In 1927, Georges
Lemaître (a priest) proposed the greatest cosmological theory of the last
century: The Big Bang Theory. There have been numerous confirmations that
the Big Bang Theory is true, such as the expansion of the universe and the
cosmic microwave background radiation. This
theory has caused a lot of heartburn to the scientific community, since it says
that the universe had a beginning.
Atheists do not want the universe to have a beginning because this
requires an external agent to cause the change in state and they know what the
implications are. Since the Big Bang
Theory was first proposed, atheist scientists have desperately tried to
disprove that the universe had a beginning, but unfortunately for them, one
cannot disprove the creator of science by using the science he created.
There have been many additional theories that have been
proposed that attempt to incorporate the Big Bang Theory and an eternal
universe in order to avoid a beginning. They
have all failed. The nail was once again
put into the coffin in 2003 by a theorem developed by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin
known as the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem. What they discovered is that any universe
that is on average expanding cannot have an infinite past; there is a past
boundary. This rules out all models that
try to avoid a cosmic beginning. Here is the link to their paper and here is a video of Vilenkin explaining the theory. Here is a quote from the paper.
“Our argument shows that null and timelike geodesics are, in
general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy
conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0
holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than
the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions
that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary
point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite
proper time (finite affine length, in the null case).”
What this is saying is that the only condition that needs to
be present to show that ANY universe has a finite past boundary (a beginning)
is that it must have an average state of expansion. This applies to our universe or the
multi-verse (if you have faith in such a thing). There is no doubt in the scientific community
that our universe is expanding. This was
discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929 by looking at the red shift of distant
galaxies and repeatedly confirmed. Since
then we have discovered that not only is our universe expanding, but the
expansion rate is also accelerating.
“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.” – Alexander Vilenkin
Yet atheist scientists still have trouble admitting that the
universe had a beginning and have proposed all kinds of nonsensical,
non-falsifiable, faith-based theories to show that the beginning of the
universe had a natural cause. By refusing
to follow the evidence, they are saying “Anything, but not God”.
“At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the
curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his
faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled
the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he
pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have
been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert
Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978)
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth.
Good luck to all who try to disprove this.
Key words in the BGV theorem - "almost all" - not "any universe." You use the same misguided language that Dr. Craig often uses. Plus, Dr. Vilenkin is one of the biggest proponents of the multiverse, yet you only agree with him when it supports your point of view. This theorem here is built strictly on math, but so is the multiverse even though the multiverse is in principle verifiable. Yet the multiverse is "faith" according to you, and the BGV theorem is fact.
ReplyDeleteIf/when Vilenkin provides verifiable evidence that the multi-verse exists, then I’ll agree with him on that too. :)
DeleteOK, since that's your criteria for not believing something on faith, then you shouldn't believe in spirits, gods or demons or pretty much anything the bible states. And where is the verifiable proof that the BGV theorem is true?
DeleteMath can show whether or not something is possible or impossible. As you have said elsewhere, the math shows that a multi-verse is possible, although I’m not sure this is represented by an actual equation or just the realization that more universes like ours are possible. This does not make the multi-verse true, but it also hasn’t been shown to be false. The BGV theorem only adds to existing supporting evidence that the universe had a beginning and goes one step further. The BGV theorem uses math to show that a universe that has an average state of expansion must have a temporal boundary in the past and cannot continue into the infinite past. This includes the multi-verse as well, so if the multi-verse is expanding, it too had a beginning.
DeleteI personally don't deny that our universe had a beginning, or to put it another way, a finite amount of time in its past. But is your standard of proof higher for things that you interpret as working against your point of view? I don't see how believing in Christianity has more weight supporting it than the BGV theorem, or the multiverse. It seems that you're a verficationist for things unfavorable to your religion, but you're willing to believe other things that support your religion on faith.
DeleteI thought we already discussed this…..scientific explanations require scientific evidence. If you want to have faith that the multi-verse exists because the math says it’s possible, go ahead. That’s not evidence that it exists. I’ve never said the multi-verse is not possible nor is it a threat to Christianity, yet you keep insisting that it is. This is just a red herring.
DeleteThe math says it's probable, just like the BGV theorem. I'm asking you to be consistent with your acceptance of scientific theories. You seem to fall head over heels on ones you think support your Christian worldview, but remain highly skeptical of ones you think challenge it. And besides, if it doesn't challenge it, then why such skepticism about it? Your numerous attempts to put the multiverse to rest seem like a red herring. I mean, why spend so much times arguing against it if poses no "threat to Christianity"?
DeleteYou do not seem to understand the difference between evidence that affirms something and evidence that does not disprove something. They are not the same.
DeleteIrrelevant distinction. The BGV theorem neither affirms the universe had an absolute beginning, nor does it disprove a multiverse. The BGV is a probabilistic mathematical theorem that assumes an aspect of general relativity in classical physics and ignores quantum mechanics. That right there tells you it isn't the final picture.
DeleteIts kind of hilarious that these athesists call themselves something like the "Thinker"..as if no one in the history of the world that believes in God has ever Thought before. The greatest minds in the history of humanity have believed in God. At what point are these people gonna drop this pathetic charade??
ReplyDeleteMultiverse is the latest attempt at kickin the can down the street hoping no one will realize that a magical everything maker machine would need not only a beginning, but a desinger as well.
Why do rational people point out this is a patchwork ad hoc hail Mary invented to deny sciences results that the universe didnt just "look" designed as they thought...but the math is infinitely more designed looking? Because we care about you. Is that so hard to imagine? The proof for Christianity is found in precisely what Christ claimed---ask God if Christ was exactly who he said he was. Anyone who is moved by Jesus' word and turns is given the Fact placed directly in their minds. If God wanted to coerce you he'd go on CNN right now and you'd have no choice. Instead, you're provided with your own little set of excuses which enable you to feely reveal youself and reject God. God doesnt want pretenders. Those who are for him will turn..they will seek him and find him....those who dont.....well, they just grasp at any and every excuse their itching ears want to hear.
John, let me explain to you why you're wrong.
DeleteFirst of all, I don't call myself the "Thinker" because I think I'm smarter than everyone, or that no theist has ever thought. I call myself the Thinker because I'm fascinated with intellectual topics like science, philosophy, history and religion. That you thought I meant to say that I'm better than everyone else shows your bias.
Multiverse is the latest attempt at kickin the can down the street hoping no one will realize that a magical everything maker machine would need not only a beginning, but a desinger as well.
This shows you obviously have no knowledge of the multiverse and how it developed over 30 years ago. And since you don't know about theories on time, like A verses B-theory, or that there are multiverse models that extend infinitely into the past, your claim that it needs a beginning and a designer are false. you are simply just ignorant on science.
Why do rational people point out this is a patchwork ad hoc hail Mary invented to deny sciences results that the universe didnt just "look" designed as they thought...but the math is infinitely more designed looking?
There are theists like Robin Collins who say we should expect a multiverse if Christianity is true. Go figure. There's nothing ad hoc about the multiverse, as it comes independently from inflationary theory and quantum mechanics and we'd still be talking about it even without the fine tuning argument.
Because we care about you. Is that so hard to imagine?
Then produce better evidence and we'll start listening.
The proof for Christianity is found in precisely what Christ claimed---ask God if Christ was exactly who he said he was. Anyone who is moved by Jesus' word and turns is given the Fact placed directly in their minds.
See this is what I'm talking about. This is all subjective faith. The Muslim will ask allah, and the Hindu will ask Hanuman. This is not proof it's faith. That's why Christianity is dying.
If God wanted to coerce you he'd go on CNN right now and you'd have no choice. Instead, you're provided with your own little set of excuses which enable you to feely reveal youself and reject God.
You just contradicted yourself, because you said if god went on CNN and proved himself to me, then I'd "have no choice" and yet you claim god can put facts into my head, but I still have a choice. You're not very good at logic are you? If god proved himself to me I could still reject him, in the same way that I can reject my parents without denying they exist, so even without your contradiction, you're still wrong on top of that.
When you have a good evidence-based argument, then we can talk. For now all you've got is faith, All the other religions have that too. Be better.
Everyone knows God exists, its written into their mind and heart since humans were given a spiritual component unlike animals (only mind and body) and plants (body).
DeleteI kept reading in this thread that there is Mathematics that can explain the so-called multiverse. Not once did I see a link or citation. This, to me, seemed like an Appeal to self-evident truth fallacy. So I decided to search on the internet about it. There is little concrete evidence that I could find.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand doing a search on the BGV theorem resulted in many articles and were clear and concise that any universe that is undergoing continual expansion must have had a beginning including the multiverse.
The BGV theorem was posited in 2003, so has withstood almost 17 years of scrutiny and still holds up. The BGV Theorem lends prima facie support to the universe (or universes) having a beginning including all matter, energy, space and time, and therefore the cause must be outside of matter, energy, space, and time - an Architect.
"On the other hand doing a search on the BGV theorem resulted in many articles and were clear and concise that any universe that is undergoing continual expansion must have had a beginning including the multiverse."
DeleteThat's because since the BGV theorem came out, hundreds, if not thousands of religious apologists have written about how it proves an absolute beginning (which it of course doesn't). The "must have had a beginning" is based on assuming the classical physics from general relativity, which every scientist knows is the the final picture when it comes to the singularity, because it completely ignores quantum mechanics.
The "G" in the BGV theorem, Alan Guth, who co-wrote the paper, has already said he doesn't think the universe has an absolute beginning.
Also, a "beginning" doesn't prove or even imply an architect, all it means is the universe had a first moment. There was no popping into existence from "nothing." The reason why so many people think the big bang says this is because of a few factors: (1) it's very hard to understand the origin of the universe because it's completely non-intuitive, and (2) many well-meaning scientists use a poor choice of words when describing the big bang, in which they say things like the "universe pops into existence from nothing."
It technically doesn't. Our language just isn't suited to accurately describe many fundamental concepts in physics, and as a result of this, a lot misinformation spreads to the general public, often by scientists themselves.