'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

Endless periods of expansion and collapse still needs a beginning

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#1  Postby Wortfish » Mar 09, 2023 3:46 pm

Scientists have undermined a key tenet of the naturalistic/atheistic worldview, namely that there is no need for a supernatural creator because the universe may have always existed through an endless cycle of birth and rebirth: https://www.space.com/bouncing-universe-big-bang

"University at Buffalo researchers say a newly suggested bouncing universe recipe that attempts to deal with the problem of entropy  —  the measure of unusable energy in the universe, which can only increase  —  suffers from a problem that has plagued previous models of endless inflation and contraction. It still needs a beginning."


The original article is available here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 022/06/011

The flawed cyclical universe model assumes a kind of teleology - a universe designed to expand and contract forever.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1021

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#2  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2023 4:10 pm

I'm a naturalist and don't believe in gods... precisely what tenet am I supposed to believe in?

Your suggestion is that this paper establishes the requirement of a supernatural creator.

But I am reading the paper and it does not say that at all.

This appears to be your entire modus operandi: come here, lie about some research, then slink off.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#3  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 09, 2023 6:09 pm

Of course, the paper does not deal with what happened before the initiation of any cycle of this sort. That cycle could easily have been initiated by a separate testable natural process such as a braneworld collision. All that the paper states, is that certain cyclic models are past-incomplete, and this applies specifically to models in which the average Hubble parameter remains positive. If the average Hubble parameter is zero or less, the constraints in the paper do not apply. Since the Hubble parameter has to be negative during a contraction phase, we could easily have a situation in which the average negative contraction Hubble parameter is greater than the average positive expansion Hubble parameter, making the total average negative.

Plus, cyclic universe models don't "assume" any teleology at all - this is pure apologetic fabrication. They simply describe universes that happen to behave in a cyclic manner.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22601
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#4  Postby THWOTH » Mar 09, 2023 6:15 pm

Wortfish wrote:Scientists have undermined a key tenet of the naturalistic/atheistic worldview, namely that there is no need for a supernatural creator because the universe may have always existed through an endless cycle of birth and rebirth...


For some reason I doubt that your apparent regard for science here is sincere. But at least you have an inkling that science offers a means of validating claims. The trick though, is to not misrepresent what scientists actually say; the nature and context of their research, their methodologies, or their conclusions - all of which you have done in the single sentence above.

Did your nominated deity approve your bearing of false witness?
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Posts: 38718
Age: 59

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#5  Postby fluttermoth » Mar 10, 2023 3:36 pm

It's another 'God of the Gaps' argument isn't it?
User avatar
fluttermoth
 
Posts: 358
Age: 53
Female

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#6  Postby The_Piper » Mar 10, 2023 10:14 pm

It's a thing where someone can always ask "well what came before that?" infinitely. Just like I can say "who made god?" Or "how did god come to be, if no one made him?" What came before the conditions under which god came to be" "How did those conditions come to be?" And on and on. God is no more of an explanation than the bouncing universe idea. So, checkmate, everyone. :lol:
"There are two ways to view the stars; as they really are, and as we might wish them to be." - Carl Sagan
"If an argument lasts more than five minutes, both parties are wrong" unknown
Self Taken Pictures of Wildlife
User avatar
The_Piper
 
Name: Fletch F. Fletch
Posts: 30393
Age: 49
Male

Country: Chainsaw Country
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#7  Postby Wortfish » Mar 11, 2023 2:15 am

Calilasseia wrote:Of course, the paper does not deal with what happened before the initiation of any cycle of this sort. That cycle could easily have been initiated by a separate testable natural process such as a braneworld collision. All that the paper states, is that certain cyclic models are past-incomplete, and this applies specifically to models in which the average Hubble parameter remains positive. If the average Hubble parameter is zero or less, the constraints in the paper do not apply. Since the Hubble parameter has to be negative during a contraction phase, we could easily have a situation in which the average negative contraction Hubble parameter is greater than the average positive expansion Hubble parameter, making the total average negative.


Another article by Guth describes how cosmic inflation also cannot be past eternal: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178

"Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past: it can be proven under reasonable assumptions that the inflating region must be incomplete in past directions, so some physics other than inflation is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region."


Plus, cyclic universe models don't "assume" any teleology at all - this is pure apologetic fabrication. They simply describe universes that happen to behave in a cyclic manner.


For the cycle to go forever, it has to be designed so perfectly as to allow such a process to continue. The designer, in this case, is not a supernatural deity but the cosmologists themselves. So, yes, teleology does creep into these models.
Last edited by Wortfish on Mar 11, 2023 2:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1021

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#8  Postby Wortfish » Mar 11, 2023 2:18 am

fluttermoth wrote:It's another 'God of the Gaps' argument isn't it?


IF the universe is eternal and self-existent, then there is no space for God at all.
User avatar
Wortfish
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1021

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#9  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 11, 2023 6:37 am

Wortfish wrote:
fluttermoth wrote:It's another 'God of the Gaps' argument isn't it?


IF the universe is eternal and self-existent, then there is no space for God at all.



Because we all know that when the god claim is shown wrong, fundamentalists accept that and abandon their belief.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#10  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 11, 2023 6:41 am

Wortfish wrote:Scientists have undermined a key tenet of the naturalistic/atheistic worldview, namely that there is no need for a supernatural creator because the universe may have always existed through an endless cycle of birth and rebirth: https://www.space.com/bouncing-universe-big-bang


Mere moments later:

Wortfish wrote:
For the cycle to go forever, it has to be designed so perfectly as to allow such a process to continue. The designer, in this case, is not a supernatural deity but the cosmologists themselves. So, yes, teleology does creep into these models.



Love how you've contradicted your original false contention. It's amusing how often you do that.


Regardless, the entire thread is based on a lie. I think that you should have your own thread of lies wherein all your lies can be kept in the same place, particularly given that they're the same lies over and over, and this will then serve as an example of how Creationism perpetuates: through deceit.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#11  Postby THWOTH » Mar 11, 2023 1:49 pm

I find it interesting that Science's reputation for epistemic rigour is being used to justify a claim that Science is false.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Posts: 38718
Age: 59

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#12  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 11, 2023 8:38 pm

Wortfish wrote:For the cycle to go forever, it has to be designed so perfectly as to allow such a process to continue.


Bullshit.

There are plenty of observable cycles that continue for vast periods of time without any "design" being involved. Planetary orbits being a case in point.

Once again, you're making the usual mistake of thinking that the equations constructed to describe physical systems are prescriptive. They're not, they're descriptive. Learn the difference.

Wortfish wrote: The designer, in this case, is not a supernatural deity but the cosmologists themselves.


And again, their models are intended to be descriptive of the requisite phenomena, not prescriptive. Describing something that already exists, or may possibly exist, isn't "design" by any reasonable meaning of the word.

Do stop peddling vacuous apologetic fabrications.

Wortfish wrote:So, yes, teleology does creep into these models.


Bullshit. Saying "this is how a given system behaves" without any mention of purpose, does not involve teleology by definition.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22601
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#13  Postby Rumraket » Mar 17, 2023 10:07 am

Wortfish wrote:Scientists have undermined a key tenet of the naturalistic/atheistic worldview, namely that the universe may have always existed through an endless cycle of birth and rebirth

That isn't and never was a key tenet of a naturalistic or atheistic worldview you clown. Naturlism or atheism is perfectly compatible with the proposition that the universe had an ultimate beginning.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13264
Age: 43

Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#14  Postby Rumraket » Mar 17, 2023 10:14 am

Wortfish wrote:
fluttermoth wrote:It's another 'God of the Gaps' argument isn't it?


IF the universe is eternal and self-existent, then there is no space for God at all.

Ironically even that is false you giga-dimwit. It is entirely possible that the universe just exists along with a God, without that God having created the universe. In principle a God could could exist outside, or inside of a universe, without there being a necessary causal relationship between them where the universe caused God or God caused the universe. There's nothing that says it has to be any particular way.

Can you like, I don't know, show some sign of having thoughts at all? Not only are you a shitty philosopher and an idiot, you're also a shitty apologist. Jesus fucking Christ. :o
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13264
Age: 43

Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#15  Postby Rumraket » Mar 17, 2023 10:16 am

Wortfish wrote:For the cycle to go forever, it has to be designed so perfectly as to allow such a process to continue.

No, that condition can obtain by sheer chance.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13264
Age: 43

Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#16  Postby felltoearth » Mar 24, 2023 9:30 pm

Is there a “before” if time is nonexistent for part of the cycle?
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14762
Age: 56

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#17  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 25, 2023 2:05 am

felltoearth wrote:Is there a “before” if time is nonexistent for part of the cycle?


The inference I draw is that time remains in place within whatever large scale braneworld the cyclic process is embedded within. But for the cycling "universe entities", there may be a disconnect between their local times as the boundary from one cycle to another is crossed. In effect, history is reset every time that boundary is crossed.

Of course, that inference is possibly incorrect. There may be something far more intricate occurring within this model. I would need to spend a considerable time circulating directly with the relevant paper authors to sort this out properly :)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22601
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 'Bouncing' universe theory can't explain what came first

#18  Postby THWOTH » Mar 25, 2023 11:54 am

Get to it then! :D
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Posts: 38718
Age: 59

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post


Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest