Thursday, October 1, 2009

Atheists Can’t or Won’t Understand?

In a desperate search for ways to avoid the Big Bang Creation Event, and it’s distasteful metaphysical implications, atheists have devolved into creating Origin Of The Universe Mythologies.

I have tried to point out that science has shut the door on ANY of these mythologies, showing that they do not possess any credibility. So desperate are atheists in the wake of failure after failure to rid the universe of God as Cause that they are reverting to sheer nonsense. Even atheist High Priest, Richard Dawkins is on record as saying that nothing, literally nothing, “evolved.”

Can you understand what he’s saying? Really? Because most atheists can’t, or won’t. One even took me to task over mocking Dawkins’ comment by teaching me that, “The molecules that existed before the Big Bang evolved and changed.”

The divide that separates Something from Nothing, is greater than the universe itself; it’s greater than infinity itself. Yet that fact seems to be beyond the ability of the average atheist to understand. And even though Dawkins goes on to say that inert gases ALSO evolved, this atheist that I’m referring to said that as long as the choice was between what I said and what Dawkins says, he’ll go with Dawkins every time. I thought atheists took pride in thinking for themselves. I thought they prided themselves in logical and rational lines of thinking. Sounds instead as though “sheeple” is a term that can apply to almost anyone. So, what is it that atheists can’t or won’t understand?

The last go-round included the statement by an atheist, “All they [Borde, Guth, Vilenkin] say is that the cyclic universe is past-incomplete.” And then, “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”

Here’s the facts: Borde, Guth and Vilenkin have been able to extend their conclusion of the past-incomplete cyclic universe to the following atheist Origin Of The Universe Mythologies.
Oscillating universe -

Baby universes -

Multi verses -

The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario -

The Chaotic Inflationary universe -

Brane-cosmology -

Inflationary multi-verse -

Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum -
The many worlds hypothesis -

The black hole hypothesis -

Quantum gravity models -

Vacuum fluctuation models -

Imaginary time and imaginary space -

The conclusion they reached is that any model of an expanding universe, be it theoretical like the ones just mentioned or real, such as our own, is geodesically incomplete, or past-incomplete without a past finite space / time boundary.

What the atheists who are challenging what I’m saying don’t understand is that the phrase, “past-incomplete implies the need for an initial singularity. That means that ANY model of an expanding universe cannot be past-eternal. See www.phy.princeton.edu/~steinh/ under, “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions: Has the cyclic model been cycling forever.”

Now it used to be the case that those atheists who were rightly terrified of the implications of a universe with a beginning could hide behind our ignorance of pre Planck time events. In fact, those who remain ignorant regarding this theorem continue to say, “We just don’t know,” as though that somehow absolves them of their ignorance. It does not.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem does not depend upon any physical description or knowledge of the pre Plank time era. This theorem rids atheists of any hope of avoiding a singularity, a beginning, a Big Bang Creation Event. This is true PARTICULARLY for Dawkins’ favourite myth, the eternal inflationary multi-verse.

Because, in the eyes of biassed and bigoted atheists, I’m just a stupid Christian who couldn’t possibly know anything of value in this area, I leave you with the words of Vilenkin himself.

“It is said that an Argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a Proof is what it takes to convince an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of the cosmic beginning.” Alex Vilenkin, “Many Worlds In One - The Search for Other Universes,” 11


If you’re interested is learning what this theorem actually says, you might find these resources interesting.

Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, “Inflation Is Not Past-Eternal,”
http://arXiv:gr-qc/0110012v1 April 18, 2002):10

A. Borde and A. Vilenkin, “Eternal Inflation and the Initial Singularity,” Physical Review Letters 72 (1994); 3305,3307

28 comments:

Carl said...

About the BGV theory - yes, it's very clear about the implications regarding inflationary physics. I hope you're not suggesting that current theories of cosmology have reached perfection? Here's the difference in interpretation: You see this as an unavoidable reason to point to an absolute beginning of the universe, which justifies a religious conclusion you've already made. Others see this as a reason to look deeper. Maybe inflationary physics is fundamentally incorrect. We've had to deal with that in just about every scientific theory that has come about before. But I'll tell you what didn't help us get to that next theory that was just a little bit better: throwing up our hands and declaring the matter settled.

You sure have a lot of hate in your words, Makarios. When I came across your blog I thought it might be a good place for real discussions, but I see that your posts are more about deriding atheists and applying your experience with one person to draw conclusions about a whole group. Too bad, there's enough of that for both sides on the internet already. Good luck fighting the good fight, if you want to call it that.

feeno said...

Hello Carl

Thats the thing about science, it's always changing. And if it disagrees with what people believe they just say wait around another 100 years or so and then we'll have proof. Some guy named Darwin said the same thing about how we will find all these fossil records that will prove him correct. (I'm still waiting btw.) Science is great and very helpful and sure the more we learn the more science has to change, it's not a bad thing, but lets just let science speak for itself without trying to force it to say something we wish were true.
(yeah , I know ...the pot calling the kettle black thing)

I'm sorry you think Mak is mean, but if it makes you feel better, I'll give you a big hug.

Peace and hair grease, feeno

Carl said...

Thanks for the hug Feeno. I'm not upset with him. To get outraged at everyone on the internet I disagreed with would take more time than I have available :)

I commented a few times and decided that I probably wouldn't keep up with it for the already mentioned reasons. I thought he should know why, but there are no hard feelings. He can do and say as he pleases.

Makarios said...

"You sure have a lot of hate in your words, Makarios."

I like to think of my words as intentional. My posts are about showing the absurdity, illogic and incoherence of the atheist faith.

While the intent on this end is not hateful, I can see how it might feel that way on your end. After all, no one likes to be told that what s/he believs is stupid.

I know that from the experience of listening to atheist's views on Christianity. You know, the ones where there is a garbage dumpster with bodies hanging out and the dumpster is labled "Christians Only"

Gorth Satana said...

Ok, Mak, I'll help you out. What's the common word in these phrases?

“Inflation Is Not Past-Eternal,”

“Eternal Inflation and the Initial Singularity,”

Now read the abstract of the paper on the theorem again.

Makarios said...

Thanks gorth but you've reinforced the point of my post enough times already. Again, thanks.

Gorth Satana said...

The point of your post was that you can't or won't understand a certain theorem?
Why would you post that?
You so crazy!

ryan said...

I'll get my knowledge about the physical universe from an astrophycist, thank you.

Makarios said...

And if that person says, "Nothing" evolved? or that "Inert gases evolved? Do you just accept that without question.

ryan said...

"Gen 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

Mak you and your ilk are the ones that truly believe that something came from nothing. After all, your god created the earth and universe with a snap of his fingers. Where did all it come from? His back pocket perhaps?

Astrophysicists, on the other hand do not say that "something came from nothing". They say that all of the matter and energy in the universe was collected at a point of infinite density. Where this all came from they don't know. And that is the most important thing they can say!

Do I accept this with out question..NO..of course not, it is intellectually dishonest if I don't look into it for myself. I don't understand a lot of it, but I at least make a effort!

SmartLX said...

Read the BGV piece, and the abstract of the other, and I've worked out what you haven't said.

What's ruled out therein is a group of past-eternal models, cyclical or otherwise, which do not involve a singularity. The principal model used by BGV is one which has always been inflating exponentially, without ever having been at a single point. A mathematical analogy is repeatedly multiplying by 1.000000001; if you work backwards you'll get close to zero but never reach it.

You seem to be working from the premise that any singularity is a capital-C Creation event, so a paper supporting the necessity of a singularity is all you think you need.

The issue is that there are a wealth of past-eternal models, cyclical or not, which incorporate multiple singularities, not as acts of creation but as temporary states of a universe's collective matter in a continuing timeline (often involving multiple systems of time).

The classic Big Bang - Big Crunch, the simplest and most famous cyclical model, isn't affected by these papers at all. It's still apparently valid, as are many others. (These remaining cases make me wonder about the honesty or sophistry in for instance Craig's arguments that use BGV.)

Yes, Richard Dawkins has more or less said that the universe came from nothing (for a given value of "nothing", which generally isn't a complete void). This is as far as he understands what his Oxford colleagues have told him in conversation. He's not our high priest, and neither is he a cosmologist, but he's definitely still an atheist. So is Guth.

Therefore, though I don't currently agree that a sole singularity is the most likely scenario given all the remaining cyclical models, if further evidence or reasoning does emerge which rules out ALL cyclical models, I'm not at all worried that the apparent necessity of a singularity would also necessitate God.

Makarios said...

Who told you that there is enough matter in the universe to create a
Big Crunch?

SmartLX said...

I don't know whether there is. There's no evidence yet that there isn't, so a Big Crunch is still far more of a possibility than the models Guth et al have ruled out, even with the currently accelerating expansion of the universe. With the recent apparent discoveries of "dark matter" in small amounts at least, the likely amount of total matter is climbing fast.

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said...

Based on my recent comments which I have posted in various blogs, I have now postulated a hypothesis. Theoretcal Physics describes four fundamental forces of nature viz., weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, electromagnetic force and force of gravity. Here we can present an analogy. Weak and strong nuclear forces represent pancha-bhutas or the five elements. Electromagnetic force represents force of current of mind which mainly works through sensory organs and force of gravity represents supra-causal state of Consciousness. We know that during advanced stage of practice of meditation and yoga pancha-bhutas or five elements merge into mind and mind into supra-causal state of Consciousness and ultimately Individual Consciousness merges into Cosmic Consciousness. This is the state of Perfect Bliss or Self-Realization. Likewise during the reverse process of Cosmic Evolution i.e. Perfect Dissolution of the Universe, weak and strong nuclear forces merge into electromagnetic force and electromangnetic force merges into force of gravity.

In the beginning, the enetire Creation came into existence from this Single Force Current which later on manifested into many force currents during the process of Cosmic Evolution.

Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator, this paper I presented at the 1st Int. Conf. on Revival of Traditional Yoga, held at The Lonavla Yoga Institute (India), Lonavla, Pune in 2006. The Abstract of this paper is given below:

The Universe includes everything that exists. In the Universe there are billions and billions of stars. These stars are distributed in the space in huge clusters. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of galaxy, star and planets etc. Gravitation can be considered as the cause of various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Human form is superior to all other forms. Withdrawal of gravitational wave from some plane of action is called the death of that form. It can be assumed that gravitation force is ultimate creator. Source of it is ‘God’. Gravitational Field is the supreme soul (consciousness) and its innumerable points of action may be called as individual soul (consciousness). It acts through body and mind. Body is physical entity. Mind can be defined as the function of autonomic nervous system. Electromagnetic waves are its agents through which it works. This can be realized through the practice of meditation and yoga under qualified meditation instruction. This can remove misunderstanding between science and religion and amongst various religions. This is the gist of all religious teachings – past, present and future.

Anonymous said...

diazepam 10 mg diazepam 5 mg side effects - where can i buy valium online

Anonymous said...

xanax online lorazepam vs xanax for anxiety - buy xanax online with a prescription

Anonymous said...

order valium no prescription what is generic for valium - valium pill appearance

Anonymous said...

buy valium online roche valium sale uk - 5mg valium prescribed

Anonymous said...

order ativan wyeth generic ativan - length of ativan withdrawal

Anonymous said...

buy lorazepam online ativan dosage seizures - ativan high many

Anonymous said...

buy diazepam street price for diazepam 10mg - buy 5mg diazepam

Anonymous said...

soma online soma drug back pain - order watson soma online

Anonymous said...

ambien sleep many 10mg ambien can take - ambien side effects driving

Anonymous said...

buy ambien online ambien side effects weight loss - ambien side effects vomiting

Anonymous said...

zolpidem online best website buy ambien - ambien sleep aid side effects

Anonymous said...

buy valium online valium alternatives anxiety - valium 10mg blue

Anonymous said...

order soma soma prescription drug abuse - order soma overnight delivery

Anonymous said...

buy valium online 10mg valium vs 2 mg xanax - valium effects thyroid