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 June 2005|
|PDF File Size:||14.51 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.34 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Such a re-description suppresses and literally spatializes time as well, which makes evident the purely instrumental character of the model. If you can, in principle or actuality, account for an assumption, you are doing science. It does not confilict with the Hawking-Hartle model because HH attempts to address what preceded inflation. Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded: This author sets up a straw-man argument by saying Craig retreats from the Big Theore theory.
It cannot be the self, for science cannot be dependent on the meaningless-as-random-strings-of-characters metaphysical assumption of the self for the un-assuming and beholding. Thus to place God as being bound in Time is absurd and is bad metaphysics. The universe was caused by an fart of a giant Mickey Mouse.
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, and More on the “My Good Friend” Meme | Evolution News
But supposedly, after the debate Dr. If science can in principle account for the self without assuming the self, what is it that accomplishes the accounting and beholds it as science? Yes the scientific evidence supports this claim.
What Carroll tries to represent as a rebuttal to Craig is really no more than an appeal to an “eternity-of-the-gaps” based on unsubstantiated “suspicions” about what we might learn in the future: Therefore, science must account for the self without assuming the self in order to be science, for assuming the self would be metaphysics, no science.
Views Read Edit View history. Anthony, thanks for the clarification about the BGV results. Craig presents his interpretation of the BGV Theoremand claims it implies the universe must have had a beginning, and time cannot extend infinitely into the past.
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem
As you know, most singularity theorems prove geodesic incompleteness, and this is the case here. Craig rejects Professor Vilenkin’s naturalistic model of the Universe’s origins: According to this theory the universe is approximately 14 billion years old. You usually recognize them under the spurious name they brand themselves: No, create an account now. This precludes their being construed realistically as accounts of the origin of the space-time universe in a timelessly existing four-space.
Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the vioenkin is unavoidable? Beginning around the 1: The second premise of the Kalam argument is that the universe began to exist.
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, and More on the “My Good Friend” Meme
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. The kalam cosmological argument specifically demonstrates that what follows logically from the premises is that there must be a transcendent cause to physical brde reality.
I just want to defend honesty here, not any religion. You can evade the theorem by futh the universe was prior to some time.
All the gymnastics of imaginary numbers or imaginary universes and contractions used to avoid the creator betrays science. More accurately, though, it seems that science and metaphysics do actually exist, and can be accounted for and beheld, but in in mutual dependence on something properly basic that is, necessarily self-evident.
Carroll and Prothero, Krauss, Ward, etc. The original reference is https: Craig, Sean Carroll invoked his buddy physicist Alan Gkth, a co-author of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem which seems to point the vklenkin as having a beginning, an inference friendly to theism, to say the least. What all of their theorems do are a throrem out a set of conditions which they consider to correspond to eternal inflation, then b guhh that the region in which these conditions hold is geodesically incomplete.
Now those are the kind of atheists who make real sense if you ask me. This is speculative, and very metaphysical rather than physical and actually scientific it seems. Luiz…such a classy comment from an obviously classy guy. So that even if our universe is just one part of a much grander set of universes called the multiverse, the multiverse itself then would require a beginning, or what has been called by some as a; beginning of beginnings.
One might consider profitably the analogy of the use of imaginary numbers for boree time coordinate in the metric of Minkowski space-time, a mathematical trick which suppresses the curvature in space-time and so allows one to treat a pseudo-Euclidean four-space as a Euclidean four-space. Dec 20, 4. The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet!
Ovi 1, 5 20 Working backwards from point 2, creationists can argue for the existence of God as opposed to trying to prove the age of the universe and Earth. Ask yourself how Dr. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.