Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem (or BGV theorem) was developed in by three leading cosmologists; Arvind Borde, Alan Guth. I was watching A debate on cosmology where William Lane Craig uses the Borde , Guth and Vilenkin theorem to say the universe had a.
|Country:||Trinidad & Tobago|
|Published (Last):||12 January 2013|
|PDF File Size:||12.33 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.43 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Where does the evidence lead is the question that should be asked.
This is a case of what is most plausible, assent to the incoherence of an infite regress, and a basic tuth of the entrophy associate with thermodynamics seems to underpin a significant failure of the multi-universe theory, no matter how you construct your model. This is an argument brought back into the fold of philosophy of religion in the late 20th and early 21st century, and defended successfully in academic debates, books and papers by William Lane Craig. Where exactly is the debunking?
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem does not bring into question anything related to the long ages that are called for by the Big bang theory.
You should check out the implications of m theory, as proposed by Neil Turok. Maybe we will never know the full history of reality. We have exceptions, like Islamic countries, of course, where I can be killed by saying the truth: Anthony, thanks for the clarification about the BGV results.
The only non-self that can take action have verbs ascribed to it is matter. Argument for Theism is Criminal. Such a model could be of great utility to science, but it would not, as Hawking boldly asserts, eliminate the need vilenoin a Creator.
If the singularity does not exist, then Hawking is right. And by the way, argument is not the most important thing in the world. You can evade the theorem by postulating the universe was prior to some time.
Craig also admits that it would take quantum mechanics guty understand the universe at the beginning. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning pg. Craig thinks we do have a strong reason, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. Adding a preinflationary phase to the history of the universe sidesteps this pitfall. So, can imaginary numbers be used to describe the concept of time in the very early universe?
As all matter is at one very important level molecules, we can conclude that non-self molecules interacting with one another in, say, a brain, must behold and account for the self. B What is the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem?
It appears to be contingent, and therefore requires an explanatory hypothesis to explain its existence. Therefore, the brain molecules that randomly bump into each other must, in principle, be able to scientifically account for and behold purpose, which then must also be an illusion as it is apparent that purpose is just a superstructure of randomness. The question here, then, is if molecules in motion can in fact behold and account.
I would assert that it is more plausibly true that the universe is past-finite than past infinite. Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. It does not take much analysis of the argument to realize that the description of Universe A is completely arbitrary.
Usually the emphasis by creationists is the age of the universe and Earth first and then argue about existence of God later. More accurately, though, it seems that science and metaphysics do actually exist, and can be accounted for and beheld, but in in mutual dependence on something properly basic that is, necessarily self-evident. Science is permeated with assumptions that cannot be scientifically accounted for: So I explained what every physicist who has thought about the issue understands: Creationists can utilize point 2 in order to bridge the gap from the world to natural theology.
Science at the end of the day has a simple premise — explain what you observe, and prove it by falsifying it. In the interim, there is always some fanciful, inscrutable — and usually untestable — materialistic hypothesis ready to be wheeled on to the stage, to be propped up by hook or by crook, even if that means ignoring the very knowledge that we praise the sciences for helping us to attain, allowing that, in the final analysis, it might all just be more ignorance in disguise, which, evidently, is a conclusion far more desirable than the existence of God.
But I hope you realize that all of those metaphysical assumptions and hypotheses have no empirical or logical support. Atheists seem to fall more and more into the trap of not being able to distinguish the basics anymore. Why are you so angry?
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
Partial solar eclipse from space. If someone wants to hold that, fine; but for many of us the price exacted by a consistent scientism starts to look too high to pay. We must demonstrate through the properly basic tools of science, without depending on any metaphysical assumptions of the existence of mathematics, self, logic, etc.
Nobody is embracing scientism. Must we conclude or the non-self equivalent, seeming or the non-self equivalent, appearing or the non-self equivalent, looking or the non-self equivalent, suggesting… to appear to seem to conclude that we cannot escape pure randomness through either metaphysics or science? The Kalam Cosmological Argument – Page The authors write, What can lie beyond the boundary? The BGV theorem states that even in an inflationary universe, timelike and null geodesics are not past-complete, i.
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, and More on the “My Good Friend” Meme | Evolution News
This page was last edited on 15 Decemberat There never was a singularity and the Universe does not originate from such thing.