An Infinite Past?

[Tassman]

I have no idea what you are saying Tass. First, Vilenkin certainly did mean begin like we use begin. The man is not that sloppy, and that was proved in his exchange of e-mails with Craig where Vilenkin made it clear that Craig did not misquote him. The fact is his theory does not get us to an eternal past - period. No matter what language you care to use. And Tass, you are free to keep "believing" in an eternal physical past even without a lick of actual physical evidence. Like I always say - never let it be said that I would deny a man his faith.

Vilenkin certainly does NOT mean “begin like we use 'begin" Nothing in the BGV Theorem implies a beginning from “absolute nothingness”. Vilenkin himself acknowledges this by canvassing several possible options utilizing the different physics required to explain the beginning of time - including that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.

“A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunnelling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunnelling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions”.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/ph...om_nothing.pdf

[shunyadragon]

Again Shuny, Guth or anyone else can assert an infinite past, the problem is there is zero physical evidence for such a theory. And what exactly is the difference beginning and absolute beginning? If something begins to exist it begins to exist - period.

In physics and cosmology beginnings are from preexisting conditions, I. e. the universe began from a singularity, or the origin was collapse of a black hole. Physics and cosmology considers beginnings to take place in a Quantum World of Quantum Gravity and Zero - point energy. You may not accept this but this is how the science of Cosmology considers beginnings. Absolute Beginnings like Absolute Nothing are philosophical/theological concepts and not in science. There is no theorem, model nor proposal from any physicist nor cosmologist that there is an absolute beginning of anything.

[JimL]

Again Shuny, Guth or anyone else can assert an infinite past, the problem is there is zero physical evidence for such a theory.

Even though there is no direct physical evidence for an eternal past, how could there be, there is a logical reason to believe that the Cosmos is eternal and the logical reason for believing it is that otherwise, a beginning would mean that something came from nothing, that the substance of the natural world just puffed into existence.

And what exactly is the difference beginning and absolute beginning? If something begins to exist it begins to exist - period.

Everything within the natural world has a beginning since the substance of the natural world changes forms, but being that they are all part of the natural world they don't have an absolute beginning. The individual things would be temporal with respect to themselves, but eternal with respect to their cause. Individual universes for instance would begin to exist ,or be temporal, with respect to themselves, but with respect to the Cosmos or the eternal substance of which they are a part, they would be eternal.

[seer]

In physics and cosmology beginnings are from preexisting conditions, I. e. the universe began from a singularity, or the origin was collapse of a black hole. Physics and cosmology considers beginnings to take place in a Quantum World of Quantum Gravity and Zero - point energy. You may not accept this but this is how the science of Cosmology considers beginnings. Absolute Beginnings like Absolute Nothing are philosophical/theological concepts and not in science. There is no theorem, model nor proposal from any physicist nor cosmologist that there is an absolute beginning of anything.

This is nonsense Shuny, unless you have some evidence for what came before the beginning. Of course an atheist in science will assume that some other physical force caused, lets say, the multiverse to begin, but with out credible evidence all you are left with is a beginning. So with the Vilenkin theory we have a beginning with no known cause.

[seer]

Even though there is no direct physical evidence for an eternal past, how could there be, there is a logical reason to believe that the Cosmos is eternal and the logical reason for believing it is that otherwise, a beginning would mean that something came from nothing, that the substance of the natural world just puffed into existence.

First Jim, God is not nothing. Second, you even have scientists suggesting that the universe was created from "nothing" - of course when they define nothing, it is rather vague. Third, why do you appeal to logic and reason? Logic and reason (or reasoning) depend on known facts - and collectively our knowledge is severely limited and parochial. Why should our finite understanding be the standard for what is possible or not, ultimately true or not? Finally, what makes more sense when it comes to the reliability of our cognitive ability - that our reasoning powers were cobbled haphazardly together by natural forces that care nothing for logic and reason, or that they were created with intention by a Rational Being.

[JimL]

First Jim, God is not nothing.

If the natural world, i.e. the substance comprising it, is of a distinct nature from its creator, then even though it was created by him, it was created from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing! At least we have no evidence of that, and evidence is what you keep harping to non believers about when it comes to an eternal Cosmos.

Second, you even have scientists suggesting that the universe was created from "nothing" - of course when they define nothing, it is rather vague.

And in their case I think that "nothing" is a poor choice of words since the quantum vacuum is not nothing. The mechanism of change is also not fully understood, and is an ongoing science.

Third, why do you appeal to logic and reason? Logic and reason (or reasoning) depend on known facts - and collectively our knowledge is severely limited and parochial. Why should our finite understanding be the standard for what is possible or not, ultimately true or not?

Because that is all we have to go on and it makes sense that our minds comport with the world of which we are a part.

Finally, what makes more sense when it comes to the reliability of our cognitive ability - that our reasoning powers were cobbled together by natural forces that care nothing for logic and reason, or that they were created with intention by a Rational Being.

First because creation out of nothing does not make sense, second, because it is only natural that minds, should they evolve, would comport with their enviroment.

[seer]

If the natural world, i.e. the substance comprising it, is of a distinct nature from its creator, then even though it was created by him, it was created from nothing. Nothing comes from nothing! At least we have no evidence of that, and evidence is what you keep harping to non believers about when it comes to an eternal Cosmos.

Of course, since I believe I supernatural acts, such acts would not be open to investigation. What the acts produce may be, like wine from water, but the mechanism is beyond our understanding. At least in this life. And again, God is not nothing, is it impossible for God to generate energy from His own being that is not, in itself, divine substance? We will see.

And in their case I think that "nothing" is a poor choice of words since the quantum vacuum is not nothing. The mechanism of change is also not fully understood, and is an ongoing science.

Vilenkin used the term "literally nothing." My only point is that even scientists are getting close to creation ex nihilo in thought and language.

Because that is all we have to go on and it makes sense that our minds comport with the world of which we are a part.

But that is just not good enough Jim.

First because creation out of nothing does not make sense, second, because it is only natural that minds, should they evolve, would comport with their enviroment.

Makes sense to whom? You? Why is your severely limited reasoning ability the standard? The fact is you know Jim, as far as confidence in our cognitive ability, the idea of a rational source inspires much more confidence than the idea of a non-rational source.

[shunyadragon]

This is nonsense Shuny, unless you have some evidence for what came before the beginning. Of course an atheist in science will assume that some other physical force caused, lets say, the multiverse to begin, but with out credible evidence all you are left with is a beginning. So with the Vilenkin theory we have a beginning with no known cause.

Seer, if you believe that Vilenkin proposes a beginning without cause please cite him specifically, otherwise I will consider you misrepresenting Vilenkin. I consider the science of physics and cosmology credible in its theorems and models with beginnings in the Quantum world. It is not a matter of your opinion as to what the evidence indicates, it is a matter of how science considers beginnings in theorems and models of the origins of our physical existence. No physicist nor cosmologist proposes beginnings with no cause. If you can cite a scientist that proposes this, please do.

[seer]

Seer, if you believe that Vilenkin proposes a beginning without cause please cite him specifically, otherwise I will consider you misrepresenting Vilenkin. I consider the science of physics and cosmology credible in its theorems and models with beginnings in the Quantum world. It is not a matter of your opinion as to what the evidence indicates, it is a matter of how science considers beginnings in theorems and models of the origins of our physical existence. No physicist nor cosmologist proposes beginnings with no cause. If you can cite a scientist that proposes this, please do.

Are you being stupid on purpose? I said with the Vilenkin theory we have a beginning with no known cause. Do you know the cause of the multiverse? Does Vilenkin know the cause? Please tell us all.

[shunyadragon]

Are you being stupid on purpose? I said with the Vilenkin theory we have a beginning with no known cause. Do you know the cause of the multiverse? Does Vilenkin know the cause? Please tell us all.

If you believe this quote Vilenkin. Still waiting . . .

[JimL]

Of course, since I believe I supernatural acts, such acts would not be open to investigation. What the acts produce may be, like wine from water, but the mechanism is beyond our understanding. At least in this life. And again, God is not nothing, is it impossible for God to generate energy from His own being that is not, in itself, divine substance? We will see.

My point was that we have no evidence, not even indirect evidence, that anything can be created from out of nothing. Can a negative be disproven? No! But for the unbeliever it needn't be disproved, it needs be proven. Why believers come to the conclusion that an eternal and immaterial mind thought the material world of our experience into existence from out of nothing I can only guess at.

Vilenkin used the term "literally nothing." My only point is that even scientists are getting close to creation ex nihilo in thought and language.

No, I don't think so. Quantum tunneling does not describe "nothing" tunneling through "nothing".

But that is just not good enough Jim.

It may not be good enough for you, but to me that for which there is evidence is better than that for which there is no evidence.

Makes sense to whom? You? Why is your severely limited reasoning ability the standard? The fact is you know Jim, as far as confidence in our cognitive ability, the idea of a rational source inspires much more confidence than the idea of a non-rational source.

Because our reasoning abilities, be they what they are, are better than the abandonment of reason. The emergence of life and of the human mind took billions of years to evolve and it is more rational to me that such a mind emerged from matter, than that matter emerged from a mind. And that is what we see. There is no evidence for your belief that it is the other way around, that matter comes from mind.

[seer]

My point was that we have no evidence, not even indirect evidence, that anything can be created from out of nothing. Can a negative be disproven? No! But for the unbeliever it needn't be disproved, it needs be proven. Why believers come to the conclusion that an eternal and immaterial mind thought the material world of our experience into existence from out of nothing I can only guess at.

But again Jim, we are not claiming that something came from nothing, God is not nothing. And the facts is, to most of us, God just makes more sense. Why is there something rather than nothing, why is the universe intelligible, why is it life permitting, and why did life appear. And why did some of that life become rational and conscious. Never mind our deep sense of justice.

No, I don't think so. Quantum tunneling does not describe "nothing" tunneling through "nothing".

They are not only speaking of tunneling, at least Vilenkin wasn't. And he did use the term literally nothing.

http://mukto-mona.net/science/physic...om_nothing.pdf

Because our reasoning abilities, be they what they are, are better than the abandonment of reason. The emergence of life and of the human mind took billions of years to evolve and it is more rational to me that such a mind emerged from matter, than that matter emerged from a mind. And that is what we see. There is no evidence for your belief that it is the other way around, that matter comes from mind.

And Jim, there is no reason for me to assume that non-rational, non-conscious forces could or did create rational, conscious beings.

[seer]

If you believe this quote Vilenkin. Still waiting . . .

Still waiting for what? What is wrong with you? Vilenkin is clear in the link that the multiverse needs a beginning. If you know what caused that beginning please share it with us. And like I also made clear, there may be ideas of what could cause said beginning, but nothing is known.

[shunyadragon]

Still waiting for what? What is wrong with you? Vilenkin is clear in the link that the multiverse needs a beginning. If you know what caused that beginning please share it with us. And like I also made clear, there may be ideas of what could cause said beginning, but nothing is known.

That is not the question. What is Vilenkin describing as 'nothing' in his theorem?'

So with the Vilenkin theory we have a beginning with no known cause.

First, Vilenkin certainly did mean begin like we use begin.

Again, describe where Vilenkin or any other physicist or cosmologist proposes that the beginnings have 'no known cause.' This is not a question of evidence. It is a matter of how science views 'beginnings' in cosmology.

How who use 'begin?' the same as Vilenkin. Christian Theologists do propose that something comes from nothing as God created our physical existence out of 'absolutely nothing' with an 'absolute beginning.' That is not the same way scientists consider nothing.

Again, do not make assertions as to how Vilenkin views 'beginnings,' and cite Vilenkin directly instead of unethically misrepresenting him.

[shunyadragon]

But again Jim, we are not claiming that something came from nothing, God is not nothing.

No one is claiming that 'God is nothing' except for the atheist belief that God(s) does not exist. Christian theists claim God created our finite existence out of 'absolutely nothing' with an 'absolute beginning,' I. e. Kalam argument.

The problem is attempting to selectively out of context and unethically use scientific theorems and models of our cosmos to support this argument, especially when you reject the evidence that supports these theorems and models of the cosmos.