Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem (or BGV theorem) was developed in by three leading cosmologists; Arvind Borde, Alan Guth. I was watching A debate on cosmology where William Lane Craig uses the Borde , Guth and Vilenkin theorem to say the universe had a.
|Published (Last):||13 December 2010|
|PDF File Size:||10.71 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.95 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
As you know, most singularity theorems prove geodesic incompleteness, and this is the case here.
Assuming an “always positive” expansion rate is simply violated by “bouncing scenarios including LQC” according to Ashtekar. While a tangent is the point on a curve of a vector. He he simply getting the scientific information as to support his philosophical argument. I am but a simple student that loves to study Theodicy as well as Cosmology. Science and metaphysics do actually exist, and can be accounted for and beheld independent of one another science then, is not equivalent to accounting for something, and metaphysics is not equivalent to something that is unaccountable.
This is the same problem Dr. The idea of God, by definition, is something worth worshiping because of his Holy Goodness.
Alexander Vilenkin – Wikipedia
It appears to be contingent, and therefore gufh an explanatory hypothesis to explain its existence. B-G-V theory demonstrated a siginificant hurdle for past-infinite universe theories, and effectively demonstrates that multi-verse concepts do not escape or go around the Kalam.
Craig reject the number zero in his debate with the philosopher Peter Millican: Last edited by a moderator: However, in the blrde way they could then be interpreted as supporting any theory they do not contradict.
Which may even be true! Log in or Sign up. The BGV theorem does not violate the “weak energy conditions” usually assumed in singularity theorems, this is because it does not even require any energy condition in the first place. According to Alex Vilenkin eternal inflation and cyclic evolution do not vilennkin a full description of the universe.
Partial solar eclipse from space. Draft saved Draft deleted. In the past believers could burn me, ban me or punish me severely to weaken my determination to not believe in bullshit.
Therefore God did not create our universe. Craig insists that the universe arose from absolute nothingness, as I understand W.
Why would that actually be a problem for Craig? What all of their theorems do are a write out a set of conditions which they consider to correspond to eternal inflation, then b show that the region in which these conditions hold is geodesically incomplete.
What is the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem? | Physics Forums
Concerning the BGV theorem Craig is correct in saying that the result holds for any geodesic observer with a non-comoving congruence of time-like geodesic test particles which is on average over the past expanding in a generalized sense, within general relativityin the sense that such an observer geodesic is necessarily past-incomplete.
Non-self universes can expand. He do, the explanation is in His own existence is in His own essence. Science that depends on metaphysical ideas is therefore not science, because it depends on ideas that cannot be accounted for, the antithesis of science. I would therefore assert that it is more plausibly true that things begin to exist as a result of some cause, rather than coming into existence uncaused.
A lot of people my ex-wife included can live with the irrationality of their beliefs. I would put a summary of Carroll’s and Craig’s arguments, but I am afraid I would butcher them so I just mentioned the timestamps and left the link to the video. P is that the God hypothesis has no real backing. This is speculative, and very metaphysical rather than physical and actually scientific it seems.
Problem is, atheism and agnosticism are the least logical and rational world views: Nobody is claiming that appeals to metaphysics are illicit. You ought to be able to do so without distorting the positions of your opponents. Science is permeated with assumptions that cannot be scientifically accounted for: The oscillating universe was popular in the ‘s. Carroll is correct in that the BGV theorem thus does not include all models, but it includes a wider vielnkin than Carroll’s “some” may make it sound like depending on interpretation, of course.
If someone wants to hold guh, fine; but for many of us ghth price exacted by a consistent scientism starts to look too high to pay. The kalam cosmological vilenkun specifically demonstrates that what follows logically from the premises is that there must be a transcendent cause to physical space-time reality. Another, stronger example- the self.
Luckily, this is discussed at length in A Brief History of Time pg. Where does the evidence lead is the question that should be asked. You are reserving that for yourselves.
The point is that there are truths which we grasp that are not scientifically accessible, among these aesthetic truths.