Nope.
Posted on 08/07/2004 2:28:51 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
I understand that a de Sitter universe (lambda=1, omega=0) is an exponentially inflating universe, flat, stationary as space/time, empty, with motion but not matter, and most significantly does not have a big bang.
From what I can tell, the theory is useful for exponential inflationary modeling (e.g. early universe models) – but the de Sitter universe per se does not hold up well to measurements and other theories/observations concerning the universe as it is.
Also, it appears that in the de Sitter universe, the universe can be finite because as one approaches the edge the measuring “rod” (space) becomes proportionately smaller (event horizon). Then again, time is a better measure than space of this “sense of infinity” one gets from measuring from within a finite de Sitter universe.
On closed timelike loops, which general relativity seems to allow, if they actually exist – they would be like wormholes in space/time, a violation of causality. I personally don’t have a problem with this, but from what I've read, their very existence in a theory causes a lot of chagrin among the theorists.
But out of curiosity, how would you explain an uncaused beginning and/or an uncaused beginning of time?
Thank you for your reply!
When I was asserting that all cosmologies require a beginning, I meant all modern, scientific, cosmologies - the ones which followed the observation in the 1960's of the cosmic microwave background radiation - which struck the fatal blow to steady state theories and pointed strongly to a big bang and inflationary universe.
Amen. Many have had a good deal more than that, however. The first Christians became so, because they witnessed the crucifixion and resurrection, and other miracles.
I just stumbled upon your "Evolution through the back door - musings of an Alamo-Girl" It requires intense concentration. I will comment later.
As far as I can tell nothing exists except chocolate cake
and lawyers
Contemplate the notion of a universe composed entirely of beings each of which depends on some other being to give it existence. From whence does the existence of the entire universe of beings come?
One scientist he interviews says that "there cannot be a scientific explanation of the first state of the universe. Since it's the first state, it simply cannot be explained in terms of earlier initial conditions and the natural laws leading up to it. So if there is an explanation of the first state of the universe, it has to be a personal explanation--that is, an agent who has volition to create it. That would be the first reason that the cause of the universe must be personal....a second reason is that because the cause of the universe trancends time and space, it cannot be a physical reality. Instead, it must be nonphysical or immaterial...only two types of things can be timeless and immaterial. One would be abstract objects, like numbers or mathematical entities. However, abstract objects can't cause anything to happen. The second kind of immaterial reality would be a mind. A mind can be a cause, and so it make sense that the universe is the product of an unembodied mind that brought it into existence.
"How do you explain, then, the origin of a finite universe from a timeless cause? I can only think of one explanation: that the cause of the universe is a personal agent who has freedom of will. He can create a new effect without any antecedent determining conditions. he could decide to say, 'Let there be light,' and the universe would spring into existence..." (pp.110-111)
Isa 43:10 Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. (emphasis added)
He can hurl galaxies, instanly stretch light across the universe, and all kinds of other supernatural things like:
1. Accurately tell the future (demonstrating His eternal habitation).
2. Preform supernatural miracles (raise dead, instantly heal the sick, feed thousands with a few fish & a couple loaves, water-to-wine, walk on water, single handedly conquer death ...).
3. Predict scientific discoveries before they happen (check here).
4. Transform reprobates into good dads, moms, employees, friends...
I'm inclined to agree. The proposed "falsification" at the end of the article, which I discussed briefly at post 28, is no such thing (in my always humble opinion).
If I recall correctly, the notion of an eternal universe was the established view of physics and astronomy. Curiously, I don't recall reading of any theological objections to this Newtonion/Satanic lack of a beginning, as there are now whenever someone hypothesises about returning to that once-accepted viewpoint.
The eternal universe was so well established that it caused Einstein to introduce his "cosmological constant" into his general relativity calculations, to avoid what was at that time inconceivable -- an expanding universe. Had he not done so, he could have predicted the Big Bang's discovery, years before Hubble's redshift observations made that viewpoint the generally accepted view. Einstein later called this his "greatest blunder."
You might view it that way, but I thing the science behind this argues, not against God, but against an interpretation of God.
Well, golly, but you're right. So help me out here. Throw me a bone. How do you differential created objects from uncreated objects? I can't think of a darned thing.
Come, you've seen my boilerplate before about the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker version of the Big Bang, which I'm too lazy to dig up right now. Basically, time at the Big Bang acts like the north-south direction at the south pole, and the space directions act like the east-west direction. The space directions are curled up into little circles of zero radius, and at the BB event itself, all possible directions point towards the future, even those that are at right angles to each other. Just as, from the south pole, the only possible way to go is north, from the BB, the only possible way to go is towards the future. There's no "south" from that point.
Causality, of course, presupposes time. A "cause" for time is a philosophical contradiction.
If EVERY being is like that, then NO being would exist.
In particular, you seemed to be trying to prove the existence of God or something close:
Thus, some being exists which is not caused by some being outside of itself.
The demonstration has problems, even without considering the absurdity of self-causation. In particular, the premise used to get there ["If EVERY being is like that, then NO being would exist"] is not self-evident or even demonstrably true.
The only examples of beings of which we have certain knowledge are made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and various other elements in smaller proportions. It's the same stuff as much of their non-living surroundings. Mainstream science theorizes that life on Earth resulted from some progression of essentially chaotic recombinations of organic chemicals, all unconscious and undirected. Whether or not this seems likely, it is a possible scenario and it violates your premise. Thus, it indeed appears to be something we are talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.