Answers To Atheism

[Davian]

I challenge you or anyone else here to present a good argument as to why any of the premises in the arguments supplied should not be seen as more plausibly true than their negation.

"More plausibly true"? Move goalposts much?

Should not this declaration be in your own thread(s), or was it your intent to continue with this derail?

 

[Elioenai26]

No, I am not, and I don't see how you got that out of what you were responding to.

Perhaps it was the observation that the universe may be oscillating. This does not say anything about whether the universe is eternal or not. An oscillating universe could be thought to have undergone either an infinite number of oscillations or a finite number. So, it could be thought to have an infinite past or a finite past. I lean towards the view that its past is finite.

I don't see how you could get that out of my other point, where I mention "t=0". Perhaps I could have been clearer, but "t=0" is my way of referring to the first instant of time/change.

Incidentally, while I don't trust your scientific arguments for a finite universe, I agree with the following:



This is precisely why I reject the idea of an infinite universe. Incidentally, that doesn't mean that I take Stephen Hawking's precise views, and I don't know why you even brought him up since I didn't mention him at all.



You are making one critical mistake. A beginning to time doesn't imply that the universe began to exist. It suggests that time/change had a start.

It is my view, which is in no way contradicted by scientific evidence, that the universe (i.e. physical reality) did not begin to exist, in the sense of popping into existence out of nothing. Rather, change had its start a finite "time" ago. Physical reality existed at the beginning of change, and so there was no "nothingness" that had preceded it, or ever a "time" in which no-thing had existed.

So, you are presenting a false alternative -- either the universe popped into existence out of nothing, or it was created by something that wasn't the universe. (Your approach seems to be "If I disprove option one, you must accept option two", a classic but flawed debate tactic.) I'm presenting option three as an alternative to your option two.Not all beliefs are alike. I have also stated that this is a philosophical conclusion that I have drawn, held tentatively since I can't prove it directly on empirical grounds. Is that what you are calling "faith"? If so, it is a heavily watered down version of the concept.



I don't have to have faith to see how weak your arguments are, or that you seem to misunderstand my position.



You may dare to say whatever you like, but statements like this are entirely gratuitous posturing. It is not a beautiful trait of character. It's just a way of trying to put others down. I have to imagine that you are doing this for the "audience" because you believe that putting others down with such dramatic language makes for good theater, but you should reflect on what you are doing for your own sake.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The absolute origin of the universe, of all matter and energy, even of physical space and time themselves, in the Big Bang singularity contradicts the perennial naturalistic assumption that the universe has always existed. One after another, models designed to avert the initial cosmological singularity (the Steady State model, the Oscillating model, Vacuum Fluctuation models) have come and gone. Current quantum gravity models, such as the Hartle-Hawking model and the Vilenkin model, must appeal to the physically unintelligible and metaphysically dubious device of "imaginary time" to avoid the universe's beginning.

​

Mark, your position is based upon a view found within the steady state theoretical models of the universe. The name of this particular model you espouse is called the "Oscillating Model".

In the 60's and 70's, some cosmologists suggested that by denying the Standard Model's conclusions that the universe is largely the same in every direction, one might be able to come up with an Oscillating Model of the universe and thereby avoid the absolute beginning predicted by the Standard Model.

The theory is that if the internal gravitational pull of the mass of the universe were able to overcome the force of it's expansion, then the expansion could be reversed into a cosmic contraction of a "Big Crunch".
If the matter of the universe were not evenly distributed, then the collapsing universe might not coalesce at a point, but quantities of matter might pass by one another, so that the universe would appear to bounce back from the contraction into a new expansion phase. If this process could be repeated indefinitely, then an absolute beginning of the universe might be avoided. See fig. below.

In (a), each expansion phase is preceded and succeeded by a contraction phase, so that the universe in concertina-like fashion exists beginninglessly and endlessly.

Such a theory is extraordinarily speculative, and has been all but abandoned by the scientific community.

In fact Mark, im quite surprised that you espouse this particular view since it has been abandoned by honest cosmologists and physicists since the 70's.

In 1970, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking's formulation of the Singularity Theorems which bear their names signaled the death of the Oscillating Model.

The theorems state that under very generalized conditions, an initial cosmological singularity is inevitable, even for theoretical inhomogeneous universes.

Hawking, regarding the findings in the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorems states that they:

"led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang." (Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), 20.)

Secondly Mark, there is no known physics which could cause a collapsing universe to "bounce back" to a new expansion. This is purely imaginitive.

Thirdly, attempts by observational astronomers to discover the mass density sufficient to generate the gravitational attraction required to halt and reverse the expansion continually came up short.

In 1998 astronomical teams from Yale, Princeton, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysics Institute gave a report to the American Astronomical Society that their tests showed that "the universe will expand forever". (Associated Press News Release, January 9, 1998)

In fact the question of the universe's density is no longer even relevant. Why? Because observations of the red-shifts of supernovae indicate that the rate of cosmic expansion is actually accelerating! Even theoretical high density universes would more than likely expand forever. Therefore, a potentially infinite future is no longer the privileged prerogative of a low density universe.

Recent information gathered from the (WMAP) probe indicate that:

"For the theory that fits our data, the universe will expand forever."
WMAP Mission: Results- Age of the Universe

So you see Mark, your position is simply unscientific, ungrounded, baseless, and at best highly speculative; if indeed this is what you maintain as being the best explanation of the cosmos.

It also unnecessarily multiplies causes and violates the principle known as Ockhams' Razor when compared side by side with the Design Hypothesis.

Those who maintain this view, as well as the other one's out there, do so inspite of the evidence, not because of it.

 

[Elioenai26]

"More plausibly true"? Move goalposts much?

Should not this declaration be in your own thread(s), or was it your intent to continue with this derail?

Search the threads, I challenge you to supply one example where I have maintained that these arguments can prove beyond all doubt that God exists. We are looking for evidence that is persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt, which, if you had payed attention, you would realize that I have stated that several times before.

The fact that you have even suggested that this is moving goalposts is evidence that you have no other good arguments for your position which seeks to undermine the cosmological argument.

Once again, it appears you are grapsing for straws and it is you who have been shown to be derailing.

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't think anyone would disagree the universe in it's current form isn't eternal. It's current form started with the Big Bang.

However, the singularity that the Big Bang arose from may very well have been eternal for all we know.

Once again, as with everyone else here, you are going to need to provide us with a good argument as to why you believe the singularity may very well have been eternal.

 

[Elioenai26]

Look, time is perfectly simple: You set a zero point and measure from then. Now makes a convenient zero. All observed phenomena are in the past. Since the dimension that three dimensional space is expanding in is time, from now, zero time, from any point in space we can look out at an expanding universe. Now is the boundary of time. You can call it the beginning of time or the end of time. It doesn't matter. Time is the direction of the expansion of the universe, and it is the same from every point in space. You can regard time as positive or negative, it merely requires shifting from a right-hand to a left hand vector space or vice- versa. It is positive or negative as you prefer, but it is not both.

You would have to convince the astrophysicists, theoretical physicists and cosmologists of this "summation" of what time is. You would also have to convince them that time did not acutally have a definite beginning at some point in the distant past; which I dare say you would find difficult if not impossible to do.

 

[Davian]

"More plausibly true"? Move goalposts much?

Should not this declaration be in your own thread(s), or was it your intent to continue with this derail?

Search the threads, I challenge you to supply one example where I have maintained that these arguments can prove beyond all doubt that God exists. We are looking for evidence that is persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt, which, if you had payed attention, you would realize that I have stated that several times before.

The fact that you have even suggested that this is moving goalposts is evidence that you have no other good arguments for your position which seeks to undermine the cosmological argument.

Once again, it appears you are grapsing for straws and it is you who have been shown to be derailing.

A few posts ago, you said "I challenge you or anyone else here to present a good argument as to why any of the premises in the arguments supplied should not be seen as more plausibly true than their negation."

That is not the same as "persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt".

If not moving, then it is a different set of goalposts.

I have already apologized to the OP for participating in this derail. Have you?

Oh, and I do have other good arguments that undermine the cosmological argument, but they can wait until you have dealt with the ones that have been raised to date.

 

[Elioenai26]

A few posts ago, you said "I challenge you or anyone else here to present a good argument as to why any of the premises in the arguments supplied should not be seen as more plausibly true than their negation."

That is not the same as "persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt".

If not moving, then it is a different set of goalposts.

I have already apologized to the OP for participating in this derail. Have you?

Oh, and I do have other good arguments that undermine the cosmological argument, but they can wait until you have dealt with the ones that have been raised to date.

Save them Davian, if they are as groundless and irrational as the one's you've used so far, I want to save you from the embarassment.

 

[Davian]

Once again, as with everyone else here, you are going to need to provide us with a good argument as to why you believe the singularity may very well have been eternal.

Attempting to shift the burden of evidence? Good luck with that.

 

[Gracchus]

You would have to convince the astrophysicists, theoretical physicists and cosmologists of this "summation" of what time is. You would also have to convince them that time did not acutally have a definite beginning at some point in the distant past; which I dare say you would find difficult if not impossible to do.

What I am saying is that time has one boundary, now.

Cosmologists and astrophysicists already believe some very strange things. I don't have to convince them of anything. After all, it was they who convinced me!

The singularity ("big bang") was the "beginning" of space. "Now" is the beginning of time and the singularity is racing away from every "Now" point in space. It is getting further and further away in time. That is why we can look out in every direction, seeing further and further back into time and see a universe that was smaller than it is now. In other words, "Now" is the temporal singularity, but the spacial singularity is no longer "Now". Note that "Here" and "Now' are not well defined when considering more than one observer. They are kind of fuzzy and you have to take an average. (Bows to the advocates of the "Copenhagen interpretation!) Still, those observers are, as far as we know, confined to on tiny speck of a planet, in one tiny speck of a galaxy, we can still place some degree of certainty on our observations.

A point in space time requires four coordinates: x= x1e1 + x2e2 + x3e3 + t

Note that the first three terms are vectors but the last term, time, is a scalar. This is straight out of special relativity. In general relativity e1, e2, and e3 are not necessarily orthogonal since space is curved (At least locally! It still might average out flat.)

But I'm not saying anything new, I'm just saying that you will get nowhere if you don't choose the right coordinate system. Just as putting the sun at the center of the solar system simplifies the equations of celestial mechanics and physics, doing away with complicated epicycles. So choosing the right coordinate system in cosmology, can simplify computation. No coordinate system is privileged and so we can choose whichever best suits our needs and change as we will, when we change which part of the problem we are considering. (As long as we keep track!) For instance we can use cartesian, polar, cylindrical, spherical or hyperbolic coordinates, depending on what we are investigating. And we can likewise put 0 = {0, 0, 0, ...} wherever we choose.

Now that is God-like power, fellow Elohim! (The rest of you can go back to scratching your butts.)

 

[ToddNotTodd]

In 1970, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking's formulation of the Singularity Theorems which bear their names signaled the death of the Oscillating Model.

You're misrepresenting Penrose...

"Circular patterns within the cosmic microwave background suggest that space and time did not come into being at the Big Bang but that our universe in fact continually cycles through a series of "aeons". "

Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang - physicsworld.com

 

[Elioenai26]

You're misrepresenting Penrose...

"Circular patterns within the cosmic microwave background suggest that space and time did not come into being at the Big Bang but that our universe in fact continually cycles through a series of "aeons". "

Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang - physicsworld.com

Ah ah ah Todd my friend. Penrose's quote that I supplied was in reference to the Steady State Oscillating Model which was discarded as untenable in the 70's, not the sensational, purely speculative conformal cyclical model that he espoused nearly two years ago!

And this claim is still bound to prove controversial because it opposes the widely accepted inflationary model of cosmology.

Not to mention that the Chaotic Inflationary model, though espoused by some cosmologists inspite of it's metaphysical nature, is still dependant upon an absolute beginning, which means that it could not have existed from the infinite past.

Andrei Linde, a Russian cosmologists who has championed the model himself states:

"The most difficult aspect of this problem is not the existence of the singularity itself, but the question of what was before the singularity...This problem lies somewhere ar the boundary between physics and metaphysics." (Linde, "Inflationary Universe", 976)

In 1994 however, Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin showed that any spactime eternally inflating toward the future cannot be "geodescially complete" in the past, that is to say, there must have existed at some point in the indefinite past an initial singularity. Hence, the multiverse scenario cannot be past eternal.

They had this to say:

" A model in which the inflationary phase has no end...naturally leads to this question: Can this model also be extended to the infinite past, avoiding in this way the problem of the initial singularity?...This is in fact not possible in future-eternal inflationary spacetimes as long as they obey some reasonable physical conditions: such models must necessarily possess initial singularities...The fact that inflationary spacetimes are past incomplete forces one to address the question of what, if anything, came before." ( A. Borde and A. Vilenkin, "Eternal Inflation and the Initial Singularity," Physical Review Letters 72 (194) 3305, 3307.)

So you see Todd, not only is this "new" conformal cyclical model completely speculative and purely metaphysical in nature, but it is nothing "new" at all! It is simply a rehash of the old Oscillating Model with some re-worked internal postulations and unsubstantiated assumptions.

The Standard Model's prediction of an absolute beginning has persisted through a century of astonishing progress in theoretical and observational cosmology and has survived an onslaught of alternative, imaginitive, and purely speculative theories. With each successive failure of alternative cosmogonic theories to avoid the absolute beginning of the universe predicted by the Standard Model, that prediction has been corroborated.

Therefore, it can be confidently stated that no cosmogonic model has been repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Ah ah ah Todd my friend. Penrose's quote that I supplied was in reference to the Steady State Oscillating Model which was discarded as untenable in the 70's, not the sensational, purely speculative conformal cyclical model that he espoused nearly two years ago!

And this claim is still bound to prove controversial because it opposes the widely accepted inflationary model of cosmology.

Not to mention that the Chaotic Inflationary model, though espoused by some cosmologists inspite of it's metaphysical nature, is still dependant upon an absolute beginning, which means that it could not have existed from the infinite past.

Andrei Linde, a Russian cosmologists who has championed the model himself states:

"The most difficult aspect of this problem is not the existence of the singularity itself, but the question of what was before the singularity...This problem lies somewhere ar the boundary between physics and metaphysics." (Linde, "Inflationary Universe", 976)

In 1994 however, Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin showed that any spactime eternally inflating toward the future cannot be "geodescially complete" in the past, that is to say, there must have existed at some point in the indefinite past an initial singularity. Hence, the multiverse scenario cannot be past eternal.

They had this to say:

" A model in which the inflationary phase has no end...naturally leads to this question: Can this model also be extended to the infinite past, avoiding in this way the problem of the initial singularity?...This is in fact not possible in future-eternal inflationary spacetimes as long as they obey some reasonable physical conditions: such models must necessarily possess initial singularities...The fact that inflationary spacetimes are past incomplete forces one to address the question of what, if anything, came before." ( A. Borde and A. Vilenkin, "Eternal Inflation and the Initial Singularity," Physical Review Letters 72 (194) 3305, 3307.)

So you see Todd, not only is this "new" conformal cyclical model completely speculative and purely metaphysical in nature, but it is nothing "new" at all! It is simply a rehash of the old Oscillating Model with some re-worked internal postulations and unsubstantiated assumptions.

The Standard Model's prediction of an absolute beginning has persisted through a century of astonishing progress in theoretical and observational cosmology and has survived an onslaught of alternative, imaginitive, and purely speculative theories. With each successive failure of alternative cosmogonic theories to avoid the absolute beginning of the universe predicted by the Standard Model, that prediction has been corroborated.

Therefore, it can be confidently stated that no cosmogonic model has been repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model.

You're plagiarizing AGAIN?

Let me just say that I've never met an atheist as dishonest as you...

 

[Elioenai26]

You're plagiarizing AGAIN?

Let me just say that I've never met an atheist as dishonest as you...

Even if I were plagiarizing, which I am not, it still does not change the fact that your position is groundless, baseless, unscientific, and at best ridiculous.

And in light of these speculative, imaginitive concoctions with no basis in objective research, I recommend you reconsider your pre-commitment to naturalism. It will save you from espousing and propagating such foolishness.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Even if I were plagiarizing, which I am not, it still does not change the fact that your position is groundless, baseless, unscientific, and at best ridiculous.

And in light of these speculative, imaginitive concoctions with no basis in objective research, I recommend you reconsider your pre-commitment to naturalism. It will save you from espousing and propagating such foolishness.

Your quote:
"Therefore, it can be confidently stated that no cosmogonic model has been repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model."

From William Lane Craig:
"It can be confidently said that no cosmogonic model has been repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model."

You changed ONE word. That's plagiarism. It's dishonest. If you were going to the university I teach at, you'd be kicked out.

You've shown that you're just a parrot for the people you steal from. You don't understand the science, you don't understand the philosophy. If we wanted to debate Craig or Zacharias we'd go to them directly.

Here's an honest question...

Are you specifically trying to make Christians look bad?

 

[Elioenai26]

Your quote:
"Therefore, it can be confidently stated that no cosmogonic model has been repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model."

From William Lane Craig:
"It can be confidently said that no cosmogonic model has been repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model."

You changed ONE word. That's plagiarism. It's dishonest. If you were going to the university I teach at, you'd be kicked out.

You've shown that you're just a parrot for the people you steal from. You don't understand the science, you don't understand the philosophy. If we wanted to debate Craig or Zacharias we'd go to them directly.

Here's an honest question...

Are you specifically trying to make Christians look bad?

Yes I have several of his books, so?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes I have several of his books, so?

What part of:

"You changed ONE word. That's plagiarism. It's dishonest. If you were going to the university I teach at, you'd be kicked out."

didn't you get?

 

[Elioenai26]

What part of:

"You changed ONE word. That's plagiarism. It's dishonest. If you were going to the university I teach at, you'd be kicked out."

didn't you get?

LOL, get what?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

LOL, get what?

Playing dumb is just making you look worse in the eyes of everyone here.

Once again...

Are you TRYING to make Christians look bad? Because you're succeeding...

 

[Elioenai26]

Playing dumb is just making you look worse in the eyes of everyone here.

Once again...

Are you TRYING to make Christians look bad? Because you're succeeding...

You are funny, you really are funny. You run out of ridiculous arguments and in order to save face you accuse me of plagiarizing.

Guess what... if you are so keen on who is typing what on these forums, do you subject your fellow atheist's posts to the same rigorous standards?

I doubt you do.

And guess what? Im going to continue using references and sources for my posts and discussions here because that is what they are for. Just because atheists can come up with no good arguments for their position does not mean that I cannot use good arguments from others who learned what they did from those who taught them and so on and so forth.

So if you have a problem with this, I suggest you leave the forum, or find some better arguments to support your position. As it stands, your pathetic attempt at grasping for straws due to a lack of solid argument is actually making your position even more and more groundless.

And since these posts are veering from the mainline of the OP, I will not be responding to your accusations any further. Goodnight.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You are funny, you really are funny. You run out of ridiculous arguments and in order to save face you accuse me of plagiarizing.

Guess what... if you are so keen on who is typing what on these forums, do you subject your fellow atheist's posts to the same rigorous standards?

I doubt you do.

And guess what? Im going to continue using references and sources for my posts and discussions here because that is what they are for. Just because atheists can come up with no good arguments for their position does not mean that I cannot use good arguments from others who learned what they did from those who taught them and so on and so forth.

So if you have a problem with this, I suggest you leave the forum, or find some better arguments to support your position. As it stands, your pathetic attempt at grasping for straws due to a lack of solid argument is actually making your position even more and more groundless.

And since these posts are veering from the mainline of the OP, I will not be responding to your accusations any further. Goodnight.

I'm not accusing you of plagiarism, I'm showing your plagiarism. You've been called on this before. You do remember that, right? Even after you've been caught, you continue to do it.

And instead of admitting it, you're turning tail and running. Making yourself look even worse.

Discussing things with you is like discussing things with a Turing test program that has access to the Internet...