by Rumraket wrote:
No empirical evidence is cited in your quote. You're merely quoting an old interpretation of the standard big bang model.
Sturhm, why do we go over this so often?
This 1985 quote changes nothing. It's the same bullshit apologists cite over and over again. The "beginning of the universe" is an extrapolation from the hubble constant and always was. The furthest back in time we can directly see is the cosmic microwave background radation, which, even IF the classic big bang model is correct (which we simply don't know), is about 300.000 years AFTER this supposed beginning.
So, this is just a quote from 1985 from a physicist who says what the classic big bang theory says. The classic big bang theory is a model, it is not itself empirical evidence. We don't know what happened before the microwave background, it's that simple.
There are three main lines of evidence that there was some kind of big bang (that the universe was very small and very hot):A) The distribution of matter in the elements hydrogen, helium and beryllium in the early universe.
B) The existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation(and it's specific temperature and the fluctuations thereof).
C) That the universe is expanding.
None of these three observations entail that there was a litteral beginning of time itself before which there was nothing. It is an extrapolation from the 3rd observation: the universe is expanding. They simply extrapolate back in time and get to a singularity. Fuck, even if the universe was a singularity, it still doesn't follow that this singularity didn't simply exist eternally in some other state before this.
You really need to learn to separate models from the evidence for the models. The evidence we have is evidence of a "hot and dense" state of the universe some time in the past. It is not evidence for an ultimate beginning. Case closed.
Then why is Craig representing it as something important and I am wondering why would Burrow and Tiples say that there was literally NOTHING prior to the big bang, I mean they seem to be very respectable scientists.
To be honest this week I have been reading a lot of materials on the KCA issue, I read Quentin Smith, a lot of stuff by J L Mackie and Graham Oppy, I read the discussions between Smith, Oppy and Craig, Smith seems to be very articulate and I learned a lot of new things by reading Smith and Oppy. Oppy seems to disagree with Smith on some issues, it seems like he is sitting on the fence.
I am also very thankful to you guys for willing to discuss this boring matter with me.
I would like to cite some of Oppy's criticism on Smith's paper.
so here I go:
(B) The second main point of contention between Craig and Smith--debated in IV, V and VI--concerns the question of whether the Big Bang requires a cause. Craig holds that it is a kind of "metaphysical first principle" that everything which comes to be has a cause of its coming to be (156); whereas Smith holds that "it is probably true that either the universe began without cause at the beginning of the current expansion, either (1) subsequent to a singularity of infinite density, temperature and curvature, and zero radius, or (2) at a singularity with finite and non-zero values, or (3) in a vacuum fluctuation from a larger space or a tunnelling from nothing, or the universe spontaneously began to exist at the beginning of some prior expansion phase under conditions described in (1), (2), or (3)" (129). I think there is room to disagree with both authors;[2] I also think that their discussion proceeds with insufficient attention to the different things which one might mean by "cause". In particular, the discussion of whether virtual particles appear uncaused in the quantum-mechanical vacuum is marred by a failure to distinguish between material and efficient causes, and more generally by the absence of any serious discussion of the connections between physically necessary conditions and causes.[3] A further problem, in evidence in Craig's writing, is the tendency to use slogans--such as "nothing comes from nothing"--as rhetorical substitutes for arguments, e.g. against the view that there could be things which come to be despite the absence of any prior physically necessary or physically sufficient conditions for their coming to be.
Source: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... mith2.html
About the highlighted part, I don't know how can Oppy be confused by what they mean by cause, cause is cause, the Singularity either had a cause or it didn't.
Smith presents a useful account of some of the theoretical considerations which are alleged to support the claim that the universe began from something like an initial singularity--e.g. the Hawking-Penrose theorems--together with some more impressionistic details about the underlying mathematics and physics. Again, I think that he sometimes slips up. For example, in his discussion of infinitely old oscillating universes, he writes: "Smith and Weingard allude to a possibility I have not considered. ... [They] do not elaborate on which model they have in mind, but [their discussion] brings to mind the de Sitter model of the universe." (131) In fact, I am sure that Smith and Weingard must have been adverting to a Robertson-Walker solution discussed on p.139 of Hawking and Ellis.[7] As Hawking and Ellis point out, the solution in question does seem to be in conflict with observational evidence, so this oversight doesn't upset Smith's argument against oscillating universes.
Which solution in question?? and, is Smith's Infinitely old Oscillating universe compatible with BBT and current observable evidence or...??
Smith is much more enthusiastic than Craig about recent scientific speculation about the early stages of the universe, e.g. inflationary scenarios, grand unified theories, supersymmetry, vacuum fluctuation models, creation of dark matter, etc. As Craig rightly points out, there is as yet little or no evidence which supports these hypotheses; and the non-technical explanations which physicists give of their content often seems to be confused--e.g., proponents of vacuum fluctuation models often seem to get into trouble with claims about the evolution of the universe from literally nothing when they mean evolution from a pre-existing vacuum.[8] However, it is also the case that we are very far from having a complete account of the early stages of the universe--e.g. we don't yet have a consistent story about the evolution of stars, galaxies, clusters and superclusters--so the same kind of methodological caution suggests that there is room for scepticism about the standard Big Bang model and the idea that the universe began from something like an initial singularity. Even now, it is not inconceivable--though it is, I grant, unlikely--that some kind of steady state theory might turn out to accord better with the evidence. But then it seems to me that, at the very least, a pro tem agnosticism about the temporal origins of the universe--and hence about further inferences to supernatural causes etc.--is an entirely respectable position.
So, there is no evidence to support Vacuum Fluctuation Models.
This means that the Classical BBT which starts with a singularity is the best explanation, this gives Craig space to slip his God in and Oppy thinks this is an entirely respectable position.
Craig's argument about the status of the initial singularity is curious. He claims that "the metaphysician is rational in interpreting the ontological status of the singularity as nothingness" (225), by supposing that "the temporal series is like a series of fractions converging to 0 as a limit: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ...., 0" (224). While I agree that this is an excellent suggestion, it seems to contradict Craig's own claims about the impossibility of physically instantiated infinities. Moreover, it suggests a further possibility which was overlooked in the discussion of causes for the Big Bang: viz. that the series of caused events is also like the given series of fractions, and (hence?) not in need of any external cause. At the very least, talk about "objects popping into existence from nothing", etc. would seem to be quite inappropriate on this picture, since every event--including every event which involves an object coming into existence--is caused by an earlier event.
How does that contradict Craig??? and why is Craig equating the Singularity as nothing.
First of all what is this Singularity, I was reading Smith, he said the Singularity is a physical point of infinite pressure and density and then Craig says it is a Mathematical concept, now if Craig says this is a Mathematical Concept that means an actual singularity never existed then how can he say that the Universe originated from this BB Singularity, can a Universe originate from a mathematical concept or from something physical?
, I appreciate your effort a lot.
