Big Bang Intelligent Design

Another shot in the campaign against the Big Bang

Spread the love

This time at LiveScience:

In the beginning, there was … well, maybe there was no beginning. Perhaps our universe has always existed — and a new theory of quantum gravity reveals how that could work.

“Reality has so many things that most people would associate with sci-fi or even fantasy,” said Bruno Bento, a physicist who studies the nature of time at the University of Liverpool in the U.K.

In his work, he employed a new theory of quantum gravity, called causal set theory, in which space and time are broken down into discrete chunks of space-time. At some level, there’s a fundamental unit of space-time, according to this theory…

Their work implies that the universe may have had no beginning — that it has simply always existed. What we perceive as the Big Bang may have been just a particular moment in the evolution of this always-existing causal set, not a true beginning.

There’s still a lot of work to be done, however. It’s not clear yet if this no-beginning causal approach can allow for physical theories that we can work with to describe the complex evolution of the universe during the Big Bang.

Paul Sutter, “What if the universe had no beginning?” at Live Science (October 10, 2021)

Bento’s theory sounds convincing — compared to the Easter Bunny. The question we should be asking is, why is the Big Bang so unpopular with these people?

You may also wish to read: Ethan Siegel makes another paper assault on the Big Bang. Is the Big Bang the least popular widely accepted science theory? Theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel wishes it out of existence by positing a cosmic inflation that wipes out all possibility of knowledge.

30 Replies to “Another shot in the campaign against the Big Bang

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Besides the fact that, by their own admission, their casual set theory of discrete chunks of space-time, has very little, if anything, to do with physical reality,

    ,,, in which space and time are broken down into discrete chunks of space-time,,,
    There’s still a lot of work to be done, however. It’s not clear yet if this no-beginning causal approach can allow for physical theories that we can work with to describe the complex evolution of the universe during the Big Bang.

    Aside from that rather glaring flaw in their theory of having no perceivable connection to physical reality, we can also ask, ‘Exactly why does the mathematics of causal set theory, which is timeless by its very nature, ‘possibly’ describe the universe?”, and, “Why in blue blazes should humans even be able to comprehend this timeless realm of mathematics that ‘possibly’ describe the universe in the first place if we are, as Darwinists hold, nothing but particles flowing in space time?”

    Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018
    Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,,
    Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame.
    The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories.
    As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents.
    In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    Keep It Simple – Edward Feser
    Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-­divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our ­experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order.
    How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect.
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple

    11. The Argument from Truth
    Excerpt:
    1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
    2. Truth properly resides in a mind.
    3. But the human mind is not eternal.
    4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.
    https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11

    That this timeless, I.e eternal, realm of immaterial mathematics should even be able to describe the universe, and that we, of all creature on earth, should even be able to comprehend this timeless, i.e. eternal, realm of immaterial mathematics that describe this universe is, in and of itself, to be consider ‘miraculous’.

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 ?Excerpt: ,, certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,?It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,?The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. ?http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
    -Albert Einstein
    http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

    What can science teach us about the mind of the maker of the universe? In particular, what can we learn from the remarkable correspondence between mathematics and the natural world?
    – Melissa Cain Travis on Science and the Mind of the Maker (Dallas Science & Faith Conference 2021)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6IZh7LSMA

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy.
    This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that “nothing” is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    “O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!”
    – Johannes Kepler – 1619 – stated shortly after he discovered the three mathematical laws of planetary motion

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, unlike their causal set theory which, by their own admission, has very little, if anything, to do with physical reality, the Christian Theist, on the other hand, can appeal directly to empirical evidence to support his belief that the immaterial Mind of God upholds this universe in its continual existence, and also that we ourselves have immaterial minds.

    In laying this fact out, first it is necessary to list the properties, and/or qualities, of immaterial mind that are irreducible to materialistic explanations.

    Dr. Egnor, (a brain surgeon), lists the 6 properties, and/or qualities, of immaterial mind that are irreducible to materialistic explanations as such,

    The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008
    Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: –
    Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....13961.html

    Likewise, J. Warner Wallace has a very similar list, (but not an exact match to Dr. Egnor’s list), of six properties of immaterial mind that are irreconcilable with reductive materialism.

    Six reasons why you should believe in non-physical minds – 01/30/2014
    1) First-person access to mental properties
    2) Our experience of consciousness implies that we are not our bodies
    3) Persistent self-identity through time
    4) Mental properties cannot be measured like physical objects
    5) Intentionality or About-ness
    6) Free will and personal responsibility
    http://winteryknight.com/2014/.....cal-minds/

    And while qualia, i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’, in and of itself, is forever beyond physical, and/or, scientific examination,

    David Chalmers on Consciousness (Descartes, Philosophical Zombies and the Hard Problem of Consciousness) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

    The Hardest Problem in Science? October 28, 2011
    Excerpt: ‘But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can’t even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don’t even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.’
    – David Barash – Professor of Psychology emeritus at the University of Washington.
    https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-hardest-problem-in-science/40845

    And while qualia, i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’, in and of itself, is forever beyond physical, and/or, scientific, examination, never-the-less, other mental attributes do lend themselves to examination by physical science.

    Specifically, ‘Persistence of Self-Identity through time’ (which may also be termed ‘the experience of ‘the Now”), and ‘free will’, although both being irreconcilable with reductive materialism, nonetheless, both of those defining attributes of the immaterial mind that Dr. Egnor listed, unlike qualia, do make their presence known to us in recent experimental evidence from quantum mechanics.

    I will limit this post to just the mental quality of ‘Persistence of Self-Identity through time’ and leave the mental quality of free will to the side for now.

    As to defining the specific mental attribute of the ‘Persistence of Self-Identity through time’ (and/or ‘the experience of ‘the Now”) in particular, it is first important to note that we each have a unique perspective of being outside of time. In fact we each seemingly watch from some mysterious outside perspective of time as time seemingly passes us by. Simply put, we seem to be standing on an island of ‘now’ as the river of time continually flows past us.

    In the following video, Dr. Suarez states that the irresolvable dilemma for reductive materialists as such, “it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’, we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a Person who is not bound by space time. (In other words) We must refer to God!”

    Nothing: God’s new Name – Antoine Suarez – video
    Paraphrased quote: (“it is impossible for us to be ‘persons’ experiencing ‘now’ if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as ‘persons’, we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a Person who is not bound by space time. i.e. We must refer to God!”)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOr9QqyaLlA

    In further defining the mental attribute of ‘the experience of the now’, in the following article Stanley Jaki states that “There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,, ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.”

    The Mind and Its Now – Stanley L. Jaki, May 2008
    Excerpts: There can be no active mind without its sensing its existence in the moment called now.,,,
    Three quarters of a century ago Charles Sherrington, the greatest modern student of the brain, spoke memorably on the mind’s baffling independence of the brain. The mind lives in a self-continued now or rather in the now continued in the self. This life involves the entire brain, some parts of which overlap, others do not.
    ,,,There is no physical parallel to the mind’s ability to extend from its position in the momentary present to its past moments, or in its ability to imagine its future. The mind remains identical with itself while it lives through its momentary nows.
    ,,, the now is immensely richer an experience than any marvelous set of numbers, even if science could give an account of the set of numbers, in terms of energy levels. The now is not a number. It is rather a word, the most decisive of all words. It is through experiencing that word that the mind comes alive and registers all existence around and well beyond.
    ,,, All our moments, all our nows, flow into a personal continuum, of which the supreme form is the NOW which is uncreated, because it simply IS.
    http://metanexus.net/essay/mind-and-its-now

    And ‘the experience of ‘the now” also happens to be exactly where Albert Einstein got into trouble with leading philosophers of his day and also happens to be exactly where Einstein, eventually, got into trouble with quantum mechanics itself.

    Around 1935, Einstein was asked by Rudolf Carnap (who was a respected philosopher of that time):

    “Can physics demonstrate the existence of ‘the now’ in order to make the notion of ‘now’ into a scientifically valid term?”
    – Rudolf Carnap – Philosopher

    Einstein’s denied that it was possible, and stated:

    “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.”
    – Einstein – quoted via Stanley Jaki

    Prior to that encounter with Carnap, Einstein also had another disagreement with another famous philosopher, Henri Bergson, over what the proper definition of time should be (Bergson was also very well versed in the specific mental attribute of the ‘experience of the now’). In fact, that disagreement with Henri Bergson over what the proper definition of time should be was actually one of the primary reasons that Einstein failed to ever receive a Nobel prize for his work on relativity:

    Einstein, Bergson, and the Experiment that Failed: Intellectual Cooperation at the League of Nations! – Jimena Canales
    page 1177
    Excerpt: Bergson temporarily had the last word during their meeting at Société française de philosophie. His intervention negatively affected Einstein’s Nobel Prize, which was given “for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect” and not for relativity. The reasons behind this decision, as stated in the prize’s presentation speech, were related to Bergson’s intervention: “Most discussion [of Einstein’s work] centers on his Theory of Relativity. This pertains to epistemology and has therefore been the subject of lively debate in philosophical circles. It will be no secret that the famous philosopher Bergson in Paris has challenged this theory, while other philosophers have acclaimed it wholeheartedly.”51 For a moment, their debate dragged matters of time out of the solid terrain of “matters of fact” and into the shaky ground of “matters of concern.”52
    https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3210598/canales-Einstein,%20Bergson%20and%20the%20Experiment%20that%20Failed%282%29.pdf?sequence=2

    The specific statement that Einstein made to Carnap on the train, “The experience of ‘the now’ cannot be turned into an object of physical measurement, it can never be a part of physics.” was a very interesting statement for Einstein to make to the philosopher since “The experience of ‘the now’ has, from many recent experiments in quantum mechanics, established itself as very much being a defining part of our physical measurements in quantum mechanics.

    For instance, the following delayed choice experiment with atoms demonstrated that, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”

    Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, (Delayed Choice) quantum experiment confirms – Mind = blown. – FIONA MACDONALD – 1 JUN 2015
    Excerpt: “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release.
    – per science alert

    Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    The Mind First and/or Theistic implications of quantum experiments such as the preceding are fairly obvious. As Professor Scott Aaronson of MIT once quipped, “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists,,, But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”

    “Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!”
    – Scott Aaronson – MIT associate Professor quantum computation – Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables

    Thus, contrary to what Einstein himself thought was possible for experimental physics, physicists have now shown, in overwhelming fashion, that ‘the experience of the now’ is very much a part of experimental physics. In fact, due to advances in quantum mechanics, it would now be much more appropriate to rephrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher Rudolph Carnap in this way:

    “It is impossible for “the experience of ‘the now’” to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.”

    Thus in conclusion, whilst they, in their causal set theory, and by their own admission, have a mathematical theory that has very little, if anything, to do with physical reality, the Christian Theist, on the other hand, can appeal directly to empirical evidence to support his belief that the immaterial Mind of God upholds this universe in its continual existence, and also that we ourselves have immaterial minds.

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

  3. 3
    chuckdarwin says:

    The beginning versus no-beginning of the universe tug-of-war was always going to be a thorny issue for theologians because of our inability to extrapolate back to the absolute beginning within Big Bang cosmology, if such a beginning does actually exist. It was always dangerous for apologists like William Lane Craig to put all their eggs in the finite universe hypothesis. His famous “Kalam cosmological argument” hinges entirely on a definitive origin of the universe finding. If cosmology can’t get there, his theory is screwed. This becomes evident in the Craig-Carroll debate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8

    Thus in conclusion, whilst they, in their causal set theory, and by their own admission, have a mathematical theory that has very little, if anything, to do with physical reality, the Christian Theist, on the other hand, can appeal directly to empirical evidence to support his belief that the immaterial Mind of God upholds this universe in its continual existence, and also that we ourselves have immaterial minds.

    Whether a mathematical model has “anything” to do with reality is an ongoing question until the data are in. One could make the same argument about your Christian God–he is simply a hypothesis until you meet him face to face.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Chuck Darwin mentions the Craig-Carroll debate. What Chuck Darwin fails to mention is that Sean Carrol was being deceptive in the debate.

    Sean Carroll’s Dishonesty: The Debate of 2014 – By Ronald Cram – April 15, 2020
    Excerpt: (In his debate with William Lane Craig), Carroll was dishonest on two important points.
    Carroll claimed BGV theorem does not imply the universe had a beginning.
    Carroll claimed that quantum eternity theorem (QET) was better than BGV theorem.,,,
    Carroll,, knows that QET is not really a theorem at all and so cannot honestly be described as better than BGV theorem.
    Conclusion
    Uninformed viewers of the 2014 Carroll-Craig debate may think that Carroll won the debate. After all, Carroll is a cosmologist, he’s brilliant, confident and likable. He attacked and undermined BGV theorem, the science upon which Craig often bases his arguments. Carroll even enlisted the help of Alan Guth to undermine his own theorem. Then Carroll sprung the quantum eternity theorem on Craig, who was caught off-guard by the term since it had never appeared in the scientific literature.
    Informed viewers of the debate came away with a different view. Carroll’s denial that BGV theorem implies the universe/multiverse had an ultimate beginning was shocking and dishonest. Also, informed viewers saw it as rather underhanded for Carroll to claim “quantum eternity theorem” was a recognized theorem that implies the universe is eternal into the past (since the term had not even appeared in the scientific literature at that point).
    On the basis of the science, Craig was truthful with the audience and Carroll was not.
    Truth will win out as they say.
    Carroll’s (dishonest) behavior can only be seen as harmful to science.
    https://freethinkingministries.com/sean-carrolls-dishonesty-the-debate-of-2014/

  5. 5
    jerry says:

    Chuckdarwin, trained biologist, piped in on cosmology and the origins of the universe but has yet to address problems with biology and Evolution. Nor while wearing his cosmology hat on the fine tuning of the universe.

  6. 6
    chuckdarwin says:

    I believe that Guth and Carroll are in the process of co-writing a paper on the nature of time. I find it odd that Guth would work with someone so fundamentally “dishonest” as the apologist community tries to portray Carroll. But of course that is all just cheap shot ad hominem to begin with. https://medium.com/s/nautilus-time/initial-conditions-49de9c314749
    Guth never made the claim that the BGV Theorem compelled the conclusion that the universe had a beginning, but rather that the expansion of the universe had a beginning. As to the former question, I think this best sums up Guth’s position:

    So, as is often the case when one attempts to discuss scientifically a deep question, the answer is inconclusive. It looks to me that probably the universe had a beginning, but I would not want to place a large bet on the issue. https://counterbalance.org/cq-guth/didth-frame.html

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    This is not the first proposal that time might be quantized or particulate like physical reality. If you look up “chronon” – the proposed smallest particle of time – there is some interesting background to be found. I remember reading about it a few years back and that they were unable to detect any discontinuities in the flow of time.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    As usual, Chuck Darwin is not telling the full story. Carrol was indeed dishonest in the debate in that he flat out denied that the BGV theorem indicated a beginning for the universe and was also dishonest when he claimed that quantum eternity theorem (QET) was better than BGV theorem when QET was not even mentioned in the peer reviewed literature at that time. And that is indeed to be highly misleading with the evidence and is therefore for him to have been dishonest in the debate.

    Moreover, Vilenkin himself wholeheartedly disagrees with Guth and Carroll.

    Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem
    The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem, or the BGV theorem, is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary.[1] The theorem does not assume any specific mass content of the universe and it does not require gravity to be described by Einstein field equations. It is named after the authors Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, who developed its mathematical formulation in 2003.[2][1] The BGV theorem is also popular outside physics, especially in religious and philosophical debates.[1][3][4]
    Alternative models, where the average expansion of the universe throughout its history does not hold, have been proposed under the notions of emergent spacetime, eternal inflation, and cyclic models. Vilenkin and Audrey Mithani have argued that none of these models escape the implications of the theorem.[5] In 2017, Vilenkin stated that he does not think there are any viable cosmological models that escape the scenario.[6]
    Theoretical cosmologist Sean M. Carroll argues that the theorem only applies to classical spacetime, and may not hold under consideration of a complete theory of quantum gravity. He added that Alan Guth, one of the co-authors of the theorem, disagrees with Vilenkin and believes that the universe had no beginning.[7][8] Vilenkin argues that the Carroll-Chen model constructed by Carroll and Jennie Chen, and supported by Guth, to elude the BGV theorem’s conclusions persists to indicate a beginning of the universe as it has a reversal of the arrow of time in the past.[9]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde–Guth–Vilenkin_theorem

    Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning – April 2012
    Excerpt: Cosmologists use the mathematical properties of eternity to show that although universe may last forever, it must have had a beginning.,,, They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.
    They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.
    The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin.?Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place).
    http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27793/

    [9]: Arrows of time and the beginning of the universe – Alexander Vilenkin
    I examine two cosmological scenarios in which the thermodynamic arrow of time points in opposite directions in the asymptotic past and future. The first scenario, suggested by Aguirre and Gratton, assumes that the two asymptotic regions are separated by a de Sitter-like bounce, with low-entropy boundary conditions imposed at the bounce. Such boundary conditions naturally arise from quantum cosmology with Hartle-Hawking wave function of the universe. The bounce hypersurface breaks de Sitter invariance and represents the beginning of the universe in this model. The second scenario, proposed by Carroll and Chen, assumes some generic initial conditions on an infinite spacelike Cauchy surface. They argue that the resulting spacetime will be non-singular, apart from black holes that could be formed as the initial data is evolved, and will exhibit eternal inflation in both time directions. Here I show, assuming the null convergence condition, that the Cauchy surface in a non-singular (apart from black holes) universe with two asymptotically inflating regions must necessarily be compact. I also argue that the size of the universe at the bounce between the two asymptotic regions cannot much exceed the de Sitter horizon. The spacetime structure is then very similar to that in the Aguirre-Gratton scenario and does require special boundary conditions at the bounce. If cosmological singularities are allowed, then an infinite Cauchy surface with `random’ initial data will generally produce inflating regions in both time directions. These regions, however, will be surrounded by singularities and will have singularities in their past or future.
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3836

    A few more notes

    As a further point of interest, the Wall Theorem shows that even a quantum regime would have a beginning, and is therefore essentially to Quantum Physics what the BGV is to Classical Physics. You can read a post by Wall here where he explains why Carroll’s appeals to an eternal quantum regime are really unfounded and continue into the comments to see where he mentions his Theorem. – HeKS
    http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog.....y-theorem/
    http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog.....nt-2637787

    The Universe Is Not Eternal – Johanan Raatz – March 1, 2014
    Excerpt: Carroll pointed out that the BVG theorem only works within relativity but does not take quantum effects into account. Given a lack of a complete theory of quantum gravity, he argued that Craig can not claim that the universe began to exist.
    Though this is partly true, it turns out we are not completely in the dark. One thing known for certain about quantum gravity is something called the holographic principle. Precisely put, the holographic principle tells us that the entropy of a region of space (measured in terms of information) is directly proportional to a quarter of its surface area. The volume of this region is then actually a hologram of this information on its surface.
    Except this tells us something interesting about the universe as well. Entropy, or the amount of disorder present, always increases with time. In fact not only is this law inviolate, it is also how the flow of time is defined. Without entropy, there is no way to discern forwards and backwards in time.
    But if the holographic principle links the universe’s entropy and its horizon area then going back in time, all of space-time eventually vanishes to nothing at zero entropy. Thus Carroll’s argument is unsound. We already have enough knowledge about what happens beyond the BVG theorem that Craig cites. The universe is not eternal but created.
    It is interesting to note that this also undermines claims made by atheists like Hawking and Krauss that the universe could have fluctuated into existence from nothing. Their argument rests on the assumption that there was a pre-existent zero-point field or ZPF. The only trouble is that the physics of a ZPF requires a space-time to exist in. No space-time means no zero-point field, and without a zero-point field, the universe can not spontaneously fluctuate into existence.
    http://blog.proof.directory/20.....t-eternal/

    So, to quote Vilenkin, “There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

    “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 long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”
    – Alexander Vilenkin – Many Worlds In One – Pg. 176

    Moreover, I find it VERY strange that Darwinian materialists would appeal to a hypothesis of quantum gravity, which is not even a developed theory of science yet, (and indeed it is very questionable whether a quantum gravity theory will ever be forthcoming), to try to get around the beginning of the universe, which is what all the current empirical evidence, and already developed scientific theories, currently indicate that the universe had

    In fact, Quantum Mechanics, as far as current empirical evidence now stands, has already debunked materialism.

    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/8

    As usual, Chuck Darwin is not telling the full story. Carrol was indeed dishonest in the debate in that he flat out denied that the BGV theorem indicated a beginning for the universe and was also dishonest when he claimed that quantum eternity theorem (QET) was better than BGV theorem when QET was not even mentioned in the peer reviewed literature at that time. And that is indeed to be highly misleading with the evidence and is therefore for him to have been dishonest in the debate

    Neither William Lane Craig nor Ronald Cram are theoretical physicists so both are being both dishonest by pretending to an expertise and authority in that field to which neither are entitled.

    To repeat the last paragraph of the Wikipedia entry you quoted,

    Theoretical cosmologist Sean M. Carroll argues that the theorem only applies to classical spacetime, and may not hold under consideration of a complete theory of quantum gravity. He added that Alan Guth, one of the co-authors of the theorem, disagrees with Vilenkin and believes that the universe had no beginning.[7][8] Vilenkin argues that the Carroll-Chen model constructed by Carroll and Jennie Chen, and supported by Guth, to elude the BGV theorem’s conclusions persists to indicate a beginning of the universe as it has a reversal of the arrow of time in the past.[9]

    The question of whether this Universe had a beginning is clearly controversial. There are different candidate explanations and competent authorities in the field disagree over which is the better and, whatever our opinions might be, neither Craig nor Cram nor you nor I are competent to decide between them. For Cram to accuse Carroll of dishonesty is itself both dishonest and un-Christian.

    Whatever your religious beliefs concerning the origins of the Universe might be, in quantum physics and cosmology this is still an open question, still undecided, so any claim that these fields support your beliefs is unwarranted.

    If by “Darwinian materialists” you are referring to evolutionary biologists then I remind you, yet again, that their field is not concerned with the origins of life nor the origins of the Universe. And I have yet to see biologists appeal to quantum gravity as an explanation for any of the phenomena they routinely study.

    As for classical materialism, yes, it has been abandoned in face of the revelations of quantum mechanics. That is not in dispute. Nonetheless, quantum theory is still an explanation of the sub-atomic nature of physical reality and is still to that extent a physical or materialist explanation.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    (Leaving aside Seversky’s disingenuous attempt to, once again, equate science itself with his philosophy of atheistic materialism), Seversky protests that, “Neither William Lane Craig nor Ronald Cram are theoretical physicists so both are being both dishonest by pretending to an expertise and authority in that field to which neither are entitled.”

    But alas, although William Lane Craig and Ronald Cram may not be ‘expert’ theoretical physicists, (nor did they ever dishonestly present themselves to be ‘expert’ theoretical physicists as Seversky suggested that they did), in so far Sean Carroll himself is appealing to “a complete theory of quantum gravity” to try to get around a beginning for the universe, Sean Carroll himself, (since he has no experimental evidence to support his claim for quantum gravity), might as well be appealing to pink unicorns.

    In short, William Lane Craig and Ronald Cram are appealing to established experimental science to say the universe must have had a beginning, and Sean Carroll, the supposed ‘expert’ in theoretical physics, is appealing to an unestablished, even imaginary, hypothesis of quantum gravity, which has no experimental support, to try to say that a beginning of the universe “MAY NOT” hold.

    As Vilenkin himself noted, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

    “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
    – Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston – in a paper delivered to atheist Stephen Hawking at Hawking’s 70th birthday party (the paper was characterized as the ‘Worst Birthday Present Ever’) – January 2012

    In other words, as is typical for atheists, (especially typical for Darwinian atheists), Sean Carroll, (and Alan Guth, etc..), are refusing to follow the scientific evidence where it leads and are instead relying on their imaginary speculations to try to avoid what all the current empirical evidence, and already developed scientific theories in physics, currently indicate that the universe must have had. Namely an absolute beginning.

    And if basing your theories on unfounded and imaginary speculations supposedly makes you an ‘expert’ in theoretical physics, then, by all rights, Lewis Carroll, who wrote Alice in Wonderland, should be considered far more of an ‘expert’ in theoretical physics than Sean Carroll currently presents himself as being.

    Moreover, directly contrary to the misplaced optimism that Sean Carroll apparently has that “a complete theory of quantum gravity” will be forthcoming that relieves atheists from having to deal with an absolute beginning for the universe, we now have very good theoretical, and experimental, reasons for believing that “a complete theory of quantum gravity” will never be forthcoming to save the day for atheists.

    The number one unsolved mystery in science today, or one might say the search for the ultimate truth in science today, is the quest to solve the mystery of the “Theory of Everything”.

    The search for the “Theory of Everything” today takes the form of theoretical physicists trying to mathematically unify gravity, as it is described by General Relativity, with quantum mechanics into a single overarching mathematical framework that, in principle, would be capable of describing all phenomena in the universe.

    To put it mildly, describing all phenomena in the universe, including describing the beginning of the universe, (not to mention describing why humans would even be capable of searching for a mathematical ‘theory of everything’), is a rather ambitious goal for any single mathematical theory of science to ever hope to achieve.

    But be that as it may, for the last several decades, since at least the mid 1980s, the leading candidate for solving this hypothetical mathematical ‘theory of everything’ has been the mathematical framework of String theory and/or M-theory.

    Yet String theory and/or M-theory is now found to have severe problems with it that have rendered it untenable as a correct solution for that hypothetical mathematical “Theory of Everything”.

    For instance, as theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder pointed out in the following 2019 video, because the Large Hadron Collider has failed to detect any of the many particles that were predicted to exist by String Theory, via Supersymmetry, then String Theory should now rightly be classified as a highly dubious, if not an outright falsified, scientific theory.

    How Beauty Leads Physics Astray – Hossenfelder – video (failed predictions of String Theory – 47:00 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/Q1KFTPqc0nQ?t=2820

    And as the following 2021 article pointed out, ‘After years of searching and loads of accumulated data from countless collisions, there is no sign of any supersymmetric particle. In fact, many supersymmetry models are now completely ruled out, and very few theoretical ideas remain valid.’ And the article even goes on to state that “Where will physics go from here, in a universe without supersymmetry? Only time (and a lot of math) will tell.”

    Where are all the squarks and gluinos?
    The future of supersymmetry is in serious doubt. – Jan 2021
    Excerpt: The ATLAS collaboration, made up of hundreds of scientists from around the world, have released their latest findings in their search for supersymmetry in a paper appearing in the preprint journal arXiv.
    And their results? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
    After years of searching and loads of accumulated data from countless collisions, there is no sign of any supersymmetric particle. In fact, many supersymmetry models are now completely ruled out, and very few theoretical ideas remain valid.
    While supersymmetry has enjoyed widespread support from theorists for decades (who often portrayed it as the obvious next step in advancing our understanding of the universe), the theory has been on thin ice ever since the LHC turned on. But despite those initial doubtful results, theorists had hoped that some model of tuning of the theory would produce a positive result inside the collider experiment.
    While not every possible model of supersymmetry has been ruled out, the future of the theory is in serious doubt. And since physicists have invested so much time and energy into supersymmetry for years, there aren’t a lot of compelling alternatives.
    Where will physics go from here, in a universe without supersymmetry? Only time (and a lot of math) will tell.
    https://www.livescience.com/no-signs-supersymmetry-large-hadron-collider.html

    Thus, String Theory, via the falsification of supersymmetric particles, is found to be, basically, purely mathematical fantasy with no detectable connection to the real world.

    As should be needless to say, these findings leave Sean Carroll, and his atheistic cheerleaders, in quite the bind as far as experimental science itself is concerned.

    Moreover, to make matters even worse for atheists, one of the major mathematical stumbling blocks for theoretical physicists in trying to find that hypothetical mathematical “Theory of Everything’ that unifies quantum mechanics and gravity, has been the problem of quote unquote ‘renormalizing’ the infinities that crop us when one tries to mathematically unify Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity.

    Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the situation as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
    The theory is not renormalizable.”

    Quantum Leaps – Jeremy Bernstein – October 19, 2018
    Excerpt: Divergent series notwithstanding, quantum electrodynamics yielded results of remarkable accuracy. Consider the magnetic moment of the electron. This calculation, which has been calculated up to the fifth order in ?, agrees with experiment to ten parts in a billion. If one continued the calculation to higher and higher orders, at some point the series would begin to break down. There is no sign of that as yet. Why not carry out a similar program for gravitation? One can readily write down the Feynman graphs that represent the terms in the expansion. Yet there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
    The theory is not renormalizable.
    https://inference-review.com/article/quantum-leaps
    Jeremy Bernstein is professor emeritus of physics at the Stevens Institute of Technology.

    And as the following theoretical physicist noted, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”

    Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces
    We asked four physicists why gravity stands out among the forces of nature. We got four different answers.
    Excerpt: the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,,
    In quantum theories, infinite terms appear when you try to calculate how very energetic particles scatter off each other and interact. In theories that are renormalizable — which include the theories describing all the forces of nature other than gravity — we can remove these infinities in a rigorous way by appropriately adding other quantities that effectively cancel them, so-called counterterms. This renormalization process leads to physically sensible answers that agree with experiments to a very high degree of accuracy.
    The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,
    Sera Cremonini – theoretical physicist – Lehigh University
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/

    Thus, while Sean Carroll may hope that a hypothetical “”complete theory of quantum gravity” might be forthcoming in order to save him, and other atheists, from ever having to deal with an absolute beginning for the universe, as far as mathematics and experimental science can now tell us, that atheistic hope is severely forlorn.

    Moreover, although Sean Carroll, in his debate with Craig, dishonestly presented his imaginary speculations as being a ‘better theory’ than the BGV theorem that Craig presented, the fact of the matter is that the BGV theorem is based upon known experimental science, whereas, as has now been pointed out, Carroll’s imaginary speculations have no discernible connection to the real world.

    Specifically, the BGV theorem is based upon special relativity, which is one of our most precisely tested, and firmly established, theories ever in the history of science.

    “There is another development in theoretical physics called the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem. And its not based on General Relativity but its based on Special Relativity. And for that reason it is not effected by postulations about what gravity might or might not have been like in the first tiny smidgen of time after the beginning of the universe. And it is those speculations that prevented the Hawking, Penrose, Ellis, singularity theorem from absolutely proving a beginning point.
    Instead the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin, theorem proves a beginning to the universe on the basis of considerations from special relativity that have nothing to do with whether or not there were quantum fluctuations within the first tiny smidgen of time after the beginning of the universe, and whether gravity might have worked differently or not. Instead it is independent of all those kind of considerations and caveats that prevent us from saying that the Hawking, Penrose, Ellis, results are absolute proofs (for a beginning of the universe). Instead you have a very strong proof of a beginning from theoretical physics that is not dependent on these conditions.”,,,
    – Stephen Meyer Discusses the Big Bang, Einstein, Hawking, and More – video – 36:42 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/m_AeA4fMHhI?t=2202

    Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete – 2003
    Arvind Borde,1, 2 Alan H. Guth,1, 3 and Alexander Vilenkin1
    Excerpt: we will construct a definition for H that depends only on the relative motion of the observer and test particles.
    In order to motivate what we do, we first consider the case of nonrelativistic velocities in Minkowski space. Suppose that the observer measures the velocities of the test particles as a function of the time t on his own clock.,,,
    IV. Discussion. Our argument shows that null and time- like geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in infla- tionary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in pre- vious work [8] in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time (finite affine length, in the null case).
    https://www.brainmaster.com/software/pubs/physics/Inflation%20past0110012v2.pdf

    “The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation is impossible without a beginning.”
    – Alexander Vilenkin – from pg. 35 ‘New Proofs for the Existence of God’ by Robert J. Spitzer (of note: An elegant thought experiment, via special relativity, of a space traveler traveling to another galaxy, that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, used to illustrate the validity of the proof, is on pg. 35 of the book as well.)?

    Moreover, special relativity, unlike general relativity for Sean Carrol, does not suffer from the fatal flaw of not being ‘renormalizable’ with quantum mechanics.

    Theories of the Universe: Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity
    Excerpt: The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed.
    In the 1960s and ’70s, the success of QED prompted other physicists to try an analogous approach to unifying the weak, the strong, and the gravitational forces. Out of these discoveries came another set of theories that merged the strong and weak forces called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, and quantum electroweak theory, or simply the electroweak theory, which you’ve already been introduced to.
    If you examine the forces and particles that have been combined in the theories we just covered, you’ll notice that the obvious force missing is that of gravity (i.e. General Relativity).
    http://www.infoplease.com/cig/.....ivity.html

    THE INFINITY PUZZLE: Quantum Field Theory and the Hunt for an Orderly Universe
    Excerpt: In quantum electrodynamics, which applies quantum mechanics to the electromagnetic field and its interactions with matter, the equations led to infinite results for the self-energy or mass of the electron. After nearly two decades of effort, this problem was solved after World War II by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman, who shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga for this breakthrough, referred to this sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.”
    http://www.americanscientist.o.....g-infinity

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    So that Special Relativity, (considering its ‘renormalization’ with quantum mechanics), would provide a more robust proof for an absolute beginning of the universe than general relativity is currently capable of doing, (as impressive as the proof from general relativity currently is)

    Big Bang Theory – An Overview of the main evidence
    Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy.”3
    Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, “The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe,” Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.
    Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, “The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.
    http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

    “Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past.”
    (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) – 1970

    “Before he worked on black hole evaporation, Hawking worked with Penrose on the singularity theorems. Penrose’s theorem showed that, in contrast to what most physicists believed at the time, black holes are a pretty much unavoidable consequence of stellar collapse. Before that, physicists thought black holes are mathematical curiosities that would not be produced in reality. It was only because of the singularity theorems that black holes began to be taken seriously. Eventually astronomers looked for them, and now we have solid experimental evidence that black holes exist. Hawking applied the same method to the early universe to show that the Big Bang singularity is likewise unavoidable, unless General Relativity somehow breaks down. And that is an absolutely amazing insight about the origin of our universe.”
    – Sabine Hossenfelder

    ,,, So that Special Relativity, (considering its ‘renormalization’ with quantum mechanics), would provide a more robust proof for an absolute beginning of the universe than general relativity is currently capable of doing, (as impressive as the proof from general relativity currently is for a beginning of the universe), simply makes a lot of sense to me since special relativity has already been ‘unified’ with quantum mechanics, and general relativity has not, and thus it directly follows that Special Relativity can ‘naturally’ offer us a more robust proof for the beginning of the universe than general relativity is currently capable of doing.

    Thus in conclusion, Craig, in his debate with Carroll, was appealing to known science when he appealed to the BGV theorem to say that the universe must have had an absolute beginning, and Sean Carroll, although he dishonestly presented his imaginary speculations revolving around ‘quantum gravity’ as being a ‘better theory’ than the BGV theorem, was, in fact, appealing to a imaginary and speculative hypothesis that has no discernible connection to the real world.

    In short, Carroll, the supposed ‘expert’ in theoretical physics, has no experimental basis whatsoever for his claim that the universe had no beginning, whereas Craig, on the other hand, has multiple lines of experimental evidence that he can appeal to that all indicate that the universe must have had an absolute beginning..

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test everything; hold fast what is good.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Of supplemental note:

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8–eE

  12. 12
    Hanks says:

    Neither William Lane Craig nor Ronald Cram are theoretical physicists

    You need to keep in mind that all scientific discoveries are uncomplete because our knowledge is incomplete. Therefore you have to wait until all the knowledge is acquired to make objectively truth- judgments. On the other side I wouldn’t trust Caroll (or you) to walk my dog that I don’t have and much less to take advices about truth from you.

    Sean Carroll himself, (since he has no experimental evidence to support his claim for quantum gravity), might as well be appealing to pink unicorns.

    Pink unicorns are true if you are scientist and speaking your mind about some ” black box” theories that “could be” explained by “scientific pink unicorns materialistic ideas”. :))

  13. 13
    Seversky says:

    Hanks/12

    You need to keep in mind that all scientific discoveries are uncomplete because our knowledge is incomplete.

    Tell that to WLC and Ronald Cram.

    On the other side I wouldn’t trust Caroll (or you) to walk my dog that I don’t have and much less to take advices about truth from you.

    Lucky for me then that I don’t offer a service for walking imaginary dogs. Nor do I offer access to Absolute Truths (TM), again, unlike WLC and Ronald Cram.

  14. 14

    .

    Nor do I offer access to Absolute Truths

    But you relentlessly protect your personal beliefs by making them unfalsifiable.

    You also ignore contradictory evidence. Why is that Sev?

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    “Once more” Seversky says.

    He is clearly sending a signal that this is something he’s considered carefully and has argued for before:

    Sev: Once more, in my view, we are able to infer design on two grounds.

    The first …

    Sev: The phenomenon or entity has not been observed to result from natural processes

    Done. No one has observed a natural process that results in encoded memory containing a set of descriptions of the constraints required to decode that memory … (along with a set of descriptions of the physical parts required to cause the memory to be read and the products of it to be produced in order for the system and its constraints to persist over time so that we might discover it). It clearly, unambiguously “has not been observed”. His first criterion is satisfied..

    The second …

    Sev: and (the phenomenon) resembles what human beings design to a degree sufficient to at least raise the possibility of intelligent design.

    Done. The “phenomenon” in question is a completely unique physical system that has been described and identified by physics for the past five decades. It is a self-referent system using rate-independent control of a rate-dependent process, preserving its constraints, just exactly as it was predicted to be. The prediction was confirmed by experimental result. All the necessary parts of the system were found, one by one. All of it abundantly recorded in the literature. Nobel Awards were passed out. And the only other instance where that particular type of system can be found and described (by physics) is in human language and mathematics – two universal correlates of intelligence. It doesn’t merely “raise the possibility” of intelligence; the only other examples are immediate correlates of intelligence.

    So what say you Seversky?

  15. 15
    Bob O'H says:

    Sev @ 13 –

    Lucky for me then that I don’t offer a service for walking imaginary dogs. Nor do I offer access to Absolute Truths (TM),

    Oh, so you might walk imaginary dogs then.

  16. 16
    ET says:

    Again, seversky is confused about education and knowledge:

    Neither William Lane Craig nor Ronald Cram are theoretical physicists so both are being both dishonest by pretending to an expertise and authority in that field to which neither are entitled.

    Your ignorance is not an argument, seversky. And all you have is your ignorance.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Of course the universe had a beginning. We can’t get here from an infinite past.

  18. 18
    Seekers says:

    Seversky,

    If I’m understanding you correctly, then by your own admission ( not offering absolute truths) does that then mean that your own truths/beliefs could be considered provisional? and are then open to change should or if adequate evidence arrives that would force you to reinterpret your truths/beliefs?

  19. 19
    Hanks says:

    Nor do I offer access to Absolute Truths (TM)

    Only the Person who made the universe can offer Absolute Truths . Science is off range.
    As Lennox said that if he make a tea(or bake a cake) then the science can study and explain the process (physical ,chemical) but is off range finding the reason WHY. You can find it ONLY if Lennox wants to tell you. You can guess but guessing is not knowing.

  20. 20
    JVL says:

    ET: Of course the universe had a beginning. We can’t get here from an infinite past.

    So, before the Big Bang hypothesis came around what was the most widely supported and logical view about the state of the universe? Steady state? Some kind of ‘creation’ event?

    Hanks: Only the Person who made the universe can offer Absolute Truths .

    So, there was a creation event?

  21. 21
    Seekers says:

    JVL,

    You appear to be talking in circles was there a point to be made or would like like to have a discussion about past cosmology theory’s?

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL asks,

    “So, before the Big Bang hypothesis came around what was the most widely supported and logical view about the state of the universe? Steady state? Some kind of ‘creation’ event?”

    Well actually, the belief of present day atheistic naturalists, i.e. “A view that the universe is uncreated, has been around forever,”

    What’s the Big Deal About Intelligent Design?
    by Dan Peterson – December 22, 2005
    Excerpt: The attempt to equate science with materialism (methodological naturalism) is a quite recent development, coming chiefly to the fore in the 20th century. Contrary to widespread propaganda, science is not something that arose after the dark, obscurantist forces of religion were defeated by an “enlightened” nontheistic worldview. The facts of history show otherwise.,,,,
    Science arose and flourished in a civilization that, at the time, was profoundly and nearly exclusively Christian in its mental outlook.
    There are deep reasons for that, and they are inherent in the Judeo-Christian view of the world which, principally in its Christian manifestation, formed the European mind. As Stark observes, the Christian view depicted God as “a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being and the universe as his personal creation, thus having a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting human comprehension.” That was not true of belief systems elsewhere. A view that the universe is uncreated, has been around forever, and is just “what happens to be” does not suggest that it has fundamental principles that are rational and discoverable. Other belief systems have considered the natural world to be an insoluble mystery, conceived of it as a realm in which multiple, arbitrary gods are at work, or thought of it in animistic terms. None of these views will, or did, give rise to a deep faith that there is a lawful order imparted by a divine creator that can and should be discovered.
    https://spectator.org/47614_whats-big-deal-about-intelligent-design/

    In fact, as the preceding article touched upon, it was only when the Christian presupposition that the universe was created by God was widely accepted in Medieval Christian Europe that modern science was born, took root, and flourished in medieval Christian Europe.

    In fact, “The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. ”

    The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010
    Excerpt: If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.?http://www.scifiwright.com/201.....revisited/

    And Stephen Meyer, in his recent book “Return of the God hypothesis”, lists the three necessary Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe as such.

    “Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”.
    – Ian Barbour
    Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature
    “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,,
    “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”
    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler
    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.”
    – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

    Please note that Stephen Meyer, who has a PhD in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge, listed “The contingency of nature” as the very first necessary presupposition that lay at the founding of modern science.

    Somewhere in the ensuing centuries atheistic philosophers, such as David Hume, basically ‘ripped off’ science from the Christian founders of modern science, and declared that the laws of nature were completely ‘natural’ instead of being the ‘Thoughts of God’ as the Christian founders of modern science originally held them to be,,,, and thus the ‘unscientific’ atheistic view that the universe has always existed gradually crept back into being the dominant belief among scientists.

    “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and because firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the case against a miracle is—just because it is a miracle—as complete as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined to be.”
    – David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding – 1748

    “All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God’s handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God’s abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God – an exhilarating and audacious claim.”
    – Paul Davies – quoted from Templeton Prize address in 1995
    http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

    Thus, when empirical science finally discovered a beginning for the universe in the 20th century, via Big Bang cosmology, science was, in reality, coming around full circle to the necessary, indeed primary, presupposition of the ‘contingency of nature’ that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe.

    Of course atheists hate this fact and have been fighting tooth and nail against the evidence for the beginning of the universe, like, forever.

    For instance, the term “Big Bang’ itself was a term of derision that Fred Hoyle originally cooked up to disparage the entire idea that the universe had a beginning.

    But alas, the evidence for a beginning of the universe has continued to grow and grow, and get stronger and stronger, and the counterclaims by atheists have been getting more, and more, outlandish and ridiculous. i.e. from Steady State, to Bouncing Universe, and now atheists have apparently gone completely off their rockers, and atheists, such as Ethan Siegel, are now willing to claim that there are an infinite number of people just like you in an infinity of other universes,,,, and atheists, such as Siegel, are apparently willing to believe such insane nonsense just so in order to avoid a beginning for the universe and the Theistic implications therein.

    Although Ethan Siegel is obviously a very smart person, he is, via his rejection of God, certainly far from being a very wise person.

    As Chesterson is once said to have quipped,

    “When men stop believing in God they don’t believe in nothing; they believe in anything.”
    – G. K. Chesterton 1874–1936

  23. 23
    Origenes says:

    Obviously, in the Multiverse, many universes are expanding, which creates an insurmountable problem for the idea of an eternal Multiverse. Expanding universes lead to increases in entropy, or put another way: loss of energy.

    Meyer on an oscillating-universe:

    “ (…) the model ran into difficulties with the second law of thermodynamics, as MIT physicist Alan Guth demonstrated in 1984. (The second law says that the disorder or entropy of an isolated system of matter and energy will increase over time.)
    Guth showed that, according to the second law, the entropy (or disorder) of the matter and energy in the universe would increase over time in each cycle. But such increases in entropy (or the disorderly distribution of mass-energy) would result in less energy available to do work in each cycle. That would cause progressively longer and longer cycles of expansion and contraction, since increasing inhomogeneities in the mass-energy density throughout space would decrease the efficiency of gravitational contraction. Yet if the duration of each cycle necessarily increases as the universe moves forward in time, then it follows that each cycle in the past would have been progressively shorter. Since the periods of each cycle cannot decrease indefinitely, the universe—even in an oscillating model—would have had to have a beginning.
    Similarly, if in every cycle mass and energy grow progressively more randomized, eventually—given infinite time—the universe would reach heat death in which no energy will be available to do work, like a rubber ball that bounces to a smaller and smaller height until finally it can bounce no more. Yet, if the universe was oscillating and infinitely old, it should have reached such a state an infinitely long time ago. But since we do not find ourselves in such a cold universe with maximally homogeneous distributions of matter and energy, it follows—even assuming an oscillating universe—that the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time.”

    A Multiverse cannot escape the exact same problem. All those expanding (or oscillating) Universes result in massive increases in entropy / energy loss. Therefor a Multiverse cannot be something that, as Sutter puts it, “has simply always existed”, and per logic, neither can our universe.

  24. 24
    ET says:

    JVL:

    So, before the Big Bang hypothesis came around what was the most widely supported and logical view about the state of the universe? Steady state? Some kind of ‘creation’ event?

    That has nothing to do with what you were responding to. We cannot get here from an infinite past. So clearly the universe had a beginning. It doesn’t matter what anyone thought about the universe before the big bang hypothesis was envisioned.

  25. 25
    JVL says:

    ET: We cannot get here from an infinite past. So clearly the universe had a beginning. It doesn’t matter what anyone thought about the universe before the big bang hypothesis was envisioned.

    And yet, many physicists, including some Christian ones it seems fair to assume, believed in a steady-state universe before the evidence for the Big Bang started piling up. Which means they saw no evidence for a ‘beginning’ of the universe. If they didn’t believe the universe had a beginning then it must have an infinite past.

  26. 26
    Seekers says:

    JVL,

    In your comment you mention scientists and presumably Christians once accepted a steady-state universe. I don’t see any reason to disagree with that, however in that same paragraph you state “Before the evidence of the big bang started piling up”.

    So is it not then that the progress of science discovered new evidence that suggested a cosmic beginning. Why then argue over what scientists and presumably some Christian’s believed before evidence of the Big Bang was discovered?

  27. 27
    JVL says:

    Seekers: So is it not then that the progress of science discovered new evidence that suggested a cosmic beginning. Why then argue over what scientists and presumably some Christian’s believed before evidence of the Big Bang was discovered?

    Because there is an argument that Western science was not possible without a Christian perspective (in which case one would think that there being a beginning to the universe was a base assumption) AND there is an argument against an infinite past being possible.

    I think that the evidence suggests that not all Christian physicists accepted a ‘beginning’ to the universe and that some, like Fred Hoyle, ascribed to a model which supported an infinite past.

    So, the real question is: what influence does Christian faith actually have in modern science?

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, the notion of an infinite, finite stage successive causal-temporal past was never coherent. The traversal of the transfinite — explicit or implicit — is an infeasible supertask. A world from utter nonbeing, which can have no causal powers, is equally absurd. This leaves on the table a necessary being [thus, eternal] capable of causing a world. KF

  29. 29
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, the historical facts and stream of ideas behind the rise of modern science are clear. Christian thinkers acting i/l/o Christian thought, theology and philosophy, were critical to the actual establishment of the sciences as a self-sustaining movement. The fading of those ideas is now undermining its sustainability as we see all around us. The pandemic and its global mismanagement under colour of science speaks volumes. KF

  30. 30
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Doubtless some Christians who were scientists may have taken some form of steady state or beginningless physical cosmos seriously. Long before that Aquinas addressed it in his cosmological thinking, on grounds that asserting a cosmos with a definite, finitely remote beginning would be a trivial case. He saw that there was a need for something to support the whole chain, i.e. beginningless causal-temporal, successive “years” to now past does not become causeless or ontologically independent. As I noted above, there are logic of structure and quantity reasons why the implied transfinite traverse is an infeasible supertask. That objectors to cosmological design are forced into such difficulties speaks for itself.

Leave a Reply