The existence of God

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have stated multiple times what I exactly believe and have at no point been beating about the bush.
Now answer my question: were you lying or is your reading comprehension abysmal?

So you also subscribe to the FMFism that you don't repeat anything that you have stated before?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you also subscribe to the FMFism that you don't repeat anything that you have stated before?

I don't answer over and over the same stupid questions put forward by liars that won't admit they are lying. I was willing to believe your reading comprehension was abysmal, but your repeated dodging tells me you are just a despicable liar.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Stephen Hawking stated that the evidence points to the universe not having existed for ever. Has he retracted that statement?

The point remains that you have been waving poor old Hawking around like a victory flag in plain ignorance of him also having said "There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe."

Is your position that he was right about the universe not existing forever but wrong that there is no place for God in creation? (In other words, only right when he agrees with you?)

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have stated multiple times what I exactly believe and have at no point been beating about the bush.
Now answer my question: were you lying or is your reading comprehension abysmal?

The one minute you claim that you don't have any beliefs about what happened before the big bang. The next minute you claim that Stephen Hawking is not justified in his belief that the universe had a beginning, which implies you do have beliefs about what happened before the big bang.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
The point remains that you have been waving poor old Hawking around like a victory flag in plain ignorance of him also having said "There is no place for God in theories on the creation of the Universe."

Is your position that he was right about the universe not existing forever but wrong that there is no place for God in creation? (In other words, only right when he agrees with you?)

His belief that the universe has a beginning is based on scientific evidence. I quoted this is response to Deepthought who asked why I believe the universe has a beginning.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The one minute you claim that you don't have any beliefs about what happened before the big bang. The next minute you claim that Stephen Hawking is not justified in his belief that the universe had a beginning, which implies you do have beliefs about what happened before the big bang.

So you are both a liar and your reading comprehension is abysmal. Got it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are both a liar and your reading comprehension is abysmal. Got it.

Says the same dude that claims that he doesn't lie, and won't admit that he's ever told a lie. And dodges questions with the agility of a ballerina.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Says the same dude that claims that he doesn't lie, and won't admit that he's ever told a lie..

Another lie.

And dodges questions with the agility of a ballerina
And yet another lie.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Another lie.

[b]And dodges questions with the agility of a ballerina
And yet another lie.[/b]

So are you going to admit that you have lied in the past and that your statement, "I don't lie" is a lie? Let's see if you have to balls to do that.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't agree with the first part of that but do the second, if I've understood what you are saying. My problem with the first part is that as elements of the set the points at infinity are specific extended real numbers, with the admittedly odd property of being infinitely far from any specific element of the real subset. I think the argument in the s ...[text shortened]... nt at minus infinity is to add a beginning so the procedure defeats the purpose of the argument.

Perhaps I was not clear, but I am not disputing that you can specify two members of the extended reals that yield the result you want (say, minus-infinity and zero). Rather, my point is that in the context of the original argument, it is probably excusable on the part of the objector if he takes this to be some sort of ad hoc stipulation.

To the extent that the number line is here a useful analog for the timeline, the objector's initial rebuttal is clear: the original argument implies that one can specify two times on the timeline that are infinitely remote; yet, one cannot specify two numbers on the number line that are infinitely remote. If you respond in turn with the extended number line, then this is the sort of dialectic symmetry I see:

Objector's response: "But minus-infinity is not a member of the number line; it's not a number. It's just some sort of nebulous element that you have stipulatively adjoined to the number line."

Is analogous to:

Objector’s response: “But that starting point is not a member of the timeline; it's not a time. It's just some sort of nebulous element that you have stipulatively adjoined to the time line."

Of course, I take it that the objector is sort of missing your point: your point is that perhaps time is analogous to the extended real number line, not the real number line; whereas the objector is stubbornly insisting on an analog with the real number line, which sort of begs the question. At some point I guess this results in a clash of different intuitions about the nature of infinity. But, I would think that moving beyond an analog of the number line to one of the extended number line can be viewed as an argumentative sleight of hand. It is a stipulation that just happens to yield the result you want and in a particularly robust way: the introduced adjoining element minus-infinity stands infinitely remote from any member of the real number line. So, it amounts to stipulating into being a starting point to the timeline that, by definition, it is impossible to move away from without having to require an infinite amount of traversal. Whether the analog is apt or not, it has the looks of a cheap argumentative trick, is my point.

EDIT: I forgot to add something else, as well. The original argument puts forth the idea that what is problematic is the idea of traversing an infinite amount of time. Then, prima facie, the proponent of the original argument cannot adopt your analog between time and the extended number line. After all, as discussed above, the analog amounts to inserting a beginning point of the timeline, from which it is impossible to move away from without traversing an infinite amount of time. So, to the extent that the proponent of the original argument thinks traversing an infinite amount is problematic, then this analog is also problematic for him or her. Otherwise, what does his view of time amount to? Just being perpetually stuck at minus-infinity?

I suppose this point relates to what you mean when you say that adding a beginning defeats the original purpose of the argument.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So are you going to admit that you have lied in the past and that your statement, "I don't lie" is a lie? Let's see if you have to balls to do that.

Are you going to admit that I fully explained that before and your pretence that it was a lie is a lie? Lets see if you have the balls to do that.

Are you also going to admit that you only brought it up to try and distract from the fact that you were caught lying in this thread? Lets see if you have the balls to do that.

Lets also see if you are capable of answering this post without posing another question.
Lets see if you have the balls to do that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you going to admit that I fully explained that before and your pretence that it was a lie is a lie? Lets see if you have the balls to do that.

Are you also going to admit that you only brought it up to try and distract from the fact that you were caught lying in this thread? Lets see if you have the balls to do that.

Lets also see if you are cap ...[text shortened]... answering this post without posing another question.
Lets see if you have the balls to do that.

Actually I still think you don't have a clue what you believe and I have every right to do so until you actually do tell me what you believe. And you dodging my question about what you believe (and calling me a liar) is just building my case.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Actually I still think you don't have a clue what you believe....

Yet when asked to provide evidence for this, you cannot.

... and I have every right to do so until you actually do tell me what you believe.
I have done so, multiple times.

And you dodging my question about what you believe (and calling me a liar) is just building my case.
This post of yours is nothing but a dodge of yours because you don't have the balls to admit you lied.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Apparently there is evidence for the big bang. What evidence is there for an eternal inflation model?

That was an article for non-specialists and Hawking probably wanted to keep it simple. What there is strong evidence for is a much denser universe in an earlier era, specifically the current observed expansion implies that the universe was more dense in earlier times, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is evidence that it was much hotter which implies a higher density. There is evidence for an inflationary era. The evidence for that is that the CMB is far more uniform than it should be without inflation. This is the evidence that Stephen Hawking is talking about. In his article he mentions that the inflationary era wipes out all evidence from previous eras. This means that although the simplest assumption is that the universe began very shortly before the start of the inflationary era it isn't necessarily so. Hawking's theory involves this idea about the initial singularity vanishing and being replaced by a smooth spacetime with no single point describable as the initial point when one uses imaginary time. This is a dicey move, it involves something called a Wick rotation and whether it is valid or not depends on the pole structure of the theory (it works in quantum electro-dynamics and quantum chromo-dynamics, it won't work so well in the electro-weak theory because the bare unbroken Higgs propagator has its poles in the wrong place). This is his theory and so it is natural for him to prefer it. There is no evidence against eternal inflation, there just ain't much for it either, it is a speculative theory but so is Hawking's.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you also subscribe to the FMFism that you don't repeat anything that you have stated before?

Of course I repeat things that I have stated before. Don't be so silly.