You mean you have two possible scientific theories. There are others. I hope you are not implying that there is a hypothesis claiming that the universe came into existence by itself out of absolutely nothing. You are not really saying that are you?
No, I’m just saying that if you’re going to cite Alexander Vilenkin as some sort of credible authority, then you need to give his other proposals some credibility as well.
To me, a hypothesis is either possible or it is not. A cyclical universe seems possible, but something popping out of absolutely nothing by itself is not. And that’s assuming that this is what he really meant by the word nothing. As is often the case in science nothing is equal to an empty space full of energy.
Actually yeah, when I stop and think about it, it does seem as credible as the alternative.
Not necessarily. Just because a person is credible when speaking on one topic doesn’t make them credible speaking on another. I trust my priest on matters of theology, but I wouldn’t necessarily trust him if he were explaining quantum mechanics. (Unless he was versed in the subject, which is entirely possible.)
But, how do we choose when their ideas are credible, and when they’re not? In the case of Vilenkin, in both cases he was speaking from the perspective of a physicist. Is he credible in saying that the universe can’t be cyclical, yet not credible when he says that it came from nothing?
IF is your operative term
Your interpretation of nothing as regards to the end of an aeon is meaningless to me. But Penrose has provided what seems to be a measurable hypothesis, i give you that much.
When they’re rational and when they’re not.
It doesn’t rule out God because you cant rule something out if you dont consider it in the first place just like it doesnt rule out indian gods. What profesor penrose says is that what most people think how the universe started and it was only this one may not be right. People think that this universe needed a cause so they say God did it because they cant think of another reason but if you listen to penrose then it didnt need a cause. But you can still believe in God because it doesnt rule him out.Barnesy:
Your interpretation of nothing as regards to the end of an aeon is meaningless to me. But Penrose has provided what seems to be a measurable hypothesis, i give you that much.
Having said that, while there is not an infinite regress in the traditional sense, we are still talking about a progression of physical existence in the form of aeons. It is not possible for there to be an actually infinite number of Aeons, because there is no such thing as an infinite number; so it doesn’t rule out any cause. Also Aeons or not, we have good metaphysical reasons to think that we are not talking about something that has a necessary act of reality, but this is not something that science can tells us, but rather it is something that follows out of existential necessity. It is not enough for something to be cyclical to rule out God as a cause.
But all that you’ve really done is create the ultimate God of the Gaps. Because no matter what physics proposes as the first cause, you can always ask…what caused that?
That’s not a God of the Gaps argument. The God of the gaps argument is a negative, passive argument. We don’t know, so God. This is a positive, active assertion that a transcendent creator is the only possible explanation for existence.
The Quantum field is an aspect of space-time, and therefore something that demands a cause, just like a low-level energy field.
You’re right, we can always ask that, because every contingent thing requires a cause. That is why we must reach the point of having something whose existence is its own cause, whose nature it is to exist. Without that there there is no way for anything contingent to exist.
It’s the ultimate God of the Gaps argument. Because it’s the ultimate unknown. It’s the one gap that can never be filled. Science may someday fill all the other gaps, but that one will always remain.
Paul steinhardt thinks its branes which are the boundaries of other dimensions colliding and if you can call that nothing i dont know but like penrose says it becomes cyclical. So it can happen an infinite number of times but there is no begining and there is no infinite time because it starts with each eon. THE CYCLIC UNIVERSE: PAUL STEINHARDT | Edge.orglelinator:
To me, a hypothesis is either possible or it is not. A cyclical universe seems possible, but something popping out of absolutely nothing by itself is not. And that’s assuming that this is what he really meant by the word nothing. As is often the case in science nothing is equal to an empty space full of energy.
You are making a philosophical inference here that is not justified. If you are saying that theists have no scientific reason for injecting God into the equation, you might be right, but only in that context. Just because something is cyclical doesn’t mean it doesn’t require a cause for it’s actual reality. A circle has no beginning, but it doesn’t follow that it’s existence has no beginning. All that Penrose is describing is a universe that doesn’t have a physically defined beginning. To say that therefore such an entity can exist without God is a further inference that is not justified by science.
It’s honestly like you didn’t even bother reading my post. We are making the positive assertion that there is no other explanation. That’s not the God of the Gaps argument, which is “we don’t know, so God.” There Must be an unchanging cause, and that is what we call God.
Yes thats what i said. I reads lots about this and lots of scientists dont believe that this universe is just one that was created somehow and thats all. Its like the old fashioned idea that there was just us and a moon and some lights in the sky and thats all god did. So when we found out more people had to say that god did something else that we didnt understand. People keep moving god about and i dont think thats right.ProdglArchitect:
It’s the ultimate God of the Gaps argument.
No. Its like when people said that god made all the animals and birds and then we found out it was natural. And people said that god made the mountains and rivers and we found out it was natural. And then said he made the earth and the stars and we found it was natural. So you go back all the way to whats left and say that there must have been a cause. So what if we find that there wasnt a cause?? Where does god go then??lelinator:
It’s honestly like you didn’t even bother reading my post. We are making the positive assertion that there is no other explanation. That’s not the God of the Gaps argument, which is “we don’t know, so God.” There Must be an unchanging cause, and that is what we call God.
That’s what happens when people treat God as a scientific cause. But it does not follow that God is not a necessary reality by which physical reality exists. Just because some arguments are fundamentally wrong does not mean they are all wrong by default. And just because a universe is cyclical doesn’t mean that it is an uncaused-cause requiring no cause for it’s existence. That idea is not something that Penrose has argued, and neither is it an idea that can be justified scientifically.
If profersor penrose is right (and lots of people think hes not) but if hes right and we find out hes right then you need to have another definition for god. You cant call him the uncaused cause any more. Like i said you can still believe in him but the gap has gotten smaller. Animals and birds are natural like mountains and the earth and the stars. You can still say that god exists but we just know he didnt magic them into being there. It might be the same with the universe so you have to be careful you are not filling a gap with god.Barnesy:
You are making a philosophical inference here that is not justified. If you are saying that theists have no scientific reason for injecting God into the equation, you might be right, but only in that context. Just because something is cyclical doesn’t mean it doesn’t require a cause for it’s actual reality. A circle has no beginning, but it doesn’t follow that it’s existence has no beginning. All that Penrose is describing is a universe that doesn’t have a physically defined beginning. To say that therefore such an entity can exist without God is a further inference that is not justified by science.