God is not needed to explain universe

[Nullasalus]

The bottom line is that inflation is eternal as stated by the leading cosmologists who constructed inflationary theory (e.g. Guth and Linde), and there is strong evidence that the universe inflated when the universe is about 10e-35 seconds old. Look for Cosmic Inflation on wikipedia. Well, I challenge one to show that inflation cannot be future-eternal. If so, my polemic against the fine-tuning argument is destroyed.

Your take against the fine-tuning argument depends less on cosmic inflation and more on MWI and cyclic/two-way infinite models of the universe. These are the real reaches.

Well, personally, I am not happy acknowledging that there is no God who loves me. To the contrary I wanted to believe in the existence of such a figure…

I only thanked Linde in the beginning of this thread because his cosmology is groundbreaking, not because he destroyed the fine-tuning argument. Well, I think the evidence supports the veracity of his cosmology, and he is a competent scientist. I have to be willing to confront reality, and not ignore anything facts that contradict the notion of a creator God.

I’m reminded of this comic: xkcd.com/c171.html

He didn’t destroy the fine-tuning argument. That’s the problem being pointed out here - you’re talking about a prominent atheist’s spin on data which rests on multiple assumptions that may well be unfalsifiable - mixing MWI with cyclic models. This is no new discovery or insight; it’s a philosophical (forgive the phrase) Hail Mary pass.

You say you wanted to believe in a God - I have to take you at your word on that. But it seems more like you’re engaged in a search for any explanation of the universe, no matter how incomplete, speculative, or unfalsifiable, that, if desired, a philosophically motivated atheist can interpret to rule out the necessity - not even the possibility, but the necessity - of God. And then out comes Occam’s razor, ignoring how many wild assumptions were required to reach the potential conclusion you’ve arrived at.

It’s almost as if the case for God must be scientifically airtight in order to be worth any consideration from your perspective, but the definitive case against God can be utterly speculative and unsatisfactory - but so long as it is, by any odds, potentially right, it should be entertained as possible.

BTW, do you like that quote in my signature .

Yes, nice quote.

 

[ribozyme]

Your take against the fine-tuning argument depends less on cosmic inflation and more on MWI and cyclic/two-way infinite models of the universe. These are the real reaches.

I’m reminded of this comic: xkcd.com/c171.html

He didn’t destroy the fine-tuning argument. That’s the problem being pointed out here - you’re talking about a prominent atheist’s spin on data which rests on multiple assumptions that may well be unfalsifiable - mixing MWI with cyclic models. This is no new discovery or insight; it’s a philosophical (forgive the phrase) Hail Mary pass.

You say you wanted to believe in a God - I have to take you at your word on that. But it seems more like you’re engaged in a search for any explanation of the universe, no matter how incomplete, speculative, or unfalsifiable, that, if desired, a philosophically motivated atheist can interpret to rule out the necessity - not even the possibility, but the necessity - of God. And then out comes Occam’s razor, ignoring how many wild assumptions were required to reach the potential conclusion you’ve arrived at.

It’s almost as if the case for God must be scientifically airtight in order to be worth any consideration from your perspective, but the definitive case against God can be utterly speculative and unsatisfactory - but so long as it is, by any odds, potentially right, it should be entertained as possible.

Yes, nice quote.

What are the assumptions that eternal inflation relies on?

Unlike string theory, cosmic inflation is strongly supported by the evidence. BTW, the inflationary eternal universe is not cyclic; as I stated before, I think it has to have a beginning. Interestingly, the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem, according to the authors, rules out the Turok and Steinhardt cyclic model and prevents inflation from being past-eternal.
Borde:

We finally comment on the cyclic universe model [16]
in which a bulk of 4 spatial dimensions is sandwiched
between two 3-dimensional branes. The effective (3+1)-
dimensional geometry describes a periodically expanding
and recollapsing universe, with curvature singularities
separating each cycle. The internal brane spacetimes,
however, are nonsingular, and this is the basis for the
claim [16] that the cyclic scenario does not require any
initial conditions. We disagree with this claim.

In some versions of the cyclic model the brane space-
times are everywhere expanding, so our theorem imme-
diately implies the existence of a past boundary at which
boundary conditions must be imposed. In other versions,
there are brief periods of contraction, but the net result of
each cycle is an expansion. For null geodesics each cycle
is identical to the others, except for the overall normal-
ization of the affine parameter. Thus, as long as Hav > 0
for a null geodesic when averaged over one cycle, then
Hav > 0 for any number of cycles, and our theorem would
imply that the geodesic is incomplete.

arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

And
Alan Guth:

If the universe can be eternal into the future, is it possible that it is also eternal into the past? Here I will describe a recent theorem (Borde, Guth, & Vilenkin 2003) which shows, under plausible assumptions, that the answer to this question is no.∗

…

There is of course no conclusion that an eternally inflating model must have a unique beginning, and no conclusion that there is an upper bound on the length of all backwards-going geodesics from a given point. There may be models with regions of contraction embedded within the expanding region that could evade our theorem. Aguirre & Gratton (2002, 2003) have proposed a model that evades our theorem, in which the arrow of time reverses at the
t = -∞hypersurface, so the universe “expands” in both halves of the full de Sitter space.

The theorem does show, however, that an eternally inflating model of the type usually assumed, which would lead to Hav > 0 for past-directed geodesics, cannot be complete. Some new physics (i.e., not inflation) would be needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region. One possibility would be some kind of quantum creation event.

One particular application of the theory is the cyclic ekpyrotic model of Steinhardt & Turok (2002). This model has Hav > 0 for null geodesics for a single cycle, and since every cycle is identical, Hav > 0 when averaged over all cycles. The cyclic model is therefore past-incomplete, and requires a boundary condition in the past.

arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404546

Glad you like my quote .

 

[Nullasalus]

What are the assumptions that eternal inflation relies on?

Unlike string theory, cosmic inflation is strongly supported by the evidence. BTW, the inflationary eternal universe is not cyclic; as I stated before, I think it has to have a beginning. Interestingly, the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem, according to the authors, rules out the Turok and Steinhardt cyclic model and prevents inflation from being past-eternal. .

I’m not disputing cosmic inflation. MWI and what you’re implying are the philosophical results are what are an issue. As for the cyclic models, you were advancing those in a previous thread - I assumed they were at work here. If not, then it’s just MWI and the philosophy behind it.

 

[ribozyme]

I’m not disputing cosmic inflation. MWI and what you’re implying are the philosophical results are what are an issue. As for the cyclic models, you were advancing those in a previous thread - I assumed they were at work here. If not, then it’s just MWI and the philosophy behind it.

There is one cyclic model (that I know of) that does not rely on the Turok/Steinhardt proposal. It is mentioned here: physorg.com/news66660003.html.

I think the model is controvesial as it relies on loop quantum gravity, not exactly a hypothesis that is currently supported by the evidence. I do have one objection regarding that model. If the arrow of time is moving forward, how does this model eliminate the entropy accumulated in the previous universe after the contraction? In this universe, the arrow of time moves foward, one consequence of this is the second law of thermodynamics: as time progresses, the entropy of the universe increases.

Type in “Quantum nature of the Big Bang” on google and you will find the arXiv link about their proposal. A cursory glance of that paper does not answer that question. It is also the same objection the plagued the original Tolman bouncing universe cosmologies.

The inflationary universe does not require a beginning, but in order for one to evade the require for the beginning, one has to assume a reversal of the arrow of time as stated by Guth in my last post. I do not think this assumption is supported.

I only read about Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem about a week ago, so I did not know about it while I was proposing the cyclic model as a possible model to eliminate the need for a beginning. I never said the cyclic model was fact; I was merely proposing it as a tentative hypothesis that would eliminate the need for an initial singularity.

 

[Nullasalus]

I only read about Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem about a week ago, so I did not know about it while I was proposing the cyclic model as a possible model to eliminate the need for a beginning. I never said the cyclic model was fact; I was merely proposing it as a tentative hypothesis that would eliminate the need for an initial singularity.

Well, the title of this thread is ‘God is not needed to explain universe’. Therein lies the problem. In reality, It’s sounding like that isn’t even what you’re truly asserting. More like, ‘There exist certain hypotheses about the origin and/or nature of the universe that don’t require God.’ But that’s news to no one here - I doubt every or even most Big Bang cosmologists start off their BB equations with ‘First, a divine miracle occurs.’

The real issue for many here is that, under modern cosmology, there do exist many good reasons to discern the hand of God. Whether the evidence will hold firm, go against them, or increase in their favor… who’s to say. I’m reminded of Carl Sagan reflecting on life and death, talking about how we’re all made of ‘star stuff’ and eventually, when the universe collapses and expands again, we’ll all return to the singularity and re-emerge as part of the cosmos. Very poetic, if atheistic view of existence. I wonder how he’d cope with the fact that recollapse has been replaced by heat death as the favored model for the end of the universe.

 

[wjp984]

I don’t know if this point was already discussed but I have been wondering about this myself. If the universe’s total Energy =0 then that means everything could have been created from nothing through the process of Hawking Radiation, the Big Bang and virtual particles. Basically, it could have all happened without God. Now, do I believe this, no, but it is something to ponder. If the universe can be created out of nothing then how does God fit in that?

 

[Nullasalus]

I don’t know if this point was already discussed but I have been wondering about this myself. If the universe’s total Energy =0 then that means everything could have been created from nothing through the process of Hawking Radiation, the Big Bang and virtual particles. Basically, it could have all happened without God. Now, do I believe this, no, but it is something to ponder. If the universe can be created out of nothing then how does God fit in that?

It’s very late for me, but I wanted to ask something: Where did you come across the idea that ‘virtual particles’ are actual, real things? I’ve seen this asserted in the past - the idea that virtual particles pop in and out of existence without cause, and that these are real particles. My understanding of it is that ‘virtual particles’ are representational - as in, ‘it makes the math for calculating physics at that level easier if your model assumes virtual particles’, rather than it being a serious claim that these virtual particles do ‘exist’ in a material sense - or, at least, that we’ve proven such.

As for the last question, that one always puzzled me. Doesn’t God’s act of creation presuppose the universe being created out of nothing? Wouldn’t, if ‘virtual particles’ really were particles, be strong evidence for God doing such - maybe even for that old, extreme philosophical claim that each and every interaction is mediated by God?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

*Originally Posted by ribozyme *http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Well, personally, I am not happy acknowledging that there is no God who loves me. To the contrary I wanted to believe in the existence of such a figure…

Did you really? Then why do you spend so much time and effort trying to show how the universe can get along without God?*
I’ve believed for a long time that atheism is a desired philosophy, not a necessary one. Find out why atheism appeals, then the attraction to atheism dissipates. Unfortunately, the atheist does not want to know why atheism appeals to him and spends (and wastes) himself justifying it with all kinds of fanciful hypotheses that would make a medieval theologian blush.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Magician

A preeminent scientist – and the world’s most prominent atheist – asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.
With rigor and wit, Dawkins examines God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry, and abuses children, buttressing his points with historical and contemporary evidence. The God Delusion makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly. It also offers exhilarating insight into the advantages of atheism to the individual and society, not the least of which is a clearer, truer appreciation of the universe’s wonders than any faith could ever muster.

All of which goes to support the view of Benjamin Franklin, another great scientist: “If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?”

And just a glimpse of a world without religion was seen in Russia under Stalin, in Germany under Hitler, and in China under Mao. Dawkins never confronts that reality, does he? It’s as if he only studied the parts of history that played into his chronic hatred for the very idea of God.

 

[buffalo]

Ribo, here is one to read:

Ancient Faith and Modern Physics

How modern science provides the evidence against atheism

 

[raikou]

All I can say is that God is Truth, and that there won’t be anything to explain without truth because nothing would simply exist.

The existence of even a single universe reflects an assertion and maintenance through the will and intellect of a Person we call God. What more if there were a gazillion others?

 

[ribozyme]

Raikou, do you like Pokémon. I simply love that show!!

I only asked because there is a Pokémon named Raikou (see: Raikou)

I do not know what you be the objection by Turok and Steinhardt regarding the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem. I do not think they answered it.

 

[wjp984]

It’s very late for me, but I wanted to ask something: Where did you come across the idea that ‘virtual particles’ are actual, real things? I’ve seen this asserted in the past - the idea that virtual particles pop in and out of existence without cause, and that these are real particles. My understanding of it is that ‘virtual particles’ are representational - as in, ‘it makes the math for calculating physics at that level easier if your model assumes virtual particles’, rather than it being a serious claim that these virtual particles do ‘exist’ in a material sense - or, at least, that we’ve proven such.

As for the last question, that one always puzzled me. Doesn’t God’s act of creation presuppose the universe being created out of nothing? Wouldn’t, if ‘virtual particles’ really were particles, be strong evidence for God doing such - maybe even for that old, extreme philosophical claim that each and every interaction is mediated by God?

I realy don’t know how to answer your question as I only can repeat what I thought I was learning in my Cosmos class. All I know is that vitual particles do exist and are created all the time out of nothing in pairs. However, the universe quickly realizes that this is imaginary and therefore can not exist. However, sometimes one of the virtual particles is eaten by a black hole and therefore the other one becomes real. I am vastly confused by all of this and it really does seem to show how God is not needed for a universe. That does not mean he does not exist.

Here is what I think to be the strongest argument for why God exist even with all this info.

Einstein is the one responsible for discovering most of these theories and processes of the universe and quantam mechanics. Einstein was a very devout believer in God. Problem solved.

My opinon is God created us as intelligent beings and he knew we would one day be able to answer the why what and how questions about our existence. Therefore, he had to create the universe in an overly complex way so we could consistently satisfy our curiosity and still never come close to the truth of proviong his existence or finding Heaven. Kind of like the Tower of Babel in my opinoon. It is all based on faith and that is what is always will be based on until the end of time.

 

[ribozyme]

Einstein is the one responsible for discovering most of these theories and processes of the universe and quantam mechanics. Einstein was a very devout believer in God. Problem solved.

Define God… at best one can say he is a deist.

Could you please provide evidence for that statement?

Even he was a devout believer in God, it does not make the existence of God any more likely. For example, Nobel Laurate Kary Mullis does not believe that AIDS is caused by HIV. Does that make his hypothesis about AIDS correct?

On another note, I wonder how Turok and Steinhardt would counter the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem. So far, I think they did not respond adequately to their objections.

 

[tdgesq]

Define God… at best one can say he is a deist.

A bold claim considering that you were unable here to demonstrate that God is not needed to explain the universe. Perhaps it’s time to start a new thread on that topic. This one has already been beaten to a pulp.

 

[ribozyme]

A bold claim considering that you were unable here to demonstrate that God is not needed to explain the universe. Perhaps it’s time to start a new thread on that topic. This one has already been beaten to a pulp.

No, I have not been beaten to a pulp… you have to show how inflation cannot be future eternal. Many models (especially the models of Guth and Linde, the pioneers of cosmic inflation) of inflation predict an eternally inflating universe. Cosmic inflation is strongly supported by the evidence. So show how an eternally inflating universe is impossible. If this is done, my argument will be beaten to a pulp, but this has not been done in this thread.

 

[tdgesq]

No, I have not been beaten to a pulp… you have to show how inflation cannot be future eternal. Many models (especially the models of Guth and Linde, the pioneers of cosmic inflation) of inflation predict an eternally inflating universe. Cosmic inflation is strongly supported by the evidence. So show how an eternally inflating universe is impossible. If this is done, my argument will be beaten to a pulp, but this has not been done in this thread.

Peace man. I meant the thread has been beaten to a pulp. I don’t need to show how an eternally inflating universe is impossible. You need to show how an “eternally” inflating universe = God is not necessary to explain the universe.

 

[NickB]

In the Beginning God Created…
Christoph Cardinal Schönborn​

Second Catechesis: “In the Beginning God Created…” on November 13, 2005, St. Stephan’s Cathedral, Vienna.

ewtn.com/library/Theology/schonevo2.HTM

 

[ribozyme]

Peace man. I meant the thread has been beaten to a pulp. I don’t need to show how an eternally inflating universe is impossible. You need to show how an “eternally” inflating universe = God is not necessary to explain the universe.

Well, it means the fine-tuning of the universe does not need to be explained by an “intelligent designer” and the universe could easily be created from a mother universe due to eternal inflation (not by God). And possibly a vacuum fluctation could created the first inflationary universe. Thus God is not needed to explain anything.

 

[Nullasalus]

I realy don’t know how to answer your question as I only can repeat what I thought I was learning in my Cosmos class. All I know is that vitual particles do exist and are created all the time out of nothing in pairs. However, the universe quickly realizes that this is imaginary and therefore can not exist. However, sometimes one of the virtual particles is eaten by a black hole and therefore the other one becomes real. I am vastly confused by all of this and it really does seem to show how God is not needed for a universe. That does not mean he does not exist.

I suggest you read up on virtual particles. Go look it up on the wikipedia. What you’re getting out of class sounds misunderstood to say the least. Yes, there are things called ‘virtual particles’. Yes, they really do exist. But they ‘really exist’ as a mathematical construct - anything beyond that is a whole lot of speculation. Here, quoting wiki - and by all means, if you have a source that counters this, please provide it.

The term is rather loose and vaguely defined, in the sense that it clings to a rather incorrect view that the world is somehow made up of “real particles”: it is not; rather, “real particles” are more accurately understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. As such, virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are “temporary” in the sense that they appear in calculations, but never as indexes to the scattering matrix (i.e., they never appear as the observable (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs of the physical process being modeled). In this sense, virtual particles are an artifact of perturbation theory, and do not appear in a nonperturbative treatment. As such, their existence is questionable; however, the term is useful in informal, casual conversation, or in rendering concepts into layman’s terms.

One thing I have found out - be very, very careful when you’re talking or reading about quantum mechanics, no matter what the source is. It is a favorite topic nowadays because it operates so strangely - and people draw conclusions and present them without talking about all the other conclusions that can be drawn as well. Speaking of which…

Ribozyme:

Well, it means the fine-tuning of the universe does not need to be explained by an “intelligent designer” and the universe could easily be created from a mother universe due to eternal inflation (not by God). And possibly a vacuum fluctation could created the first inflationary universe. Thus God is not needed to explain anything.

Or maybe God initiated those processes to begin with, making it a certainty that His children would be created. You’d argue God is superfluous and ‘Occam’s Razor’, etc - however, you can argue that with the Big Bang theory alone if you really wanted. People do that all the time. It just isn’t very persuasive to theists, just as fine tuning isn’t very persuasive to most atheists - even before the talk of eternal inflation and ‘mother universes’ and MWI and any other ‘if, maybe, possibly’ construct is called upon.