They aren't actually "trick" questions, you know.

[bigfield]

Similar to what Lion highlighted somewhere , I think (imo) the agreement among cosmologists would be more likley that there is no "precised" date of the age of the universe even though the aproximation is 13.8 billion years old.

n 2012, WMAP estimated the age of the universe to be 13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of 59 million years. In 2013, Planck measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years. Both of these fall within the lower limit of 11 billion years independently derived from the globular clusters, and both have smaller uncertainties than that number.

https://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion (109) years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.[1][2] The uncertainty has been narrowed down to 21 million years,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

13.799±0.021 billion years is pretty fucking precise. That's like measuring a person's height to the millimetre. What do you expect, Formula 1 lap time precision?

 

[Learner]

13.799±0.021 billion years is pretty fucking precise. That's like measuring a person's height to the millimetre. What do you expect, Formula 1 lap time precision?

I agree, its pretty remarkable. What I expected was , you saw the implications of age i.e. the universe has a suggested birthday.

 

[bigfield]

13.799±0.021 billion years is pretty fucking precise. That's like measuring a person's height to the millimetre. What do you expect, Formula 1 lap time precision?

I agree, its pretty remarkable. What I expected was , you saw the implications of age i.e. the universe has a suggested birthday.

You could call it that.

The "birth" of the universe implies a female creator. Time to revise the Bible?

 

[skepticalbip]

Similar to what Lion highlighted somewhere , I think (imo) the agreement among cosmologists would be more likley that there is no "precised" date of the age of the universe even though the aproximation is 13.8 billion years old.

n 2012, WMAP estimated the age of the universe to be 13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of 59 million years. In 2013, Planck measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years. Both of these fall within the lower limit of 11 billion years independently derived from the globular clusters, and both have smaller uncertainties than that number.

https://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion (109) years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.[1][2] The uncertainty has been narrowed down to 21 million years,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

What you are missing is the big, if the Guth inflationary model is correct. Scientists routinely take proposed models to their necessary end even if they think the model is nonsense. Pop sci mags, TV programmers, and newspapers then take what the conclusion would mean if the model is true and tout it as absolute certainty. The inflationary model has a lot of serious problems and no one has taken it as true, only as one of many interesting possibilities. That particular model was offered because of the problem of understanding how the universe could be so uniform assuming the Big Bang model is correct. It did offer a possibility of how but introduced several problems that are much more difficult to explain if the model is true.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What you are missing is the big, if the Guth inflationary model is correct. Scientists routinely take proposed models to their necessary end even if they think the model is nonsense. Pop sci mags, TV programmers, and newspapers then take what the conclusion would mean if the model is true and tout it as absolute certainty. The inflationary model has a lot of serious problems and no one has taken it as true, only as one of many interesting possibilities. That particular model was offered because of the problem of understanding how the universe could be so uniform assuming the Big Bang model is correct. It did offer a possibility of how but introduced several problems that are much more difficult to explain if the model is true.

It's probably just a quirky, pragmatic, non-academic incorrectness in the way I think.

Observing the universe or any part thereof obviously betrays the fact that uniformity and sameness is not what we see. Cosmologists were looking for a way to explain this non uniformity, this lumpiness, holding to the view that the universe should not be this way. That's what I've never really been able to appreciate and understand. I suppose people simply have their "perfect" hypothetical models and want to make their models more explanatory. I can certainly understand this part but sometimes have trouble appreciating why and how they can ever arrive at a model that is in direct contradiction of that they can actually measure and quantify.

The lesson I would have inferred is that lumpiness and non-uniformity, themselves quite subjective descriptions, was always there to begin with, only at a level we are not presently able to understand.

 

[skepticalbip]

The Universe is remarkably uniform which was and is a problem cosmologists find damned difficult to model. Measurements have shown that cosmologically large areas of the universe sampled anywhere in the universe is measured at 2.725 kelvin +/- 0.001 kelvin.

Guth's inflation idea does give a possible model for this but then the model creates several serious problems that each are probably even more difficult to solve than the uniformity problem that the model is intended to solve.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

13.799±0.021 billion years is pretty fucking precise. That's like measuring a person's height to the millimetre. What do you expect, Formula 1 lap time precision?

I agree, its pretty remarkable. What I expected was , you saw the implications of age i.e. the universe has a suggested birthday.

What I find even more empowering to how we think is to understand that the big bang is not an event that happened 13.799 billion years ago. In fact it is happening to this day. We are witnessing it and experiencing it every moment. We are it.

For those who may disagree I only ask them to tell me when it ever ended.

 

[bilby]

The Universe is remarkably uniform which was and is a problem cosmologists find damned difficult to model. Measurements have shown that cosmologically large areas of the universe sampled anywhere in the universe is measured at 2.725 kelvin +/- 0.001 kelvin.

Guth's inflation idea does give a possible model for this but then the model creates several serious problems that each are probably even more difficult to solve than the uniformity problem that the model is intended to solve.

And even if we accept that model, it gives us the 'time elapsed since the singularity', a time that we casually refer to as the 'age of the universe', but which doesn't imply that nothing existed before that epoch - only that we have no way to determine what (if anything) it was.

The idea that the universe began to exist is IMO highly suspect. If it actually did, then that's the ONLY instance of a breach of the first law of thermodynamics seriously hypothesised in the modern consensus.

To hypothesise a breach of 1LoT, which is one of vey few physical laws that appear to be applicable in ALL other circumstances, requires a great deal more evidentiary support than the bald assertion that it is axiomatic.

Literally NOTHING else has ever begun to exist; And yet the first premise of Kalam is supposed to simply be accepted without question. That's frankly fucking stupid, and renders the entire syllogism a moronic exercise in navel gazing.

 

[remez]

Although the premises may be accepted as true by believers, any nonbeliever should feel justified in pointing out that those premises are not knowns so the syllogism is fallacious.

You can feel justified, I have no problem with that. The problem comes in when you use your feelings as rational justification to determine the truth value of the premises. Neither your feelings regarding absolute certainty, nor my theism has anything to do with the truth value of the premises.

Thus once again you have not made the case that the Kalam is fallacious. In order to do that your reasoning must remain consistent and your absolute certainty there is not consistent. It also works against you.

You misstate. The 'feelings' were about the reason for countering the claim not feelings about the counter argument and explanation of why the premises were not knowns.

I got that. My comment still remains the same. Your feeling justified. See that is precisely the issue we have here. What can we count as knowledge? What is justified knowledge? Must all knowledge be absolute certain? Then carefully juxtapose that with the issue of truth along those same concerns.

I come from a reasonable position that knowledge is mostly justified belief not only absolute certainty.

By justified belief … in short…..I mean beyond reasonable doubt. It is truly the way reasonable people live and communicate in their everyday lives.

You jump around. You hold that my premises must be absolutely certain knowns and/or absolute truth. While then making knowledge statements not based on absolute certainty but inference and justified belief.

You allow yourself plausibility and inference but deny my position based upon absolute certainty. You are flat out being inconsistent with your reasoning. Your skepticism is only severe in my direction. Look back to your position and be consistent …………….

My position is that those premises are unknowns (which is in agreement with every cosmologist I know of) so from an analytical position they remain unknown.

That is not the agreement of every cosmologist by a long shot. You are NOT absolutely certain, you are INFERRING a plausible preposition of knowledge. A justified belief. You are not absolutely certain there but you assert that as a known.
And………………….

I completely disagree with your present belief because I think you are confused and need to be skeptical of that belief. I think you are confusing their search for a natural cause with the justified belief that there most plausibly was a beginning. Hawking and Krauss recently wrote books purposing their solutions to the beginning. Vilenkin asserts that we can’t avoid a cosmic beginning. Now none of them are suggesting that infers God’s existence but they certainly indicate that is reasonable to infer that the universe began to exist.

As to your issues with uniformity, yes there are issues. But that does not affect the inference of the beginning. The new model will still need to reflect an expanding universe, thus comply with the BGV. We don’t know all there is to know about gravity, but we can reasonably infer a lot with what we do know. Many refer to evolution as a law even with all its problems.

Here you go again……………

Kalam syllogism was presented as a logical argument but the premises of a logical argument must be knowns (not beliefs) for the conclusion to be logically true.

……that is not a known. Your “but the premises of a logical argument must be knowns” is nothing more than your implausible belief and wrong. You don’t know that for certain but you assert that is a known. Actually if the premises are more plausible than their alternatives then you are justified in believing them to be true. Until such time when you can show that an alternative is more plausible then premises are plausibly true. And what is the alternative to p2. The universe is eternal. Good luck with that, knowing what we know now.

We are back to you needing to prove (contrary to cosmologists' position) the premises are true, not (really, really firm beliefs).

Note that is an inference you believe to be true. Your problem is …..the really really firm beliefs are justified. Your alternative of absolute certainty only works in math. Thus your belief there is not justified by your own standards. Your logic must be consistent.

Otherwise the conclusion will have to be "the universe may have had a cause" or "I believe the universe had a cause.

Not quite. That statement there is the reason you find the argument uncompelling. Which is perfectly fine. But it does not alter the conclusion of the argument. An argument can be a sound, valid and in this case an air tight true deduction. But that does not mean you are forced to find it compelling. So you can assert that you find the argument uncompelling, but you have not made your case that it is an argument from ignorance. Your case for that is tortured logic.

 

[skepticalbip]

I got that. My comment still remains the same. Your feeling justified. See that is precisely the issue we have here. What can we count as knowledge? What is justified knowledge? Must all knowledge be absolute certain? Then carefully juxtapose that with the issue of truth along those same concerns.

I come from a reasonable position that knowledge is mostly justified belief not only absolute certainty.

By justified belief … in short…..I mean beyond reasonable doubt. It is truly the way reasonable people live and communicate in their everyday lives.

You jump around. You hold that my premises must be absolutely certain knowns and/or absolute truth. While then making knowledge statements not based on absolute certainty but inference and justified belief.

You allow yourself plausibility and inference but deny my position based upon absolute certainty. You are flat out being inconsistent with your reasoning. Your skepticism is only severe in my direction. Look back to your position and be consistent …………….

My position is that those premises are unknowns (which is in agreement with every cosmologist I know of) so from an analytical position they remain unknown.

That is not the agreement of every cosmologist by a long shot. You are NOT absolutely certain, you are INFERRING a plausible preposition of knowledge. A justified belief. You are not absolutely certain there but you assert that as a known.
And………………….

I have not claimed any knowledge or certainty. I have stated the exact opposite of that. "I don't know' and, as I clearly said, I don't know of any cosmologist who claims anything other than that they don't know either. If you can find any cosmologist who claims to know then I would really appreciate a link to how they describe how they came to that conclusion.

The very fact that there many mutually contradictory theories and that no cosmologist will declare any one of them as certain should make it obvious that the answer to the question is unknown.

I completely disagree with your present belief because I think you are confused and need to be skeptical of that belief. I think you are confusing their search for a natural cause with the justified belief that there most plausibly was a beginning. Hawking and Krauss recently wrote books purposing their solutions to the beginning. Vilenkin asserts that we can’t avoid a cosmic beginning. Now none of them are suggesting that infers God’s existence but they certainly indicate that is reasonable to infer that the universe began to exist.

You misunderstand how science is done, what these people say and why, and that a scientist writing pop. sci, books does not mean that what they write in those books is supportable, it is pop. sci..

I have read Krauss' pop. sci. book 'A universe from nothing' and a couple of Hawking's pop. sci. books. They were written to make some money because such books are popular and sell well. They were explanations to the lay community of specific theories, and there are lots of theories, not as endorsement of those theories. Interestingly I saw Krauss' book as a 'in your face' to religions because it presented a 'no god necessary' universe (he was and is on a crusade belittling religions). The book was not well received in the science community because it made several unsupportable assumptions about what 'nothing' is.

Some of the many theories, if they are valid, may indicate that there is reasonable cause to infer that the universe may have began to exist. Some of the many theories do not. The idea that some may can infer a beginning, however, is several levels of ifs, This is a definition of not known. Neither a universe with a beginning nor an eternal universe can be supported. Depending on which theory someone decides to select, a case that it could infer that whichever they happen to 'believe' could be made. But then, either way, inference is not support.

As to your issues with uniformity, yes there are issues. But that does not affect the inference of the beginning. The new model will still need to reflect an expanding universe, thus comply with the BGV. We don’t know all there is to know about gravity, but we can reasonably infer a lot with what we do know. Many refer to evolution as a law even with all its problems.

Here you go again……………

Kalam syllogism was presented as a logical argument but the premises of a logical argument must be knowns (not beliefs) for the conclusion to be logically true.

……that is not a known. Your “but the premises of a logical argument must be knowns” is nothing more than your implausible belief and wrong. You don’t know that for certain but you assert that is a known. Actually if the premises are more plausible than their alternatives then you are justified in believing them to be true. Until such time when you can show that an alternative is more plausible then premises are plausibly true. And what is the alternative to p2. The universe is eternal. Good luck with that, knowing what we know now.

We are back to you needing to prove (contrary to cosmologists' position) the premises are true, not (really, really firm beliefs).

Note that is an inference you believe to be true. Your problem is …..the really really firm beliefs are justified. Your alternative of absolute certainty only works in math. Thus your belief there is not justified by your own standards. Your logic must be consistent.

Otherwise the conclusion will have to be "the universe may have had a cause" or "I believe the universe had a cause.

Not quite. That statement there is the reason you find the argument uncompelling. Which is perfectly fine. But it does not alter the conclusion of the argument. An argument can be a sound, valid and in this case an air tight true deduction. But that does not mean you are forced to find it compelling. So you can assert that you find the argument uncompelling, but you have not made your case that it is an argument from ignorance. Your case for that is tortured logic.

We are going over the same ground which has already been covered. Again I have to conclude that we are talking past each other.

 

[Opoponax]

For those who may disagree I only ask them to tell me when it ever ended.

Last Thursday, around noon.

 

[remez]

It is very reasonable to believe the universe began to exist......................

I have not claimed any knowledge or certainty. I have stated the exact opposite of that. "I don't know' and, as I clearly said, I don't know of any cosmologist who claims anything other than that they don't know either. If you can find any cosmologist who claims to know then I would really appreciate a link to how they describe how they came to that conclusion.

Snipped ........

Some cosmologists have argued that a universe could have no beginning, but simply always was.
In 2003, Tufts cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin and his colleagues, Arvind Borde, now a senior professor of mathematics at Long Island University, and Alan Guth, a professor of physics at MIT, proved a mathematical theorem showing that, under very general assumptions, the universe must, in fact, have had a beginning.
Since that discovery, others in the field have countered with alternate theories describing other kinds of universes where the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, as it is called, would not apply. Vilenkin, a professor of physics and astronomy, and graduate student Audrey Mithani, G15, used mathematics to examine three potential logistical loopholes in the 2003 theorem, strengthening their original premise that the universe did, in fact, begin.

....from https://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning
the actual paper
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012.pdf

The very fact that there many mutually contradictory theories and that no cosmologist will declare any one of them as certain should make it obvious that the answer to the question is unknown.

Irrelevant to the issue of the beginning. They have models to suggest cause. One or two still believe in a flat earth, but it does not change the reasonableness of the beginning. The existence of flat earthers is poor evidence. Failure to speculate renders your skepticism irrational. It's a BIASED bury your head in the sand approach to avoid following the evidence where it leads.

You misunderstand how science is done, what these people say and why, and that a scientist writing pop. sci, books does not mean that what they write in those books is supportable, it is pop. sci..

I do understand science. And I do understand that your desperate attempt there to call them liars is weak.

I have read Krauss' pop. sci. book 'A universe from nothing' and a couple of Hawking's pop. sci. books. They were written to make some money because such books are popular and sell well. They were explanations to the lay community of specific theories, and there are lots of theories, not as endorsement of those theories. Interestingly I saw Krauss' book as a 'in your face' to religions because it presented a 'no god necessary' universe (he was and is on a crusade belittling religions). The book was not well received in the science community because it made several unsupportable assumptions about what 'nothing' is.

I completely agree with your assessment. His model of cause was ridiculous, but my point again was the "BEGINNING" was not in question. It was a given. Same point to Hawking's book.

Neither a universe with a beginning nor an eternal universe can be supported.

That is truly puzzling. If you were to make a bi-column chart separating what we have now into either supporting an eternal past or a finite past, Then the finite past would have the overwhelming support. Forget you models for a moment a just reason this which column would you place an expanding universe? redshift? BGV, GTR, predictive H/He abundance, 2nd Law of thermodynamics with regards to star formation, CBR, to name a few.

You are simply failing to speculate because you have your get out of reasonable card that flat earthers still exist. Thus "We can't know."

Seriously if you happened upon an obvious homicide with no witnesses. All the evidence pointing at homicide. You would protest that that no one knows it was a homicide for two reasons;

because nobody saw it
and
several investigators say the victim was shot in the back and then had his throat slit why others are theorizing not it was the over way around.

Therefore no homicide. The investigators are arguing for ignorance.

We are going over the same ground which has already been covered. Again I have to conclude that we are talking past each other.

I concur.
Have a great day.

 

[Rhea]

“under very general assumptions,”

Should not be glossed over...

 

[skepticalbip]

“under very general assumptions,”

Should not be glossed over...

Indeed. Beginning with assumptions can only lead to what could be if the assumptions are true. Could be and if does not lead to knowns.

 

[bigfield]

Remez demonstrated his misunderstanding of the BGV theorem in a previous thread.

Remez is parroting William Lane Craig's appeal to Vilenkin, and Sean Carroll's response is still apt:

"On my part, I knew that WLC liked to glide from the BGV theorem (which says that classical spacetime description fails in the past) to the stronger statement that the universe probably had a beginning, even though the latter is not implied by the former. And his favorite weapon is to use quotes from Alex Vilenkin, one of the authors of the BGV theorem. So I talked to Alan Guth, and he was gracious enough to agree to let me take pictures of him holding up signs with his perspective: namely, that the universe probably didn’t have a beginning, and is very likely eternal. Now, why would an author of the BGV theorem say such a thing? For exactly the reasons I was giving all along: the theorem says nothing definitive about the real universe, it is only a constraint on the classical regime. What matters are models, not theorems, and different scientists will quite naturally have different opinions about which types of models are most likely to prove fruitful once we understand things better. In Vilenkin’s opinion, the best models (in terms of being well-defined and accounting for the data) are ones with a beginning. In Guth’s opinion, the best models are ones that are eternal. And they are welcome to disagree, because we don’t know the answer! Not knowing the answer is perfectly fine. What’s not fine is pretending that we do know the answer, and using that pretend-knowledge to draw premature theological conclusions. (Chatter on Twitter reveals theists scrambling to find previous examples of Guth saying the universe probably had a beginning. As far as I can tell Alan was there talking about inflation beginning, not the universe, which is completely different. But it doesn’t matter; good scientists, it turns out, will actually change their minds in response to thinking about things.)

"...[WLC] will continue to quote Vilenkin saying the universe probably had a beginning, which is fine because that’s what Vilenkin actually thinks. He will not start adding in the fact that Guth thinks the universe is probably eternal, nor will he take the even more respectable position of not relying on people’s individual opinions at all and simply admitting that we don’t have good scientific reasons to think one way or the other at the moment.)"

 

[GenesisNemesis]

simply admitting that we don’t have good scientific reasons to think one way or the other at the moment.)"

This concept is too complicated for Christian zealots to understand.

 

[remez]

“under very general assumptions,”

Should not be glossed over...

Indeed. Beginning with assumptions can only lead to what could be if the assumptions are true. Could be and if does not lead to knowns.

Neither of you understand the science here. To Both of you..........Tell me what that phrase meant in the context of the paper. What was the general assumption? Why would you consider that a problem?

 

[remez]

Remez demonstrated his misunderstanding of the BGV theorem in a previous thread.

Remez is parroting William Lane Craig's appeal to Vilenkin, and Sean Carroll's response is still apt:

"On my part, I knew that WLC liked to glide from the BGV theorem (which says that classical spacetime description fails in the past) to the stronger statement that the universe probably had a beginning, even though the latter is not implied by the former. And his favorite weapon is to use quotes from Alex Vilenkin, one of the authors of the BGV theorem. So I talked to Alan Guth, and he was gracious enough to agree to let me take pictures of him holding up signs with his perspective: namely, that the universe probably didn’t have a beginning, and is very likely eternal. Now, why would an author of the BGV theorem say such a thing? For exactly the reasons I was giving all along: the theorem says nothing definitive about the real universe, it is only a constraint on the classical regime. What matters are models, not theorems, and different scientists will quite naturally have different opinions about which types of models are most likely to prove fruitful once we understand things better. In Vilenkin’s opinion, the best models (in terms of being well-defined and accounting for the data) are ones with a beginning. In Guth’s opinion, the best models are ones that are eternal. And they are welcome to disagree, because we don’t know the answer! Not knowing the answer is perfectly fine. What’s not fine is pretending that we do know the answer, and using that pretend-knowledge to draw premature theological conclusions. (Chatter on Twitter reveals theists scrambling to find previous examples of Guth saying the universe probably had a beginning. As far as I can tell Alan was there talking about inflation beginning, not the universe, which is completely different. But it doesn’t matter; good scientists, it turns out, will actually change their minds in response to thinking about things.)

"...[WLC] will continue to quote Vilenkin saying the universe probably had a beginning, which is fine because that’s what Vilenkin actually thinks. He will not start adding in the fact that Guth thinks the universe is probably eternal, nor will he take the even more respectable position of not relying on people’s individual opinions at all and simply admitting that we don’t have good scientific reasons to think one way or the other at the moment.)"

Keep dreaming......
You were the one that repeatedly misunderstood the BGV. ...... I had a blast with that.
You were the one that walked away.......

You just requoted post 152. I crushed that in post 153 and you left it right there. Post after post prior to that, you kept making the same mistakes....Starting way back at 71. Re read Post 121. And it seems, unbelievably so, that You are still making the same unsupported conclusions based on your own misunderstandings. I had a blast because you kept supplying evidence that supported my position and you did not see it.

I even pointed you (in post 153) to a science video (@min 13) that made it perfectly clear why SC was wrong. His Guth reference was completely middle school also redressed in post 153 as well. All this I pointed out to you last time. You really don't understand the theorem at all. You are playing semantics instead and getting that wrong as well because you can't match your semantics to the science. Go reread post 121 and watch the video.

I challenge anyone here referencing bigfield's assertions to decide for yourself follow his link back. I even told him where in the video he would find his mistakes.

 

[skepticalbip]

“under very general assumptions,”

Should not be glossed over...

Indeed. Beginning with assumptions can only lead to what could be if the assumptions are true. Could be and if does not lead to knowns.

Neither of you understand the science here. To Both of you..........Tell me what that phrase meant in the context of the paper. What was the general assumption? Why would you consider that a problem?

No, as I said much earlier, you seem to have real difficulty distinguishing beliefs from knowns. Nothing is wrong with either but they are not interchangeable. There are many mutually exclusive theories. Your choosing of one that you think better supports your belief does not mean that theory is true. Someone who chooses a different theory that they think better supports their belief but contradicts the one you like does not mean that theory is true either.

Beliefs are useful in philosophical arguments. Knowns are useful in scientific investigation.

 

[remez]

Neither of you understand the science here. To Both of you..........Tell me what that phrase meant in the context of the paper. What was the general assumption? Why would you consider that a problem?

No, as I said much earlier, you seem to have real difficulty distinguishing beliefs from knowns. Nothing is wrong with either but they are not interchangeable. There are many mutually exclusive theories. Your choosing of one that you think better supports your belief does not mean that theory is true. Someone who chooses a different theory that they think better supports their belief but contradicts the one you like does not mean that theory is true either.

Beliefs are useful in philosophical arguments. Knowns are useful in scientific investigation.

Did you lose track? We aren't talking SBBM here. This is the singularity theorem.
so.............
Are you denying the BGV?