An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

? He's not even entitled to claim that one is more plausible than the other?

He is entitled to claim Mother Goose laid an egg, and it became the universe, but the selective misuse and misrepresentation of science to justify a religious agenda is unethical. Only citing selectively Vilenkin and part of the BVG theorem just does not work. Some may focus on Hawking's model and view that our cosmos is timeless, an excellent well grounded theorem or model, but again no brass ring as far any 'physical evidence' before one plank time.

[tabibito]

Some may focus on Hawking's model and view that our cosmos is timeless,

Unless cosmos means something other than universe, Hawking recanted. Or so I thought until as a double check, I started searching for the records of his belief that the universe was infinite... Right now, I can't find any reference to a time when Hawking did not subscribe to the finite universe model.

[Jedidiah]

The bottom line again, there are many possible models and proposed theorems for our universe, all possible universes, and multiverses, but no there is no direct 'physical evidence' as to whether our universe has a definite beginning nor ending, nor 'direct physical evidence' that the possible multiverse and the greater quantum world has a beginning nor ending. Cherry picking the BGV theorem to support an ancient Kalam argument for God is a meaningless, foolish and unethical misuse of science.

There are models, but models are based upon assumptions. These models are not evidence. There are other models which do not include a multiverse origin for our universe. Let's just stick with your source: "let’s just preface this by saying nobody knows anything for sure." I don't have a boat in this race. I do not pretend to know what the Big Bang implies. Many astrophysicists still have their money on an origin with the Big Bang and many do not.

[Jedidiah]

Unless cosmos means something other than universe, Hawking recanted. Or so I thought until as a double check, I started searching for the records of his belief that the universe was infinite... Right now, I can't find any reference to a time when Hawking did not subscribe to the finite universe model.

The last I heard about Hawking was that he goes for a cyclical universe. At one end time reverses and goes back to the other end of things. That is not a solid account of his position, just a stab at it. It has been too long since I read Hawking to do any better.

[rogue06]

The last I heard about Hawking was that he goes for a cyclical universe. At one end time reverses and goes back to the other end of things. That is not a solid account of his position, just a stab at it. It has been too long since I read Hawking to do any better.

So, sooner or later mossy will start getting younger?

[tabibito]

I'm beginning to think Rogue enjoys getting pinned. Maybe he's starved for attention.

[Tassman]

Tassman,

(i) V’s Conclusion – Um, yea. You’re delusional. You remind me of those dim-witted restaurant owners on that TV show Kitchen Nightmares. And I have to be the Gordon Ramsey to tell you you’re in denial. I just spent the better part of that previous post nailing down EXPLICITLY that Craig interacted with V’s conclusion. Now for clarity’s sake, what is V.’s conclusion? Obviously, we’re meaning two different things here. By V.’s conclusion, you apparently mean: the theological implication is too simplistic, that the universe tunneled ‘from literally nothing’. Now, as for THAT, CRAIG DOES NOT IGNORE THIS CONCLUSION, moron. I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall. Do I really have to go site you quote after quote after quote where Craig deals with the problems of something coming from nothing. Further, this proves how misleading and guilty of double-speak you are. ‘Tunneling from literally nothing’. Now, what am I supposed to say here? LITERALLY nothing. Really? I thought Krauss made this whole fuss about nothing being the quantum vacuum. If it’s the freaking quantum vacuum, JUST CALL IT THE QUANTUM VACUUM. STOP CALLING IT NOTHING. You sound like freaking Bill Clinton, dude. If it’s LITERALLY nothing (whatever the crap that means), then define that, and stop with your annoying ambiguity. You love that, because it always offers you a way out. I can seize on whatever meaning I happen to think you intend, and you can just switch over to the other meaning, like that’s what you meant the whole time. I can say, ‘Wait. Something can’t come from nothing’. You: ‘It’s not absolutely nothing; it’s the quantum vacuum’. Me: ‘Well’s that’s not what Craig’s talking about; he’s talking about the absence of any properties whatsoever.’ You: ‘Oh, Craig is just a philosopher; we scientists mean the quantum vacuum, not the complete absence of properties.’ Me: ‘Well, that’s not nothing’. You: ‘It’s science, not stupid philosophy.’ Me: ‘Okay, well, the philosophical puzzles apply to the quantum vacuum too, bozo.’ You: ‘No they don’t; science proves the universe came from LITERALLY nothing’. Me: ‘What? Wait. You said nothing was the quantum vacuum’. And round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows. You just switch back and forth, back and forth, you exasperating waste of conversation.

(ii) Yea, you’re a liar. You make stupid comments. I refuse to do the leg work for you. So, I’m resorting to moral outrage at your stupidity. If you really think Craig has not interacted with V.’s conclusion you’re either stupid, a horrible reader, blind, or malicious.

(iii) V. and the beginning of the universe – I NEVER SAID V. thinks the universe began to exist. Craig is using the BGV theorem as EVIDENCE for why ‘the universe began to exist’ is more plausible than its denial.

(iv) Hyperbole – I can’t help you here. If you’re taking offense at something this dumb, you need professional help. Maybe you were picked on as a kid, and you sat at the lunch table by yourself at school. If I opened up some wounds that reminded you of your own insecurity, that’s your problem, since you – being this super psychoanalysis – know better than me what my intentions were.

(v) Science and Philosophy – I KNOW V. is DOING SCIENCE, dummy. That’s not my point, which I wouldn’t expect a slow, slug like you to get. Science has philosophical presuppositions; it’s as simple as that. You’re just an uninformed ignoramus. He can do science all he wants. Science is glorious! But you idiots want to divorce it from its philosophical assumptions, which can’t happen, and the more you deny it, the more you look like silly, naked emperors.

(vi) Science and Presuppositions – You claim that no matter how conclusive science is, I won’t follow it, because of my philosophical presuppositions. This just confirms that you are a horrible reader that can’t comprehend a paragraph of data when it clashes with your bias. You miss the forest for the trees, and the trees for the leaves, and the leaves for the chloroform. If a philosophical argument is sound (true premises, proving a true conclusion), then science WILL NOT, CANNOT find anything that will contradict it, period. If it did, then the philosophical argument was never sound to begin with.

(vii) Dogmatism – You cherry-picked a sentence, because you’re a rhetorical, dishonest, scientific iconoclast.

(viii) When, where (!?), did I ever say that V. thought a natural explanation is not likely? Answer. I never said it. The moron is just fuming noxious misinformation like a smoggy exhaust pipe. Of course, V. thinks a natural explanation more likely. The theological implications he sets aside, because he admits he doesn’t have the expertise, which Craig does. As for other implications, Craig relies on V., as he is the authority. Craig, then, philosophically analyzes V.’s other possibilities, which is Craig’s expertise. It doesn’t make either Craig or V. automatically right or wrong. It’s just two intelligent men discussing an issue.

(ix) Self-refutation – Once again, you’re in denial. To say that a metaphysical argument cannot be tested is not a scientific statement. It itself is based on assumption or axiom. Therefore, according to your logic, I shouldn’t even read your last paragraph. But OF COURSE you’re trying to make a non-scientific, metaphysical statement or thesis that I should believe. THEREFORE, metaphysics and philosophy has some undeniable merit! You keep SLITTING YOUR THROAT and not even noticing it. You take out your eyes to look at them and complain when you don’t see anything!!!

“When people start using science to argue for their specific beliefs and delusions, to try to claim that they're supported by science, then scientists at least have to speak up and say, "You're welcome to your delusions, but don't say that they're supported by science." - Vic Stenger, in Cliff Walker, "Interview with Particle Physicist Victor J Stenger," This is precisely what you (and Craig) have been trying to do with Vilenkin and the BGV theorem.

Despite the view of physicist Prof. Vilenkin that there is a natural, scientific explanation non-scientist apologist/philosopher WL Craig claims to know better. Interestingly, he doesn't philosophize about any of the several other cosmologist models postulated by other, equally eminent scientists, just Vilenkin's - presumably because Craig sees the opportunity to score a cheap theological point whilst sounding all sciencey. (See Stenger above).

Your position is based upon the assumption that the premise of your philosophical argument is "true", although you have not shown it to be true, and in Post #428 you make your position abundantly clear:

“If the philosophical arguments are sound, then at some point, there was ABOLUTELY NOTHING. And science will never explain that anything can come from that! They’ll redefine nothing. They’ll push the beginning back one step further, like that settles anything. They’ll say, ‘Science will find it someday!’ So, they’ll use science-of-the-gabs, all the while, with glaring hypocrisy, accuse those of the opposition, who have seemly sound arguments (but won’t be interacted with; just shot down because of their snobbish dispositions), of the god-of-the-gaps crap”.

It is obvious that nothing will change your mind, no matter what the scientific evidence may be and no matter how conclusive it is. IF it does not conform to your religious presuppositions that “at some point, there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING” then it is wrong. Presumably, as a theist, you need "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING", so as your creator deity can do his ex nihilo thing.

You’re entitled to your view, but don’t pretend it is supported by science because it isn't; it's merely a faith-based position.

[Tassman]

What we do know Tass is that this universe has not been expanding eternally into the past. This universe is finite. And if the Laws of Physics do break down at the beginning one wonders if we could ever know, could we ever know what kind of laws were actually in operation at that point.

Certainly! But that's not the whole picture. It is postulated that the quantum vacuum, out of which "this universe" was born, has existed eternally. E.g. Hawking and Penrose in: ‘The Nature of Space and Time’ argue this case as do many others. They think that, from the eternal Quantum Vacuum, spontaneous fluctuations result in the creation of tiny universes and that although most of these universes collapse to nothing some, such as ours, reach a critical size and expand in an inflationary manner forming stars and galaxies and maybe beings like us.”

[mattbballman31]

(i) Vic Stenger can kiss my butt, for all I care. The quote BEGS THE QUESTION. We’re all back to Bulverism AGAIN. Assume I’m wrong, then show how I’m wrong. Don’t get into specifics. Makes sense, since you’re scared. He’s a particle physicist. Not an expert on religion. Not a philosopher of religion. Not a philosopher of science. You can be an atheist (heck! You can be a naturalistic atheist!) and still believe the universe began to exist. Or, that it had a beginning. Well, Christians think it had a beginning too. If science proves that, what the heck does Stenger want me to do?? Not say that science supports that belief?! Uh, no. He’s just a bitter snob with a hatred of religion that thinks science is this untouchable Holy Grail, just like you. His quote makes zero sense, and the fact that you quote him further shows how dense you are.

(ii) Craig claims to know better, BUT HE PROVIDES ARGUMENTS. You dismiss anything he says, because he’s not a scientist, snob. Don’t just dismiss it because he’s not a scientist; SHOW WHERE THE ARGUMENTS ARE WRONG, snob. And you being a liar (or an uninformed nincompoop) is on display again. Are you really going to honestly say that Craig hasn’t dealt with other cosmological models besides V.’s????? You are a liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. And a lazy one at that. You are such an aggravating waste of dialectical wind!!

(iii) I DON’T BASE it on MERE ASSUMPTION that the philosophical arguments are true. THERE ARE ARGUMENTS for the ASSUMPTION, birdbrain! Arguments you won’t address, because you’re in over your head, or lazy, or rhetorically dishonest. And you’re once again a lousy reader. The underlined portion of what you quote me saying blatantly says IF. IF the philosophical arguments are sound. Do you even know what SOUND means? If they’re SOUND, they’re a part of reality; and science is wasting its time assuming that the quantum vacuum can exist for an actual infinite amount of time, or that there are an actual infinite amount of universes, or an actual infinite amount of multi-verses, or an actual infinite amount of ANYTHING!!! BASED ON THIS, how in the freaking world can you say with a straight face that nothing will change my mind?? Yes, SOMETHING CAN CHANGE MY MIND. Showing that the philosophical arguments are wrong somewhere. That will change my mind, idiot. If they’re wrong somewhere, I’ll accept it! Duh! Then science can repeat in their models the notion of infinity all they freaking want to. Until then I’m not persuaded, and neither is anyone else who has been convinced by those arguments. It has nothing to do with RELIGIOUS PRESUPPOSITIONS, nitwit. That religious chip on your shoulder keeps you from any sort of dialectical objectivity, and it’s freaking horrid. It makes me dialectically sick. It’s rotten stench makes me want to dialectically vomit. You’re stiff necked.

(iv) And I’ll bet you a million dollars you don’t know what faith even means, you obtuse, illiterate progenitor of deceit and subterfuge.

[shunyadragon]

There are models, but models are based upon assumptions. These models are not evidence.

I have never said that the models themselves are evidence.

There are other models which do not include a multiverse origin for our universe.

True, so what???

Let's just stick with your source: "let’s just preface this by saying nobody knows anything for sure." I don't have a boat in this race. I do not pretend to know what the Big Bang implies. Many astrophysicists still have their money on an origin with the Big Bang and many do not.

Stick with what source??

I do not think many astrophysicists do not accept the 'Big Bang.' It is a layman's term that does not fully describe the scientific view. Expansion of the universe from the first plank second is almost universally accepted by all scientists in all disciplines. The questions of beginnings or ending beyond this are open questions in science. Most scientists accept the possibility of some form of multiverse, based on the evidence.

[shunyadragon]

(ii) Craig claims to know better, BUT HE PROVIDES ARGUMENTS. You dismiss anything he says, because he’s not a scientist, snob. Don’t just dismiss it because he’s not a scientist; SHOW WHERE THE ARGUMENTS ARE WRONG, snob. And you being a liar (or an uninformed nincompoop) is on display again. Are you really going to honestly say that Craig hasn’t dealt with other cosmological models besides V.’s????? You are a liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. And a lazy one at that. You are such an aggravating waste of dialectical wind!!

Craig's arguments are wrong because he selectively cites science to support a religious agenda.

[shunyadragon]

Unless cosmos means something other than universe, Hawking recanted. Or so I thought until as a double check, I started searching for the records of his belief that the universe was infinite... Right now, I can't find any reference to a time when Hawking did not subscribe to the finite universe model.

Yes, Hawking does subscribe to a finite universe, but . . .

Source: http://everythingforever.com/hawking.htm

Stephen Hawking and the
Time has No Boundary Proposal

Science is slowly awakening to the timeless Universe. The most popular physicist of our time is the esteemed Stephen Hawking, who has battled against what is known as Lou Gehrig's disease for some thirty years. And yet from his wheelchair, presently unable to communicate without his computer, Hawking still actively lectures while he professionally holds Newton's chair as Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge University in England.

Hawking has de-mystified the black hole, offered proof that time had to have begun from a singularity at the big bang, and written books so enjoyable that he has managed to educate much of the world about modern physics and cosmology. As if such miracles were commonplace, Hawking is now introducing what could be said to be a scientific version of forever.

For over ten years Hawking has been applying the No Boundary Proposal, a theory which extends other theories such as Sum Over Histories developed by the late Richard Feynman and Imaginary Time. Hawking's theory is the first cosmological model of the universe with a second reference of time which has no beginning or end. As yet scientists aren't using the word forever, that being such a big step. There are mind boggling implications to consider when the universe exists forever. And there are others, other influential scientists and the powers that be, who aren't sure what to think of the idea that the universe can have a beginning, and end, yet still exist forever.

Hawking rightly still insists that what we think of as real time has a beginning at the Big Bang, some ten to twenty billion years ago. And no one who knows much of anything about the universe is debating that issue. The evidence for the Big Bang event is conclusive, possibly irrefutable. Time as we understand it has a beginning. But if time began, then does that irrefutably mean that our existence began then also?

© Copyright Original Source

The question is beginning from what??? in Hawking's view is that 'real time' had a beginning, but it begins from a timeless Quantum World. This well grounded in the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

[Tassman]

(i) Vic Stenger can kiss my butt, for all I care. The quote BEGS THE QUESTION. We’re all back to Bulverism AGAIN. Assume I’m wrong, then show how I’m wrong. Don’t get into specifics. Makes sense, since you’re scared. He’s a particle physicist. Not an expert on religion. Not a philosopher of religion. Not a philosopher of science. You can be an atheist (heck! You can be a naturalistic atheist!) and still believe the universe began to exist. Or, that it had a beginning. Well, Christians think it had a beginning too. If science proves that, what the heck does Stenger want me to do?? Not say that science supports that belief?! Uh, no. He’s just a bitter snob with a hatred of religion that thinks science is this untouchable Holy Grail, just like you. His quote makes zero sense, and the fact that you quote him further shows how dense you are.

Charming as ever!

Stenger’s quote is relevant in that you and Craig have been misusing the BGV theorem to support the theological agenda that “at some point, there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING”? This when Vilenkin specifically argues that the theorem has a probable scientific explanation!

(ii) Craig claims to know better, BUT HE PROVIDES ARGUMENTS. You dismiss anything he says, because he’s not a scientist, snob. Don’t just dismiss it because he’s not a scientist; SHOW WHERE THE ARGUMENTS ARE WRONG, snob. And you being a liar (or an uninformed nincompoop) is on display again. Are you really going to honestly say that Craig hasn’t dealt with other cosmological models besides V.’s????? You are a liar. Liar. Liar. Liar. And a lazy one at that. You are such an aggravating waste of dialectical wind!!

I'm dismissing the argument because the very scientist Craig quotes to support his theistic conclusion considers the theorem to have a natural explanation. Craig, as a philosopher is not qualified to contradict scientists on matters of science.

(iii) I DON’T BASE it on MERE ASSUMPTION that the philosophical arguments are true. THERE ARE ARGUMENTS for the ASSUMPTION, birdbrain! Arguments you won’t address, because you’re in over your head, or lazy, or rhetorically dishonest. And you’re once again a lousy reader. The underlined portion of what you quote me saying blatantly says IF. IF the philosophical arguments are sound. Do you even know what SOUND means? If they’re SOUND, they’re a part of reality; and science is wasting its time assuming that the quantum vacuum can exist for an actual infinite amount of time, or that there are an actual infinite amount of universes, or an actual infinite amount of multi-verses, or an actual infinite amount of ANYTHING!!! BASED ON THIS, how in the freaking world can you say with a straight face that nothing will change my mind?? Yes, SOMETHING CAN CHANGE MY MIND. Showing that the philosophical arguments are wrong somewhere. That will change my mind, idiot. If they’re wrong somewhere, I’ll accept it! Duh! Then science can repeat in their models the notion of infinity all they freaking want to. Until then I’m not persuaded, and neither is anyone else who has been convinced by those arguments. It has nothing to do with RELIGIOUS PRESUPPOSITIONS, nitwit. That religious chip on your shoulder keeps you from any sort of dialectical objectivity, and it’s freaking horrid. It makes me dialectically sick. It’s rotten stench makes me want to dialectically vomit. You’re stiff necked.

Once again: a “sound argument” requires a “true” premise: How have you arrived at the “true” premise that enables you to deduce your “true” conclusion that “at some point, there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING”?

(iv) And I’ll bet you a million dollars you don’t know what faith even means, you obtuse, illiterate progenitor of deceit and subterfuge.

Some Christians are just soooo angry – must be all that cognitive dissonance.

[shunyadragon]

Once again: a “sound argument” requires a “true” premise: How have you arrived at the “true” premise that enables you to deduce your “true” conclusion that “at some point, there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING”?

Gooood question!!!! Looking forward to an answer!!

[mattbballman31]

(i) The BGV theorem hasn’t been misused to support a theological agenda. The BGV theorem hasn’t been used to support the idea that at some point there was absolutely nothing. No one has disputed the claim that V. argues that the theorem (hereafter, BGVT) has a probable scientific explanation. Almost everything you write is wrong. Once again, BGVT is used by Craig to render more plausible than not the premise that the universe began to exist (X). You can use BGVT to support X and not a have a theological agenda. And if BGVT supports X, then it’s completely irrelevant that someone with a theological agenda can use such support in a deductive argument. You argue that philosophy is pointless because it’s not scientifically supported. Suppose you go to give me a proof for the premise that all claims not supported by science are both false and irrational. It would be irrelevant and fallacious for me to undercut your proof by saying you have a scientific agenda. The soundness of an argument is independent of the motives of the arguer. Drawing attention to Craig’s agenda is a red herring. It’s an ad hominem. It poisons the well. You’re basically saying that because Craig has a theological agenda, therefore Craig’s arguments aren’t reliable. Whether Craig has a theological agenda is another question. Focusing on it doesn’t address Craig’s arguments. Your focus on a theological agenda betrays an, as Aristotle would put it, “ignorance of the nature of refutation.” And I don’t know what you mean by saying V. argues that BGVT has a probable scientific explanation. Do you mean a natural explanation? Do you mean the singularity came to be via quantum tunneling? All of this isn’t incompatible with Kalam. Craig could be quite willing to admit that the universe tunneled into existence via a quantum tunnel. But the question is whether the quantum tunnel has always existed, or whether it spawned from a prior multi-verse. Since none of this has been empirically verified, physicists and cosmologists are free to speculate. Intricate models can be creatively constructed, or constructively created. But what it all boils down to is whether it is philosophically coherent to say that the universe, or the multi-verse, or the quantum vacuum, or whatever, can be past-eternal. Can it? Craig has provided arguments such that even if the scientific evidence is inconclusive, the philosophical arguments against the metaphysical possibility of traversing an actual infinite (which must have happened on the supposition that we have reached today, and that therefore an actual infinite amount of moments have elapsed to reach today) would still be sound. Your main objection is that the premises in these arguments aren’t grounded in science. Well, then I would shift the discussion to the arguments pro and con for/against scientism. If you want to go there, I will. But let’s not waste time obsessively kicking the dead horse of whether there is a theological agenda.

(ii) What is wrong with quoting a scientist to support a premise even if the scientist would disagree with your conclusion? Craig argues that BGVT supports that the universe began to exist. Well, the universe beginning to exist is premise 2 in Kalam. V. disagrees with the nature of the cause in Kalam’s conclusion. How does this disable Craig from using BGVT to prove one premise in an argument, the conclusion of which V. disagrees? It doesn’t. Craig can use BGVT to support premise 2. V. can agree that it does support premise 2. But to say that Craig can’t use BGVT to support premise 2 because V. disagrees with the nature of the cause in Kalam’s conclusion is like saying that the Prosecution in courts of law can’t use evidence X to disprove an alibi for an accused murderer, because the Defense uses evidence X to support some other conclusion letting the accused off the hook.

(iii) I have arrived at my true premise by non-scientific, yet rational means, and deduced the true conclusion that a beginningless series of events is metaphysically impossible (absurd), and deduced the further conclusion that if no series of events can be beginningless, then at some point there was absolutely nothing. If a beginningless series of events is metaphysically possible, then an actual infinite collection of events can be formed, by adding one event after another from the eternal past. In this case, you’re not counting to infinity; you’re counting down from infinity. But this assumes that an actual infinite is traversed by arriving at the present. But that seems wrong: why not yesterday, or last year, or last century? – what’s so special about today? Yesterday, or last year, or last century, the actual infinite should have already been formed! So, no matter what time I go to in the past (to the quantum vacuum, to the singularity, to the Big Crunch, to the multi-verse, etc), an actual infinite would already be formed. So, if you place a one-to-one correspondence between beginningless series of events and negative, natural numbers, then – in the real world – it should be metaphysically possible for someone to count down from eternity past, so that the counter was at -2 two days ago, -1 yesterday, and 0 today. But if he’s been counting down from eternity, then we’ll have to say that no matter where we go to in the past, our hypothetical counter, when he was at -834,643,473,999,112, he was already finished counting! But this contradicts the premise that he is in fact counting down to 0 from eternity. This makes a count-down metaphysically absurd, since the count-down is already done at any point in the eternal past. This proves that infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist in reality. Therefore, at some point the universe, or the quantum tunnel, or the multi-verse, did not exist, since it cannot be past-eternal. Therefore, at some point, there was absolutely nothing.