'Jesus was not the messiah'

Originally posted by Mindship
Chaotic inflation says that ours was not the only big bang; that big bangs have been occurring eternally in a vaster, multiversal domain in which our 'universe' is but one of an infinitude. It would be analogous to virtual particles frothing in our universe's vacuum.

Essentially, it proposes a higher dimensional context, something outside the only reality we've ever known. While currently there is no proof other dimensions exist, this can be, theoretically, tested for. Eg, it is hoped the Large Hadron Collider will give us a glimpse of another dimension by checking for missing energy.

Personally, I think God handed the job of our universe to a demiurge.

I see... So according to this hypothesis other dimensions caused the Big Bang in ours?

What's a demiurge?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I see... So according to this hypothesis other dimensions caused the Big Bang in ours?

What's a demiurge?

Originally posted by Mindship
Something like that.

Hmm... Well, we'll see if they produce evidence to support it.

Originally posted by Mindship
Essentially, it's a subordinate divine being directly responsible for producing the material universe; kind of like how a leaf emerges from a branch, not directly from the tree trunk.

Ah, I see.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, we'll see if they produce evidence to support it.

Irony.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Irony.

Irony? Are you implying a lack of evidence on my part? What evidence would you like to see, sir?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Irony? Are you implying a lack of evidence on my part? What evidence would you like to see, sir?

Any, at all, that supports your specific conclusion.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Any, at all, that supports your specific conclusion.

Which one? That there is a God, or that the universe is not eternal? I've already presented the logic behind the reason to believe the universe has a creator.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Which one? That there is a God, or that the universe is not eternal? I've already presented the logic behind the reason to believe the universe has a creator.

You've given reasoning and analogies but provided no evidence. And I've never met someone who believed in "a creator" in the generic, generally that creator has properties to it (ie "the creator is an entity of some kind" or "the creator is God" or "the creator is the God believed in by the New Light Presybterian Reform Tradition"😉

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You've given reasoning and analogies but provided no evidence. And I've never met someone who believed in "a creator" in the generic, generally that creator has properties to it (ie "the creator is an entity of some kind" or "the creator is God" or "the creator is the God believed in by the New Light Presybterian Reform Tradition"😉

Alright, so you're talking about my claim that the universe is not eternal then?

This has been discovered by modern cosmology.

Paul Davies (physisist): "The coming into being of the universe as discussed in modern science is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming into being of all physical things from nothing."

Velenkin (from Bord, Guth and Velenkin): "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, (The Nature of Space and Time page 20): "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang."

John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk, (The Left Hand of Creation, Oxford Universeity Press pg. 38.): "Our new picture is more akin to the traditional metaphysical picture of creeation out of nothing, for it predicts a definite beginning of events in time, indeed a definite beginning to time itself."

These are just a few. The point is, modern cosmology has already found that the universe is not eternal.

/facepalm

have you read those books?

I'll clarify:

Hawking does not believe in a creator. He outlines this explicitly in his books and writings, and further when asked directly about it.

To quote Hawking as if he is in some way supporting a creator is a misquote, so egrigious is borders on an outright fabrication. My thought is that anyone who is familiar with Hawking and his work wouldn't make these mistakes, thus, I am lead to believe you haven't read the passage from which the quote was taken, let alone any of Hawking's work on astrophysics.

The only saving grace you would have is if you hadn't read the piece, frankly, otherwise you would be guilty of selective quoting yourself.

This leads me to be extremely suspiscious of your other quotes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/02/us-britain-hawking-idUSTRE6811FN20100902

Originally posted by TacDavey
Alright, so you're talking about my claim that the universe is not eternal then?

No. I'm saying that you haven't given any evidence for a creator. Analogies to everyday experience are not evidence especially once you get into things like quantum physics (which is very relevant to the origins of the universe).

Originally posted by inimalist
I'll clarify:

Hawking does not believe in a creator. He outlines this explicitly in his books and writings, and further when asked directly about it.

To quote Hawking as if he is in some way supporting a creator is a misquote, so egrigious is borders on an outright fabrication. My thought is that anyone who is familiar with Hawking and his work wouldn't make these mistakes, thus, I am lead to believe you haven't read the passage from which the quote was taken, let alone any of Hawking's work on astrophysics.

The only saving grace you would have is if you hadn't read the piece, frankly, otherwise you would be guilty of selective quoting yourself.

This leads me to be extremely suspiscious of your other quotes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/02/us-britain-hawking-idUSTRE6811FN20100902

You misunderstand me. I never made the claim that Hawkings thinks there is a creator. I never said he did. At what point in that quote do you see a creator mentioned at all?

That quote was showing that the universe is not eternal.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No. I'm saying that you haven't given any evidence for a creator. Analogies to everyday experience are not evidence especially once you get into things like quantum physics (which is very relevant to the origins of the universe).

Ah, I see. In that case allow me to lay out the basic logic behind the kalam cosmological argument.

p1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause
p2: The universe began to exist (See above quotes).
c: The universe has a cause.

Once we know the universe must have a cause, we have to figure out what that cause would be. It's one of two options.

1.) A being will the ability to create a universe

or

2.) A set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of the universe. (This is basically saying anything else)

But it cannot be 2, and here's why. Since we know that time came into being at the Big Bang, whatever caused the universe must be outside of time, right? That means it has to be eternal. Here's the problem with point 2. Whenever the necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of something are met (Such as a spark needs heat, friction etc etc) it will always come about. No exceptions. But if you hold 2 to be true, you would have to admit that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe existed, but the universe did not. Which is logically impossible.

So the only other option is 1. A being with the ability to make a universe, and the will to choose to make one or not.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That quote was showing that the universe is not eternal.

nobody has argued otherwise...

Originally posted by TacDavey
But it cannot be 2, and here's why. Since we know that time came into being at the Big Bang, whatever caused the universe must be outside of time, right?

Wrong, we know nothing about reality prior to the Big Bang.

Originally posted by inimalist
nobody has argued otherwise...

Symmetric Chaos wanted evidence and I thought he was talking about evidence the universe isn't eternal. My mistake.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wrong, we know nothing about reality prior to the Big Bang.

We know that time didn't exist. So whatever DID exist had to be outside of it.

i want you to define 'eternal,' in the scientific sense, if you will

Originally posted by TacDavey
We know that time didn't exist. So whatever DID exist had to be outside of it.

What's your evidence that time didn't exist?

Originally posted by red g jacks
i want you to define 'eternal,' in the scientific sense, if you will

Eternal is outside of time. Not being bound by time. Having no beginning, no end.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What's your evidence that time didn't exist?

Take a look back through all those quotes I brought. Modern cosmology has determined that matter, space, and time all came into being at the Big Bang.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Take a look back through all those quotes I brought. Modern cosmology has determined that matter, space, and time all came into being at the Big Bang.

So, no actual *evidence* about what reality was like before the Big Bang then? None of those declarations seem like ones made in scientific papers, anyway, rather ones in pop-science books which are infamously poorly made if you want to learn about science.

But, okay, you haven't provided any *evidence* to established even the most basic point that you need to but I suppose we can pretend you did in order to move things along. That still would not count as *evidence* of a creator, only of a creation.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Since we know that time came into being at the Big Bang, whatever caused the universe must be outside of time, right? That means it has to be eternal. Here's the problem with point 2. Whenever the necessary and sufficient conditions for the creation of something are met (Such as a spark needs heat, friction etc etc) it will always come about. No exceptions. But if you hold 2 to be true, you would have to admit that there was a point causally prior to the universes existence that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe existed, but the universe did not. Which is logically impossible.

This is all self contradictory. If an entity can exist outside of time then by your own argument things can exist outside of time. Sentience is not a necessity.

So let's see you've given no *evidence* and the parts of your argument supposedly based on reason disprove themselves (which you attempt to resolve with a roundabout Special Pleading argument).