Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem (or BGV theorem) was developed in by three leading cosmologists; Arvind Borde, Alan Guth. I was watching A debate on cosmology where William Lane Craig uses the Borde , Guth and Vilenkin theorem to say the universe had a.

Author: Mikarg Meztizahn
Country: Grenada
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Video
Published (Last): 10 January 2004
Pages: 287
PDF File Size: 2.69 Mb
ePub File Size: 19.86 Mb
ISBN: 954-5-41938-583-3
Downloads: 47062
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Vudohn

The BGV theorem can be used as a powerful empirical evidence of a beginning of any universe which on average has a positive expansion rate, of which the universe presently observed does.

Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if theoorem theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over papers.

With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. Planck time is the shortest elapsed amount of time which according to physicists is 10 second after the Big bang.

What all of their theorems do are a write out a set of conditions which they consider to correspond to eternal inflation, then b show that the region in which these conditions hold is geodesically incomplete.

Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, This leads us to the question, what tools of science do not tgeorem on the self, so that the self can be independently accounted for by non-self theotem This does not grant you the right to fill the gaps in our knowledge with flawed logic, mythology and anthropomorphization of reality.

In this, the universe do not have a true cilenkin or even a true big bang. How is it up to him whether God exists or not?

To make commonsense you need to be daring to deal with differences in world view. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediatelyespecially if potentially libelous or harmful. They most definitely cannot be taken as proof either way. Anthony, thanks for the clarification about the BGV results.


I can think of several good reasons but the best one involves making the movements of love, which involves faith. The Universe would never come into existence. Comments 50 Trackbacks 17 Leave a comment Trackback. Dec 20, 3. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be gutu to address its logical paradoxes.

You need a Phd to reach this conclusion, of course. The second premise of the Kalam argument is that the universe began to exist. Hence meaning that a more fundamental theories are necessary, or. Do you see what you wrote? If only people had applied a systems approach to knowledge, in that, any new discovery by Science does not render previous discoveries by religion or philosophy obsolete but merely improves upon it, i.

If the singularity is something that exists, it was a real state of affairs of the Universe To restate what has already been said, an inflating universe cannot be regressed indefinitely into the past, or, In other words, an inflating tuth has a beginning at some finite time in the past. Problem is, atheism and agnosticism are the least logical and rational world views: Also you are wrong to say that God may not be perceivable.

Thus to place God as being bound in Time is absurd and is bad metaphysics. This is speculative, and very metaphysical rather than physical and actually scientific it seems. So, to write an equation describing a zero- volume singularity is an exercise in futility and logical incoherence.

Craig, Sean Carroll invoked his buddy physicist Alan Guth, a co-author of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem which seems to point the universe as having a beginning, an inference friendly to theism, to say the least.

So then the BGV theorem does indeed offer some advantage. A lot of vilfnkin my ex-wife included can live with the irrationality of their beliefs. When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities. Carroll is correct in that the BGV theorem thus does not include all models, but it includes a wider range than Carroll’s “some” may make it sound like depending on interpretation, of course.


No, create an account now. The law of cause and effect could not exist before there was a universe. I would say on purely philosophical grounds that an infinite regress of events in time implies that our universe probably vilenikn a beginning.


General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology

I would assert that it is more plausibly true that the universe is past-finite than past infinite. I just want to defend honesty here, not any religion. It cannot be the self, for science cannot be dependent on the meaningless-as-random-strings-of-characters metaphysical assumption of the self for the un-assuming and beholding.

This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. A worldview that needs to resort to special pleading, circular devices and other types of fallacious reasoning is not coherent, much less rational.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, and More on the “My Good Friend” Meme

Top Blog at WordPress. Are you implying that scientific discoveries automatically double as further evidence for the non-existence of, for lack of a better term, God?

The God of the Gaps argument is a fallacy used by atheists to depict a conflict between God and Science. Significantly, the use of imaginary quantities for time is an inherent feature of all Quantum Gravity Models. Email required Address never made public. I would put a summary vilnkin Carroll’s and Craig’s arguments, but I am vlenkin I would butcher them so I just mentioned the timestamps and left the link to the video.

[gr-qc/] Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete

Not to forget, also, that the Universe may have an external theroem for its existence that is not a god. What determines if a question can be addressed by science is science, not philosophy. Science and metaphysics do not actually exist because both are manifestations of pure randomness. Physics Stack Exchange works best with JavaScript enabled. Where exactly is the debunking?