GOD IS DEAD

Will that be after you have finished with your How are those bears? Piece of advice, my friend. To avoid looking like a complete prick, you should ensure your own English is perfect before criticising another's simple typo...

Is that why we've named a market condition after him? It's all starting to make sense...

Not sure I've ever seen so many assertions and so little evidence. Let's start with your core proposition: So looking at this entire Universe of ours, you say there can be only two conclusions - either it, the entire Universe, has always existed; or, something other than the Universe with 'intelligence' 'created' the entire Universe; where 'intelligence' and 'created' are concepts that as far as we are otherwise aware, apply almost solely to some ape-like creatures on a small planet orbiting a dull star, in the outer reaches of a very average galaxy.Would you like to provide the logic that results in your assertion. I'm assuming you are going to demonstrate that the Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary Proposal is impossible? Are you confident that such a proof applies outside of a mini-Superspace argument, or are you using a full non-perturbative approach?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Lucky git Have fun!

Actually, that is the whole point. There is no "cause" outside that which already exists. If you demand a cause for what happened at T=0, then it could be said that it is the surrounding space-time at T>0. At this point in the Universe, we essentially have what we call a Euclidean region of space-time - its "evolution" is generated elliptically rather than hyperbolically, and is determined by consistency rather than causality - entirely analogously with elliptic vs hyperbolic 2nd order partial differential equations. And so no cause beyond consistency is required. Nothing is requried other than the Universe itself. This is an extremely elegant and aesthetic concept. Of course, this is not some wild guess. The above is simply a limited description of the results of very serious quantum cosmological calculations. Only in the same naive sense that the north pole is a boundary for lines of longitude. As described above, incorrect You mean how gods were a very plausible explanation for thunder and lightning; and fire; and magnetism; and nuclear binding energy; etc, etc?

As I hope you are starting to appreciate, layman commonsense and logic are utterly irrelevant. When it comes to physics, layman commonsense was thrown out over 100 years ago. It was replaced with theories that, no matter how counterintuitive, were consistently demonstrated to be the most accurate realisations of our Universe ever constructed. Now, if you want to talk about commonsense and logic *within* the context of relatvistic and quantum physics, then fine. But then you still have to lay out your logic that leads to your assertion.While you are mulling over the HH NB Proposal, here's another possibility. It falls into a similar picture, but rather than using a Euclidean region of space-time to smooth over the potential discontinuity at the singularity, we simply map the t=0 region to some later T. So causation remains around T=0 becasue we are still in Lorentzian space-time (and "evolving" parabolically) but now our Cauchy data (i.e, that which causes that at T=0) is simply to the far future of T=0. We simply wrap the Universe round as one huge time-machine, and again simple self-consistency generates our internal evolution. So again, no external causes.At some point, I would also like you to revisit what I quoted regarding your preferred possibility: Is this what you want to be taught in the classroom?

I'm sorry, Bertot, but your grasp of this subject leaves you somewhat short of being to make any sensible comment as to whether it is contradictory or not. As for theoretical - yes, of course it is. So what? You stated that there were only two *possibilities* for the Universe, and I have demolished your argument. You are now furiously backpeddling in a subject about which you know next to nothing.And I'm not going to give you further explanations in this thread, they are unnecessary for the task at hand - which was to demonstrate that you are talking out of your arse. If you would like to learn more, then please raise some questions in an appropriate thread, and I will try to make time to answer your questions - sadly I am no longer paid to talk about comsology and theoretical physics.

Just noticed some extraordinary stupidity in your post that deserves some ridicule... What the hell do you think we are discussing? Do you enjoy making yourself a laughing-stock? the theory of relativity cannot be demonstrated? Ever used GPS? Ever heard of the LHC at CERN, or Fermilab, or the abandoned Superconducting SuperCollider? These things weren't built to test relativity - they were built on the BASIS of relativity, 'cos it's the only way they could possibly work. And this is the state of your knowledge, yet you have the audacity to write: You know, when you're in the Antarctic, but think you're in the Sahara, don't be surprised when people piss themselves laughing when you try to give them tips in geography Did Percy put up an ad somewhere recently saying arrogant idiots wanted for a debate site? 'Cos if he did, he's certainly got his money's worth...

Yep, that's why I invited you to ask questions in another thread - 'cos I don't know what I'm talking about But don't worry - anyone who reads EvC knows about my utter lack of knowldge in these areas, and my inability to answer questions regarding fundemental physics, quantum theory, relativity, etc. So don't worry - you're really not looking like a complete wanker to them But I like the 'junior' comment - given my age that makes me feel much much better Thanks! Ah, that would be your lack of reading comprehension. You're in luck! I'm a cosmologist, but my wife is an English scholar and teacher - we'll have you squared away in no time (especially that appalling apostrophe usage.) She does specialise in remedial work... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Oh, I don't know. I was a born-again evangelical Christian for 22 years, including all of my time as a professional cosmologist and mathematician. I have a vague idea of discussions concerning God More to the point, I was demolishing YOUR assertion, and you decided to try and argue me on the physics - brave, but rather foolish...There are many possibilities to our existence - we cannot yet decide between them all as we do not yet have sufficient evidence and knowledge. Some old ideas have been removed because of evidence, and many new ideas have arisen on the back of new knowledge. And not one of these possibilities is Goddidit - Goddidit can lie behind ALL of these possibilities - but that is simply a matter of faith... Well, given that I remain anonymous here, it is hardly any level of status Ok, I admit to some level of pride in my knowledge and accomplishments - it is a weakness, I know. But more so than that, I am proud of and delight in the knowledge and accomplishments of others here at EvC. It is hard to appreciate just how much I have learned while hanging out here. And I like to think I have given something back. I'm a mathematician and have taught the odd class on logic. What do you want to know?

Really? Could you please explain these characteristics? I have already given you two alternatives. If you want to refute them, I guess you had better start studying. I'm not here to nurse-maid you, especially with your spolit-kid attitude. Given that it is demonstrating the exact opposite, it's unlikely to You really do need to get a clue at some point, Bertot. you haven't the first clue what PROFESSOR Hawking agrees or disagrees with. We have already seen your woeful attempt at reading his words. To be so out of your depth and still be in denial is just hilarious, Bertot.The facts are that you are just another sad pathetic theist, desperate for validation of your beliefs. You wouldn't know what faith is if a mountain load fell on your head. You utterly failed to provide anything other than hot air in my thread on Biblical evidence, and here you are just embarrassing yourself with crude rhetoric and attempts to wield concepts far above your understanding. If God is behind everything, he's hiding evidence of his presence well. So forget about it, and go find some faith. And learn a bit of grace and humility before He really gets pissed off with you...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Who said I was an atheist of any type, never mind "hardline"? Again with that reading comprehension, Bertot? Never mind, you've still time to improve... you may have missed that bit where I wrote about being a Christian (evangelical, born-again, charismatic, etc) for 22 years. I know about faith, Bertot... it's you that seems to be lacking in that area.What I hate are lies, misrepresentations, falseness, and distortions. I also intensely dislike those that pontificate on subjects about which they know next to nothing. I'm talking about you, Bertot. Who has claimed that anything discussed precludes a creator? You really do need to keep up, Bertot. You see criticism and can't help but blurt "ATHEIST!" It is very telling, Bertot. how can you be SO far off-base and not realise it??? Then I guess we are square? However, unlike you, my arguments can be found upthread - you just can't understand them I'm sorry, I didn't think you needed nurse-maiding?And non-abusive language??? You mean like I'm simply conversing in the language with which you seem most comfortable (just without quite so many spelling and grammatical errors.) I noticed a while back that you seemd to dole out the "moron" fairly liberally (ABE and "junior" of course - how could I forget your attempted intimidation of Rhavin, and you have the gall to call me on it ), so thought this was your chosen method of communication. Was I wrong? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : How could we forget this one...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Really? Could you please explain these characteristics?

For this level of discussion, I think this is a fairly safe conclusion.But it is not to this that the original objection was raised. You stated that either the Universe was eternal, or that God had created it. You seem to have moved your goalposts yet again.In your simple scenario, you have time either extending infinitely into the past, or you have time only extending a finite distance into the past (there are of course much more complex possibilities but that would be for a another day.)Please complete your original argument by demonstrating how the scenario where time only extends a finite distance into the past leads inevitably to the conclusion that some entity 'created' the Universe. For completeness, you will also need to argue that a universe extending infinitely far back in time could not be created by this same 'entity'.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : Title change