The creation of time and space? What!

[JimL]

"Originally posted by Sparko

You do realize that there is no EMPERICAL EVIDENCE for other universes, right? That is the whole point. It is philosophy, not science. It is an idea, not evidence.

Odd how you don't see the irony in making this argument Sparko. Atheists and agnostics have been making this same argument against the idea of God, which falls upon deaf ears, for years. God is a philosophical idea for which there is no verifiable empirical evidence. The only difference in the two arguments is that we do have verifiable empirical evidence that the attributes of the material universe, i.e. space, time, energy and matter do exist and so we can more logically infer from this that it exists beyond the bounds of our own particular universe. But there is no verifiable empirical evidence whatsoever supporting the idea of an immaterial creator.

[Sparko]

Odd how you don't see the irony in making this argument Sparko. Atheists and agnostics have been making this same argument against the idea of God, which falls upon deaf ears, for years. God is a philosophical idea for which there is no verifiable empirical evidence. The only difference in the two arguments is that we do have verifiable empirical evidence that the attributes of the material universe, i.e. space, time, energy and matter do exist and so we can more logically infer from this that it exists beyond the bounds of our own particular universe. But there is no verifiable empirical evidence whatsoever supporting the idea of an immaterial creator.

all data we have shows that space and time had a beginning. so inferring that it is eternal or that there is another universe is without empirical evidence. It is just an idea. That was what my point was and remains.

same boat as the theists. Irks you and Tassy, eh? I can tell.

[JimL]

all data we have shows that space and time had a beginning.

No, that is actually factually false. We have no data that shows a beginning. We have only data that shows the expansion of an already existing entity if you will.

so inferring that it is eternal or that there is another universe is without empirical evidence.

So, obviously it is evident that the universe existed previous to its expansion.

It is just an idea. That was what my point was and remains.

Yes, but your point is wrong because the universe obviously existed prior to our empirical evidence of its expansion, or what we often, and wrongly, refer to as its beginning.

same boat as the theists. Irks you and Tassy, eh? I can tell.

Not quite, we don't have a definite answer, but we are on more solid ground. There is no evidence of an immaterial existence.

[37818]

Are you sure that you removed the identity of God from this argument? Seems like you actually define God in your first premise, as below.

1. There is self-conditioned existence which conditioned existence such as space-time is conditioned on.

The uncaused cause which, I suppose, is otherwise referred to as God.

Well, yes, it is the identity for God. But if it is not God, then there is no god. Nevertheless there has to be something which has no cause. Whether it be identified as God or not.

Even an infinite series of causes and effects with no first cause requires an uncaused existence to be so!

[JimL]

Well, yes, it is the identity for God. But if it is not God, then there is no god. Nevertheless there has to be something which has no cause. Whether it be identified as God or not.

Even an infinite series of causes and effects with no first cause requires an uncaused existence to be so!

And if the effects are of the same nature as their cause, then though they are temporal with respect to themselves, they are infinite and eternal with respect to their cause. The something that has no cause and that which it causes, would be one and the same thing.

[Jedidiah]

Yes, but your point is wrong because the universe obviously existed prior to our empirical evidence of its expansion, or what we often, and wrongly, refer to as its beginning.

Can you give me any objective evidence for this proclamation?

[robertb]

Well, yes, it is the identity for God. But if it is not God, then there is no god. Nevertheless there has to be something which has no cause. Whether it be identified as God or not.

Even an infinite series of causes and effects with no first cause requires an uncaused existence to be so!

That there is anything probably means that there has always been something. Sounds reasonable to me.

[Tassman]

Tassman, you wouldn't know logic if it bit you on your behind.

“Hell hath no fury like a woman – oops – religionist scorned". Love your razor sharp analysis!

or apparently science.
You do realize that there IS NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for other universes, right? That is the whole point. It is philosophy, not science. It is an idea, not evidence.

No-one is claiming “empirical evidence” for the multiverse. Not as yet.

You seem unaware of how science functions. It acquires new knowledge by making predictions which are based on existing verified facts to develop testable, falsifiable theories. The confirmation of the long-predicted but (up until yesterday) unverified Higgs Boson Particle is an example of physics in action. The multiverse is also predicted but as yet unconfirmed.

actually it IS a logical proof. but then again, you don't understand logic, do you? or what the word "proof" even means when talking about logical arguments.

In logic, if the premises are true then the inference or ‘logical consequence’ must also be true. But the premise of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument is not known to be true. This is the point. The universe cannot be shown to have begun, thus it is a premise based on an unsupported assumption.

sheesh you are a moron, Tassman. That is not what the KCA does at all. You probably never even read it. But that is besides the point. The point is that there is NO evidence for other universes. It is mere conjecture. You are in the same boat as the theists. You have to have faith in an eternal universe to explain why we are here because you refuse to believe in an eternal God.

"Moron"!!! Just where did you go to charm-school? Bet you didn't graduate!

The only “mere conjecture” is is the second premise of the Kaalam Argument, namely “The universe began to exist”. At this point the KCA collapses into a screaming heap. OTOH there is growing evidence for an eternal multiverse. This last is where you are getting terminally confused.

And I do NOT have to have faith in anything to explain why we are here – deities, eternal universes or anything else. Your are projecting your "needs" onto me.

Yes, the universe began to exist, Tassman, no matter how hard you try to deny it. Time began to exist and space began to exist.

This is a naked assertion. Where is the evidence for this desparate “wish-fulfillment” of yours?

You can use magical thinking to imagine that there was some fairy tale eternal universe that existed beyond the planck time, but it just isn't so. It's just your primitive bronze-age mind making up some "just-so" explanation to hold on to in order to keep from believing in God.

The thing about Planck time is not that a universe did exist beyond it OR did not exist beyond it. We just don’t know as yet. But we are not in a position to say that the universe begun.

What makes you think I’m doing anything to “keep from believing in God”? The reverse seems more likely – that you are clinging to a “primitive bronze-age” notion rather than acknowledging the absence of evidence for deities – or angels, or demons, or cherubim or seraphim or any of the other mythical beings from an earlier (and admittedly more colorful) era.

Ah the old "Majority of xyz agree with me" strawman. No, Tassman, the majority of physicists do not agree with you. And even if they did, without evidence, they have no basis for it other than wishful thinking.

Are you qualified to make such assertions as those above? Are you? I don’t claim to be, hence my reliance on experts and links to support the argument – as opposed to your naked assertions and personal abuse.

Oh please, Tassman. You are clueless when it comes to science. You read popular fluff pieces like you link to below and claim that makes you a science expert.

I’m not claiming to be an expert and I would not call Professor Hawking’s lectures “fluff pieces”. OTOH, you have indulged in mere personal opinion and tantrums.

Sorry, there is no evidence there Tassman. Just more claims and ideas without any hard evidence. Scientists find _____, and think ____, and IF they are right it COULD mean ____. You can fill in the blanks with what ever you want, but it is still just conjecture.

Its' quite a bit more than "just conjecture". Hypotheses, predictions and testing of hypotheses are the methodology of science. Verified evidence, one way or the other, is the outcome. Unlike religion, science doesn't depend on unsubstantiated divine revelation.

You put your faith where you want Tassman, but it is still just faith.

Whatever.

[Tassman]

I like that part where you replied to my post while completely missing my points.

No, the point you are missing is that ALL creation myths arose from the pre-scientific attempt to understand the origins of the universe; there is no reason to prefer one over another, i.e. unless one has a religious commitment to one of them.

First of all, you'll find that very many OT scholars reject the notion that the Babylonian account is the basis for the Genesis account.

And you will find that very many OT scholars see too many similarities between the Babylonian Creation Myth and the later Genesis Creation Myth to be mere coincidence.

Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context by John Walton

The fact that Israel on occasion exhibits cultural characteristics assimilated from Babylon, as did most of the ancient Near East, can in no way serve as independent proof that any given item was borrowed. Each potential case of borrowing must be studied on its own merits, for it is clear that there are serveral cultural elements from Mesopotamia that Israel rejected. The only evidence that can be produced to support the case for Israelite borrowing is the similarities we have already identified. These are hardly convincing, in that most of the similarities occur in situations where cosmological choices are limited. For example, the belief in the primeval watery mass is perfectly logical and one of only a few possibilities. The fact that the Babylonians and Israelites use similar names, Timat and tehom, is no surprise, since their respective languages are cognates of one another.
What I am suggesting is that the similarities are conceptual, not specific.

© source where applicable

Genesis Unbound by John Sailhamer

Though many have assumed that the Bible shares the world view of the ancient orient, the creation accounts we have from that period are all distinct from the Bible. They are distinctly poetic and manifestly mythological. The biblical account, by contrast, is thoroughly narrative in form and decidedly non-mythological. If we want to understand the relationship between the Bible and the ancient Near Eastern culture in which it was written, we would be wiser to compare the Biblical poetic accounts of creation (as in Job 38) with the early ancient Near East accounts.
To compare the narratives of Genesis 1 with the poetic myths of the Babylonians is a classic case of mixing apples and oranges. The primary reason the biblical narratives have been compared with the ancient Near Eastern poetry is that no Near Eastern narrative parallels exist. That, in itself, testifies to the distinctive world view of the biblical creation account.

© source where applicable

An Introduction to the Old Testament: Second Edition by Dr. Tremper Longman III

On the one hand, the passage definitely guards against a mythological or parabolic interpretation (contra Goldingay...). On the other hand, the theme of Genesis 1 and 2 is not how God created, but that God created the creation, and that he made it from no preexistent stuff (creatio ex nihilo) in contrast to the beliefs of the other Near Eastern religions (contra Levenson).

© source where applicable

It is hardly surprising that Evangelical scholars like John H. Sailhamer, Dr. Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton manage to support their religious presuppositions by their research. And it’s hardly surprising that you as a Christian prefer them. But their findings are not accepted by many other OT scholars.

Yes. I know this is your view. Its one of like half a dozen mantras you repeat on the forum every chance you get. Its a silly statement of course since it addresses nothing here, nor is it even applicable in areas outside the scope and reach of the hard sciences. Heck, its arguable that its a true maxim even in those areas within the scope and reach of the hard sciences. But its part of the new thinking for those who worship at the alter of scientism within recent years to abase and subdue any view that may challenge metaphysical naturalism. Its just too bad they can't see the irony in it all.

Creation mythology and philosophical arguments are pre-scientific attempts to explain the origins of the universe. Both have been superseded by modern science because scientific methodology has proven to be a far more productive.

And for as long as you continue to promote the former over and above the latter I will continue to remind you that science can provide conclusive answers and philosophy remains a mere academic exercise. Never has an empirically verified scientific theory been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing philosophical or mystical explanation. (E.g. “We are wrong, Dr. Pasteur, I've examined the pancreas of a diabetic dog and darned if it's NOT caused by an insulin deficiency after all, but by an evil little goblin dwelling inside it. And he’s really pissed off!")…………” Gene Weingarten

Yes, people like PJ Meyers have made it abundantly clear that they were extremely butt hurt that, Anthony Flew, long the poster boy of atheism, in the end accepted belief in a creator. Flew made it clear, “The idea that someone manipulated me because I’m old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me.” My point, of course, wasn't to lord Flew over atheists and say "haha, we got one of you". I'm not trying to compete over who has the most converts. I was simply pointing out that one need not proscribe to any religion or creation narrative to come to the conclusion that a God may be necessary for the creation of the universe. In the end Flew was a free thinking philosopher who followed the available evidence and came to his own conclusions about God and the universe, and no one can claim that his decision was based on any arm twisting or religious indoctrination. Your own examples fall short anyways. I don't know anything about Robert Price's views on creation, but Bart Ehrman has made it clear a number of times that he's an agnostic. I'm assuming his agnosticism extends to his belief about God and the creation of the universe. Regardless, their personal beliefs on the subject is neither here nor there, and, like I said, completely misses the point.

BUTT HURT!!! Righteously indignant is more accurate. It was YOU who brought Flew into the discussion, not me. And exploiting a once great man in his declining years is cheap and nasty religious politics on a par with the despicable false claims of Darwin’s death-bed conversion. You seem to need your conversions, genuine or otherwise, to validate your religious worldview! Why do you think this might be?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/ma...=1&oref=slogin

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...the-exploitat/

What are you trying to prove - that religion will triumph in the end? It's actually in decline in most developed countries.

[Adrift]

No, the point you are missing is that ALL creation myths arose from the pre-scientific attempt to understand the origins of the universe; there is no reason to prefer one over another, i.e. unless one has a religious commitment to one of them.

You're still not getting it. I don't care if there's one creation myth or a zillion. The fact is, you don't need to choose any ancient creation myth to come to the belief that a creator of some sort is responsible for the beginning of the universe as the case with Anthony Flew demonstrates.

And you will find that very many OT scholars see too many similarities between the Babylonian Creation Myth and the later Genesis Creation Myth to be mere coincidence.

Sure, I do find that, but its certainly not a consensus opinion.

It is hardly surprising that Evangelical scholars like John H. Sailhamer, Dr. Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton manage to support their religious presuppositions by their research. And it’s hardly surprising that you as a Christian prefer them. But their findings are not accepted by many other OT scholars.

Oh hey look! It's your favorite fallacy, the genetic variety. For some non-Evangelical views on the subject that concur with those I've already cited see the Jewish Old Testament scholars Jeffrey Tigay, Nahum Sarna, Shalom M. Paul, and Assyriologist Ake W. Sjoberg. I'd include among these the renown Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen, but he's a Christian, so your prejudicial bias would surely keep his informed opinion at arms length. You only read authors, not only of the same opinion, but of the same philosophical worldview... you know... in keeping with being a freethinker and all that...

Creation mythology and philosophical arguments are pre-scientific attempts to explain the origins of the universe. Both have been superseded by modern science because scientific methodology has proven to be a far more productive.

Maybe if you repeat the mantra enough times it'll come true!

And for as long as you continue to promote the former over and above the latter I will continue to remind you that science can provide conclusive answers and philosophy remains a mere academic exercise. Never has an empirically verified scientific theory been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing philosophical or mystical explanation. (E.g. “We are wrong, Dr. Pasteur, I've examined the pancreas of a diabetic dog and darned if it's NOT caused by an insulin deficiency after all, but by an evil little goblin dwelling inside it. And he’s really pissed off!")…………” Gene Weingarten

It's only in your mind that philosophy, religion, and science are in competition to overturn one another. All are simply methods that seek to understand ourselves, and the world around us.

Bryan Appleyard puts it well in this piece in the New Statesmen titled God Wars, "Ultimately, the problem with militant neo-atheism is that it represents a profound category error. Explaining religion - or, indeed, the human experience - in scientific terms is futile. "It would be as bizarre as to launch a scientific investigation into the truth of Anna Karenina or love," de Botton says. 'It's a symptom of the misplaced confidence of science . . . It's a kind of category error. It's a fatally wrong question and the more you ask it, the more you come up with bizarre and odd answers.'"

BUTT HURT!!! Righteously indignant is more accurate.

Oh brother

It was YOU who brought Flew into the discussion, not me.

Yes I know that. Unlike you I don't have a problem keeping track of what I've previously written.

And exploiting a once great man in his declining years is cheap and nasty religious politics on a par with the despicable false claims of Darwin’s death-bed conversion. You seem to need your conversions, genuine or otherwise, to validate your religious worldview! Why do you think this might be?

The advocate of scientism doth protest too much, methinks. Its hardly exploitation to point out a philosopher who's opinion about the nature of the universe dramatically changed without the help of previous religious entailments or belief in ancient creation narratives.

What are you trying to prove - that religion will triumph in the end? It's actually in decline in most developed countries.

I love how you introduce strawmen as if no one will notice.

[Sparko]

Tassman and Phank are two sides of the same coin. I just can't decide which is the head and which is the tails. Most likely, though, it is a double-tailed coin.

[Racer X]

You have cherry-picked your conclusion and misunderstood the overall concept Hawking has of the universe. He is specifically referring to our universe. He addresses the hypotheses of multiple universes as a separate issue. But he acknowledges their likelihood. I suggest you check and see for yourself. I won’t C&P extracts because of the strict copyright provisions Hawking has invoked:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin...-universe.html

But, as a very loose paraphrase Hawking is arguing that one can’t refer to the beginning of our space/time universe any more than one can refer to the edge of our planet. Thus, to query what may have existed before the start of our universe is the equivalent of asking what is north of the North Pole. It’s a nonsensical question.

As for your faith-based beliefs: “In the beginning God created……” and “……..No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began...This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time…….” Are you claiming that this grace given in Christ Jesus applies to the multiverse or just our lil’ ole universe?

The whole concept of a multiverse is just a theory, nothings been proven. However it's been proven the our universe did have a beginning and the bible makes that same claim throughout scripture, all before Stephen Hawking figured it out.

[37818]

And if the effects are of the same nature as their cause, then though they are temporal with respect to themselves, they are infinite and eternal with respect to their cause.

Yes the series, and no, not any of the individual causes being temporal. And as such would require an uncaused existence for them to be such.

The something that has no cause and that which it causes, would be one and the same thing.

No they would not be the same thing. A caused thing is not uncaused. And an infinite series not having a first cause are still causes. They still require an uncaused existence, which is not the same thing as the series.

It seems your thinking is muddled on this matter.

[JimL]

Yes the series, and no, not any of the individual causes being temporal. And as such would require an uncaused existence for them to be such.

No they would not be the same thing. A caused thing is not uncaused. And an infinite series not having a first cause are still causes. They still require an uncaused existence, which is not the same thing as the series.

It seems your thinking is muddled on this matter.

If as an analogy you assume our particular universe to be infinite and eternal, then the temporal particulars within it you would say were caused by that which they are in, in other words, you would have to say that they were caused by the universe. The universe itself of course would not be caused, it is eternal, but the temporal forms that arise and fall within it, being that they are not distinct from the universe itself, but rather comprise it, are only caused in the sense of immanent causation.

[Tassman]

The whole concept of a multiverse is just a theory, nothings been proven.

The multiverse, which you dismiss as “just a theory” is actually is a set of informed hypotheses under investigation. Science acquires new knowledge by making predictions, based on existing verified facts, in order to develop testable, falsifiable theories. These in turn are used to develop further predictions and so the acquisition of new knowledge proceeds. Science is a work in process. The recent confirmation of the long-predicted Higgs Boson Particle is an example of the process. It too was “just a theory”, but now it has been verified. Similarly, the multiverse is predicted but as yet unconfirmed. We can only await the outcome, but to dismissively hand-wave it away is foolish.

However it's been proven the our universe did have a beginning and the bible makes that same claim throughout scripture, all before Stephen Hawking figured it out.

No, it has NOT been proven that the universe had a beginning. Even leaving aside the likelihood of the eternal multiverse, the origins of our own universe cannot be taken back any further than Planck Time. In Planck Time the laws of physics no longer apply. Thus we cannot say that a universe did exist beyond our universe OR did not exist beyond it. We just don’t know. But we cannot say that the universe begun. Such a claim goes beyond our existing knowledge.