[betty boop]

Creation ex nihilo goes to the heart of physical cosmologists. It is seen as a failure to Steinhardt and his cyclic model and to Hawking and his imaginary time model that the physical cosmologist cannot explain the origin of real time.

Well they — Steinhardt, Hawking, and a raft of others — can't explain the origin of anything — not time, not space, not physical causation — absent an ex nihilo beginning. But they do not want a beginning, especially an ex nihilo one. For such a beginning would be inconceivable to a person of physicalist/materialist persuasion. They will stand on their heads; they will turn themselves inside-out. They will do anything to deny the existence of God. WHY this is so important to them, I do not know.

Whatever the case, theoretical physicists of such high order and reputation as Hawking and Steinhardt are mathematical physicists. And as any "math geek" knows, when one's equations are generating a situation known as infinite regression, the alarm bells should be going off all over the place. This is the classical sign that there's something wrong with your formulation. Time to go back and check, to find the error....

Mad Dawg's most excellent Post #1247 is definitely on-point here.

Thank you oh so very much for your totally outstanding essay/post, dearest sister in Christ!

[Texas Songwriter]

Good evening Betty. Thanks for your comments. I think it is well said that you reference the priori commitment to deny creatio ex nihilo. It is sort of a left-handed compliment to those of us who follow where science leads that the materialist, atheist would go to such lengths as the Many Worlds Hypothesis to delude himself with such illconceived notions. But, lets face it: the twentieth century and this decade has been an attempt by cosmologist to deny what all of the research and experimentations declare so clearly....that there was a beginning. The history of the twentiety century cosmogeny has been a series of failed attempts to craft acceptible nonstandard models of the expanding universe in such a way as to avert an absolute beginning predicted by the Standard Model. Previous to 2003 and Borde-Vilenkin- theorists intent upon avoiding a beginning relied on a period prior to Planck time devised hypotheses to a void ex nihilo creation can no longer go where these dragons are conjoured. From Einstein, Hoyl, Eddington to Hawking these contortionists, bright though they are, elect self-delusion, to the clarion call of science and its findings. Borde-Guth-Vilenkin explained this without the necessity of Planck time thus negating denial of any previous world or thing or space or time prior to the singularity. It is, quiet simply where the physical meets the metaphysical. And physics cannot hope to go there, but through vain imaginings.

So, thank you for bringing it to everyones attention.

[Alamo-Girl]

Well they — Steinhardt, Hawking, and a raft of others — can't explain the origin of anything — not time, not space, not physical causation — absent an ex nihilo beginning. But they do not want a beginning, especially an ex nihilo one. For such a beginning would be inconceivable to a person of physicalist/materialist persuasion. They will stand on their heads; they will turn themselves inside-out. They will do anything to deny the existence of God. WHY this is so important to them, I do not know.

I would find the shell games to be amusing were it not for the ones who don't see through it.

Whatever the case, theoretical physicists of such high order and reputation as Hawking and Steinhardt are mathematical physicists. And as any "math geek" knows, when one's equations are generating a situation known as infinite regression, the alarm bells should be going off all over the place. This is the classical sign that there's something wrong with your formulation. Time to go back and check, to find the error....

Precisely so.

Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!