Logic and evolution: Plantinga project. God is Back? (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 29, 2020, 09:04 (1427 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Since this universe appears with a start of space and time, this can be turned about to say without a universe there is no space or time.

dhw: Without a universe, there is nothing, so of course there is no space or time! But there is a universe, and the claim that the big bang (if it happened) was the beginning of all things is totally unprovable because it is impossible for anyone to know what preceded the big bang!

DAVID: Agreed. (dhw's bold)

DAVID: So we are left with either nothing or primordial energy with no form. Or only energy in the form of God. Something must be eternal.

dhw: Exactly. If, like me, you reject the idea that billions of stars and galaxies can emerge from nothing, you are left with an eternal something. I don’t accept the restriction to primordial energy with no form, as the universe might just as well have gone on throughout eternity forming different combinations of matter. George called it an “infinite regress”.

DAVID: Once again a flat space time predicts a heat death in 100 billion years with the universe tearing up.

I predict that in 100 billion years, the universe will still be here, eternally forming new combinations of energy and matter. And I hope you will support me in my bid for a grant to carry on with my invaluable work on predicting the unpredictable.

DAVID: My discussion about the geometry of spacetime is to the point our current studies do not support some sort of continuing process back to infinity. Therefore a universe has to have a start. Just following pure science.

dhw: There are no “pure science” studies that can possibly prove or disprove eternity, and I strongly doubt whether we shall ever be able to reach the borders of the universe, even if it is not infinite. You have yourself demolished Hawking’s claim that “there is no before”, so I don’t know why you brought it up in the first place, or why you continue to defend it now.

DAVID: I did just the opposite with the Hawking celebration Guth, et al, paper. It offered proof there was no 'before' before the big bang.

And I argued that it was impossible to prove that there was no ‘before’, and you have agreed (bolded above). So I don’t know why you brought it up, or why you continue to argue that current studies reject “some sort of continuing progress back to infinity” (I would say here “back to eternity”) and the universe has to have had a start.