The universe is proof of god!

[Random Person]

Well, I did read Krauss's book, and I agree fully with his defense of it--that he didn't mean literally "nothing" in the sense that both of these critics took him to mean. That was actually pretty clear from reading the book, and I don't know how you missed it. It was written for a popular audience, not an audience of philosophers or physicists. The point is that there is no such thing as a perfect "vacuum". What we take to be "nothing" really isn't. Krauss's problem is that he likes to play around with words, and he can get a little snarky. Horgan, in particular, should have known better than to go after him for being a "poor philosopher", when Horgan himself is little better. I think that it goes without saying that Krauss is a poor philosopher, but so are a lot of scientists. There have been a number of popular books written with pretty much the same content as this one, but Krauss is an outspoken atheist. So he used the book to explain some elementary modern cosmology, but he also mixed in his thoughts about why the "gap" that the modern God rules over has shrunk down to the point where it is essentially too small to keep trying to cram him into that space.

Yes. He didn't mean literally nothing, but he also didn't mean literally something either. That's the equivocation people are referring to.

He's allowed his rabid disbelief in God to take hold if his senses.

Rabid disbelief? I can very well understand why someone well versed in modern physics doesnt accept the physically impossible concept ”god”.

I don't know of anyone that claims that God is physically possible. Krauss wanted to prove that God doesn't exist, which is outside the range of what physics can determine.

So ya', rabid disbelief.

 

[skepticalbip]

The observable universe is currently expanding. My position - that we do not and cannot know whether something has existed eternally, or whether something began to exist from nothing - is absolutely not a rejection of science. The scientific consensus is that we do not and cannot know what occurred before the Planck Epoch; Many people have conjectured that the physical universe began shortly before that point, but that remains purely conjecture.

Note also that my position is not with regard to the observable universe; it is in regard to everything (including anything we cannot currently observe, but which does exist, if there is anything that fits that description).

It's worth reiterating that whatever the answer is to the question 'was there always something, or did something start to exist from nothing', hypothesising a god or gods doesn't help to address the question in any way.

There's no evidence for an eternal universe and there is some for a universe that had a beginning.

This is another baseless assertion.

That is one hell of an assertion. Would you care to cite the evidence for the universe having a beginning? This looks like nothing more than blind faith being asserted as fact. Physicists that support a eternal universe do so because of the physical principle of conservation of energy - a well supported principle (i.e. evidence). Krauss got around it by showing that the total energy of the universe is zero. But then you think Krauss is an idiot.

However, my response was to your, "There is no support for an eternal universe by physicists. If you want to reject science and just make things up, that's your prerogative.". This is another assertion based on belief, not fact.

If the universe was eternal, then this moment would never exist. An infinite number of moments would still be unfolding prior to now.

That is gibberish.

 

[Random Person]

That is one hell of an assertion. Would you care to cite the evidence for the universe having a beginning? This looks like nothing more than blind faith being asserted as fact. Physicists that support a eternal universe do so because of the physical principle of conservation of energy - a well supported principle (i.e. evidence). Krauss got around it by showing that the total energy of the universe is zero. But then you think Krauss is an idiot.

However, my response was to your, "There is no support for an eternal universe by physicists. If you want to reject science and just make things up, that's your prerogative.". This is another assertion based on belief, not fact.

If the universe was eternal, then this moment would never exist. An infinite number of moments would still be unfolding prior to now.

That is gibberish.

On an infinite time line into the past, where would you place now?

 

[skepticalbip]

That is one hell of an assertion. Would you care to cite the evidence for the universe having a beginning? This looks like nothing more than blind faith being asserted as fact. Physicists that support a eternal universe do so because of the physical principle of conservation of energy - a well supported principle (i.e. evidence). Krauss got around it by showing that the total energy of the universe is zero. But then you think Krauss is an idiot.

However, my response was to your, "There is no support for an eternal universe by physicists. If you want to reject science and just make things up, that's your prerogative.". This is another assertion based on belief, not fact.

If the universe was eternal, then this moment would never exist. An infinite number of moments would still be unfolding prior to now.

That is gibberish.

On an infinite time line into the past, where would you place now?

That is a silly question, the answer should be obvious. I would place now at now.

But I and the world's cosmologists are still waiting on your citing the evidence for the universe having a beginning. This "knowledge" would make cosmologists' job a hell of a lot more simple, if not eliminate the need for cosmology.

 

[Random Person]

On an infinite time line into the past, where would you place now?

That is a silly question, the answer should be obvious. I would place now at now.

But I and the world's cosmologists are still waiting on your citing the evidence for the universe having a beginning. This "knowledge" would make cosmologists' job a hell of a lot more simple, if not eliminate the need for cosmology.

An infinite amount of time would have to elapse before now could occur.

 

[skepticalbip]

On an infinite time line into the past, where would you place now?

That is a silly question, the answer should be obvious. I would place now at now.

But I and the world's cosmologists are still waiting on your citing the evidence for the universe having a beginning. This "knowledge" would make cosmologists' job a hell of a lot more simple, if not eliminate the need for cosmology.

An infinite amount of time would have to elapse before now could occur.

Of course, but if you insist on just babbling nonsense then I'll just let you wallow in your ignorance. How many negative integers are there?

But I would still like to hear your evidence of the universe having a beginning.

 

[Random Person]

An infinite amount of time would have to elapse before now could occur.

If you insist on just babbling nonsense then I'll just let you wallow in your ignorance.

But I would still like to hear your evidence of the universe having a beginning.

It's not that hard to understand if you tried.

Time happens chronologically. If an infinite number of minutes had to pass before this moment could occur, then this moment would never arrive.

 

[skepticalbip]

I know that it is a well documented aspect of human nature but I am always amazed when seeing demonstrated that the less someone understands, the more sure they are that they have it all figured out.

 

[Random Person]

I know that it is a well documented aspect of human nature but I am always amazed when seeing demonstrated that the less someone understands, the more sure they are that they have it all figured out.

You should probably find a mirror and have a good look.

The discussion may be beyond you if the only way to refute it is to insult others.

 

[OLDMAN]

An infinite amount of time would have to elapse before now could occur.

If you insist on just babbling nonsense then I'll just let you wallow in your ignorance.

But I would still like to hear your evidence of the universe having a beginning.

It's not that hard to understand if you tried.

Time happens chronologically. If an infinite number of minutes had to pass before this moment could occur, then this moment would never arrive.

There are an infinite number of fractions of seconds in one second, and yet on second can pass and does, every second.

 

[Random Person]

It's not that hard to understand if you tried.

Time happens chronologically. If an infinite number of minutes had to pass before this moment could occur, then this moment would never arrive.

There are an infinite number of fractions of seconds in one second, and yet on second can pass and does, every second.

Sure. You can slice up a finite amount of time, but it is still just one second.

If there are an infinite number of seconds prior to this moment, this moment can't occur. An eternal past can never yield a present moment.

 

[Copernicus]

...He is claiming that the universe emerged from nothing that is really something. that's ridiculous.

Krauss is also loony about his atheist beleifs.

Actually, what he was claiming was that there was no such thing as "nothing" in the conventional sense of the word. That is, he was saying that physical reality just always existed. Anyway,you did not bother to contradict my point that you just made up the claim that he was backing away from his book. The two links to critiques that you provided were nothing more than opinions by writers who were taking his rhetoric too literally, which he himself pointed out to at least one of them. What he said in his book was fairly conventional physics that was written up for the general public. Nothing more.

 

[Random Person]

...He is claiming that the universe emerged from nothing that is really something. that's ridiculous.

Krauss is also loony about his atheist beleifs.

Actually, what he was claiming was that there was no such thing as "nothing" in the conventional sense of the word. That is, he was saying that physical reality just always existed. Anyway,you did not bother to contradict my point that you just made up the claim that he was backing away from his book. The two links to critiques that you provided were nothing more than opinions by writers who were taking his rhetoric too literally, which he himself pointed out to at least one of them. What he said in his book was fairly conventional physics that was written up for the general public. Nothing more.

He was equivocating hard, just like you.

 

[bilby]

An infinite amount of time would have to elapse before now could occur.

If you insist on just babbling nonsense then I'll just let you wallow in your ignorance.

But I would still like to hear your evidence of the universe having a beginning.

It's not that hard to understand if you tried.

Time happens chronologically. If an infinite number of minutes had to pass before this moment could occur, then this moment would never arrive.

Obviously. Because that would require an infinite amount of time.

Oh, wait.

Shit.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

On an infinite time line into the past, where would you place now?

That is a silly question, the answer should be obvious. I would place now at now.

But I and the world's cosmologists are still waiting on your citing the evidence for the universe having a beginning. This "knowledge" would make cosmologists' job a hell of a lot more simple, if not eliminate the need for cosmology.

An infinite amount of time would have to elapse before now could occur.

If you have a time line, any two points on that line have a finite amount of time from event A to event B. Infinity ins NOT a number. There is no event at infinity. Infinity is not a point on a time line. Infinity is an infinite set of points on a time line but each point is finite in relation to any other random point. Infinity is a set of possible numbers/events.

 

[Random Person]

An infinite amount of time would have to elapse before now could occur.

If you have a time line, any two points on that line have a finite amount of time from event A to event B. Infinity ins NOT a number. There is no event at infinity. Infinity is not a point on a time line. Infinity is an infinite set of points on a time line but each point is finite in relation to any other random point. Infinity is a set of possible numbers/events.

You are thinking of mathematical infinity, as in a set can contain an infinite set of numbers. When you say an "eternal" universe you are referring to a physical property.

A time line that includes infinity doesn't have two points. The first point indicates a beginning. An eternal universe would have no beginning point.

The amount of time that exists before now would be an infinite amount of time. If we go back 50 trillion years, how much more time precedes that? Still an infinite amount of time. If you propose an infinite history then you are negating the possibility of a present moment.

 

[Juma]

If there are an infinite number of seconds prior to this moment, this moment can't occur. An eternal past can never yield a present moment.

You say so. Prove it.

 

[Juma]

Rabid disbelief? I can very well understand why someone well versed in modern physics doesnt accept the physically impossible concept ”god”.

I don't know of anyone that claims that God is physically possible. Krauss wanted to prove that God doesn't exist, which is outside the range of what physics can determine.

So ya', rabid disbelief.

Lot pf people claim that god intervenes, hear prayers etc. such a god is physically impossible.
But you maybe had some other definition?

 

[skepticalbip]

...............
......... An eternal universe would have no beginning point.
...........

The amount of time that exists before now would be an infinite amount of time. If we go back 50 trillion years, how much more time precedes that? Still an infinite amount of time....... .

Exactly... Damned, now you have it, finally.

 

[Learner]

How about there also being two possibilties; Either the physical universe was extremely lucky to come into existence - continually maintaining its existence through much more lucky moves ...OR ... the universe came into existence by the purposely alternative?

Isn't this just as valid as the two possibilies in the top quote?

No, it's not.

There are a lot of things wrong with your dichotomy, not least of which is that it's not obviously exclusive - there are other possibilities than the two you claim.

Apart from being a false dichotomy, it also suffers from assigning probabilistic claims to a single observable.

Its valid to pose those questions because there is evidence observed of "intelligence" and "creation" (not life) and "design" although on a much lesser scale within our own domain ...whereas you (plural) believe the validity to the questions posed is false because.. its not possible or probable on a much larger scale.

If you buy the winning ticket in a raffle, you only know how lucky you are if you know how many losing tickets were out there. If yours was one ticket in fifty million, you were very lucky. If it was one of five, you were only a little bit lucky. If there was only one ticket, you were not lucky at all - you had to win.

We know of one universe. Are others possible? We don't and can't know.

And even if we were to accept your false dichotomy as valid, which it clearly isn't, it doesn't have any effect on the question posed in my true dichotomy - was there always something, or did something begin to exist from nothing?

Certainly evident ,that all the observations combined suggests that: something does "not" "appear " from nothing i.e. matter should be appearing out of nowhere, since the conditions (non-physical) should be the same today as its always been in a sort of always existed universe way.

Asking an unrelated question doesn't help to resolve the original question. It's a pure non-sequitur.

You may as well attempt to address my question by asking 'Is Manchester United the best football team, or is it Liverpool?' - regardless of the answer (which may well be 'neither of these'), my original question still needs to be addressed.

Its still related and using the teams in your analogy, you do seem to say to me from the previous questions mentioned above: there's only a Manchester and not a Liverpool to consider.