no more fairytales about an eternal universe!

[warpspeedpetey]

This is powerful. There is no alternative argument against the First Cause, impossibility of something from nothing, and many other arguments like that.

im scouting it out on FRDB now, when i get some reasonable refutations ill post it here too.

though when the leading lights of QM offer a proof that the universe must have a beginning, im inclined too accept it unless there is some real good evidence to the contrary.

i have some guy claiming right now that the universe can be finite and not have a beginning, hes dancing faster than fly on a hot griddle!

i think that in accord with causality, this argument spells the death knell for atheism as a possible rational position, the eternal universe argument was very weak to begin with, now there is proof that directly contradicts it, even better the proof comes from some of the pre eminent theotretical physicists and cosmologists in the field!

 

[slyOne]

St. Bonaventure provides five separate arguments against an eternal universe in 2 Sententiarium. The two most widely known are today advocated by William Lane Craig: leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

The argument I was referring to was this:

1. An actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition.
2. An eternal universe entails an actual infinite formed by successive addition.
3. Hence, an eternal universe cannot exist.
4. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

Thomas’ disagreement was with (2). He stated that it is always possible to conceive of a time prior to the time before. He suggested that since every moment of time in the past is only a finite distance away from the present, and every finite time can be traversed, then the entire infinite past can likewise be traversed.

The problem I see with this objection is that it commits a composition fallacy. Even though every finite time can be traversed, it doesn’t follow that the infinite whole can be. Besides this, even if it were possible for the universe to be infinitely old, we are left with no explanation as to why the present arrived today and not yesterday, or the day before, or at any finite time in the past - since by that time, an actually infinite period of time had already elapsed.

The problem with using mathematical and logical proofs to examine the existence of the universe is that they can sometimes be misleading. For example, you can argue that an infinite universe has an infinite number of Planck units transpired. However as demonstrated by the integration of 1/x^2, infinite perimeters can contain finite areas. Since the integral is the more dimenstional and the derivative the more linear of the mathematical inverse relationship. Matter being a wholy more dimensional subject than that of time, which is dependent itself on the constructs of matter, can be viewed as the integral and time the derivative, since time itself is a rate by which matter travels by. Since successive addition applies to mass ( I believe that is what is referred to in the second point of the argument), then successive addition of mass could occur along the route of CP violation in finite amounts whilst time traverses infinitely.

If you are saying that successive addition of Plancks in order to form eternity is impossible, then I respond with infinite successive addition. An algorithm may repeat in infinity to yield a value of infinity, thus equivalent to the infinite passage of time. So I still don’t see the logical validity of the second premise.

 

[punkforchrist]

warpspeedpetey:

i have some guy claiming right now that the universe can be finite and not have a beginning, hes dancing faster than fly on a hot griddle!

He’s probably referring to the Stephen Hawking model. Quentin Smith claims that the universe is both finite and beginningless, as well, and concludes that the universe can therefore exist uncaused.

The problem with this is at least twofold: 1) Hawking’s model makes use of imaginary numbers. Nothing is wrong with this per se, but whenever the imaginary numbers are converted back into real numbers, the initial singularity reappears. 2) Even if Hawking’s model is accepted, the universe still had a beginning. The only difference is that there is no single beginning point. It’s like having a curved shape instead of a pointed one.

slyOne:

The problem with using mathematical and logical proofs to examine the existence of the universe is that they can sometimes be misleading. For example, you can argue that an infinite universe has an infinite number of Planck units transpired.

One might argue that, but it would then require that time be continual, as opposed to discrete. As G.J. Whitrow points out:

“The modern theory of infinity . . . is essentially a static theory of infinite sets. Similarly, the modern theory of the variable . . . is again a static theory, for the variable is no longer regarded by pure mathematicians as representing a progressive passage through all the values of an interval but the disjunctive assumption of any one of the values in the interval. Thus the acceptance of the modern theory of the continuum cannot be invoked as a valid argument automatically disposing of Kant’s antinomies . . . , since this theory has been developed by specifically omitting all previous intuitive reference to the concept of time.” (British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 5, p. 217).

Moreover, the difficulty with talking about traversing an actual infinite within a finite space/area (i.e. from 0 to 1) is that this same area also has a distinct beginning and end. So if there is any analogy between the two, it still follows that the universe had a beginning.

 

[reggieM]

If you are saying that successive addition of Plancks in order to form eternity is impossible, then I respond with infinite successive addition. An algorithm may repeat in infinity to yield a value of infinity, thus equivalent to the infinite passage of time. So I still don’t see the logical validity of the second premise.

I think one view of the argument is that the algorithm has to begin in order to ever repeat. A similar counter-argument (given by Dr. Bonnette) is that the algorithm “repeats” – thus, there is a circular aspect to this kind of infinity (he used the example of a ring - no beginning or end).

I don’t see the logic in that example myself though. A circular pattern beginning-end-beginning would repeat a same origin event (if it’s not the same origin, then it’s not ciricular but linear - thus we have the same problem). That provides many problems for the possiblities in an infinitely repeating pattern. If it exists infinitely, without a beginning – all potential for that set of events would have been completed (possiblities exhausted) already.

We see the universe possessing potential and possibilities. Thus, it cannot have existed eternally (or could not have repeated eternally).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think one view of the argument is that the algorithm has to begin in order to ever repeat. A similar counter-argument (given by Dr. Bonnette) is that the algorithm “repeats” – thus, there is a circular aspect to this kind of infinity (he used the example of a ring - no beginning or end).

I don’t see the logic in that example myself though. A circular pattern beginning-end-beginning would repeat a same origin event (if it’s not the same origin, then it’s not ciricular but linear - thus we have the same problem). That provides many problems for the possiblities in an infinitely repeating pattern. If it exists infinitely, without a beginning – all potential for that set of events would have been completed (possiblities exhausted) already.

We see the universe possessing potential and possibilities. Thus, it cannot have existed eternally (or could not have repeated eternally).

he gave the old beginningless number line deal, the math concept doesnt map to reality, but he wont read the references i provided unless i cut and paste the relevant portions, unfortunately the relevant portions, comprise more than half the proof.

the proof solves alot of these issues. have you read it all yet?

 

[ZAKI]

I didn’t really get it.

wasalam

 

[JDaniel]

Another old argument that convinced me goes something like this:

An actual infinite set of events has always existed.
Therefore, anything that was possible to happen in that set of events, would have happened.
If it was a billion to one chance – that chance arrived an infinite number of times already.
One possibility is that the set would cease to exist.
If the set ceased to exist, it could not exist again.
Since the universe exists today, it cannot be infinite.
Because an infinite set exhausts all possibilities and non-existence is a possibility.

I think St. Thomas’ argument against this is that the universe could never be annihilated to total non-existence. So, that’s not a possibility. Something would remain (since matter cannot be destroyed?).

Actually, Aquinas would have fully understood that no such infinity could exist. It is only conceptually that (as a mathematical abstraction an “actual”) infinity can be predicated of material being. Now, if you mean “potential” infinity, then we are all still on target for either of those potential scenarios as we are still here. Of course, unless this is all just one huge illusion. :bigyikes:

Even still, if it was possible for elements necessary for creating a universe from randomness ceased to exist (that would have to be possible), then the universe would be reduced to that level and never be able to exist again.

Since the universe exists today, it cannot, therefore be infinite.

While this conclusion is true; it is not because of an admixture of the natural with the ontological.

jd

 

[reggieM]

While this conclusion is true; it is not because of an admixture of the natural with the ontological.

jd

That is a good point. Nature and matter cannot cause themselves or be the explanation for their existence. Empirical science looks only at the external aspects of reality – and even if an actual infinite of physical nature was possible, it could never be infinite in all aspects. It would have some finite qualities – which mean it would have some boundaries which require an explanation and a cause.

 

[punkforchrist]

Out of curiosity, I went back to Craig’s excellent book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, where he discusses the position of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas on the possibility of an eternal universe. He comments:

“Aquinas, after confessing the impossibility of the existence of an actual infinite, nevertheless proceeded to assert that the existence of an infinite regress of past events is possible. This is because the series of past events does not exist in actuality. Past events do not now exist and hence do not constitute an infinite number of actually existing things. The series is only potentially infinite, not actually infinite, in that it is constantly increasing by addition of new events. But surely this analysis is inadequate. The fact that the events do not exist simultaneously is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand; the fact remains that since past events, as determinate parts of reality, are definite and distinct and can be numbered, they can be conceptually collected into a totality. Therefore, if the temporal sequence of events is infinite, the set of all past events will be an actual infinite.” (Pg. 96).

Craig goes on to cite Fernand Van Steenberghen, a late prominent Thomist, who agrees with this analysis.

What is so interesting to me is that Thomas, whether by accident or not, presupposes a dynamic theory of time by stating that the past is potentially infinite. However, this would require time to go backward, which is contrary to our experience. I suppose this is logically possible, broadly speaking, but it is inconsistent with our normal perceptions of the world.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

i think that we can now reasonably exclude any possibility of an eternal universe, on physical grounds, written by some of the more pre eminent physicists working now.

im going to start a new tthread, please move the conversation ther ithats ok with everybody.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

this abstract speaks for itself, here .

arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf

these are well known cosmologists denying a past-eternal universe.

does anyone see any problems with this argument? what do you all think of it?

for the non-technically inclined among us, the last page explains the arguments in more usable terminology.

 

[crowonsnow]

The Cosmos is everywhere all the time. We cannot even begin to fathom a way to remove even the tiniest piece of it. It is a brute fact that does not change.

Faced with the Cosmos, arguments against its eternity amount to sophistry at best.

So sometimes I wonder. What exactly is gained by denying the the eternity of the Cosmos?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem deals with the possibility of eternal inflation under certain models of the universe. It does not rule out a number of different past-eternal models (such as the Baum-Frampton model). In a recent paper, Paul Frampton discusses why the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem does not show that the universe must have had a beginning:

arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.2730v2.pdf

I don’t have any physics degrees, so my ability to argue physics is somewhat limited. But from what I’ve read, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem does not have the implications that people like William Lane Craig wish it did.

 

[grampben]

I see it as eternal in the sense that time started at the big bang, and would end if the universe were to ‘end’. In that sense the universe would be eternal because it existed when time did.

 

[Dameedna]

We do not know if the universe is eternal or infinite. We do not know if the universe was created by an advanced civilization using us as a wonderful experiment in the nature conciousness or a simple petri dish.

We just don’t know. The universe could be a self-actualizing mechanism that existed simply because it did. It was itself.

The universe, could simply be a product of one mind, and we are all that mind…we are all a part of that mind, IE all a part of that “god” mind(I don’t give two hoots if that is considered heresay…lol!!).

We don’t know.

 

[centurionguard]

The Cosmos is everywhere all the time. We cannot even begin to fathom a way to remove even the tiniest piece of it. It is a brute fact that does not change.

Faced with the Cosmos, arguments against its eternity amount to sophistry at best.

So sometimes I wonder. What exactly is gained by denying the the eternity of the Cosmos?

What exactly is gained by denying the the eternity of the Cosmos?

It’s not to difficult to answer this question. Anything that God creates is less perfect than He Himself is. Only God is Infinite and Eternal.

 

[Dameedna]

Once again Peety…

You are grasping at straws.

Why don’t you spend some time understanding this God you keep defending with your refutions of science. Science is simply a technique that humans use to refute their own desire to lie to themselves. They realize that a human truth, can only be verified, not believed.

If there is a God, science…cannot do anything but search for her.

I think you are really struggling with faith, because like most people who live in a material world, you have been taught to require proof. You are looking for it. There is none.

Truth… is a pain in the ***.

 

[centurionguard]

ALL human science is based on theoretical conjecture, human relativism and human wisdom which amounts to nothing compared to ineffable wisdom of God.
The Cosmos/Universe is Finite. Even mere human science has shown that great galaxies, stars, and planets die.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Since according to current scientific cosmology, the physical universe started with the Big Bang, and this includes time itself.

The very word “eternal” means “outside of time”, not “undending.”

Therefore YOUR statement is itself sophistry, if not puerile.

 

[Dameedna]

ALL human science is based on theoretical conjecture, human relativism and human wisdom which amounts to nothing compared to ineffable wisdom of God.
The Cosmos/Universe is Finite. Even mere human science has shown that great galaxies, stars, and planets die.

And the wisdom of God’s, depends on humans to interpret and deliver.

Bit of a catch 22 imo