Yet *Another* Beginningless-Universe Model . . .

[bippy123]

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!





I have written a couple of pedagogic blog posts explaining why it is physically right to say that the Universe began with a singularity even if quantum gravity is taken into account. But if you really want to talk about the pure textbook stuff, Ethan Siegel reminds you about the two meanings of the words "big bang", why the big bang did occur, after all, and what's the evidence that it did.





But I want to write a few words about the weird four-page paper – recently accepted to PLB – that has inspired this "big bang is dead" avalanche of delusions in the media. The preprint
Cosmology from quantum potential
was written by Ahmed Farag Ali (Egypt) and Saurya Das (Canada). The first question that a TRF reader may be asking now is: Haven't I already seen the name of Ahmed Farag Ali somewhere? The second thing that a laymen may want to notice is that this paper has, after 10 months, just one non-selfie citation. That's not too many, you know. Papers that are really transforming physics may get close to 10,000 citations, like Maldacena's AdS/CFT.

The third thing that attentive readers won't overlook is that the preprint isn't really "all about disproving the big bang theory". You will have a hard time to see that "the big bang is no longer the case" is a natural title by which the inkspillers may summarize the preprint.

The fourth aspect of the paper is that it will remind the Czech readers of the "puppy and kitty are baking a cake" fairy-tale by Josef Čapek, a Czech writer and painter (see the picture at the top and more images). You know, when these two animals (who speak Czech) were baking the cake, to celebrate the puppy's name day, they added all the ingredients they liked: sugar, salt, jam, a stinky ripened soft cheese from Olomouc, peanuts, cucumbers, bones, four mice, onions, chocolate, a sauce, garlic, lard, a pot of sour cream, pepper, sweeties, cottage cheese, gingerbread, vinegar, cinnamon, one goose head, and raisins, among other things. They didn't throw any bread to their wonderful cake because kittens and puppies don't like bread too much.

When they were finished with this yummy cake, a big evil dog arrived and devoured it. Good for the kitty and the puppy because you may imagine how the dog was feeling when he ate it. Incidentally, I think that there exist deep cultural differences between the nations and children in other nations, perhaps including the U.S., are being taught that this kind of a cake is exactly what you should be baking and doing with your life!

[bippy123]

At any rate, the preprint is analogous to the cake. Even though it is just four pages long, they have added quite some unusual ingredients:
the bold idea that the usual picture of dark matter could be wrong
their belief that dark energy, as usually described, is almost certainly wrong
deformation of the geodesics into "Bohmian trajectories", an idea that Das learned from his teacher Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri 60 years ago
the proposal that the graviton is effectively massive, with a tiny mass of 10−41GeV, so that the curvature due to the cosmological constant may be attributed to the mass instead
the Bose-Einstein condensate of gravitons which isn't the trivial thing you would expect
a wrong conceptual idea that the singularities are the main enemy that has to be fought against: this is a part of the broader loop-quantum-gravity-like culture and Das has co-written papers with Abhay Ashtekar and similar authors
and many others. That's quite a cake. I need to emphasize that most of these ideas completely and conceptually disagree with the state-of-the-art physical theories used to describe the Universe; according to what we seem to know, these ideas are wrong. And they disagree in many respects; there seem to several independent radical "paradigm shifts" in the paper, if I spin their multi-dimensional crackpottery in a positive way.

I think it's unlikely – the probability is below 1% – that any of these "truly radical" changes of the paradigm may be right. But it seems virtually impossible that their combination – the "cake baked by the kitty and the puppy" – is the right way to rewrite cosmology. So many things seem so arbitrary and the ease with which they ignore what is actually known (what has been discovered after decades of work to agree with millions of observations) is blinding and suggests that they're as bad physicists – people with incredibly low standards – as the kitty and the puppy as cooks. They simply write random sentence and throw assorted half-baked weird ideas into the mix because they may ask themselves: Why not?

Your humble correspondent will spend some extra time with the ideas above, anyway. But the way how this weird paper was presented in the would-be science media was atrocious, indeed. However, we have gotten used to such things so I am no longer shocked. For the "science writers", this is an example of the business-as-usual, indeed.

It seems like some people here got a little too excited over a media pumped pseudo scientific theory

[bippy123]

Guys it seems like so many here got so worked up without asking a basic simple question , is this media hype or a real theory ? It seems to me like some physicists believe that this theory ignores everything we know about the universe .

This theory seems deeply seeped into a hinduistic form of pantheism which Rick correctly posted that this theory would tell us that God is the universe itself , and I believe that it seems like the motivation behind it.

I have seen so many of these desperate reaches in the media that it seems almost passé for me these days .

Ho hummm another day another loony theory pushed as scientific fact

[Silvertusk]

Thanks bippy. You are probably right.

[Kurieuo]

@Bippy, I'd expect it to be found that the universe has a beginning. Never doubted it.
But, whether this was rightly/wrongly used, Jac is certainly right to highlight higher level arguments.
Where I think he fails, is in leaping off too quickly arguments derived upon knowledge of our world.

@Jac, I wouldn't so readily be willing to detach from the physical world, and depend upon higher level philosophical arguments (e.g., Aquinas).
If anything, consider the Kalam good insulation before we need to depend upon more arguments that people don't as readily understand (just look at the silence after Byblos presented such an argument in that thread ).

Further, as Christians, we ought to expect more than just evidence for God.
Belief in God isn't what is necessary. Because, while I have had belief in God, at times in life I've questioned His goodness, relatively speaking.
That is, if I don't feel God is for us -- for me -- then God is against me, even if it is because I am evil and He is good.
He thought it good to create life and humanity, and I at times question that. So belief in God isn't enough -- not for me.
Christ however, and His coming into the world, brings light into the picture.

As Christians we ought to expect the universe to be created.
If it were found to be not created, while it doesn't cast a shadow on God's existence, it does Christ as the Creator.
Such that, who is Christ? Certainly not the one believed of by the Apostles as recorded in John 1.

People, Atheists, say that people will cling to their faith regardless.
I disagree. Such presume belief in God, and even Christ, isn't based upon rationality or evident truths because they are blinded to them.
SO, if it were shown that the universe were eternal, then this would pose great difficulty, not just theologically but Christologically.
One would need to either ignore the evidence, or give up their belief in Christ as Creator of every thing.
We could not trust Scripture for spiritual truths.

And so, we ought to expect if we have the truth, that evidence would swing in favour of the universe having a beginning.
Which it does, and this is something relatively recent to the 20th century.

If one is to love God with all their mind, as Scripture tells, than such is a requirement.
The good thing though, as I see it, is that truth is on our side so it makes me question why some have little faith that the natural world will display this.
If our beliefs are wrong, then they are wrong. But, because they are right, I expect the natural world to support them.
And this includes the universe having a beginning thanks due to Christ, and not just simply God.

My belief in Christ is not just based upon my heart, but also mind.
Christ says not only that He is the Way, but also the Truth and Life.
If anyone one of those is wrong, then so too is the resurrection promised to us in Christ.
Then as Paul says, we are to be most pitied for our hope in Christ. (1 Cor 15:17-19)

[bippy123]

Thanks bippy. You are probably right.

Welcome Silver
And Christ predicted times like these where we and our faith will come under attack as well.

[bippy123]

@Bippy, I'd expect it to be found that the universe has a beginning. Never doubted it.
But, whether this was rightly/wrongly used, Jac is certainly right to highlight higher level arguments.
Where I think he fails, is in leaping off too quickly arguments derived upon knowledge of our world.

@Jac, I wouldn't so readily be willing to detach from the physical world, and depend upon higher level philosophical arguments (e.g., Aquinas).
If anything, consider the Kalam good insulation before we need to depend upon more arguments that people don't as readily understand (just look at the silence after Byblos presented such an argument in that thread ).

Further, as Christians, we ought to expect more than just evidence for God.
Belief in God isn't what is necessary. Because, while I have had belief in God, at times in life I've questioned His goodness, relatively speaking.
That is, if I don't feel God is for us -- for me -- then God is against me, even if it is because I am evil and He is good.
He thought it good to create life and humanity, and I at times question that. So belief in God isn't enough -- not for me.
Christ however, and His coming into the world, brings light into the picture.

As Christians we ought to expect the universe to be created.
If it were found to be not created, while it doesn't cast a shadow on God's existence, it does Christ as the Creator.
Such that, who is Christ? Certainly not the one believed of by the Apostles as recorded in John 1.

People, Atheists, say that people will cling to their faith regardless.
I disagree. Such presume belief in God, and even Christ, isn't based upon rationality or evident truths because they are blinded to them.
SO, if it were shown that the universe were eternal, then this would pose great difficulty, not just theologically but Christologically.
One would need to either ignore the evidence, or give up their belief in Christ as Creator of every thing.
We could not trust Scripture for spiritual truths.

And so, we ought to expect if we have the truth, that evidence would swing in favour of the universe having a beginning.
Which it does, and this is something relatively recent to the 20th century.

If one is to love God with all their mind, as Scripture tells, than such is a requirement.
The good thing though, as I see it, is that truth is on our side so it makes me question why some have little faith that the natural world will display this.
If our beliefs are wrong, then they are wrong. But, because they are right, I expect the natural world to support them.
And this includes the universe having a beginning thanks due to Christ, and not just simply God.

My belief in Christ is not just based upon my heart, but also mind.
Christ says not only that He is the Way, but also the Truth and Life.
If anyone one of those is wrong, then so too is the resurrection promised to us in Christ.
Then as Paul says, we are to be most pitied for our hope in Christ. (1 Cor 15:17-19)

Yes Kureo , you have some great points but you also have to remember that we live in a paradigm of methodological naturalism which is very hostile to God and faith so these people will try to throw everything at us but the kitchen sink to dislodge us from our faith which also means shutting out or marginalizing any evidence for God while putting out any evidence that would appear to be against God.

The recent aware study was one example of this ,me specially the case where for the first time a patient was midi ally timed as having a veridical nde with no brain function , and I still remember a video conference where 2 other doctors were alongside patnia and one of them was a materialist and he was asked how he would explain conscious awareness without a functioning brain and his response was ""I can't but I can't help but feel that we will one day find a naturalistic/materialistic explanation for it.

The point I'm makimg is that the current paradigm in science is very hostile towards God and will try to interpret any evidence as being against God. This wasn't as much atheistic leaning then it was leaning towards pantheism as one if the authors is most likely a hindu , some of whome believe in the concept of own ultimate God but that he is the u I verse itself .
Notice that this paper did nothing to try to debunk intelligent design or specified complex information because to do so would mean to attack pantheism as well.

[Kurieuo]

@Bippy, I'd expect it to be found that the universe has a beginning. Never doubted it.
But, whether this was rightly/wrongly used, Jac is certainly right to highlight higher level arguments.
Where I think he fails, is in leaping off too quickly arguments derived upon knowledge of our world.

@Jac, I wouldn't so readily be willing to detach from the physical world, and depend upon higher level philosophical arguments (e.g., Aquinas).
If anything, consider the Kalam good insulation before we need to depend upon more arguments that people don't as readily understand (just look at the silence after Byblos presented such an argument in that thread ).

Further, as Christians, we ought to expect more than just evidence for God.
Belief in God isn't what is necessary. Because, while I have had belief in God, at times in life I've questioned His goodness, relatively speaking.
That is, if I don't feel God is for us -- for me -- then God is against me, even if it is because I am evil and He is good.
He thought it good to create life and humanity, and I at times question that. So belief in God isn't enough -- not for me.
Christ however, and His coming into the world, brings light into the picture.

As Christians we ought to expect the universe to be created.
If it were found to be not created, while it doesn't cast a shadow on God's existence, it does Christ as the Creator.
Such that, who is Christ? Certainly not the one believed of by the Apostles as recorded in John 1.

People, Atheists, say that people will cling to their faith regardless.
I disagree. Such presume belief in God, and even Christ, isn't based upon rationality or evident truths because they are blinded to them.
SO, if it were shown that the universe were eternal, then this would pose great difficulty, not just theologically but Christologically.
One would need to either ignore the evidence, or give up their belief in Christ as Creator of every thing.
We could not trust Scripture for spiritual truths.

And so, we ought to expect if we have the truth, that evidence would swing in favour of the universe having a beginning.
Which it does, and this is something relatively recent to the 20th century.

If one is to love God with all their mind, as Scripture tells, than such is a requirement.
The good thing though, as I see it, is that truth is on our side so it makes me question why some have little faith that the natural world will display this.
If our beliefs are wrong, then they are wrong. But, because they are right, I expect the natural world to support them.
And this includes the universe having a beginning thanks due to Christ, and not just simply God.

My belief in Christ is not just based upon my heart, but also mind.
Christ says not only that He is the Way, but also the Truth and Life.
If anyone one of those is wrong, then so too is the resurrection promised to us in Christ.
Then as Paul says, we are to be most pitied for our hope in Christ. (1 Cor 15:17-19)

Yes Kureo , you have some great points but you also have to remember that we live in a paradigm of methodological naturalism which is very hostile to God and faith so these people will try to throw everything at us but the kitchen sink to dislodge us from our faith which also means shutting out or marginalizing any evidence for God while putting out any evidence that would appear to be against God.

No doubt. Which is why we are to be shrewd -- being sharp in judgement -- and yet innocent as doves. (Matt 10:16)
So I'm not just going to swallow one study, throw my hands up and say God doesn't exist and Christianity is wrong.
Naturalism, while a powerful philosophy of our day, doesn't mean we can't see through such when interpreting what we see and experience in our world.

As an aside, do not lose sight of the true enemy (Ephesians 6:12). It isn't really Atheists, or even those who believe in a philosophical Naturalism.
We should do our best to help those who cannot see, right? I know you know... but it is quite easy to see those so willing to cloud what we know to be true as the enemy. (as arrogant as that must sound to one who equally believes we're wrong )

[bippy123]

@Bippy, I'd expect it to be found that the universe has a beginning. Never doubted it.
But, whether this was rightly/wrongly used, Jac is certainly right to highlight higher level arguments.
Where I think he fails, is in leaping off too quickly arguments derived upon knowledge of our world.

@Jac, I wouldn't so readily be willing to detach from the physical world, and depend upon higher level philosophical arguments (e.g., Aquinas).
If anything, consider the Kalam good insulation before we need to depend upon more arguments that people don't as readily understand (just look at the silence after Byblos presented such an argument in that thread ).

Further, as Christians, we ought to expect more than just evidence for God.
Belief in God isn't what is necessary. Because, while I have had belief in God, at times in life I've questioned His goodness, relatively speaking.
That is, if I don't feel God is for us -- for me -- then God is against me, even if it is because I am evil and He is good.
He thought it good to create life and humanity, and I at times question that. So belief in God isn't enough -- not for me.
Christ however, and His coming into the world, brings light into the picture.

As Christians we ought to expect the universe to be created.
If it were found to be not created, while it doesn't cast a shadow on God's existence, it does Christ as the Creator.
Such that, who is Christ? Certainly not the one believed of by the Apostles as recorded in John 1.

People, Atheists, say that people will cling to their faith regardless.
I disagree. Such presume belief in God, and even Christ, isn't based upon rationality or evident truths because they are blinded to them.
SO, if it were shown that the universe were eternal, then this would pose great difficulty, not just theologically but Christologically.
One would need to either ignore the evidence, or give up their belief in Christ as Creator of every thing.
We could not trust Scripture for spiritual truths.

And so, we ought to expect if we have the truth, that evidence would swing in favour of the universe having a beginning.
Which it does, and this is something relatively recent to the 20th century.

If one is to love God with all their mind, as Scripture tells, than such is a requirement.
The good thing though, as I see it, is that truth is on our side so it makes me question why some have little faith that the natural world will display this.
If our beliefs are wrong, then they are wrong. But, because they are right, I expect the natural world to support them.
And this includes the universe having a beginning thanks due to Christ, and not just simply God.

My belief in Christ is not just based upon my heart, but also mind.
Christ says not only that He is the Way, but also the Truth and Life.
If anyone one of those is wrong, then so too is the resurrection promised to us in Christ.
Then as Paul says, we are to be most pitied for our hope in Christ. (1 Cor 15:17-19)

Yes Kureo , you have some great points but you also have to remember that we live in a paradigm of methodological naturalism which is very hostile to God and faith so these people will try to throw everything at us but the kitchen sink to dislodge us from our faith which also means shutting out or marginalizing any evidence for God while putting out any evidence that would appear to be against God.

No doubt. Which is why we are to be shrewd -- being sharp in judgement -- and yet innocent as doves. (Matt 10:16)
So I'm not just going to swallow one study, throw my hands up and say God doesn't exist and Christianity is wrong.
Naturalism, while a powerful philosophy of our day, doesn't mean we can't see through such when interpreting what we see and experience in our world.

As an aside, do not lose sight of the true enemy (Ephesians 6:12). It isn't really Atheists, or even those who believe in a philosophical Naturalism.
We should do our best to help those who cannot see, right? I know you know... but it is quite easy to see those so willing to cloud what we know to be true as the enemy. (as arrogant as that must sound to one who equally believes we're wrong )

Very valid point Kureo, I guess sometimes in the heat of the moment I tend to forget who is actually trying to pull their strings . He sure is a tricky one that Satan isn't he .

[PaulSacramento]

RickD wrote:
How can something physical be eternal? Unless you're suggesting pantheism(which I know you're not), I just can't see it.

PaulS wrote:
The universe is all the exists, according to some, so if God exists He must be somehow part of/related to the universe and He is BUT not as part of but as SUSTAIN-ER of.

According to some? Paul, you and I both know that God exists, or is existence. So again, unless you're saying God and the universe are one(Pantheism), that argument doesn't work.

PaulS wrote:
Whichever definition you may prefer, the point is that if you define the universe as the above then even if the universe is eternal, that has no baring on God because the only thing they would share is the nature ofbeing eternal.
God is still the sustainer and, as we know, since the universe is changing (expanding) then it can't be the unmoved mover, which is God.

If something shares something else's "nature" don't they have to be the same? Which gets back to Pantheism.
And again, as I mentioned to Jac, if something is changing(the universe) can it be eternal? God is unchanging and eternal. The universe shares that eternal nature with God, but it's changing? Doesn't sound like the same nature to me.

My point is twofold:
1) its a definition game, how does one define the universe?
2) God sustaining the universe is NOT patheism.

God is the source of the universe and since we don't know when or if God created the universe and IF the universe is all that is, has been and every will be, then the Universe may will be eternal from our POV.

I don't think it is of course and it seems clear via multiple lines of evidence that the universe AS WE KNOW IT had a beginning BUT even if it didn't, that doesn't effect the argument for the existence of God.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
The universe is all the exists, according to some, so if God exists He must be somehow part of/related to the universe and He is BUT not as part of but as SUSTAIN-ER of.

RickD wrote:
According to some? Paul, you and I both know that God exists, or is existence. So again, unless you're saying God and the universe are one(Pantheism), that argument doesn't work.

PaulS wrote:
2) God sustaining the universe is NOT patheism.

I agree. You made more than one statement in your quote above. Statements that are different. I was referring to the underlined. Saying God must be somehow part of/ related to the universe, looks like Pantheism.
And God being sustainer of the universe doesn't mean He's part of it.

PaulS wrote:
1) its a definition game, how does one define the universe?

I would go with this:

All space-time, matter, and energy, including the solar system, all stars and galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

[Jac3510]

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.

Sure, so the most a beginningless universe would do was rob us of a specific argument for God's existence. That doesn't say anything about whether God does or doesn't exist, though. Even a beginningless universe is still contingent and requires a Prime Mover, First Efficient Cause, and a Final Cause. And as you note, there still seems to be the fine tuning issues and other standard arguments. I am just totally lost why Rick or others might think a beginningless universe would count against Theism. Certainly a true beginning is suggestive of God. And I think there is a true beginning (how many times have I said that now?!? ). But plenty of people who read stupid popular science publications are just going to insist that there isn't a true beginning after all. I'd rather not base my faith on such a debatable concept.

You also said later that we ought not get away from KCA styled arguments too quickly. And I agree. I said early on those arguments ought to be used. They just ought to be used in a secondary fashion. I also linked to a paper I wrote titled "Grounding the Kalam" in which I suggested that we ought to use the KCA frequently so long as we restate it this way:

1. That which comes into existence must have a cause
2. The universe probably came into existence
3. Therefore, the universe probably has a cause

I think this is a STRONGER argument than the traditional statement. Because here, we can defend (2) as the argument is intended to be defended: with modern science. And then, if someone (like these authors) want to argue that the universe does NOT have a true beginning, we can ask them for TWO bits: 1. what is their evidence for their claim that contradicts all known and experimentally confirmed models?; and 2. what is their warrant/motivation for rejecting the scientific data as we have it now? Of course, the answer to (1) is "nothing." Just, "Well, it might be this way!" Which highlights the second piece: the warrant is a desire to be rid of a true beginning with its concomitant implications. So, in fact, atheists who object to the KCA as I've stated it are actually begging the question.

[RickD]

Jac wrote:
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

Actually, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not asserting, but just trying to understand how something physical, or something which is made up of physical things, such as the universe, could be without beginning. The focus is on physical things.

to your argument above;

I wouldn't say #1, because I don't think physical things are without beginning.

I wouldn't argue #2, because I believe the universe had a beginning.

So obviously, #3 doesn't follow.

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?

As I said above, I'm not making an argument. I'm just questioning.

Jac wrote:
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?

I conceded that something like the number 3 can be beginningless. I'm not conceding all non-physical "things" can be beginningless. For example, Angels, the human mind/soul/spirit, I would not say are beginningless. I conceded the number three, because I just don't think it "exists" the same way angels, and the human mind/soul/spirit exist. The number 3, as far as I know, is a concept.

Jac wrote:

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.

I said something physical, or something made up of physical things. The universe is made up of physical things.
I could be wrong, but as I see the universe, it is everything physical that exists. I don't want to go off too much, but I will just say that there are things that exist, that I don't think are part of the universe. Again, angels, the human spirit, and of course, God. So, I'm just questioning if anything physical, or anything made up of physical things, can be beginningless.

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.

You just lost me.

The only thing I got out of that, was this:

So even if the universe is beginningless, that does not mean that any given thing in it is beginningless.

I guess I would say that the universe is composed of physical things. So if those things in the universe had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning.

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.

I don't think I would assert that. It makes my head spin just thinking about it.

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.

And I guess I just have trouble believing that anything physical, or anything made up of physical things, can be without a beginning. To me, that would mean whatever always existed, had to be part of God, or God's nature, however you want to word it. Which would lead to pantheism being true.

I hope I didn't make this more confusing.

[Jac3510]

Rick, I'm primary building off what you said way back on p 1 or 2:

Unless I'm missing something, I cannot see how an eternal universe would not be a MAJOR problem for the existence of God. Doesn't it go against what we believe about only God being eternal?

That IS the argument I put in syllogistic form that you just now rejected. IF the universe doesn't have a beginning, God doesn't exist. That's your premise there. Of course you believe that the universe DID have a beginning, but the rest of the argument becomes, "the universe has no beginning, therefore, no God." You get away from the conclusion by denying the premise that the universe didn't have a beginning--or by insisting that the universe does have one. I'm saying that you are going about this all wrong. The problem isn't whether the universe had a beginning or not. It's that it just is not true that a beginningless universe is a problem for theism.

I'm going to try to stop explaining this, because, frankly, until you give me a reason to think that a beginningless universe IS a problem for theism, I've got nothing to respond to. It's clear you think it is. I'm asking you. WHY? Why do you think a beginningless universe poses a problem for theism?

[RickD]

Rick, I'm primary building off what you said way back on p 1 or 2:

Unless I'm missing something, I cannot see how an eternal universe would not be a MAJOR problem for the existence of God. Doesn't it go against what we believe about only God being eternal?

That IS the argument I put in syllogistic form that you just now rejected. IF the universe doesn't have a beginning, God doesn't exist. That's your premise there. Of course you believe that the universe DID have a beginning, but the rest of the argument becomes, "the universe has no beginning, therefore, no God." You get away from the conclusion by denying the premise that the universe didn't have a beginning--or by insisting that the universe does have one. I'm saying that you are going about this all wrong. The problem isn't whether the universe had a beginning or not. It's that it just is not true that a beginningless universe is a problem for theism.

I'm going to try to stop explaining this, because, frankly, until you give me a reason to think that a beginningless universe IS a problem for theism, I've got nothing to respond to. It's clear you think it is. I'm asking you. WHY? Why do you think a beginningless universe poses a problem for theism?

Ok, I see what you're saying. I was hoping I wouldn't make it more confusing, but I did. I apologize.

So I looked back to page 1, to see what lead me to say that. And this is what I said before:

I don't know if it's just me, but that doesn't make any sense. If something could exist eternally(without beginning or end), then it wouldn't be created, right?

I'm basically trying to figure out how something(the universe) which is made up of physical things, could be eternal/without beginning. As I understand God, His existence, nature, however you want to word it, God and only God is without beginning. And literally everything which is not God, was created. Everything in the universe is physically existing, so it needs to be contingent on something else, right?

How can anything physical be without a beginning? Do you see what I'm asking?

Basically, I don't/cannot understand how something besides God, can be without beginning/eternal.

Genesis 1:1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In the beginning of creation, God created the universe.

Or, the universe had no beginning, and God as we believe Him to be, doesn't exist. But don't fret, we've got pantheism.

This is what I see.

The only other possibility that I could see(if the universe is eternal), would be that the universe is part of God, but it wasn't made up of physical things at some point.