Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 460 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:45 am 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:37 am
Posts: 2465
Location: A dark place
Anon wrote:
No, a multiverse itself must be geodesically incomplete, and thus must have a beginning; no particular universe can persist in life-giving conditions under the second law of thermodynamics.

Sorry, grabbed a beer. So what constitutes a beginning? Is this the Hopf–Rinow theorem?

_________________
Do you like crappy amateur photography? Check out my photo blog here.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar
Force of Nature
 Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:10 am
Posts: 952
turned2black wrote:
Anon wrote:
No, a multiverse itself must be geodesically incomplete, and thus must have a beginning; no particular universe can persist in life-giving conditions under the second law of thermodynamics.

Sorry, grabbed a beer. So what constitutes a beginning? Is this the Hopf–Rinow theorem?

Guth-Vilenkin.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:23 am 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:37 am
Posts: 2465
Location: A dark place
Anon wrote:
turned2black wrote:
Anon wrote:
No, a multiverse itself must be geodesically incomplete, and thus must have a beginning; no particular universe can persist in life-giving conditions under the second law of thermodynamics.

Sorry, grabbed a beer. So what constitutes a beginning? Is this the Hopf–Rinow theorem?

Guth-Vilenkin.

Anon, I'm glad you contributed to this thread, but I must admit to being a bit unfamiliar with Borde-Guth-Vilenkin as it always seemed like creationist propaganda to me. That being said, I would welcome your thoughts on the theorem and any insight you might have into the First Cause argument.

_________________
Do you like crappy amateur photography? Check out my photo blog here.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:37 am
Posts: 2465
Location: A dark place
Anon, if you are a believer in First Cause, I would be happy to hear your arguments.
For me this becomes a cyclical argument. If a "domino pusher" tipped the world into existence, then didn't god just "poof" into being at some point? That reasoning doesn't hold any more water just because the supernatural is added. Doesn't the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem have to apply to a god/creator? Who made god? And if you say god is simply the Alpha and Omega, doesn't that debunk the whole argument?
I realize it is a matter of faith to some degree and I put my faith in science and the universe, because it's a known universe. I think it's more logical to say nothing was before the initial big bang, than to believe in a "domino pusher."

_________________
Do you like crappy amateur photography? Check out my photo blog here.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Force of Nature
 Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:10 am
Posts: 952
turned2black wrote:
Anon, if you are a believer in First Cause, I would be happy to hear your arguments.
For me this becomes a cyclical argument. If a "domino pusher" tipped the world into existence, then didn't god just "poof" into being at some point? That reasoning doesn't hold any more water just because the supernatural is added. Doesn't the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem have to apply to a god/creator? Who made god? And if you say god is simply the Alpha and Omega, doesn't that debunk the whole argument?
I realize it is a matter of faith to some degree and I put my faith in science and the universe, because it's a known universe. I think it's more logical to say nothing was before the initial big bang, than to believe in a "domino pusher."


The standard line from Dr. Craig goes that the cause necessarily originates atemporally, since any proported cause of the universe (or multiverse, if you like) would precede time. In short, such a cause would not begin to exist itself since it does not itself orignate within time. In the material/efficient causation framework, the first cause would necessarily be solely efficient, and not material, since minimum materiality obtains at the singularity and thus the singularity's cause (if it has one) would not itself require material to produce the Singularity. The nature of the originator of the first cause would then, sans the universe, be atemporal and thus not require a cause.

I think some objections you've presented here are valid, in that the Kalam's standard presentation posits a deist Creator since efficient and material causation are all there is and past that point the universe is obviously efficiently and materially closed. It makes God into something akin to a football player that makes the kickoff. I take a more classical approach, which includes formal and final causes as well as material/efficient causes, and considers "being" as a separable consideration from properties of existing things. God would then energetically present as the being and motion of things toward the Forms. Not only is this view in line with two thousand years of traditional Patristic Christian thought (and the New Testament, for that matter), but is also keeping with the scholarly view of the ancient Jewish understanding of the Tetragrammaton ("I Am" in Exodus 3). The nominalist approach Craig takes leaves God without much of a role and launches God, essence and all, into time, a theory that shows up in Craig's heterodox monotheletist and Apollinarian Christology (in short, this is the view that Christ was sort of a human shell for the Divine, "God in a bod," if you will).


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Force of Nature
 Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:10 am
Posts: 952
Also, B-G-V is itself not a Creationist theory, since it says nothing about a Creator at all, only that any universe/multiverse system with net expansion (like ours) must have a beginning. The authors of the proof are themselves agnostic IIRC.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
On the bright side
 Profile

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:42 pm
Posts: 17495
Location: Surfside Beach, SC
Gender: Male
so how do you get something forming from nothing?

_________________
I remember thinking, "that's really gay". -- Cameronia


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Force of Nature
 Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:10 am
Posts: 952
Rebar wrote:
so how do you get something forming from nothing?


It wouldn't be correct to think of this picture as God sitting over a literally eternal timespan before deciding to get up off His ass and do something, and then fashioning a Universe "from nothing," as if there's some kind of dark cloud of Nothing like in Neverending Story from which some old man with a beard forms existence. There is no "making."

I do not know what creation is like from God's POV; however, from our (Eastern Orthodox) point of view, creation is an energy of God, in that He is the act/activity/teleos of all things. There would be no pooping out of a singularity; God's role in the being and activity of the Singularity are no different than God's role in the being and activity of all created things at all times. The difference would not lie in God's role, but in the nature of the singularity, in that the singularity does not require a material or temporally efficient cause since it *is* the first material and temporally efficient cause of all the Universe. This does not mean it doesn't require *a* cause - it still requires formal/final and most importantly its act of being, since if nothing precedes the Singularity at all then there is literally nothing to differentiate the actual world from the possible world in which no material things subsist. But clearly the latter is not the case.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar
On the bright side
 Profile

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:42 pm
Posts: 17495
Location: Surfside Beach, SC
Gender: Male
my question wasn't directed towards any one belief. I still can't grasp some scientific concepts of how there was absolutely 'nothing' then bang there was 'something'...

_________________
I remember thinking, "that's really gay". -- Cameronia


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Force of Nature
 Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:10 am
Posts: 952
Rebar wrote:
my question wasn't directed towards any one belief. I still can't grasp some scientific concepts of how there was absolutely 'nothing' then bang there was 'something'...


Right. The same sort of response would apply here. There isn't some state in which "nothing exists," followed by boom, something existing. In the proper realm of science, one ought to say that there isn't a state of pure nothingness.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:37 am
Posts: 2465
Location: A dark place
Anon wrote:
Also, B-G-V is itself not a Creationist theory, since it says nothing about a Creator at all, only that any universe/multiverse system with net expansion (like ours) must have a beginning. The authors of the proof are themselves agnostic IIRC.

I do realize that Borde-Guth-Vilenkin said nothing about a creator, but it is used by creationist to debunk various scientific theories and models.
My question to you would be why can't the universe/multiverse itself be the first cause? If god can be eternal, why can't the universe? If the first cause originated atemporally, why can't the universe? Why does it have to be god? Why do you seemingly have two set of rules: one set for the universe and one set for when god steps in?
I again want to thank you for sharing your point of view.

_________________
Do you like crappy amateur photography? Check out my photo blog here.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
On the bright side
 Profile

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:42 pm
Posts: 17495
Location: Surfside Beach, SC
Gender: Male
I've come to accept that my mental capacity does not allow me to fully grasp the concept of infinity or something that has existed forever. With that being said, I think that's what I'm going with, that it has all been around forever, in some form or another.

_________________
I remember thinking, "that's really gay". -- Cameronia


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:34 am 
Offline
User avatar
Force of Nature
 Profile

Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:10 am
Posts: 952
turned2black wrote:
Anon wrote:
Also, B-G-V is itself not a Creationist theory, since it says nothing about a Creator at all, only that any universe/multiverse system with net expansion (like ours) must have a beginning. The authors of the proof are themselves agnostic IIRC.

I do realize that Borde-Guth-Vilenkin said nothing about a creator, but it is used by creationist to debunk various scientific theories and models.
My question to you would be why can't the universe/multiverse itself be the first cause? If god can be eternal, why can't the universe? If the first cause originated atemporally, why can't the universe? Why does it have to be god? Why do you seemingly have two set of rules: one set for the universe and one set for when god steps in?
I again want to thank you for sharing your point of view.


If the universe/multiverse subsists in a state that causes all events and itself is uncaused, then what is it about the essence of the Simgilarity that warrents it to exist? Why did the Singularity have being, rather than not - and If the Singilarity itself were the First Cause, then by what means did it change?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:37 am
Posts: 2465
Location: A dark place
Anon wrote:
turned2black wrote:
Anon wrote:
Also, B-G-V is itself not a Creationist theory, since it says nothing about a Creator at all, only that any universe/multiverse system with net expansion (like ours) must have a beginning. The authors of the proof are themselves agnostic IIRC.

I do realize that Borde-Guth-Vilenkin said nothing about a creator, but it is used by creationist to debunk various scientific theories and models.
My question to you would be why can't the universe/multiverse itself be the first cause? If god can be eternal, why can't the universe? If the first cause originated atemporally, why can't the universe? Why does it have to be god? Why do you seemingly have two set of rules: one set for the universe and one set for when god steps in?
I again want to thank you for sharing your point of view.


If the universe/multiverse subsists in a state that causes all events and itself is uncaused, then what is it about the essence of the Simgilarity that warrents it to exist? Why did the Singularity have being, rather than not - and If the Singilarity itself were the First Cause, then by what means did it change?

So you want to give us a reason to exist? Isn't just existing enough? Does there have to be something that warrants us? Seems like an attempt to interject religion. I'm sorry, but I think I'm OK with just being and I don't think just being prevents me from wanting to further study the universe or existence.
Perhaps this discussion is now better suited for the "god" thread?

_________________
Do you like crappy amateur photography? Check out my photo blog here.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:10 am
Posts: 10993
Gender: Male
would a just god allow RM to happen

_________________
i8pork wrote:
being on the internet is fun as hell. :comp:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:37 pm
Posts: 15767
Location: Vail, CO
Gender: Male


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:37 am
Posts: 2465
Location: A dark place
Alpha Centauri mission by 2100? Make it so, experts say

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49469723/ns ... IGaaGlxvr8

_________________
Do you like crappy amateur photography? Check out my photo blog here.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 20059
Gender: Male
turned2black wrote:
Alpha Centauri mission by 2100? Make it so, experts say

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49469723/ns ... IGaaGlxvr8


"Why climb the mountain? Because it exists"

_________________
stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Supersonic
 Profile

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:10 am
Posts: 10993
Gender: Male
dkfan9 wrote:
turned2black wrote:
Alpha Centauri mission by 2100? Make it so, experts say

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49469723/ns ... IGaaGlxvr8


"Why climb the mountain? Because it exists"

Image

_________________
i8pork wrote:
being on the internet is fun as hell. :comp:


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: our universe is so rad
PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
a joke
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am
Posts: 22978
Gender: Male
I feel pretty bad for spirit and opportunity, especially the one that still works and no one gives a shit about anymore.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 460 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:10 am