Do you believe in God?

Post Reply New Topic

You do know what inflation theory is right?

Not really. Can you explain?

Indeed, Deltaville... Indeed.

Before I decided to drop from the PhD program in physics, my thesis was supposed to be on Cosmogony and investigating the first microseconds after the Big Bang, more specifically the FLRW metric.

I will attempt to simplify the material so all can understand.

There lies a horizon issue in cosmology that is usually remedied by a concept called cosmic inflation. The universe began as an atom, as everyone knows. (thank you AspE for reminding me of that indisputable fact, when I was depressed many month ago, do you remember it? Even I sometimes forget the basics.) CIT demands that right after the Big Bang, around 10^-36 to 10^-30 if I am not mistaken, space time expanded to the size of galaxy within such a time scale (faster than the speed of light, without breaching the laws of physics).

This rapid overlapping expansion generates space time 'bubbles' that even eventually expands independently from other universes. These bubbles contain their own laws of physics, and thus become their own universes. Some, such as Alan Guth, believe in the recently debunked eternal inflation, a extension of inflation theory that generates universes ad infinitum (although only after the Big Bang).

There are however, multitude of problems, even Paul Steinhardt (one of the founders of this theory) became one of the most vocal critics of this 'multiverse' attempt. The biggest problem is that in order to test the theory (this is perhaps the only multiverse theory that is testable) is that there should be a massive ripple in gravitational waves from the CMB maps (not to be confused with the detection of gravitational waves from merging black holes in February). BICEP2 was originally believed to have detected the corroborating gravitational waves back in March of 2014. Unfortunately, it was a false flag from interstellar dust, and gave us a GeV from the Big Bang that mathematically, provides serious doubts that the universe ever expanded at such a cosmic rate, and we almost can safety rule out such a theory.

Even Steven Weinberg has admitted that theism indeed has a strong holdout in cosmology.

I sometimes think the two arguments for God in cosmology is a little bit like the siege tank from Starcraft.

Firstly, that time began. The cosmological argument (or Kalam argument), of course. Postulates that time requires a first cause. A little bit like the siege tank that is not in siege mode, it is good, but NOT the best argument for the existence of God. Sort of like:



Best explained by:

Secondly, the incredible irrefutable fine-tuning argument of our universe, that is indeed no doubt, the strongest argument in the theologians card deck. Much like the siege mode of the siege tank.



Best explained by:

But of course, like any Starcraft veteran knows, siege tanks are horrible when you have zerglings upclose, which can be compared to the multiverse hypothesis.

I see, well you are talking about our big bang spawning multiple universes. I'm suggesting that there are multiple big bangs, each spawning their own universe. Or that a single universe gives way to a different one after it's death. Our big bang could just be one of an infinite series.

Anyway, not having an explanation for the cosmological constants is not evidence for God.

Last edited by AspE on 04 Apr 2016, 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Since you posted William Lane Craig's short productions on fine-tuning and the Kalam cosmological argument, I am going to have to add the third part of the tryptic, Dr Craig's little piece on Leibniz' argument from contingency:

Of course I strongly believe in G-d. There had to be a creator behind the universe. Something doesn't come out of nothing. Btw, I'm a religious person myself.

Doesn't have to be a God. How do you know nothing existed?

Big Bang in an infinite series? These 'ideas' of an oscillatory universe were disproved as long ago as the 1930's when cosmologists realized that any expanding and contracting universe would eventually accumulate an endless amount of entropy after each successive expansion and contraction. Even if one was to propose the notion that each subsequent expansion had a larger volume to dodge to issue of entropy in the next expansion, the issue of an ultimate singularity would emerge if one goes back an insane amount of cycles. The oscillating model of the universe is a long outdated model that was laughed at from the fifties.

It doesn't have to contract, just expand until it's eventual heat death. And a new big bang happens in the vacuum left, the same way it did initially. They could even occur simultaneously. It's not one oscillating universe, but a meta-space in which big bangs occur all the time and don't necessarily intersect. It's like a bottle of soda.

There are many different interpretations of the multiverse, you only describe one.

Heat in a vacuum? You're kidding right? Do you even know what a vacuum is?

The phrase heat death means the universe gradually cools to zero and all atoms undergo radioactive decay.

*facepalm*

Wouldn't 0K be an asymptote? It could get closer and closer, I don't think it would necessarily ever reach it in full though.