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

[remez]

I never said the assumptions of BGV did not match reality. I said that the question is if they do in fact reflect the real universe.

Got that. So I attempted to engage you on that issue. You could not produce the assumptions of the BGV. Hence we could not discuss them. I was ready....you were hiding behind your "semantical skepticism."

You are REASONING ......."your semantical skepticism".... that until such time that science can with absolute certainty declare something known all matters must remain ignorant. But, what you are ignorant of is that your REASONING, in and of itself, must be ignorant as well, because science has not determined that your REASONING is absolute. You are hiding right here.................

We can't know if the assumptions of one or either apply to the real universe until the implications of the models are tested and verified or shown that they don't.

Science does not know therefore no one can know. And from that self-refuting position you get to declare everyone else ignorant because you are ignorant. I'm fine with you holding that position. You think I'm ignorant because you are ignorant. There can be no discussion of warrant or reasonable doubt with you. All is ignorant but scientific absolutism. We can not discuss the reasonableness of the assumptions of the BGV. We can not discuss the reasonableness of the CCC's attempt at avoiding the BGV, I have tried repeatedly. No No NO ....we have to wait on some authority to tell us.........from the OP........

The way he gains new knowledge is by authority. Somebody he trusts said it. He assumes this is how everyone gets new knowledge. No matter how many times I explain to him that my confidence in expectations based on past experience and inductive logic is not faith, he doesn't get it. To him, the source of all knowledge is authority: experience (and tests) only serve to prove or explain the truth, not discover it.

The shoe fits.

My reasoning from the science infers the universe had a beginning. Further that means...... if true...... that science will never find an answer for cause of nature......because it can't logically do so. Science is an incredible tool to investigate and learn about nature. But it is limited to nature itself. Reason is not so limited.

finally for fun.............

You will never get out of that forest unless you first realize that you are lost.

I've actually come out of the forest on occasions and then realized I must have been lost.

 

[skepticalbip]

Got that. So I attempted to engage you on that issue. You could not produce the assumptions of the BGV. Hence we could not discuss them. I was ready....you were hiding behind your "semantical skepticism."

You are REASONING ......."your semantical skepticism".... that until such time that science can with absolute certainty declare something known all matters must remain ignorant. But, what you are ignorant of is that your REASONING, in and of itself, must be ignorant as well, because science has not determined that your REASONING is absolute. You are hiding right here.................

Science does not know therefore no one can know. And from that self-refuting position you get to declare everyone else ignorant because you are ignorant. I'm fine with you holding that position. You think I'm ignorant because you are ignorant. There can be no discussion of warrant or reasonable doubt with you. All is ignorant but scientific absolutism. We can not discuss the reasonableness of the assumptions of the BGV. We can not discuss the reasonableness of the CCC's attempt at avoiding the BGV, I have tried repeatedly. No No NO ....we have to wait on some authority to tell us.........from the OP........

No, you have consistently asserted what you think BGV says is true (because it can be fit in your blind faith of the creation story). You have consistently tried to claim that CCC can't be true (because it denies your beliefs}. What of the many more models? QSS perhaps?

Scientific methodology does not offer models as absolute truths to be supported at all costs like the religious methodology does. Scientific models are offered as possibilities to be tested and then every effort is made through testing to demonstrate it is wrong. It is only through the accurate predictive power of the model that it becomes more accepted.

Your assertion that you are using science only demonstrates that you have no idea what science is. You take what you believe you "KNOW" as unquestioned truth and then assert that an even untested model like BGV is true (because you believe it can support your beliefs),

Question:
You don't seem to have any knowledge of what is going on in cosmology or even what cosmologists do and how they approach what they do. So where did you get the idea that BGV says anything like what you seem to believe it says? Are you reading some Christian apologist blog that made such asinine claims? Christian apologists can offer some pretty uninformed ideas, Ken Ham for example.

 

[remez]

No, you have consistently asserted what you think BGV says is true (because it can be fit in your blind faith of the creation story). You have consistently tried to claim that CCC can't be true (because it denies your beliefs}.

Your certainty there is so absolutely wrong. Still fighting presuppositional straw men. I have made no theological supports for the BGV. And I have provided scientific reasoning as to why the CCC fails. No theology required.

What of the many more models? QSS perhaps?

You must be kidding. I would be glad to discuss any of them if you could first demonstrate you know what’s going on. You are simply name dropping models to support your blind faith. You are the one unable to discuss any of them. You simply emote that all models are unknown therefore remez is wrong. As I said earlier that is a lazy epistemology. You don’t have to really learn anything about any of these models because you simply emote there are all unknown therefore anyone speaking of them is ignorant. I have tried repeatedly to engage you on the CCC and the BGV. You have failed to demonstrate any real knowledge of these whatsoever. To even suggest something as outdated as the QSS demonstrates that profoundly.

Scientific methodology does not offer models as absolute truths to be supported at all costs like the religious methodology does.

That’s a given. Snore. Even your straw man is falling asleep.

Scientific models are offered as possibilities to be tested and then every effort is made through testing to demonstrate it is wrong. It is only through the accurate predictive power of the model that it becomes more accepted.

And 2+2=4 snore some more. I told you earlier stop all this stereotypical religious straw man garbage and deal with me.

Your assertion that you are using science only demonstrates that you have no idea what science is. You take what you believe you "KNOW" as unquestioned truth

No that is your straw man and he blinding your vision because I have shared my epistemology with you several times now and you still don’t see it. I don’t assert that SBBM is absolutely true. I’m asserting that with the science we have now that it is far far far more plausible than any other model. Thus I have good reason to trust it. I’m not scientifically certain that the universe began to exist. I’m inferring that it is far far far more plausible than it is eternal. Therefore I have good reason to trust it. No theology required. If the universe should turn out to be eternal I would need to alter my trust. That I’m certain of. So toss your straw man and engage me already.

You take what you believe you "KNOW" as unquestioned truth and then assert that an even untested model like BGV is true (because you believe it can support your beliefs),

For the umpteenth time the BGV is not a model. Hurry up and learn that already.

You don't seem to have any knowledge of what is going on in cosmology or even what cosmologists do and how they approach what they do. So where did you get the idea that BGV says anything like what you seem to believe it says?

You brought up the CCC and now the QSS as reasonable alternatives and call me ignorant. You can’t even give me the assumptions of the BGV and give a reason as to why they don’t match reality. You keep treating the BGV as a model and you call me ignorant. You can’t hang and you're too afraid to try. I’ve been right here. All you keep doing it telling me what I believe and how a I believe….and you have been way off. I'm not a presuppositionalist. I'm and evidentualist. Your epistemology is so lazy you probably forgotten how to learn. Your extreme skepticism prevents you from moving forward. You proudly sit there claiming everyone is ignorant because you are ignorant.

So where did you get the idea that BGV says anything like what you seem to believe it says?

I gave you the links in 312. Vilenkin himself. I support my assertions. No theology required. Why don't you try to support your strange beliefs, with something other than......... we are all ignorant and proud of it?

Christian apologists can offer some pretty uninformed ideas, Ken Ham for example.

Absolutely. Ditto.....Some atheists can offer some pretty uninformed ideas........ so what. Further, KH is a presuppositionalist. I'm not. Not all apologists are presuppositional yet you counter me as if I'm presupposing scripture. I'm not. I'm a classical apologist. Learn the difference already. I think CC made reference to the differences earlier in the thread. He learned to hard way as well that I'm not a presuppositionalist. KH and I do not see eye to eye on some issues. So what. You are here discussing cosmology with me not KH. So stop telling me I presuppose my beliefs and deal with the reasoning I have place on the table.

 

[skepticalbip]

Your certainty there is so absolutely wrong. Still fighting presuppositional straw men. I have made no theological supports for the BGV. And I have provided scientific reasoning as to why the CCC fails. No theology required.

You must be kidding. I would be glad to discuss any of them if you could first demonstrate you know what’s going on. You are simply name dropping models to support your blind faith. You are the one unable to discuss any of them. You simply emote that all models are unknown therefore remez is wrong. As I said earlier that is a lazy epistemology. You don’t have to really learn anything about any of these models because you simply emote there are all unknown therefore anyone speaking of them is ignorant. I have tried repeatedly to engage you on the CCC and the BGV. You have failed to demonstrate any real knowledge of these whatsoever. To even suggest something as outdated as the QSS demonstrates that profoundly.

Scientific methodology does not offer models as absolute truths to be supported at all costs like the religious methodology does.

That’s a given. Snore. Even your straw man is falling asleep.

Scientific models are offered as possibilities to be tested and then every effort is made through testing to demonstrate it is wrong. It is only through the accurate predictive power of the model that it becomes more accepted.

And 2+2=4 snore some more. I told you earlier stop all this stereotypical religious straw man garbage and deal with me.

Your assertion that you are using science only demonstrates that you have no idea what science is. You take what you believe you "KNOW" as unquestioned truth

No that is your straw man and he blinding your vision because I have shared my epistemology with you several times now and you still don’t see it. I don’t assert that SBBM is absolutely true. I’m asserting that with the science we have now that it is far far far more plausible than any other model. Thus I have good reason to trust it. I’m not scientifically certain that the universe began to exist. I’m inferring that it is far far far more plausible than it is eternal. Therefore I have good reason to trust it. No theology required. If the universe should turn out to be eternal I would need to alter my trust. That I’m certain of. So toss your straw man and engage me already.

You take what you believe you "KNOW" as unquestioned truth and then assert that an even untested model like BGV is true (because you believe it can support your beliefs),

For the umpteenth time the BGV is not a model. Hurry up and learn that already.

You don't seem to have any knowledge of what is going on in cosmology or even what cosmologists do and how they approach what they do. So where did you get the idea that BGV says anything like what you seem to believe it says?

You brought up the CCC and now the QSS as reasonable alternatives and call me ignorant. You can’t even give me the assumptions of the BGV and give a reason as to why they don’t match reality. You keep treating the BGV as a model and you call me ignorant. You can’t hang and you're too afraid to try. I’ve been right here. All you keep doing it telling me what I believe and how a I believe….and you have been way off. I'm not a presuppositionalist. I'm and evidentualist. Your epistemology is so lazy you probably forgotten how to learn. Your extreme skepticism prevents you from moving forward. You proudly sit there claiming everyone is ignorant because you are ignorant.

So where did you get the idea that BGV says anything like what you seem to believe it says?

I gave you the links in 312. Vilenkin himself. I support my assertions. No theology required. Why don't you try to support your strange beliefs, with something other than......... we are all ignorant and proud of it?

Christian apologists can offer some pretty uninformed ideas, Ken Ham for example.

Absolutely. Ditto.....Some atheists can offer some pretty uninformed ideas........ so what. Further, KH is a presuppositionalist. I'm not. Not all apologists are presuppositional yet you counter me as if I'm presupposing scripture. I'm not. I'm a classical apologist. Learn the difference already. I think CC made reference to the differences earlier in the thread. He learned to hard way as well that I'm not a presuppositionalist. KH and I do not see eye to eye on some issues. So what. You are here discussing cosmology with me not KH. So stop telling me I presuppose my beliefs and deal with the reasoning I have place on the table.

You are still demonstrating that you do not understand the cosmological models, their meaning, and intent.

The SBBM does not model a singularity as you believe and have stated a few times. It is a mathematical description of our observations. So, of course, it is the best supported model. The term "Big Band" was offered by Fred Hoyle as a slur because he could not handle the observation that the universe was expanding. Our observation and understanding of an expanding universe does not imply that it has always been uniformly expanding back to a singularity because that would not result in the universe we now observe - it could not have the observed uniformity or relative concentrations of elements. Any suggestion that it did would be an extrapolation not assumed in the SBBM such as Guth's inflationary universe. That extrapolation however is not the only reasonable idea of the nature of the much earlier universe. That is why there are so fucking many models that describe the possible nature of the universe beyond that described by the SBBM. Guth's inflationary universe that you like is but one of those possibilities but it assumes a physics we do not have. Penrose's cyclic universe is another of the many and is mathematically sound. However the question remains if the assumptions made of conformal geometry rescalling have anything to do with the real physical universe.

By the way, Guth's inflationary universe is not part of SBBM as you seem to assume. It is an entirely separate and speculative addition to that model.

Where exactly did you get your misunderstanding of cosmology and cosmological models

 

[remez]

You are still demonstrating that you do not understand the cosmological models, their meaning, and intent.

No. That is your assessment based on your lazy epistemology. You assert nothing can be trusted because the model is not certain. I'm asserting that the most supported model by far is the SBBM. Therefore I trust that one. I explained this to you last time. If it turns out that the universe is not eternal then I'll need to adjust. But right now with what we do know the SBBM has the most support by a long shot. And from it I can more plausibly infer that the universe began to exist than not begin to exist. Juxtaposed with the BGV the case for a beginning universe is as close to certain as you can get. Thus I trust that the universe began to exist. Note there was no theology there whatsoever.

The SBBM does not model a singularity as you believe and have stated a few times. It is a mathematical description of our observations. So, of course, it is the best supported model. The term "Big Band" was offered by Fred Hoyle as a slur because he could not handle the observation that the universe was expanding. Our observation and understanding of an expanding universe does not necessarily imply that it has always been expanding - that would be an extrapolation not assumed in the SBBM.

No that is a reasonable inference from the model and evidence we have so far. Your extrapolation that universe was not always expanding is devoid of evidence. Your belief is the one in need of support. Remember earlier I gave you more than just the SBBM and BGV. That evidence is stacked against your cyclic hopes. I believe that is what many atheists would define as a blind faith.

That extrapolation however is not the only reasonable idea of the nature of the much earlier universe.

THAT IS THE QUESTION. What is reasonable? That is what I have been arguing. Not what is certain. But what is reasonable. With what we have now the CCC and the QSS are not reasonable. The QSS was discarded decades ago. The CCC is not new. Its problems are well known. It has been around long enough to supplant the SBBM. Why hasn't it? I'm not even sure if Penrose is advocating it all that much anymore.

That is why there are so fucking many models that describe the possible nature of the universe beyond that described by the SBBM.

And good luck to them. Their numerous failures over the decades only further the support the plausibility that the universe began to exist. That is part of the scientific process. By all means keep searching. If you can reasonably show me otherwise I'll adjust my worldview.

Think about this. Seriously try. If the universe began to exist would science be able to actually prove it? You are looking for a natural cause for nature. Thus how could nature cause itself? What you're calling a breakdown in physics could just as easily be reasoned a beginning of physics. I'm just reasonably following the evidence where it leads. You on the other hand are trying to force a natural explanation for nature. A nature-of-the-gaps fallacy. Right now with what we know nature most plausibly began to exist. Note no theology required.

Guth's inflationary universe that you like is but one of those possibilities but it assumes a physics we do not have.

Yes it is one of many. Yes we do not know everything about it. But it is the one that the others must replace. It is by far the most reasonable. Therefore that is why I trust it. I predict any model that could replace to SBBM would only further the plausibility of a beginning universe. So much of the hard evidence we have now would have to be totally reversed. CMBR 2nd LoT, expanding universe, GTR, etc. You would somehow have to ignore all of that, plus the math and prove the universe is eternal. Or show how it caused itself from nothing. Thus why I trust the universe had a beginning. No theology there again.

Penrose's cyclic universe is another of the many and is mathematically sound.

Show me. Why hasn't it replace the imperfect SBBM? Convince me that it is mathematically sound. I don't see it. The HHM was mathematically sound as well. Why has it not replaced the SBBM?

However, like Guth's, the question remains if the assumptions made have anything to do with the real physical universe.

Yes. That's what I have been doing.

But the way you emote it is thus................We can't know if the assumptions match reality until we are absolutely certain the model is absolutely certain. Then and only then will we know if the assumptions match reality. Therefore anyone trying to reason about the assumptions is ignorant......does not understand science....blah ....blah.....blah. Nothing to discuss. That remains to me a Lazy approach.

Me......I have to live with the reasonable inference that nature began to exist and thus its cause reasonably could not be nature. I'm free to follow the evidence. You are forced to force a natural explanation.

 

[skepticalbip]

No. That is your assessment based on your lazy epistemology. You assert nothing can be trusted because the model is not certain. I'm asserting that the most supported model by far is the SBBM. Therefore I trust that one. I explained this to you last time. If it turns out that the universe is not eternal then I'll need to adjust. But right now with what we do know the SBBM has the most support by a long shot. And from it I can more plausibly infer that the universe began to exist than not begin to exist. Juxtaposed with the BGV the case for a beginning universe is as close to certain as you can get. Thus I trust that the universe began to exist. Note there was no theology there whatsoever.

No that is a reasonable inference from the model and evidence we have so far. Your extrapolation that universe was not always expanding is devoid of evidence. Your belief is the one in need of support. Remember earlier I gave you more than just the SBBM and BGV. That evidence is stacked against your cyclic hopes. I believe that is what many atheists would define as a blind faith.

That extrapolation however is not the only reasonable idea of the nature of the much earlier universe.

THAT IS THE QUESTION. What is reasonable? That is what I have been arguing. Not what is certain. But what is reasonable. With what we have now the CCC and the QSS are not reasonable. The QSS was discarded decades ago. The CCC is not new. Its problems are well known. It has been around long enough to supplant the SBBM. Why hasn't it? I'm not even sure if Penrose is advocating it all that much anymore.

That is why there are so fucking many models that describe the possible nature of the universe beyond that described by the SBBM.

And good luck to them. Their numerous failures over the decades only further the support the plausibility that the universe began to exist. That is part of the scientific process. By all means keep searching. If you can reasonably show me otherwise I'll adjust my worldview.

Think about this. Seriously try. If the universe began to exist would science be able to actually prove it? You are looking for a natural cause for nature. Thus how could nature cause itself? What you're calling a breakdown in physics could just as easily be reasoned a beginning of physics. I'm just reasonably following the evidence where it leads. You on the other hand are trying to force a natural explanation for nature. A nature-of-the-gaps fallacy. Right now with what we know nature most plausibly began to exist. Note no theology required.

Guth's inflationary universe that you like is but one of those possibilities but it assumes a physics we do not have.

Yes it is one of many. Yes we do not know everything about it. But it is the one that the others must replace. It is by far the most reasonable. Therefore that is why I trust it. I predict any model that could replace to SBBM would only further the plausibility of a beginning universe. So much of the hard evidence we have now would have to be totally reversed. CMBR 2nd LoT, expanding universe, GTR, etc. You would somehow have to ignore all of that, plus the math and prove the universe is eternal. Or show how it caused itself from nothing. Thus why I trust the universe had a beginning. No theology there again.

Penrose's cyclic universe is another of the many and is mathematically sound.

Show me. Why hasn't it replace the imperfect SBBM? Convince me that it is mathematically sound. I don't see it. The HHM was mathematically sound as well. Why has it not replaced the SBBM?

However, like Guth's, the question remains if the assumptions made have anything to do with the real physical universe.

Yes. That's what I have been doing.

But the way you emote it is thus................We can't know if the assumptions match reality until we are absolutely certain the model is absolutely certain. Then and only then will we know if the assumptions match reality. Therefore anyone trying to reason about the assumptions is ignorant......does not understand science....blah ....blah.....blah. Nothing to discuss. That remains to me a Lazy approach.

Me......I have to live with the reasonable inference that nature began to exist and thus its cause reasonably could not be nature. I'm free to follow the evidence. You are forced to force a natural explanation.

Damned. You still believe that SBBM is being disputed by the other models. It is not as I have explained several times. The other models offered are additions to that model to explore beyond the SBBM, including the one you think is part of that model but is not. Also Penrose's cyclic model is a new version of cyclic models that avoids violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics - it suggests a rescaling using conformal geometry. The question is if that applies to the real universe not whether or not it is mathematically sound. And then how could you possibly trust Guth's more when there is no physics offered to explain how it could possibly happen?

ETA:
To add, the quasi-steady state model hasn't been disproven, the steady state model has. The QSS is still being looked into by a few cosmologists and has been amended as necessary with new observations the same as the SBBM model is amended with new observations - the latest being the observation of accelerated expansion.

Reality in science is not decided on by consensus or by belief. If it were then Relativity would have never gotten off the ground and even it is continually being tested.

 

[remez]

You still believe that SBBM is being disputed by the other models. It is not as I have explained several times. The other models offered are additions to that model to explore beyond the SBBM, including the one you think is part of that model but is not.

Not exactly. Our earlier objections started out with a model comparison and contention. I just went with it at that time without adding more clarifications to the table. Meaning I have always agreed with your clarification there. Read again.............

Yes it is one of many. Yes we do not know everything about it. But it is the one that the others must replace. It is by far the most reasonable. Therefore that is why I trust it. I predict any model that could replace to SBBM would only further the plausibility of a beginning universe. So much of the hard evidence we have now would have to be totally reversed. CMBR 2nd LoT, expanding universe, GTR, etc. You would somehow have to ignore all of that, plus the math and prove the universe is eternal. Or show how it caused itself from nothing. Thus why I trust the universe had a beginning. No theology there again.

....... replace the word "replace" with modify and we are on the same page. Further read that my prediction was that the SBBM would modify in the direction that would further support a beginning. If they still call it SBBM is of no consequence the model would still imbibe all the hard evidence now that most plausibly implicates a beginning.

Now with that said.......

Some models do actually stand in contrast like the QSS. Where the HHM was just trying to address the plausible inference of the SBBM that the universe began to exist. it does not stand in contrast. It may have been a modification. But the QSS does stand in opposition. The QSS could not predict the CMBR, and cannot now account for it. The SBBM predicted it, Thus the CMBR is evidence for the SBBM. Well Gamov predicted it from a SBBM model. You could not predict it from an SSM. Also the distribution of radio galaxies and quasars eliminates the SSMs as reasonable. Here is a quote from a very smart atheist.................Steven Weinberg in his book page 138 Modern Physics and Cosmology back in 1972......

In a sense, the disagreement is a credit to the model; alone among all cosmologies, the steady state model makes such definite predictions that it can be disproved even with the limited observational evidence at our disposal.

now onto CCC..................

Also Penrose's cyclic model is a new version of cyclic models that avoids violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics - it suggests a rescaling using conformal geometry.

Careful now....that's what it asserts it avoids. It's an unreasonable metaphyical leap of speculation.

The question is if that applies to the real universe not whether or not it is mathematically sound.

First you were the one that promoted the models reasonableness because it was mathematically sound. Not I.

Secondly, information is not lost in black holes......thus.......If you really knew the theory you would then know why the model does not "conform" to reality.

And then how could you possibly trust Guth's more when there is no physics offered to explain how it could possibly happen?

Are you referring to the inflationary era here? If so.....It seeks to address a problem with the model that has no bearing on the implication that the universe began to exist. It would modify the model for sure but would not alter the implication of a beginning.

To add, the quasi-steady state model hasn't been disproven, the steady state model has.

Go ahead and make your case. Show me the new modifications that rescue it from the same fate as the SSM.

Reality in science is not decided on by consensus or by belief. If it were then Relativity would have never gotten off the ground and even it is continually being tested.

I'm pretty sure I agree with the point you are trying to make. But it's your use of the term "Reality" there that muddies the water. Science does not get to decide reality. Reality dictates which science is good and which is bad. I think you meant that "Theories" in science are not decided................. to which I agree.

 

[skepticalbip]

Not exactly. Our earlier objections started out with a model comparison and contention. I just went with it at that time without adding more clarifications to the table. Meaning I have always agreed with your clarification there. Read again.............

....... replace the word "replace" with modify and we are on the same page. Further read that my prediction was that the SBBM would modify in the direction that would further support a beginning. If they still call it SBBM is of no consequence the model would still imbibe all the hard evidence now that most plausibly implicates a beginning.

Still wrong. The SBBM would not be modified but there would be an add on at one or both ends. It is like you have a folded map. You use the part you can see because it covers all the area you normally travel. However to travel further into an area you have never seen and have no idea what is there, you open the map out. The part of the map you have been using would remain the same, unmodified. What you believe is the SBBM is the Big Bang plus inflationary model added to one end - in cosmology that is referred to as "Big Bang plus Inflation". If the CCC model makes any sense then the SBBM is part of one of the cycles and is repeated eternally with each cycle.

Now with that said.......

Some models do actually stand in contrast like the QSS. Where the HHM was just trying to address the plausible inference of the SBBM that the universe began to exist. it does not stand in contrast. It may have been a modification. But the QSS does stand in opposition. The QSS could not predict the CMBR, and cannot now account for it. The SBBM predicted it, Thus the CMBR is evidence for the SBBM. Well Gamov predicted it from a SBBM model. You could not predict it from an SSM. Also the distribution of radio galaxies and quasars eliminates the SSMs as reasonable. Here is a quote from a very smart atheist.................Steven Weinberg in his book page 138 Modern Physics and Cosmology back in 1972......

In a sense, the disagreement is a credit to the model; alone among all cosmologies, the steady state model makes such definite predictions that it can be disproved even with the limited observational evidence at our disposal.

now onto CCC..................

Also Penrose's cyclic model is a new version of cyclic models that avoids violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics - it suggests a rescaling using conformal geometry.

Careful now....that's what it asserts it avoids. It's an unreasonable metaphyical leap of speculation.

The question is if that applies to the real universe not whether or not it is mathematically sound.

First you were the one that promoted the models reasonableness because it was mathematically sound. Not I.

Secondly, information is not lost in black holes......thus.......If you really knew the theory you would then know why the model does not "conform" to reality.

And then how could you possibly trust Guth's more when there is no physics offered to explain how it could possibly happen?

Are you referring to the inflationary era here? If so.....It seeks to address a problem with the model that has no bearing on the implication that the universe began to exist. It would modify the model for sure but would not alter the implication of a beginning.

To add, the quasi-steady state model hasn't been disproven, the steady state model has.

Go ahead and make your case. Show me the new modifications that rescue it from the same fate as the SSM.

Reality in science is not decided on by consensus or by belief. If it were then Relativity would have never gotten off the ground and even it is continually being tested.

I'm pretty sure I agree with the point you are trying to make. But it's your use of the term "Reality" there that muddies the water. Science does not get to decide reality. Reality dictates which science is good and which is bad. I think you meant that "Theories" in science are not decided................. to which I agree.

More hand waving BS. If you don't believe that QSS is still being explored and that other models are not still being explored then I would invite you to use google scholar and do a search. Even QSS has quite a few current papers you can find there.

Your problem is that you have apparently read someone's argument for a specific model claiming that it is support for what you believe and you have accepted it as TRUTH. All offered cosmological models have serious problems. All cosmologists explaining their model for the pop sci audience point out those problems in other models but omit mentioning the serious problems in the model they are offering.

Chasing your red herrings is a waste of time. The fact is that your belief that one offered model must be true just shows an ignorance of the state of cosmology.

 

[remez]

Still wrong. The SBBM would not be modified but there would be an add on at one or both ends. It is like you have a folded map. You use the part you can see because it covers all the area you normally travel. However to travel further, you open the map out. The part of the map you have been using would remain the same, unmodified. What you believe is the SBBM is the Big Bang plus inflationary model added to one end - in cosmology that is referred to as "Big Bang plus Inflation".

Seriously you are looking for a fight that isn’t there…..”modified” …”replaced”…”add on”……. it still wouldn’t change the hard evidence of an expanding universe that had most plausibly began to exist.

If the CCC model makes any sense then the SBBM is part of one of the cycles and is repeated eternally with each cycle.

I addressed why this would not work last time. You ignored it. Can you for once get into the science of one of these models? I’m still waiting.

More hand waving BS. If you don't believe that QSS is still being explored and that other models are not still being explored then I would invite you to use google scholar and do a search. Even QSS has quite a few current papers you can find there.

Where in the world did you get that? I didn’t even come close to hinting at such a thing. I directly redressed the failure of the model. Why not contend with the reasoning I gave in regards to the model ….…instead of inventing some other straw man to knock over.

I have repeatedly expressed my openness to adjust my worldview should it become fact that the universe is eternal. I addressed your models. Every silly one you purported. I did not ignore them. Now because you don’t like the fact that I have exposed their failures you throw another temper tantrum…………………..

Your problem is that you have apparently read someone's argument for a specific model claiming that it is support for what you believe and you have accepted it as TRUTH. All offered cosmological models have serious problems. All cosmologists explaining their model for the pop sci audience point out those problems in other models but omit mentioning the serious problems in the model they are offering.

Chasing your red herrings is a waste of time. The fact is that your belief that one offered model must be true just shows an ignorance of the state of cosmology.

……………pure ad hominin. Thank you.

 

[skepticalbip]

Seriously you are looking for a fight that isn’t there…..”modified” …”replaced”…”add on”……. it still wouldn’t change the hard evidence of an expanding universe that had most plausibly began to exist.

I addressed why this would not work last time. You ignored it. Can you for once get into the science of one of these models? I’m still waiting.

More hand waving BS. If you don't believe that QSS is still being explored and that other models are not still being explored then I would invite you to use google scholar and do a search. Even QSS has quite a few current papers you can find there.

Where in the world did you get that? I didn’t even come close to hinting at such a thing. I directly redressed the failure of the model. Why not contend with the reasoning I gave in regards to the model ….…instead of inventing some other straw man to knock over.

I have repeatedly expressed my openness to adjust my worldview should it become fact that the universe is eternal. I addressed your models. Every silly one you purported. I did not ignore them. Now because you don’t like the fact that I have exposed their failures you throw another temper tantrum…………………..

Your problem is that you have apparently read someone's argument for a specific model claiming that it is support for what you believe and you have accepted it as TRUTH. All offered cosmological models have serious problems. All cosmologists explaining their model for the pop sci audience point out those problems in other models but omit mentioning the serious problems in the model they are offering.

Chasing your red herrings is a waste of time. The fact is that your belief that one offered model must be true just shows an ignorance of the state of cosmology.

……………pure ad hominin. Thank you.

This is the general religion forum. You offered what you believed proved that the universe had a beginning starting with your flawed kalam syllogism (apparently as support for your belief in a created universe) which started your red herrings of arguments over cosmological models. The cosmological model you offered as 'proof' is certainly not... it was a model with serious problems to overcome. Your attempts to 'prove' your chosen model were pointing out problems with other models while ignoring the problems with your chosen model (and funny as hell, claiming that is scientific reasoning).

If you want to discuss cosmological models then I suggest you start a thread in the natural science forum. Your bull shit here is a derail from the OP.

 

[remez]

This is the general religion forum. You offered what you believed proved that the universe had a beginning starting with your flawed kalam syllogism

Steve claimed it failed. I asked for some evidence. He ran off the Santa and you jumped in. I redressed this with you back in post 298….thus here you are lying.

which started your red herrings of arguments over cosmological models.

You presented some wild possibilities to counter the argument. When I asked you the support those possibilities from science ……you could not ….thus you called my attempts to discuss the science red herrings. You suggested the CCC. I first pointed out to you the problems with cyclic models. You responded that CCC was mathematically sound and then criticized me for claiming it was mathematically sound. I went a step further and asked you to explain to me how the CCC avoided the 2nd LoT, I was ready to show you how it did not. I even gave you a hint about black holes…..you couldn’t hang and claimed my request was a red herring.

Regarding the QSS. You offered it as a counter to the SBBM. Again I gave you the problems with SSM which many proceed through to the QSS. You addressed none of those issues other than the SSM was discarded not the QSS. So I stepped it up and asked you to show me how the QSS transforms from a steady state ESS to an expanding universe. I was ready to show you that any mechanism you would use to accomplish this would also render the universe past finite….thus showing you the futility of the QSS. NO NO NO we could not get there. You could not hang. You ran off crying that I was creating red herrings and picking on your models. Plus lying about my ignoring the faults of the SBBM…………………….

The cosmological model you offered as 'proof' is certainly not... it was a model with serious problems to overcome. Your attempts to 'prove' your chosen model were pointing out problems with other models while ignoring the problems with your chosen model (and funny as hell, claiming that is scientific reasoning).

Talk about ignoring the facts. Seriously. I have acknowledged the faults of the SBBM repeatedly. But any model that would “replace, modify or add on” would still need to incorporate the science in the model that we do know…..and that science most plausibly implies a beginning.

If you want to discuss cosmological models then I suggest you start a thread in the natural science forum. Your bull shit here is a derail from the OP.

Seriously Dude I can live with that.
You are free to run away.
Have a great weekend…….ttfn.

 

[skepticalbip]

Steve claimed it failed. I asked for some evidence. He ran off the Santa and you jumped in. I redressed this with you back in post 298….thus here you are lying.

You presented some wild possibilities to counter the argument. When I asked you the support those possibilities from science ……you could not ….thus you called my attempts to discuss the science red herrings. You suggested the CCC. I first pointed out to you the problems with cyclic models. You responded that CCC was mathematically sound and then criticized me for claiming it was mathematically sound. I went a step further and asked you to explain to me how the CCC avoided the 2nd LoT, I was ready to show you how it did not. I even gave you a hint about black holes…..you couldn’t hang and claimed my request was a red herring.

Regarding the QSS. You offered it as a counter to the SBBM. Again I gave you the problems with SSM which many proceed through to the QSS. You addressed none of those issues other than the SSM was discarded not the QSS. So I stepped it up and asked you to show me how the QSS transforms from a steady state ESS to an expanding universe. I was ready to show you that any mechanism you would use to accomplish this would also render the universe past finite….thus showing you the futility of the QSS. NO NO NO we could not get there. You could not hang. You ran off crying that I was creating red herrings and picking on your models. Plus lying about my ignoring the faults of the SBBM…………………….

The cosmological model you offered as 'proof' is certainly not... it was a model with serious problems to overcome. Your attempts to 'prove' your chosen model were pointing out problems with other models while ignoring the problems with your chosen model (and funny as hell, claiming that is scientific reasoning).

Talk about ignoring the facts. Seriously. I have acknowledged the faults of the SBBM repeatedly. But any model that would “replace, modify or add on” would still need to incorporate the science in the model that we do know…..and that science most plausibly implies a beginning.

If you want to discuss cosmological models then I suggest you start a thread in the natural science forum. Your bull shit here is a derail from the OP.

Seriously Dude I can live with that.
You are free to run away.
Have a great weekend…….ttfn.

So open a thread in the natural science forum...

Now, back to something more close to the OP... Why would a theist that talks about their god think that an atheist asking what they mean by god would be a trick question?