Crosshair wrote:mike-l wrote:Noone's calling for persecution here.
Never said that, was just adding some other historical nuggets to the thread. Sorry for the confusion.
I was more responding to the original quote, which I somehow missed in the thread. I kept yours in because you were lending in credence.
I've spent over a decade on university campuses. I've seen some hostility for sure during that time, directed at pretty much everybody. But by and large, the hostility I've seen towards Christianity has been in response to unsolicited evangelicism. The hostility I've seen FROM christians, on the other hand, is pervasive everywhere, not just on university campuses, and is even enshrined in law, whereby 7 states forbid atheists from holding public office.Which explains the open hostility to it by so many. Ever been on a University campus?
BGV has nothing to do with multiverse. It says that almost all inflationary theories will have a finite past. Multiverse is about lots of simultaneously existing universes with different constants. BGV even talks about the multiverse possibility, saying only that in that case as well there must be a finite past.Anyway, here are just two bits of evidence,
1. The origin of the universe, and time and space itself, a finite time ago from literally nothing. This has been definitively proven by the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and disproves the atheistic response of a multiverse.
Anyway, on to the actual argument. Short answer is, we don't know. But saying 'we don't know, therefore GOD' is an unfounded leap, intellectually dishonest, and impedes the quest for knowledge. And the quest to understand such things is what allowed us to make the computer you're reading on.
Longer answer is in a few parts. First, in our current understanding of physics, matter can spontaneously create itself. Essentially gravity is negative energy, and matter is energy a la Einstein, so as long as the gravity created exactly balances the matter created, the net change is 0. Here's a quote by Stephen Hawking
Second, we can test whether the universe as we know it is consistent with a universe that spontaneously created itself. Namely, that the total energy should be exactly 0. This is hard to measure, but we're working on it, and it's looking that way. Now of course this doesn't prove anything, it just fails to disprove it.SH wrote:Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn't need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own,
Thirdly, time didn't exist 'before' the big bang, it came into existence with it, and therefore so did causality. So questions like 'what caused the big bang' or 'what was before the big bang' make no sense on their face.
This argument is essentially a sentient puddle thinking how well suited it's environment is to its shape. We adapt to our universe, not the otherway around. And if the conditions weren't right, we wouldn't be here to notice. The universe may have come into existence and died gazillions of times and failed to produce life, we only get to observe the successes.2. The Fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life. I recommend the book "Just Six Numbers" by atheist astrophysicist Martin Rees. Rees concedes towards the end of the book that the only two live options to explain the fine tuning are a multiverse or a diety. The book came out before the BGV theorem so I am interested in what he thinks about the falsification of the multiverse hypothesis.