Chris and Sieben's Creationist Thread

Miscellaneous General
161

This is the claim I was referring to:

When you call it a book written by a bunch of primitives, you’re invoking the old therefore wrong fallacy

I am. But I will not run from it, lest I can be shown proof to the contrary.

So then I said this in response: The beautiful thing about logical fallacies is that using them makes you illogical. Are you saying that your claim is illogical and you just don’t care?

You can open your Bible and go to virtually any book and find God, an immaterial being, acting on the physical world. There are many arguments for miracles, but they’re based off of empirical evidence and eyewitness testimony. I have yet to adopt any methodology to affirm any supernatural interaction with the natural world.

I think you’re bringing about a sort of argument about the apparent hiddeness of God, or rather the lack of his placing beacons in the physical world to alert us of his presence.

I’m going to go into the teleological argument in my next post as a complimentary wham-bam-slam to the cosmological argument.

Reading the Vulgate or the King James for cosmological intricacies is a mistake. Most theologians go straight to the hebrew which ends up making a lot more sense. If you look up concepts like day age and progressive creationism I think you’ll find that these contradictions sort themselves out.

Also, this is probably the best book out there right now on the subject. http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132

It’s by Gerald Schroeder, a physicist.

The nature of the first cause:

He can’t be material – material was created at the singularity. He must be immaterial, then. There are two types of immaterial objects – minds or abstract objects.

Abstract objects don’t cause anything, so he must be a mind. It’s a simple deduction.

Through conceptual analysis we can gather what the necessary attributes are for the first external cause.

The being must transcend space and time, existing atemporally and non-spatially.

Timelessness entails changelessness and changelessness implies immateriality.

The being must be incredibly powerful since it created the universe out of nothing. There was no material cause only an efficient cause.

Finally, the being must be personal. Why?

The most powerful argument for it is that we and the contingent (important word) universe exist right now. The universe is contingent because it does not exist necessarily. It did not have to exist. If the cause existed timelessly then it had no need to bring the universe into existence, therefore the existence of the universe can only be expressed in terms of volition or a will. What or who has a will? A mind.

This one argument alone does not land you at the Judeo-Christian God. It lands you at theism which I can then eliminate the other alternatives until I end up with the Judeo-Christian God.

Either that or I’d bring in historical and evidential arguments for Jesus.

162

Sam, I’m most definitely not a positivist.

The word evidence that’s being thrown around is an odd one. It presupposes naturalism/materialism.

I’m not saying that there is no evidence for imaginary time. What I’m saying is that we have no good reason to just throw our hands up and say that reality is unknowable and then posit some imaginary numbers to remove the singularity.

That doesn’t cut it my books.

Here’s a restatement of the argument:

  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

  2. The universe began to exist.

  3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

We have strong empirical evidence for both the major and minor premise. Now logically we can use conceptual analysis to gain information on the necessary attributes of the first cause. It cannot just be anything. There are requirements. God fits these requirements perfectly. Saying there is no evidence is only what you call evidence from a positivist perspective. I’ve already dealt thoroughly with positivism. It’s a dead dog.

Call the first cause whatever you want . Many people don’t accept the argument because the word ‘God’ is attached to it, but I don’t care if you call it a personal force, or Allah, or God, or the Great Pumpkin. My goal with this argument is not to establish the Judeo-Christian God, the goal of this argument is to first establish the existence of a theistic God.

This charge of no evidence is baseless.

163

The beautiful thing about logical fallacies is that using them makes you illogical. Are you saying that your claim is illogical and you just don’t care?

Here’s the thing, I didnt explicitly say and therefore wrong. I merely pointed out that it was written by a bunch of primitives who followed a cloud for 40 years and think shellfish are an abomination. That doesn’t speak well to their credibility.

You can open your Bible and go to virtually any book and find God, an immaterial being, acting on the physical world. There are many arguments for miracles, but they’re based off of empirical evidence and eyewitness testimony. I have yet to adopt any methodology to affirm any supernatural interaction with the natural world.

I once jumped 60feet in the air and shot a Kamehameha blast in Siberia, that’s what really knocked those trees down. Don’t believe me, there’s evidence, look at those trees! And I have a witness (of course I paid him).

It’s pretty convenient for you to pick and choose things from the BIble. You can use miracles to support your cause, but I can’t use God’s supposed perfection? Convenient.

He can’t be material – material was created at the singularity. He must be immaterial, then. There are two types of immaterial objects – minds or abstract objects.

You do know that we can only get within a second (10−43 The Plank Epoch) of the supposed singularity based on the tools we use now. We can go no further back, so first off, even the singularity is a guess. You discount white hole theory, or multiverse theory, or Epikurotic thoery (all of which have, at least mathematical evidence), and posit that it must be a magic wizard.

Nothing in the laws of physics says time/space was created at the Big Bang. It says our time/space in this universe started then. How long did your wizard wait before creating the Universe?

And you cannot say the creator is timeless, else he could take no action, none that he chooses to anyway, it would have been written at the beginning all that will be. So him getting mad at the beings of clay he created and flooding the world is not consistent with the God you are positing, unless he knew at the beginning that we would turn away from him.

What or who has a will? A mind.

How can a timeless being have a will? He knows all that will happen, ever, for he does not exist within the entropic time we do. Everything that will come to pass is passing for him right now, as is everything that came to pass in the past. A timeless will is a logical fallacy.

It lands you at theism which I can then eliminate the other alternatives

Haha, no. Based on this argument it leads me to continue to say that “we do not yet know the creation of the universe.” Just to reitterate

  1. The singularity is at best, a guess. There is no physical evidence for it. Nor can their be based on our current math/technology.

  2. You postulate that their could be no time before the supposed singularity. But it is not neccessary that all time was created then, only the time we are subject to, in this universe.

  3. You postulate that God is a timeless being that acts against his original will (Noah’s flood, Moses, the Prophets, and Jesus himself were all sent to bring us back to God. And he did these things explictly to change the timeline of Earth that was unfolding). Timeless beings exist in all time at once, and know all that will happen. If they change anything, they were not timeless, as this would create a new time they were not part of.

  4. You use miracles as evidence that immaterial objects can act upon the material world. Please provide me with credible, scientific evidence that does not rely upon faith and conjecture, of miracles. Can minds act upon the world, can ideas, can love, numbers? He said, she said, is not credible evidence.

I do not find this argument very convincing.

I’d bring in historical and evidential arguments for Jesus

And this would change anything? I have scant doubts that Jesus existed. First you would have to prove his miracles, and then prove that Appolonius’ miracles (at the same time) didn’t happen. That Jesus is the only being ever in creation who can do miracles upon will, will require some evidence. It also does nothing to say he was the “Son of God.” (How can an immaterial being have a son?)

Also, what makes your tax collector any more credible than a merchant who became a virtual King of his land, and much of the middle east and the mediteranian?

164

I’m not saying that there is no evidence for imaginary time. What I’m saying is that we have no good reason to just throw our hands up and say that reality is unknowable and then posit some imaginary numbers to remove the singularity.

How are you not doing the exact same thing? You are throwing your hands up and saying you don’t know of a natural mechanism that would cause the singularity which caused the big bang, and therefore are positing God to remove the problem that ex nihilo creates.

165

How many eyewitness accounts are sufficient? Are miracles a logical possibility? If so, what would satisfy you?

You can use God’s perfection all you want, I just pointed out that it is not impossible for a perfect being to create an ‘imperfect’ world. The argument didn’t pass basic scrutiny.

The singularity is not a guess. Even Stephen Hawking knows that. The expansion of the universe proves that we had a total singularity.

I’ve never heard of the ‘Epikurotic’ theory. It seems that Google hasn’t either. As for the white hole theory, we don’t know that they exist or that they even can exist.

How could this possibly measure up to all the scientific evidence of the Big Bang that I’ve posted? There’s reams of the stuff. Mathematical consistency is not enough – it has to correspond to reality, to what actually happened.

There’s a reason the Big Bang is the leading theory – it’s because the others don’t measure up to the standard of science.

I never said that God was in another dimension, or that he was somehow inhabiting this alternate universe. Why posit alternate universes with different types of space/time when there’s no evidence? We know exactly what was before the universe – there was nothing. That’s where/when the first cause was.

All space/time was created at the Big Bang. Assuming time and space before there was time and space is contradictory.

I can say that the creator is timeless – his interactions with the space/time world are temporal. Also, he had foreknowledge at the beginning of the world all the free choices that his creatures would make.

You failed to demonstrate that a timeless will is a logical fallacy. Your argument is non-sequitor.

  1. The singularity is as much of a fact as is any other fact – I have reams of scientific data with me on this. I haven’t seen any real quotations or evidence from you.

  2. Time existing before time is a contradiction.

  3. When does God act against his original will? For God to be able to use his mind, this presupposes time. We know time came into being at a singularity, so then temporal successions of thought are meaningless. Instead, God possesses all knowledge in a single eternal intuition. In his relations with the physical world, God enters into time.

  4. Abstract objects cannot. I cannot give you scientific evidence. Only logical evidence – a matter of deduction. What are your criteria for accepting miracles?

Is history uknowable, then? I need to know your criteria for miracles before I proceed. ‘Son’ doesn’t necessarily mean in a physical sense. Rather this is jsut an expression of hierarchy within the trinity.

I’ll be back later today for more posts.

166

Sam,

My hands are on a keyboard, not in the air. There are no natural mechanisms – such mechanisms simply did not exist before the singularity. I think you’re making the mistake of holding all of these theories on an equal level and then asking the question: Why should we choose one over the other?

They’re not equal at all. I’m not positing God to remove a problem. God is the only one who could fit the necessary criteria. God and the Big Bang are the best explanations, backed with science and logic.

167

How many eyewitness accounts are sufficient? Are miracles a logical possibility? If so, what would satisfy you?

None, eyewitnesses are unreliable. Yes, tho improbable. Recreation of the observed phenomena. If it can’t be created, we can postulate on its nature all we want, but it will be a point of faith to believe it ever happened. I don’t hold “faith without evidence” in very high regards. I have seen Chris Angel walk up walls and across water, that doesn’t mean I believe he actually walked up walls and across water.

The singularity is not a guess. Even Stephen Hawking knows that. The expansion of the universe proves that we had a total singularity.

I’ve never heard of the ‘Epikurotic’ theory. It seems that Google hasn’t either. As for the white hole theory, we don’t know that they exist or that they even can exist.

Sorry for my spelling, it is Ekpyrotic Theory. I don’t want to get into a “my expert vs your expert” debate, as I am almost positive you have your quotes at the ready. So maybe this Wiki article will suffice;

While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe’s history. The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems require the existence of a singularity at the beginning of cosmic time. However, these theorems assume that general relativity is correct, but general relativity must break down before the Universe reaches the Planck temperature, and a correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the singularity.[58]

Some proposals, each of which entails untested hypotheses, are:

  • models including the Hartle–Hawking no-boundary condition in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.[59]
  • brane cosmology models[60] in which inflation is due to the movement of branes in string theory; the pre-big bang model; the ekpyrotic model, in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes; and the cyclic model, a variant of the ekpyrotic model in which collisions occur periodically. In the latter model, the Big Bang was preceded by a Big Crunch and the Universe endlessly cycles from one process to the other.[61][62][63]
  • chaotic inflation, in which universal inflation ends locally here and there in a random fashion, each end-point leading to a bubble universe expanding from its own big bang.[64][65][66]

Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in a much larger and older Universe, or multiverse, and not the literal beginning.

The expansion of the universe proves that we had a total singularity.

It does? Did you not see that, at this moment, is impossible to see the Planck Epoch. We have not seen the singularity, and plenty of physicists do not see it as necessary, especially because it presupposes general relativity, which breaks down at that moment. The Big Bang theory does not neccesarily entail a singularity, nor does it even try.

Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[29] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as “the Big Bang”

Big Bang theory starts at this early dense, hot phase. Not before the planck epoch (the supposed singularity).

All space/time was created at the Big Bang. Assuming time and space before there was time and space is contradictory.

You are using the Big Bang theory to posit that we are the only universe to ever have existed. The Big Bang theory in no way says this, it says that all time and matter in this universe was created then. It does not even go back to the actual beginning of this universe, nor does it rule out the possiblity of others or a multiverse, or any other number of explanations.

I can say that the creator is timeless – his interactions with the space/time world are temporal. Also, he had foreknowledge at the beginning of the world all the free choices that his creatures would make.

If he is timeless there is no such thing as foreknowledge. If he is timeless he exists in the past, present, and future, all at once. There is no free will to a timeless creature. For him to change anything, he would create a new time that he was not part of, ergo, not timeless. A timeless being acting to change something contradicts itself. Please show me what is fallacious in that argument.

The singularity is as much of a fact as is any other fact – I have reams of scientific data with me on this. I haven’t seen any real quotations or evidence from you.

You have scientific evidence of the singularity? Singularity != Big Bang.

A new class of exact solutions to Einstein’s field equations with a perfect-fluid source is presented. The solutions describe spatially inhomogeneous cosmological models and have a realistic equation of state p=ρ/3. The properties of the solutions are discussed. The most remarkable feature is the absence of an initial singularity, the curvature and matter invariants being regular and smooth everywhere. We also present an alternative interpretation of the solution as a globally regular cylindrically symmetric space-time

José M. M. Senovilla
Grupo de Física Teórica, Departamento de Física, Ingeniería y Radiología Médica, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Salamanca, 37008 Salmanaca, Spain

he duality-type symmetries of string cosmology naturally lead us to expect a pre-big-bang phase of accelerated evolution as the dual counterpart of the decelerating expansion era of standard cosmology. Several properties of this scenario are discussed, including the possibility that it avoids the initial singularity and that it provides a large amount of inflation

M. Gasperini

G. Veneziano

Time existing before time is a contradiction

You continue to think that our time is the only possible time. Does the very possiblity of other universes challenge your magic wizard theory? Nothing in standard cosmology rules out the possibility of alternate realities.

Instead, God possesses all knowledge in a single eternal intuition.

So he planned that we would turn away from him and he would have to food the world? Then that we would turn away from him again and he would have to create a kingdom in his name, and then we would turn away again so he would have to send us his only begotten son to redeem us for our sins? What a weird plan. Unless of course you are not prepared to use the God of the Bible, or just pick and choose what supports your hypothesis.

What are your criteria for accepting miracles?

Honestly, none. I don’t so much believe in miracles. That is not to say these phenomena don’t occur. Just that if it happened, it happened, there is nothing miraculous about it.

Is history uknowable, then?

Whoever said that?

I need to know your criteria for miracles before I proceed

Someone would have to create a miracle under strict scientific scrutiny; walking on water at will, let us say. It could not be based on conjecture, and would have to produced in front of cameras, recorders, experts, etc. And then would have to prove that only a supernatural cause exists. It would have to be proven that this cannot be a natural phenomena. It would also have to prove that this is not regularly recreatable, that only belief can cause it. But then again, this would just become a natural phenomena that faith in this supposed wizard can change space and time contrary to what should be allowed with the laws of physics.

Like I said, if it happens, it happens. To me the term miracles is incomprehensible, if it happened, it happened. Plain and simple.

168

Why should we choose one over the other?

That’s just it, we shouldn’t choose. We have no idea, just guesses. Thats the whole point.

169

My initial post is awaiting moderator approval, so wait for it lol.

But I would like to know what these physicists you quote think of your magic wizard hypothesis as the “best explanation based on science and logic.”

170

looks like it was approved faster than I thought lol. So forget the opening line of my last post.

171

Sam,

You didn’t read the rest of my post. One has scientific and logical proofs, the others don’t. Therefore, we only have guesses? That doesn’t follow.

The Big Bang model is superior because it has proofs.

I think you both should look at the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem in 2003. The three leading cosmologists proved that because the universe has been expanding throughout history, it cannot be infinite or eternal in the past – it has to have a space-time boundary.

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

As for the beginning of time, you have to understand that without physical objects there is no time and without time there are no physical objects.

I’ll address Epicurus soon.

172

Also Schnaps, keep in mind that none of these other creation theories invalidate the Big Bang, as you seem to want to imply. They are mathematical, and just as logically valid ways of explaining the bang without a singularity.

173

I’m not going to further pursue the argument from miracles on this thread. We could literally double the amount of pages on that argument alone. I brought it up as an example of what I would do to progress from theism to monotheism to Christianity.

I agree. Expert vs expert is useless unless you can distinguish between true and false when evaluating theories.

The exciting thing about science is that we now know (through the three leading cosmologists) that any universe that continues to expand must have a singularity. Which is why we can eliminate all these other cosmological theories. Not only that, but the Ekpyrotic is speculatory. It doesn’t matter about mathematic consistency, what matters is its relation to reality. I’m not interested in science fiction pop-metaphysics.

See, Cosmology with Negative Potentials.

Citing dozens of alternatives does nothing to eliminate the truth of one of them. One of them is most definitely true. If you bring them up one by one, I can address and smash each one of those models listed.

I’m not dogmatic about the Big Bang, I’m just adamant about a singularity. Don’t forget that Wikipedia is not exactly the most reliable source – I’ve let that go until now, because it just is misstating the Big Bang and actually trying to pass off alternatives as viable methods to eliminate the singularity.

I doubt I can prove the singularity with 100% certainty. Almost nothing can fit in that category. However, it is the best explanation and the one with the most evidence. I can’t disprove alternate universes, but I can point out that they have little or no evidence whatsoever.

Foreknowledge is our way of looking at it. To God, it’s just regular old knowledge.

For a timeless being to create something in time/space or to have an affect on physical reality, he’d have to enter time momentarily.

Also, the expanding universe absolutely proves a singularity. Look up Edwin Hubble.

Here are some lovely quotes:

“If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.” – astronomer George Smoot, commenting on ripples from the initial explosion that were predictions of the Big Bang theory.

Smoot called these mathematically precise ripples, "Machining marks from the creation of the universe” and the “fingerprints
of the maker.”

“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began
abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. . . . That there are what I or anyone would call
supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” – Robert Jastrow, astronomer

"The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as
frankly supernatural.” – Arthur Eddington

"The Steady State theory turned out to be so ugly that people dismissed it. The easiest way to fit the observations with the least number of parameters was one in which the universe was created out of nothing, in an instant, and continues to expand.” – Arno Allan Penzias

“Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of
the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.” – Robert Wilson

“Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly a very objective mind—when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless
phrases.” – Robert Jastrow

“the universe exploded out of nothingness." – Victor Stenger

I’m hereby banning you from quoting from Wikipedia. That’s not exactly a journal of accurate scholarship. Find some papers or read some books from people in the scientific community.

Besides, even if the Big Bang theory was incorrect, that still does not eliminate the singularity. Don’t forget the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Almost no one actually tries to say that the singularity never happened. If anything, they try positing things like ‘imaginary numbers’ since they can’t deny a singularity. In short, no more wikipedia. My explanation is still the best explanation.

If you ever find any more universes, let me know, since those unvierses also require beginnings as well.

174

The teleological argument. I promised it a few posts back and here it is.

This argument further illustrates the power and intelligence behind the first cause. Other theories can’t even begin to start explaining the fine tuning of the universe. Let me illusturate.

Think of all the physical laws of nature. In mathematical expression, they contain constants (gravitational constant) which are not determined by these laws themselves.

Let’s take Newton’s law of gravity for example. F = Gm1m2/r2.

The law does not determine what value G has. It is independent of the law itself. These constants are just ‘there’ – placed into the universe as a boundary condition. The laws of nature operate by these boundary conditions.

When I say fine-tuning, I mean that a small deviation from any of these constants such as the fine structure constant, gravitation, the weak force, the strong force, and the ration between the mass of a proton and the mass of an electron, would make the chance of life actually ever coming into existence utterly impossible.

Stephen Hawking estimates that one second after the Big Bang, a decrease in the expansion rate of even one part in a hundred thousand million million would have resulted in the universe’s recollapse long ago.

1.The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

  1. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

  2. Therefore, it is due to design.

Now combine this with my cosmological argument. If someone one of these other alternate theories about the origin of the universe were true, how could they have possibly created the finely-tuned conditions necessary for the expansion of the universe? It wasn’t trial by error, of course. We could measure if there were multiple failed attempts at universe creation.

It was all done in one shot. This is probably not the work of an intelligent, powerful mind, right?

175

Actually, only one of my quotes came from wikipedia. The other came from Google Scholar after a brief, cursory glance. The singularity is not known, has never, and right now can never be observed, and is not necessary to the Big Bang.

These means nothing tho, as I refuted the rest of your argument as well, namely that a timeless being can change anything in creation, which would negate his timelessness. I also asked you to provide evidence that anything non-natural has ever, in the history of the world, effected the natural world directly. You have not been able to do so, except for your claims of a wizard in the sky.

The exciting thing about science is that we now know (through the three leading cosmologists) that any universe that continues to expand must have a singularity

Your reliance on people, not evidence is the root of the issue here. The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence of a singularity, it is, at best, a guess based on the immediate time after the Planck Epoch. The problem is that general relativity predicts a singularity. But relativity absolutely breaks down within the Planck Epoch, negating any claim to continue following general relativity at that point. It is really tiring repeating myself on things you refuse to rebutt, or rebutt on falacious claims.

I can address and smash each one of those models listed

Pompousness from an ameteur is always funny… in a kinda sad way.

It doesn’t matter about mathematic consistency, what matters is its relation to reality. I’m not interested in science fiction pop-metaphysics.

Neither am I. I never claimed to follow these models. Merely that they are more believable (as they are at least supported by a little math), and just as valid arguments as a “wizard did it.”

I doubt I can prove the singularity with 100% certainty. Almost nothing can fit in that category. However, it is the best explanation and the one with the most evidence

Please provide this evidence of a singularity. The Big Bang, which you mistakenly imply requires a singularity has tons (it does seem to imply a singularity, but it is in no way required, and as of now, there is literally no evidence of it)

For a timeless being to create something in time/space or to have an affect on physical reality, he’d have to enter time momentarily.

And if this changes the timeline he negates his supposed timelessness, as it creates a new time that he was not part of. Please try to pay attention. Refute my claim that a timeless entity can change reality and not negate his timelessness. Wills exist to act, actions are taken to change things (even if that is to change the speed at which something changes, meaning trying to keep it the same).

he expanding universe absolutely proves a singularity. Look up Edwin Hubble

That would be like me saying “that guy is running east. He must have been running east forever.” An expanding universe proves the universe is expanding, nothing more. Expanding universe is only the cursory data used to formulate the theory. We have since then seen as far back as 10-42 (I hope I have that number right), yet have not observed the singularity.

I’m hereby banning you from quoting from Wikipedia

Please don’t act as if you have any control over me whatsoever. It is insulting. If you can’t take what you find in a cursory synopsis, how would you ever stand up to real academic scrutiny. I see in another thread you are just starting school. Take this hypothesis of yours to your physics professor, see if he says anything different than me.

Almost no one actually tries to say that the singularity never happened

Are you sure of that? I provided with, I think, 5 examples of physicists who said the singularity is not neccessary to creation. Whether or not they are from Wikipedia (which I use because, unlike you, I do not keep quotes at the ready), and 3 of them are not, they reflect a general view that the only thing that requires a singularity is if we assume general relativity still holds true before the Planck Epoch. In fact, general relativity doesnt even hold true in the macro universe (you know, the one we live in), and nothing says it must hold true at creation.

Excuse me while I find quotes to back up my claims; as first, I think you value human opinion over observable data, and second, unlike you, I do not keep quotes at the ready.

(Also, remember, this isnt just about the singularity, it is also about your claim that a timeless creature can change the unfolding timeline without negating his timelessness.)

176

It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

HAHA, you really care nothing for the scientific method do you (unless of course it supports your claims)? You have evidence that it is not just the natural way that creation was going to unfold? You can’t just state something and expect it to be true.

177

The final result was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity was correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe.

Stephen Hawking (emphasis mine)

(On a side note; haha, this isn’t your theorem, it is William Craig’s Kalam argument, isn’t it? The only difference is that you accept the singularity as more than just math, and believe only the same creator he posited could have exploded it. Whoops, I don’t think I was supposed to dig that one up lol)

THis is Hawking years later about the paper mentioned above he wrote w Penrose

It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe—as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account

This is from Ethan Siegel, theoretical physicist

It never reaches a size of zero! If you want an inflating Universe to have a singularity, you need to go back an infinite amount of time! Physically, of course, we can’t do that… So what does this all mean? It means the idea that our Universe started from a singularity was a very good one back when we thought that the only important things in our Universe were matter and radiation, but now that we know about inflation, there is no reason to believe that our Universe ever had a singularity in the past.
(emphasis his)

This is from Dr. Craig himself

The standard Big Bang model needs to be modified in various ways. For example, the model is based on Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. But Einstein’s theory breaks down when space is shrunk down to sub-atomic proportions. We’ll need to introduce quantum physics at that point, and no one is sure how this is to be done.

Alan Guth

The traditional big bang theory has become widely accepted because, as far as we can tell, it gives an accurate picture of how our universe has evolved . . . However, although the standard big bang theory is very successful, there is good reason to believe it is incomplete

It wouldn’t really be infinite," explained physicist Paul Steinhardt, director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J., and another architect of inflation theory. "Infinity just means a mathematical breakdown. It’s a statement that you shouldn’t have extrapolated your equations back that far because they just blew up in your face

178

Okay, I’m going to go over my past few posts and quote myself. I’ve already answered the supposed problem of God abandoning ‘timelessness’ with change.

“I can say that the creator is timeless – his interactions with the space/time world are temporal.”

That’s one.

Here’s another: “For a timeless being to create something in time/space or to have an affect on physical reality, he’d have to enter time momentarily.”

Applying your evidential bias to the matter would make it pointless. I could say 500 years ago in London, England, five thousand eyewitnesses saw such and such, and that would not be enough for you. In fact, no amount of eyewitnesses would satisfy you. In your own posts you say that we can’t know things from the past with any certainty.

I can still detect your contempt for a priori reasoning – you’ve stopped supporting positivism outright in your posts, but it’s a hidden assumption in your request for proof. Basically, you’re begging the question again, making your request invalid.

How many arguments have I given? I’ll list.

  1. First and Second laws of Thermodynamics

  2. The expansion of the universe – further elaborated on by the three leading cosmologists (this is the main evidence of singularity)

  3. Radiation discovered from the Big Bang.

“No explanation other than the Big Bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed. At the present time, the Big Bang theory has no competitors.” – Robert Jastrow

  1. Galaxy Seeds + COBE

The standard Big Bang model does need to be modified because of Einsteon’s General Theory of Relativity breaking down when space is shrunk.

As well, it is doubtful that the expansion of the universe has been constant – but it has been observed. This, of course, doesn’t change the singularity though.

I repeat, Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem in 2003. It totally removes the issue of the dreaded ‘Planck’.

One of the papers you found off of Google Scholar is from 1990. The second by Gasperini advocates some sort of Pre-Big Bang string theory which is so dogged with problems on how to join the pre- and post-Big Bang phases together and the problems that arise from their theory of a wider, eternally pre-existing space are devastating to the theory.

You mistakenly assume that because there are many competing theories that that is evidence that the singularity is false.

Ironically, you can’t even spell ‘amateur’ right. Ouch. I was just being funny anyhow. Sort of how I was trying to lighten the discussion by ‘banning’ you from Wikipedia. All in good fun.

I never tried to refute your claim. I agree with it. To act on the physical reality, the cause must momentarily abandon timelessness.

You’re equating mathematical consistency with reality. Anyone can make a mathematically consistent model, but what bearing does it have on reality? Does it even exist? Is there evidence? Planck Epoch was dealt with by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.

Human opinion over observable data? Where exactly are you getting this observable data? Oh, that’s right, from human opinion.

Let’s go over timelessness again.

Time before time. A different time? What sort of time? A time that counts in hours, months, years? A metric time? Time is linked to physical objects. That’s why there wasn’t a different time before the time we live in. Because ‘that’ time did not have any physical objects.

God exists timelessly without the universe and is temporal subsequent to the creation of the universe.

I never claimed I invented the argument. The premises of the argument are easily found on Google.

As for your quote of Dr. Craig, please read the rest of his article. I don’t think it affirms what you think it does.

As for Alan Guth, I never claimed that the Big Bang theory had no additions or subtractions that could be made from it.

I can’t take apart Siegel’s paper on the spot, but I’ll be looking into it over the next few days.

As for your response to the teleological argument, I never claimed that the premises were self-evident. I was waiting for your objection so I could see where to proceed.

Also, I’ll sketch out more of the teleological argument tomorrow.

179

For a timeless being to create something in time/space or to have an affect on physical reality, he’d have to enter time momentarily

That isn’t rebutting the argument at all. It is sidestepping it. If he is timeless, and changes the timeline, it now becomes a time he wasn’t part of. A timeless creature exists now, then, and in the future. There is no changing time for a timeless creature, he would have “anticipated” (for lack of a better word) this change in time.

Applying your evidential bias to the matter would make it pointless

Than it is pointless to begin with. Either praying to a wizard can change the laws of physics or not. I don’t care how many witnesses seen it, if it happened, and praying to a wizard doesn’t recreate it with any certainty, than the wizard explanation is false.

In fact, no amount of eyewitnesses would satisfy you. In your own posts you say that we can’t know things from the past with any certainty.

And you say that we can? I am trained as an anthropologist, I am well aware of the limitations of historical analysis. Have you ever heard “history is written by the winners?”

I can still detect your contempt for a priori reasoning

The only contempt I have is when a priori is used as the be-all, end-all of proof. It is my major contention with AE, as a matter of fact. I have no contempt of “King John, if he ruled, ruled for a finite time,” type propositions and understanding. I have a problem when it is said we can only know things through a priori, and can then discount empiricism.

The expansion of the universe – further elaborated on by the three leading cosmologists (this is the main evidence of singularity)

Outdated; see quotes above

I repeat, Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem in 2003

Wait, you can use non-standard propositions, yet I cannot? How convenient, much like the rest of your argument style.

You mistakenly assume that because there are many competing theories that that is evidence that the singularity is false

False. I postulate that since their are many competing theories, that the singularity is not necessarily true.

To act on the physical reality, the cause must momentarily abandon timelessness.

What?!?!?!?!! I will not get into arguments about a creature that can do anything and never be understood. How can a timeless creature abandon timelesness?

Anyone can make a mathematically consistent model, but what bearing does it have on reality?

I don’t know, why don’t you ask Einstein as he was not an applied physicist. Everything he created, was created through math.

As for your quote of Dr. Craig, please read the rest of his article. I don’t think it affirms what you think it does.

Wasn’t my intention. Merely stating that it is a near consensus opinion these days that the Big Bang, tho powerful, is incomplete. And it in no way necessitates a singularity.

180

BGV Theorem; any universe that is expanding had to have a point in time it came into existence. This theorem exists independantly of the model used to describe it. It says nothing on string, epkyrotic, or white hole thoery as not being just as plausible (if not more so) than “a wizard did it.”

The problem with your model is not, in any way, that a wizard did it. It is that you propose the wizard did it with magic. You can believe all you want that God creates mutations, and guides the processes of evolution (just to change topics for the sake of this argument). The question for science is how does he do it?