Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Universe got created!

Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:14:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I just want to know, the argument of those who do oppose the statement, what they have for opposition.

I need some SELF EXPLANATORY statement, by mentioning all the reasoning in first attempt, without a single word ambiguity, so as your reply must contain all the explanation. Do focus for each word to be meaningful.

*Excessive disclosure is certainly against the purpose of full disclosure!*
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 12:31:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
L.A. Mitchell (known as Sargon on DDO) makes an interesting argument from general relativity. FLRW metrics describe time as "half open". A half open state of time has a maximum value, but no minimum. This means the universe can't have came into being, because no first state of time exists.

He explains it better than I.

http://doubtingdave.com...

Since I can't have all knowledge, I don't know for certain if the universe was created or not, but I see no reason to think it was a god.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 3:37:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 12:31:58 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
L.A. Mitchell (known as Sargon on DDO) makes an interesting argument from general relativity. FLRW metrics describe time as "half open". A half open state of time has a maximum value, but no minimum. This means the universe can't have came into being, because no first state of time exists.

He explains it better than I.

http://doubtingdave.com...

Since I can't have all knowledge, I don't know for certain if the universe was created or not, but I see no reason to think it was a god.

His argument only applies to models which predict a singularity as the first state of the universe (and ignore quantum gravity). Most cosmologists now seem to agree that once we get a solid theory of quantum gravity, the singularity will be replaced by something else.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 3:38:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, for the OP, if the universe popped into existence spontaneously (not from nothing, but a background which serves as a necessary condition), would that mean it was created even if there was no sufficient cause?
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:00:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 12:31:58 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
L.A. Mitchell (known as Sargon on DDO) makes an interesting argument from general relativity. FLRW metrics describe time as "half open". A half open state of time has a maximum value, but no minimum. This means the universe can't have came into being, because no first state of time exists.

He explains it better than I.

http://doubtingdave.com...

Since I can't have all knowledge, I don't know for certain if the universe was created or not, but I see no reason to think it was a god.

Well, it still comes into being, there is just no first instance of its existence which can be caused by something external.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:01:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 3:37:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:31:58 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
L.A. Mitchell (known as Sargon on DDO) makes an interesting argument from general relativity. FLRW metrics describe time as "half open". A half open state of time has a maximum value, but no minimum. This means the universe can't have came into being, because no first state of time exists.

He explains it better than I.

http://doubtingdave.com...

Since I can't have all knowledge, I don't know for certain if the universe was created or not, but I see no reason to think it was a god.

His argument only applies to models which predict a singularity as the first state of the universe (and ignore quantum gravity). Most cosmologists now seem to agree that once we get a solid theory of quantum gravity, the singularity will be replaced by something else.

There are certain quantum gravity models which are observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe where it would apply as well.
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:11:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 8:14:20 AM, Dazz wrote:
I just want to know, the argument of those who do oppose the statement, what they have for opposition.

I need some SELF EXPLANATORY statement, by mentioning all the reasoning in first attempt, without a single word ambiguity, so as your reply must contain all the explanation. Do focus for each word to be meaningful.

*Excessive disclosure is certainly against the purpose of full disclosure!*

I shalll try to be as concise as possible.

1) The universe is inhospitable to mankind. 99.999999999999999 percent of it will kill you instantly.

2) The universe is badly designed. Very inefficient and wasteful of energy.

3) There is no logical reason to create the universe or anything in it.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 4:20:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 4:01:30 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 3:37:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:31:58 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
L.A. Mitchell (known as Sargon on DDO) makes an interesting argument from general relativity. FLRW metrics describe time as "half open". A half open state of time has a maximum value, but no minimum. This means the universe can't have came into being, because no first state of time exists.

He explains it better than I.

http://doubtingdave.com...

Since I can't have all knowledge, I don't know for certain if the universe was created or not, but I see no reason to think it was a god.

His argument only applies to models which predict a singularity as the first state of the universe (and ignore quantum gravity). Most cosmologists now seem to agree that once we get a solid theory of quantum gravity, the singularity will be replaced by something else.

There are certain quantum gravity models which are observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe where it would apply as well.

Perhaps, but until we get a solid theory of quantum gravity we won't know what the case is in reality. Also, they also must predict an impossible first state (a singularity) for the argument to work as well. If there is a possible first state, well, then obviously the argument falls apart.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 7:54:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 4:20:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:01:30 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 3:37:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:31:58 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
L.A. Mitchell (known as Sargon on DDO) makes an interesting argument from general relativity. FLRW metrics describe time as "half open". A half open state of time has a maximum value, but no minimum. This means the universe can't have came into being, because no first state of time exists.

He explains it better than I.

http://doubtingdave.com...

Since I can't have all knowledge, I don't know for certain if the universe was created or not, but I see no reason to think it was a god.

His argument only applies to models which predict a singularity as the first state of the universe (and ignore quantum gravity). Most cosmologists now seem to agree that once we get a solid theory of quantum gravity, the singularity will be replaced by something else.

There are certain quantum gravity models which are observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe where it would apply as well.

Perhaps, but until we get a solid theory of quantum gravity we won't know what the case is in reality. Also, they also must predict an impossible first state (a singularity) for the argument to work as well. If there is a possible first state, well, then obviously the argument falls apart.

They do predict that. That's why it's observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:01:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 7:54:14 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:20:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:01:30 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 3:37:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:31:58 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
L.A. Mitchell (known as Sargon on DDO) makes an interesting argument from general relativity. FLRW metrics describe time as "half open". A half open state of time has a maximum value, but no minimum. This means the universe can't have came into being, because no first state of time exists.

He explains it better than I.

http://doubtingdave.com...

Since I can't have all knowledge, I don't know for certain if the universe was created or not, but I see no reason to think it was a god.

His argument only applies to models which predict a singularity as the first state of the universe (and ignore quantum gravity). Most cosmologists now seem to agree that once we get a solid theory of quantum gravity, the singularity will be replaced by something else.

There are certain quantum gravity models which are observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe where it would apply as well.

Perhaps, but until we get a solid theory of quantum gravity we won't know what the case is in reality. Also, they also must predict an impossible first state (a singularity) for the argument to work as well. If there is a possible first state, well, then obviously the argument falls apart.

They do predict that. That's why it's observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe.

There are models that don't predict a singularity as well. Loop Quantum Cosmology does away with the singularity [http://arxiv.org...], as do most versions of String Theory. Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins involving tunnelling gets rid of it as well. As Quentin Smith notes:

"These quantum mechanical models of the beginning of the universe are explanatorily superior in one respect to the standard GTR-based Big Bang models; they do not postulate initial states at which the laws of physics break down (a singularity) but explain the beginning of the universe in accordance with the laws of physics." - Quentin Smith

Most physicists agree that any new unified theory will do away with singularities:

"It is widely expected that this new improved theory [involving Quantum Gravity] will not contain the singular histories that characterised Einstein"s theory." - John Barrow [http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...]
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:02:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 8:01:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 7:54:14 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:20:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:01:30 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 3:37:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:31:58 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
L.A. Mitchell (known as Sargon on DDO) makes an interesting argument from general relativity. FLRW metrics describe time as "half open". A half open state of time has a maximum value, but no minimum. This means the universe can't have came into being, because no first state of time exists.

He explains it better than I.

http://doubtingdave.com...

Since I can't have all knowledge, I don't know for certain if the universe was created or not, but I see no reason to think it was a god.

His argument only applies to models which predict a singularity as the first state of the universe (and ignore quantum gravity). Most cosmologists now seem to agree that once we get a solid theory of quantum gravity, the singularity will be replaced by something else.

There are certain quantum gravity models which are observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe where it would apply as well.

Perhaps, but until we get a solid theory of quantum gravity we won't know what the case is in reality. Also, they also must predict an impossible first state (a singularity) for the argument to work as well. If there is a possible first state, well, then obviously the argument falls apart.

They do predict that. That's why it's observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe.

There are models that don't predict a singularity as well. Loop Quantum Cosmology does away with the singularity [http://arxiv.org...], as do most versions of String Theory. Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins involving tunnelling gets rid of it as well. As Quentin Smith notes:

"These quantum mechanical models of the beginning of the universe are explanatorily superior in one respect to the standard GTR-based Big Bang models; they do not postulate initial states at which the laws of physics break down (a singularity) but explain the beginning of the universe in accordance with the laws of physics." - Quentin Smith

Most physicists agree that any new unified theory will do away with singularities:

"It is widely expected that this new improved theory [involving Quantum Gravity] will not contain the singular histories that characterised Einstein"s theory." - John Barrow [http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...]

How does your post contradict anything I said?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:05:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 8:02:46 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:01:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 7:54:14 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:20:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:01:30 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 3:37:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:31:58 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
L.A. Mitchell (known as Sargon on DDO) makes an interesting argument from general relativity. FLRW metrics describe time as "half open". A half open state of time has a maximum value, but no minimum. This means the universe can't have came into being, because no first state of time exists.

He explains it better than I.

http://doubtingdave.com...

Since I can't have all knowledge, I don't know for certain if the universe was created or not, but I see no reason to think it was a god.

His argument only applies to models which predict a singularity as the first state of the universe (and ignore quantum gravity). Most cosmologists now seem to agree that once we get a solid theory of quantum gravity, the singularity will be replaced by something else.

There are certain quantum gravity models which are observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe where it would apply as well.

Perhaps, but until we get a solid theory of quantum gravity we won't know what the case is in reality. Also, they also must predict an impossible first state (a singularity) for the argument to work as well. If there is a possible first state, well, then obviously the argument falls apart.

They do predict that. That's why it's observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe.

There are models that don't predict a singularity as well. Loop Quantum Cosmology does away with the singularity [http://arxiv.org...], as do most versions of String Theory. Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins involving tunnelling gets rid of it as well. As Quentin Smith notes:

"These quantum mechanical models of the beginning of the universe are explanatorily superior in one respect to the standard GTR-based Big Bang models; they do not postulate initial states at which the laws of physics break down (a singularity) but explain the beginning of the universe in accordance with the laws of physics." - Quentin Smith

Most physicists agree that any new unified theory will do away with singularities:

"It is widely expected that this new improved theory [involving Quantum Gravity] will not contain the singular histories that characterised Einstein"s theory." - John Barrow [http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...]

How does your post contradict anything I said?

It doesn't. I'm just showing that your argument presupposes a model type that most physicists would say is probably not the correct one at the end of the day.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:09:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 8:05:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:02:46 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:01:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 7:54:14 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:20:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:01:30 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 3:37:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:31:58 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
L.A. Mitchell (known as Sargon on DDO) makes an interesting argument from general relativity. FLRW metrics describe time as "half open". A half open state of time has a maximum value, but no minimum. This means the universe can't have came into being, because no first state of time exists.

He explains it better than I.

http://doubtingdave.com...

Since I can't have all knowledge, I don't know for certain if the universe was created or not, but I see no reason to think it was a god.

His argument only applies to models which predict a singularity as the first state of the universe (and ignore quantum gravity). Most cosmologists now seem to agree that once we get a solid theory of quantum gravity, the singularity will be replaced by something else.

There are certain quantum gravity models which are observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe where it would apply as well.

Perhaps, but until we get a solid theory of quantum gravity we won't know what the case is in reality. Also, they also must predict an impossible first state (a singularity) for the argument to work as well. If there is a possible first state, well, then obviously the argument falls apart.

They do predict that. That's why it's observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe.

There are models that don't predict a singularity as well. Loop Quantum Cosmology does away with the singularity [http://arxiv.org...], as do most versions of String Theory. Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins involving tunnelling gets rid of it as well. As Quentin Smith notes:

"These quantum mechanical models of the beginning of the universe are explanatorily superior in one respect to the standard GTR-based Big Bang models; they do not postulate initial states at which the laws of physics break down (a singularity) but explain the beginning of the universe in accordance with the laws of physics." - Quentin Smith

Most physicists agree that any new unified theory will do away with singularities:

"It is widely expected that this new improved theory [involving Quantum Gravity] will not contain the singular histories that characterised Einstein"s theory." - John Barrow [http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...]

How does your post contradict anything I said?

It doesn't. I'm just showing that your argument presupposes a model type that most physicists would say is probably not the correct one at the end of the day.

It's not meant to be an explanation of why the universe exists. It's just meant to show that GTR is inconsistent with the existence of god, so it can't be used in any argument establishing his existence.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:11:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 8:09:15 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:05:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:02:46 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:01:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 7:54:14 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:20:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:01:30 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 3:37:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:31:58 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
L.A. Mitchell (known as Sargon on DDO) makes an interesting argument from general relativity. FLRW metrics describe time as "half open". A half open state of time has a maximum value, but no minimum. This means the universe can't have came into being, because no first state of time exists.

He explains it better than I.

http://doubtingdave.com...

Since I can't have all knowledge, I don't know for certain if the universe was created or not, but I see no reason to think it was a god.

His argument only applies to models which predict a singularity as the first state of the universe (and ignore quantum gravity). Most cosmologists now seem to agree that once we get a solid theory of quantum gravity, the singularity will be replaced by something else.

There are certain quantum gravity models which are observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe where it would apply as well.

Perhaps, but until we get a solid theory of quantum gravity we won't know what the case is in reality. Also, they also must predict an impossible first state (a singularity) for the argument to work as well. If there is a possible first state, well, then obviously the argument falls apart.

They do predict that. That's why it's observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe.

There are models that don't predict a singularity as well. Loop Quantum Cosmology does away with the singularity [http://arxiv.org...], as do most versions of String Theory. Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins involving tunnelling gets rid of it as well. As Quentin Smith notes:

"These quantum mechanical models of the beginning of the universe are explanatorily superior in one respect to the standard GTR-based Big Bang models; they do not postulate initial states at which the laws of physics break down (a singularity) but explain the beginning of the universe in accordance with the laws of physics." - Quentin Smith

Most physicists agree that any new unified theory will do away with singularities:

"It is widely expected that this new improved theory [involving Quantum Gravity] will not contain the singular histories that characterised Einstein"s theory." - John Barrow [http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...]

How does your post contradict anything I said?

It doesn't. I'm just showing that your argument presupposes a model type that most physicists would say is probably not the correct one at the end of the day.

It's not meant to be an explanation of why the universe exists. It's just meant to show that GTR is inconsistent with the existence of god, so it can't be used in any argument establishing his existence.

Fair enough.
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:13:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 8:11:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:09:15 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:05:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:02:46 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:01:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 7:54:14 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:20:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:01:30 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 3:37:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:31:58 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
L.A. Mitchell (known as Sargon on DDO) makes an interesting argument from general relativity. FLRW metrics describe time as "half open". A half open state of time has a maximum value, but no minimum. This means the universe can't have came into being, because no first state of time exists.

He explains it better than I.

http://doubtingdave.com...

Since I can't have all knowledge, I don't know for certain if the universe was created or not, but I see no reason to think it was a god.

His argument only applies to models which predict a singularity as the first state of the universe (and ignore quantum gravity). Most cosmologists now seem to agree that once we get a solid theory of quantum gravity, the singularity will be replaced by something else.

There are certain quantum gravity models which are observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe where it would apply as well.

Perhaps, but until we get a solid theory of quantum gravity we won't know what the case is in reality. Also, they also must predict an impossible first state (a singularity) for the argument to work as well. If there is a possible first state, well, then obviously the argument falls apart.

They do predict that. That's why it's observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe.

There are models that don't predict a singularity as well. Loop Quantum Cosmology does away with the singularity [http://arxiv.org...], as do most versions of String Theory. Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins involving tunnelling gets rid of it as well. As Quentin Smith notes:

"These quantum mechanical models of the beginning of the universe are explanatorily superior in one respect to the standard GTR-based Big Bang models; they do not postulate initial states at which the laws of physics break down (a singularity) but explain the beginning of the universe in accordance with the laws of physics." - Quentin Smith

Most physicists agree that any new unified theory will do away with singularities:

"It is widely expected that this new improved theory [involving Quantum Gravity] will not contain the singular histories that characterised Einstein"s theory." - John Barrow [http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...]

How does your post contradict anything I said?

It doesn't. I'm just showing that your argument presupposes a model type that most physicists would say is probably not the correct one at the end of the day.

It's not meant to be an explanation of why the universe exists. It's just meant to show that GTR is inconsistent with the existence of god, so it can't be used in any argument establishing his existence.

Fair enough.

Also, as a curiosity, I wonder why people think they're refuting Craig by arguing against a singularity. He doesn't think the singularity had any real status either.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:25:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 8:13:03 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:11:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:09:15 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:05:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:02:46 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:01:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 7:54:14 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:20:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 4:01:30 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 3:37:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:31:58 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
L.A. Mitchell (known as Sargon on DDO) makes an interesting argument from general relativity. FLRW metrics describe time as "half open". A half open state of time has a maximum value, but no minimum. This means the universe can't have came into being, because no first state of time exists.

He explains it better than I.

http://doubtingdave.com...

Since I can't have all knowledge, I don't know for certain if the universe was created or not, but I see no reason to think it was a god.

His argument only applies to models which predict a singularity as the first state of the universe (and ignore quantum gravity). Most cosmologists now seem to agree that once we get a solid theory of quantum gravity, the singularity will be replaced by something else.

There are certain quantum gravity models which are observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe where it would apply as well.

Perhaps, but until we get a solid theory of quantum gravity we won't know what the case is in reality. Also, they also must predict an impossible first state (a singularity) for the argument to work as well. If there is a possible first state, well, then obviously the argument falls apart.

They do predict that. That's why it's observationally equivalent to a Friedmann universe.

There are models that don't predict a singularity as well. Loop Quantum Cosmology does away with the singularity [http://arxiv.org...], as do most versions of String Theory. Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins involving tunnelling gets rid of it as well. As Quentin Smith notes:

"These quantum mechanical models of the beginning of the universe are explanatorily superior in one respect to the standard GTR-based Big Bang models; they do not postulate initial states at which the laws of physics break down (a singularity) but explain the beginning of the universe in accordance with the laws of physics." - Quentin Smith

Most physicists agree that any new unified theory will do away with singularities:

"It is widely expected that this new improved theory [involving Quantum Gravity] will not contain the singular histories that characterised Einstein"s theory." - John Barrow [http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...]

How does your post contradict anything I said?

It doesn't. I'm just showing that your argument presupposes a model type that most physicists would say is probably not the correct one at the end of the day.

It's not meant to be an explanation of why the universe exists. It's just meant to show that GTR is inconsistent with the existence of god, so it can't be used in any argument establishing his existence.

Fair enough.

Also, as a curiosity, I wonder why people think they're refuting Craig by arguing against a singularity. He doesn't think the singularity had any real status either.

A beginning in models that don't predict a singularity can be described by the laws of physics. Thus, no God needed.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2013 8:26:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"These quantum mechanical models of the beginning of the universe are explanatorily superior in one respect to the standard GTR-based Big Bang models; they do not postulate initial states at which the laws of physics break down (a singularity) but explain the beginning of the universe in accordance with the laws of physics." - Quentin Smith
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 1:35:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 4:11:13 PM, Quatermass wrote:
At 11/2/2013 8:14:20 AM, Dazz wrote:
I just want to know, the argument of those who do oppose the statement, what they have for opposition.

I need some SELF EXPLANATORY statement, by mentioning all the reasoning in first attempt, without a single word ambiguity, so as your reply must contain all the explanation. Do focus for each word to be meaningful.

*Excessive disclosure is certainly against the purpose of full disclosure!*

I shalll try to be as concise as possible.

1) The universe is inhospitable to mankind. 99.999999999999999 percent of it will kill you instantly.

2) The universe is badly designed. Very inefficient and wasteful of energy.

3) There is no logical reason to create the universe or anything in it.

Thanks for taking conciseness in account, but I'm unable to find the explanation of your response being compatible with the query or it lacks explanation. Rather no one has replied objectively. Others are also conversing for their own interest instead of responding according to the thread demand. Then they efficiently think, all other than them are trolls......
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2013 11:45:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/2/2013 4:00:48 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/2/2013 12:31:58 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
L.A. Mitchell (known as Sargon on DDO) makes an interesting argument from general relativity. FLRW metrics describe time as "half open". A half open state of time has a maximum value, but no minimum. This means the universe can't have came into being, because no first state of time exists.

He explains it better than I.

http://doubtingdave.com...

Since I can't have all knowledge, I don't know for certain if the universe was created or not, but I see no reason to think it was a god.

Well, it still comes into being, there is just no first instance of its existence which can be caused by something external.

I figured I explained it wrong in someway. I just wanted to throw it up there to see if it'd spark a discussion.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA