Beginning this universe (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Monday, December 03, 2012, 23:50 (4182 days ago)
All sort of theories, but Vilenkin says it MUST have a beginning:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628932.000-before-the-big-bang-something-or-nothing.html?page=3-It is worth registering to read this article. they do not follow up to bug you.
Beginning this universe
DAVID: All sort of theories, but Vilenkin says it MUST have a beginning:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628932.000-before-the-big-bang-something-or-not...-QUOTE: Can we really be sure now that the universe had a beginning? Or are we in for an infinite cycle of belief and disbelief over the matter? "For the first time in history, we have the tools to address the origin question scientifically," says Vilenkin. "So I have a feeling we are getting near to the truth."-Funny, I know lots of people who have the same feeling, and yet they hardly ever agree on what truth they're getting near to.-QUOTE: Any hope of us observing the ultimate origin is fading, however. Soon after Vilenkin and Mithani published their argument, physicist Leonard Susskind of Stanford University in California responded with two papers. In them, he says that a beginning, if it did indeed occur, is likely to have been so far in the past that for all practical purposes the universe has been around forever.-Here we have "if it did indeed occur", which could = it didn't, and clearly Susskind does not believe that we have "the tools" to address the question "scientifically" anyway. I'm sorry, but for me all this is pure speculation, there is and will probably never be a consensus, and I challenge anyone to provide proof that the universe has not been around forever, regardless of how many bubbles it might have blown and burst.
Beginning this universe
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 05, 2012, 14:20 (4180 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: All sort of theories, but Vilenkin says it MUST have a beginning: > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628932.000-before-the-big-bang-something-or-not... I'm sorry, but for me all this is pure speculation, there is and will probably never be a consensus, and I challenge anyone to provide proof that the universe has not been around forever, regardless of how many bubbles it might have blown and burst.-No one has denied Vilenkin's math! Somewhere in the past there was a beginning. This universe had beginning in the Big Bang. What was 'before' the Big Bang caused the Big Bang. Therefore, I disagree strongly with your statement.
Beginning this universe
DAVID: All sort of theories, but Vilenkin says it MUST have a beginning:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628932.000-before-the-big-bang-something-or-not...-dhw: I'm sorry, but for me all this is pure speculation, there is and will probably never be a consensus, and I challenge anyone to provide proof that the universe has not been around forever, regardless of how many bubbles it might have blown and burst.-DAVID: No one has denied Vilenkin's math! Somewhere in the past there was a beginning. This universe had beginning in the Big Bang. What was 'before' the Big Bang caused the Big Bang. Therefore, I disagree strongly with your statement.-There is a misunderstanding here, which is my fault because I have used "universe" in two senses. My reference to "bubbles", taken from the article itself, concerned the idea that there may be/have been multiple universes. I should have quoted this: "He [Susskind] argues that because space inflates exponentially, the volume of the vacuum at later times is overwhelmingly greater than at earlier times. With many more bubble universes in existence, chances are that the patch of vacuum we call home formed later on too." I can see now that you meant our universe post Big Bang, whereas my comment about the universe being around forever meant whatever has existed throughout eternity, prior to the Big Bang. I tried to make this clear in the parenthesis under "Play Trap the Atheist", which you quoted and commented on
hw: (NB That does not invalidate the Big Bang theory. It does invalidate the claim that nothing preceded the Big Bang, if it happened.)-DAVID (under "Play Trap the Atheist): The Big Bang is the best theory we have to fit the expansion of the universe. And all the subsequent discoveries such as the CMB fit the theory beautifully. Of course, if you are not there to witness it, it must remain theory. No one ever gets absolute truth. Even science requires faith if it is to advance our knowledge.-I am in no position to dispute the Big Bang theory ... I depend entirely on the experts! My point is that if nothing can come from nothing, we have a possible infinity and eternity of universes (individual cosmoses) before the Big Bang, and an infinity and eternity of possible combinations to give rise to life. This vastly shortens the odds against chance, but of course I am needling you because a deliberate, consciously planned beginning of some kind is so essential to your theism!
Beginning this universe
by David Turell , Thursday, December 06, 2012, 14:22 (4179 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I am in no position to dispute the Big Bang theory ... I depend entirely on the experts! My point is that if nothing can come from nothing, we have a possible infinity and eternity of universes (individual cosmoses) before the Big Bang, and an infinity and eternity of possible combinations to give rise to life. This vastly shortens the odds against chance, but of course I am needling you because a deliberate, consciously planned beginning of some kind is so essential to your theism!-The 'possible infinity' phrase is the ahteist's out to save chance. We can only know our universe. Conguring up all the rest is just that, an invention to avoid using only what we can know, because that leads to a strong impression of design. Straw man magic! Please let us use what we see and learn as we exist in our universe, whose space time curves back on itself so even though it is expanding there is no edge we can reach, and certainly not see through to all your magical universes and cosmoses and bubbles.