Yet *Another* Beginningless-Universe Model . . .

[DRDS]

Ok, I just now saw this, what in laymen's terms is this saying? Will this new model disprove God's existence? And is there any evidence for it so far?

[Katabole]

After reading through the articles and the posts, I believe a lot more science and mathematical rigour has to be done, to see if this model of a beginningless universe will hold any ground.

From the article, "In this article we derive the second order Friedmann equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe."

From the article, "The second quantum correction term pushes back the time singularity indefinitely, and predicts an everlasting universe."

Eternal and everlasting are two different concepts. Eternal suggests without a beginning. Everlasting suggests a beginning without an end. I found then, that their use of the word, "infinite" to be misleading. The word eternal is not used in the paper. The word everlasting is used in the paper however.

The concept of a beginningless universe I find reminiscent of a Theogony, on which most, if not all of the near-eastern religions base the origin of their gods, where a theogony is a group of gods that come to Earth or descend from an already existing universe; the origins of which are unknown. This differs considerably from the Christian, Jewish and Moslem concept called a Cosmogony, in which a monotheistic God creates the universe and certainly does not come from the universe.

From the Buddhist perspective, the idea that there is a single definite beginning is highly problematic. If there were such an absolute beginning, logically speaking, this leaves only two options. One is theism, which proposes that the universe is created by an intelligence that is totally transcendent. The second option is that the universe came into being from no cause at all. Buddhism rejects both these options. If the universe is created by a prior intelligence, the questions of the ontological status of such an intelligence and what kind of reality it is remain unanswered in Buddhism.

As the Dalai Lama has said, "Even with all these profound scientific theories of the origin of the universe, I am left with questions, serious ones: What existed before the big bang? Where did the big bang come from? What caused it? Why has our planet evolved to support life? What is the relationship between the cosmos and the beings that have evolved within it? Scientists may dismiss these questions as nonsensical, or they may acknowledge their importance but deny that they belong to the domain of scientific inquiry. However, both these approaches will have the consequence of acknowledging definite limits to our scientific knowledge of the origin of our cosmos. I am not subject to the professional or ideological constraints of a radically materialistic worldview. And in Buddhism the universe is seen as infinite and beginningless, so I am quite happy to venture beyond the big bang and speculate about possible states of affairs before it."

A "beginningless universe" if ever proved true both scientifically and mathematically, would give greater credence to Buddhism being true than Christianity in my opinion. However, in our present day, this seems to be the only model that contradicts all the data that our universe did indeed have a beginning.

The Dalai Lama's comments reminds me of a comment made by philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein when he said, "The great delusion of modernism, is that the laws of nature are explanations for the phenomena of nature."

When Newton discovered his law of gravity, he did not say now that I have discovered gravity, I have no need for God. Instead, he wrote possibly the greatest book in the history of mathematics, the 'Principia Mathematica', hoping it would help the thinking person to believe in God. But the truth is, Newton didn't understand what gravity actually is and we still don't know what it is.
Similar to energy. Theoretical Physicist Richard Feynman claimed after spending a lifetime of studying energy from the quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics perspective, that he still had no idea what energy actually is.

I'll see where the science leads on this concept of a "beginningless universe" model. Presently, I am unconvinced.

[RickD]

Ok, I just now saw this, what in laymen's terms is this saying? Will this new model disprove God's existence? And is there any evidence for it so far?

No. Please don't drive yourself crazy over this.

[Byblos]

A "beginningless universe" if ever proved true both scientifically and mathematically, would give greater credence to Buddhism being true than Christianity in my opinion.

I disagree. A beginingless universe does absolutely nothing to undermine the most forceful arguments for God, i.e. the arguments from motion and from contingency.

[1over137]

There are several blogs from physicists I find trustworthy. This one is one of them
http://motls.blogspot.sk/2015/02/has-bi ... roved.html
See for yourself the opinion of Lubos Motl.

[Jac3510]

Jac wrote:
I hear you keep asking about why something physical can't be beginningless (sorry, I won't use the word eternal--they mean different things). Are you conceding that immaterial things can be beginningless? Is your question limited only to physical things?

I'm conceding things such as the number three, that you mentioned before.

I'm focusing only on the physical. And whether or not anything physical can be without beginning. With the law of entropy, for example, I just can't see it being possible.

And while we're at it, I think beginningless and eternal are interchangeable in this instance. If something is without beginning, it has to be constant or unchanging. And if it's unchanging, it must be eternal. Right?

And are you talking about a single thing or a series of things? The universe is not a single entity. Is is a collection of entities. When people suggest a beginningless universe, they are not saying that a single thing has always existed, but that there have always been things causing other things.

I don't think it matters for what I'm saying. I just can't think of anything physical, that doesn't have a cause of its existence. And if you're talking about a series of things, you're just kicking the can back in time. Still with the same issue of how that first thing came into existence.

Rick, then I have to be honest here and say that I really don't understand your confusion or objection. Let me walk through the logic as I understand it and tell me where I'm getting lost.

Primarily, it seems like your claim is that if a physical thing has no beginning, then we'd have reason to think that God doesn't exist. Now, I just have no idea how that follows. The argument would look something like this:

1. If a physical thing has no beginning, then there is no God
2. The universe has not beginning
3. Therefore, there is no God

Sort of a reverse cosmological argument, eh? So the thing is, I have absolutely no idea how you would defend the first premise. Why on earth should we think it is true? You would need to show that the two ideas are mutually exclusive, and frankly, I have no clue how you would do that. I can imagine that you might could argue that a beginningless universe robs us of one particular argument for God's existence (i.e., the Kalam), but there are dozens of other reasons to think that God exists. Or you might could argue that a beginningless universe can't be squared with Gen 1, but then all you have is a rejection of biblical inerrancy, not of God's existence or even of Christianity. I mean, suppose the universe is beginningless. What do you do with the moral argument? With the resurrection of Jesus? With fulfilled prophecy? With the contingency of that very eternal universe? With the fact of intentionality? And so on?

But there are two other places I'm losing you.

First, you say that you are conceding that immaterial things can be beginningless, but that physical things cannot. Why? Why does a beginningless physical thing cause a problem for God and a beginningless immaterial thing does not? I can't think of a single reason for that whatsoever. And when you add to that a general Thomistic perspective, you have to recognize that ALL things have an immaterial aspect (the form or the soul). If something doesn't have a form (an immaterial reality), then that something doesn't exist after all. So your argument is apparently limited not to a beginningless thing, but only with the beginninglessness of the physical aspect of a thing. So, why can the immaterial part not have a beginning but the material part must have a beginning?

The second reason is that it seems to me that your argument, as I've understood it, commits a composition fallacy. Suppose you were to go to your local college and get a tour. You were shown the lecture halls, the library, the offices, the courtyard, and so on. And after seeing all that, you said, "Wow, that's all great. Now, can I see the college?" If a philosophy student were touring you, you'd be told that was a composition fallacy. The college is not *a* thing. It is a collective thing. And so it is with the universe. The universe is not *a* thing. It is a "singular thing" in that it is the total collection of all things that are. So even if the universe is beginningless, that does not mean that any given thing in it is beginningless. The universe as it exists right now came into existence this moment. It did not exist a moment ago, and it will not exist in a moment from now. Even there we are subtly committing a composition fallacy, because the question is, "Which things came into existence?" or better, "What state of things came into existence--e.g., how are every item with the whole set of things called 'the universe' so related at this moment?" And that is what comes into existence. You would have to argue that while it is true that each thing has to come into existence, that it impossible for there to be an infinite series of things that no longer exist? I mean, my father's father is now dead. He is no longer here (ignoring issues about him being in heaven). Just because he stops existing, I don't suddenly pop out of existence. Now, if he could produce an effect (my father), and then die, and then my father can produce an effect (me), and eventually not be here, and in all that I (and those effects that come from me) not go out of existence, then why must there be a beginning to that series? What is the difference in a series of things that terminates five minutes ago or never ago if, in both cases, the termination (or lack there of) doesn't exist? In both cases the past causes are no longer existent, which means that the current effects exist in themselves and not in virtue of the past causes. You would have to show a logical reason why an infinite past is self-contradictory.

Now, I fully admit that you can put forward arguments for that, but I hope you can admit that those arguments are highly contested and have always been. Perhaps you come down on the side that says that an infinite regression of past events really is impossible. But you don't get to just assert that. You need to demonstrate that, and as of now, incredulity and intuition seem to me all you've offered in that regard. And that, obviously, isn't enough.

AGAIN, I want to insist that I do not think the universe is beginningless. I think it has a true beginning in time. I think the paper I presented is wrong. The link Hana posted offers some interesting points. But my point is that we are putting ourselves in a very precarious situation when we base our faith in God on a true beginning of the universe. It's just not the best argument to base belief in God on, at least, not as far as I can tell.

So, your thoughts? Where have I misread you?

[dfnj]

That is a sad illusion

The idea that something is an illusion is also an illusion.

I will prove to you God exists. God is just a word. The word God exists in our written and spoken language. No one denies the existence of the word God.

If a tree falls down in the forest does it make a noise? No because without someone to hear the tree the forest does not exist. Without conscious thought to experience the Universe time does not exist. Prior to the written word being invented about 6000 years ago God, man, and the Universe did not exist. We are the Universe's way of experiencing itself. Without our words and our written language time, God, man, and the Universe do not exist. Without words and language we are just skunks incapable of smelling of our own stink. Words are created in the image of our own experiences without which we do not exist. And the word man is reflection of our experieces of the word God.

Is the spiritual also an illusion?

Only when you use the word. The recognition of spirituality is a choice. Spirituality is not something that exists in reality. It is a construct of mind in relation to the phyical world. Spirituality is kind of like the word beauty. Beauty only exist in the eyes of the beholder. Spirituality only exist in those who are pious.

[dfnj]

AGAIN, I want to insist that I do not think the universe is beginningless. I think it has a true beginning in time. I think the paper I presented is wrong. The link Hana posted offers some interesting points. But my point is that we are putting ourselves in a very precarious situation when we base our faith in God on a true beginning of the universe. It's just not the best argument to base belief in God on, at least, not as far as I can tell.

Having faith God is not a decision based on evidence or reason. Believing in the power of God is a choice (a completely irrational choice). God does not exist in reality the same way an apple does. God only exists in our written and spoken words. God is just a word. No one denies the existence of the word God. God is a special word whos definition is unlike every other word in the dictionary. God is word that represents an envelope containing every possible meaning. There is only one God.

God is not the first cause or the last cause. I think you misunderstand the nature of omnipotence. An omnipotent God is fully capable of having logical inconsistency without any limitations. God is the first cause and also NOT the first cause at the same time. God created reality but also reality always existed both at the same time. Any omnipotent God worth his salt would certainly not be understood within the simple framing of logical consistency. God is not bounded by the constraints of language. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: Cause, creation, and that which is beyond our comprehension.

God talks to us through experimental error. God is the reason why there are more exceptions to the laws of physics than there is compliance. Yes, nature somewhat repeats patterns of behaviors in a controlled limited context. But God is the force in the universe that keeps our full understanding of nature always one step beyond our full comprehension.

The Universe is not only expanding but it is accelerating. At some point more energy will go into the expansion than measurably exists in the known Universe. God is the source of Dark Energy. God is what happens if the Universe continues to accelerate to the speed of light. God is somethingness and nothingness all at once. It's like two opposing mirrors in a complete 360 degree reflection looping around through all infinities. God is what you see in the pupil of your eye when you look in the mirror. Pupil within pupil within pupil to infinity. God is like the thought of a snake finishing the eating of its own tail. God is the creator and source of all semantics. God is what your brain is doing between thoughts. Without God, nothing mundane would ever have any meaning because your brain would not be able to distinguish existence. It is only through the contrast of nothingness that somethingness takes form. The Alpha and the Omega.

[Jac3510]

AGAIN, I want to insist that I do not think the universe is beginningless. I think it has a true beginning in time. I think the paper I presented is wrong. The link Hana posted offers some interesting points. But my point is that we are putting ourselves in a very precarious situation when we base our faith in God on a true beginning of the universe. It's just not the best argument to base belief in God on, at least, not as far as I can tell.

Having faith God is not a decision based on evidence or reason. Believing in the power of God is a choice (a completely irrational choice). God does not exist in reality the same way an apple does. God only exists in our written and spoken words. God is just a word. No one denies the existence of the word God. God is a special word whos definition is unlike every other word in the dictionary. God is word that represents an envelope containing every possible meaning. There is only one God.

God is not the first cause or the last cause. I think you misunderstand the nature of omnipotence. An omnipotent God is fully capable of having logical inconsistency without any limitations. God is the first cause and also NOT the first cause at the same time. God created reality but also reality always existed both at the same time. Any omnipotent God worth his salt would certainly not be understood within the simple framing of logical consistency. God is not bounded by the constraints of language. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: Cause, creation, and that which is beyond our comprehension.

God talks to us through experimental error. God is the reason why there are more exceptions to the laws of physics than there is compliance. Yes, nature somewhat repeats patterns of behaviors in a controlled limited context. But God is the force in the universe that keeps our full understanding of nature always one step beyond our full comprehension.

The Universe is not only expanding but it is accelerating. At some point more energy will go into the expansion than measurably exists in the known Universe. God is the source of Dark Energy. God is what happens if the Universe continues to accelerate to the speed of light. God is somethingness and nothingness all at once. It's like two opposing mirrors in a complete 360 degree reflection looping around through all infinities. God is what you see in the pupil of your eye when you look in the mirror. Pupil within pupil within pupil to infinity. God is like the thought of a snake finishing the eating of its own tail. God is the creator and source of all semantics. God is what your brain is doing between thoughts. Without God, nothing mundane would ever have any meaning because your brain would not be able to distinguish existence. It is only through the contrast of nothingness that somethingness takes form. The Alpha and the Omega.

[abelcainsbrother]

Jac I detect a certain fear from you that science will make some new discovery that proves the bible wrong and if this is the case I don't think you have anything to worry about.Yes there are theories in science and we must be able to tell scientific theories from true science but true science is going to confound the wise and confirm God's word true.

This is something that has bothered me about YEC's and the way they reject science it really to me shows a lack of faith in God's word,if we interpret the bible right science is going to prove and confirm it true,of course though it can take time for it to be realized how a scientific discovery confirmed the bible true.

I mean on the one hand YEC's will now accept that the biblical laws on cleanliness and sanitation and quarantining the sick out of camp reveals that God knew about germs and how they are spread long before science ever knew about germs,yet now on the other hand think it has stopped tha science is now totally wrong and cannot be trusted but that is not the case as there will be more scientific discoveries that confirm God's word true. Relax and watch God confound the wise.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I imagine Jac doing this right now then maybe a bit of this

[Jac3510]

Haha yes Dan a lot of all that. And Abel replace the batteries in your fear detector.

[abelcainsbrother]

Haha yes Dan a lot of all that. And Abel replace the batteries in your fear detector.

OK Glad you are not afraid.

[Kurieuo]

1. If a physical thing has no beginning, then there is no God
2. The universe has not beginning
3. Therefore, there is no God

Argument 1
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause for it's existence.

The reverse is therefore:

Reverse Argument
1. Something that has always existed does not require a cause for its existence.
2. The universe has always existed of some form or another.
3. Therefore the universe does not require a cause for its existence.

The reason why the reverse holds is because the argument is sound.
But, the reverse argument doesn't disprove God. It just disproves that the universe in its entirety doesn't require a beginning cause.

Contingency arguments can still be brought to bear however.
I.e., the universe could have been other than what it is regardless of whether or not is requires a cause.

BUT, if the universe has a cause for it's existence (which I expect is the case as a Christian) then this is obviously suggestive of ...?
Especially if the universe appears to be highly fine tuned. And add into the equation time. Unless one believes time (tensed facts) are illusory
-- each moment of time having always eternally existed.

[bippy123]

There are several blogs from physicists I find trustworthy. This one is one of them
http://motls.blogspot.sk/2015/02/has-bi ... roved.html
See for yourself the opinion of Lubos Motl.

http://motls.blogspot.sk/2015/02/has-bi ... roved.html
Thanks for the excellent link 1over137, the funny thing is I was visiting this blog aboit 6 weeks back . I heard this guy was a harvard physics professor at one time . Very sharp guy.
It seems like he has found many holes to drill into this crackpot theory, and the thing is he can't be accused of being a Christian or creationist because he is a 100% atheist . It seems from my just reading it now that this theory is so full of holes that it's hard to see it nit being attacked , but I see a motivation to push pantheism (hinduistic belief that God is nature)through the
Back door on this theory

I will post some of his major critiques of this theory and break it up into a few parts and let the people who are more knowledgable in physics address this but this physicist seems to believe that this is yet another media popularists crackpot theory that will die a quick death for many reasons .

Sorry, ladies and gentlemen, but a scientific revolution that would "confirm" elementary laymen's misconceptions about the contemporary science and that would simply return the picture of the world to the "previous iteration" has never occurred and most likely will never occur so the probability is virtually 100% that all these "paradigm shift" stories will always be just junk.

Just a week ago, the would-be science media were full of new stories claiming that the black holes don't exist which were inspired by a "gravity's rainbow" preprint by Ahmed Farag Ali and two co-authors. You may want to remember the Egyptian name I just mentioned. Why?

Because in recent 2 days, the news outlets have switched to a (not so) new fad: there has been no big bang!

It seems that most of the "science writers" have changed their job to the permanent promotion of low-quality and downright crackpot papers that are chosen not by their cleverness or according to the scientific evidence but by their "audacity to overthrow (and I really mean 'revert') all the paradigms of modern physics". As I was told later, Anthony Watts has become an inseparable component of this cesspool.

Almost on a daily basis, the readers are served wonderful stories about loons who have found something wrong with string theory or inflationary cosmology, nutcases who don't believe the Higgs boson, whackadoodles who have "disproved" the uncertainty principle or quantum mechanics or its fundamentally probabilistic character, nut jobs who have violated the rules of relativity and sent signals faster than light, and the persistent authors of a few other "widely expected paradigm shifts".

Part 2 coming