from inside one? The truth is that we do not know either way.

Exactly. There is not, nor is there ever likely to be, scientific evidence to distinguish between an eternal universe and an eternal creator.

All the talk of voting cosmologists is bases on something besides science.

[shunyadragon]

Jedidiah

We are talking about universes coming into existence. How could we possibly observe that from inside one? The truth is that we do not know either way.

Actually no, all the evidence does not point to our universe having a beginning. It likely began in our present form in an event called the big bang, but there are alternatives based on the evidence that that may or may not be the beginning, and definitely not the beginning 'traditional theists' refer to.

The 'truth' is not an issue in science. Saying, 'we do not know either way' does not address the issue. What does the present evidence we have concerning the nature of our physical existence? The present evidence points to the existence of physical worlds beyond our own, and all the theories and hypothesis at present cannot work in a finite temperal existence..

I am just offering it as an alternative explanation. It is just as likely to be something else. Perhaps the whole universe is running inside a computer at a pan-dimensional science fair. We have no way of knowing.

Speculation like this is free noise and leads nowhere like the arguments used by Jedidiah and seer.

All the evidence points to the universe having a beginning. However, that does not rule out an eternal physical existence.

Again, no.

[shunyadragon]

I remember why I don't respond to your posts. You always have lots to say, but with no substance.

Did not respond to the question.

[Enigma121]

Jedidiah



Enigma121

Or against an eternal God.

Not at all. People who object to an eternal universe point out things like there cannot be an infinite regress of causes, the impossibility of an actual infinite number of things, etc. Not so with God. Nobody in theism circles (to my understanding) thinks of God doing a number of things before the creation of time. People wonder what exactly was going on before that, but thats another matter. It goes back to the need for a timeless (outside the bounds of time) uncaused first cause.

Blessings :)

[Enigma121]

sorry for the above post being a bit patchy, I'm new to the forums here.

[The Pixie]

shunyadragon

Actually no, all the evidence does not point to our universe having a beginning. It likely began in our present form in an event called the big bang, but there are alternatives based on the evidence that that may or may not be the beginning, and definitely not the beginning 'traditional theists' refer to.

Perhaps we have different definitions of universe? Anyway, I am not alone in this:

The Big Bang was the event which led to the formation of the universe, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe's early development (known as the Big Bang theory or Big Bang model). .... Based on the best available measurements as of 2010[update], the original state of the universe existed around 13.7 billion years ago,[1][2] which is often referred to as the time when the Big Bang occurred.[3][4]
...
The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as "the Big Bang",[notes 3] and is considered the "birth" of our Universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The 'truth' is not an issue in science. Saying, 'we do not know either way' does not address the issue. What does the present evidence we have concerning the nature of our physical existence?

When I said "The truth is", I could have as easily said "The reality is". I am not talking about any great philosophical truth here, just noting the facts of the situation.

I appreciate that that does not address the issue. Tough. That is the way it is. We do not have any way to tell one way or another, so we cannot address the issue.

The present evidence points to the existence of physical worlds beyond our own, and all the theories and hypothesis at present cannot work in a finite temperal existence..

Yes, there is evidence of other physical worlds; Mars, Jupiter, etc. However, I suspect you meant something else.

As the Wiki paged linked above says, all the theories and hypothesis at present point to a universe that started 13.75 bilion years ago, so where you get this idea that they do not work with a finite temperal existence I really do not know.

If you do not like Wiki, try these pges instead:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...b_pillars.html
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics...-the-big-bang/

Speculation like this is free noise and leads nowhere like the arguments used by Jedidiah and seer.

In a way you are right. It is pretty much worthless. I mention it to highlight that that is the status of any other speculations too. There is zero evidence from outside or before the universe, so all we have is wild speculation, all of it free noise.

[The Pixie]

Enigma121

Enigma: seems to me that all the philosophical objections lodged against an eternal universe could easily be used against the "eternal energy soup" hypothesis as well..

Pix: Or against an eternal God.

Not at all. People who object to an eternal universe point out things like there cannot be an infinite regress of causes, the impossibility of an actual infinite number of things, etc. Not so with God. Nobody in theism circles (to my understanding) thinks of God doing a number of things before the creation of time. People wonder what exactly was going on before that, but thats another matter. It goes back to the need for a timeless (outside the bounds of time) uncaused first cause.

Why can there not be an infinite regress?

That is actually beside the point. We are comparing an "eternal energy soup" to an eternal God. You claim God as a "timeless ... uncaused first cause". I say the eternal energy soup is likewise a "timeless ... uncaused first cause". The difference here is that you are positing an entity with intelligence, so the task is to show why a "timeless ... uncaused first cause" must necessarily be intelligent. I do not think we know enough about a "timeless ... uncaused first cause" to draw any conclusions at all.

[Jedidiah]

I certainly do not claim God is timeless. He exists and acts, but we have no way of knowing what His state is. Anything that is not revealed is speculation.

We can not tell anything about why, relating to God, unless it is revealed.