Red Mosquito
http://archive.theskyiscrape.com/

our universe is so rad
http://archive.theskyiscrape.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=91730
Page 22 of 23

Author:  turned2black [ Sat Oct 06, 2012 5:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

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?

Author:  Anon [ Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

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.

Author:  turned2black [ Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

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.

Author:  turned2black [ Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

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."

Author:  Anon [ Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

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).

Author:  Anon [ Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

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.

Author:  Rebar [ Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

so how do you get something forming from nothing?

Author:  Anon [ Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

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.

Author:  Rebar [ Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

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'...

Author:  Anon [ Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

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.

Author:  turned2black [ Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

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.

Author:  Rebar [ Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

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.

Author:  Anon [ Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

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?

Author:  turned2black [ Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

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?

Author:  Alex [ Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

would a just god allow RM to happen

Author:  62strat [ Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad


Author:  turned2black [ Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

Alpha Centauri mission by 2100? Make it so, experts say

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

Author:  dkfan9 [ Fri Oct 19, 2012 6:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

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"

Author:  Alex [ Fri Oct 19, 2012 7:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

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

Author:  Skitch Patterson [ Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: our universe is so rad

I feel pretty bad for spirit and opportunity, especially the one that still works and no one gives a shit about anymore.

Page 22 of 23 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/