Questions about Jesus (1)

Mr Joseph Caruana

Jun 16th 2012, 13:40

David, without going into Ramon's own article, let me point one one important thing you have to keep in mind. It does indeed seem that the universe did have a beginning, but by "beginning", what us physicists understand is a singularity, i.e. a point when space and time both emerged. Time itself (which according to General Relativity should be viewed as being another dimension, just like space) began with the Big Bang, and so it is meaningless to talk about a time *before* the Big Bang. When people talk about God, they often refer to this entity as a creator which caused the universe to come into existence. But there is a problem with that argument. A cause has to precede effect, i.e. a cause must happen *in time before* the Big Bang (which is the "effect"). And since time did not exist before the Big Bang, there was no freedom for a creator to exist beforehand. One thing this teaches us is that our common-day notions and reasoning about cause and effect become quite slippery when we try to apply them to the very existence of the universe.

We still consider theories which might allow an "eternal" universe to exist, but again, what we mean by this is, I believe, quite different than what is very often explained in popular-science and newspaper articles. One could indeed conceive of an infinite multiverse (i.e. a myriad of universes) all popping into existence at different "times", but bear in mind that one cannot quite speak of which came before which, as each of these universes will have a separate coordinate system (i.e. the time coordinate of one universe is completely independent of the time coordinate of another) - so one must be wary of popular accounts of an eternal universe, as it might easily be incorrectly dismissed as being contradictory to the scenario of a universe that had a beginning. (In this context, to relate one universe to another, one would need some "metric" which relates the coordinates of the various universes; we're definitely not there yet, not to mention that itself also prompts the question, "What is time itself?")

So in summary, yes, we still investigate the possibility of an infinite and eternal universe, only that what we mean by that is different than what is very commonly understood by the public. (My apologies if I wasn't clear enough in my explanation; admittedly, it is quite difficult to explain these concepts to begin with, and I was also trying to be as concise as I possibly could.)

David Seychell

Jun 16th 2012, 20:21

@Mr Joseph Caruana
"One could indeed conceive of an infinite multiverse.. all popping into existence at different "times", but bear in mind that one cannot quite speak of which came before which, as each of these universes will have a separate coordinate system.. - so one must be wary of popular accounts of an eternal universe, as it might easily be incorrectly dismissed as being contradictory to the scenario of a universe that had a beginning."

Earlier this year, the leading cosmoligists of the World, gathered at a meeting at the university of Cambridge to honour Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday and showed that even if there is such a thing as a multiverse, it too cannot be eternal in the past and must have had a beginning too. Stephen Hawking, the famous scientist and atheist response was:

“A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God.”

Mr Joseph Caruana

Jun 17th 2012, 15:34

@ David Seychell:

Firstly, it does not help to use the argument from authority. Your last response is simply the logical fallacy of "argumentum ad verecundiam" in disguise. Further still, you're misinterpreting what was said during the symposium we had earlier this year. What Hawking maintains (and you can view this on his own personal website as well) has to be viewed in the surrounding context. What Hawking is describing is how some scientists in the past were initially opposed to the idea of a Big Bang - a point when everything started. In his own words, "Many scientists were instinctively opposed to the idea, because they felt that a point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God to determine how the universe would start off." That's the context. It's a historical point that he is making. Cosmology has moved forward since then.

So, once again, be careful about what you quote.

David Seychell

Jun 17th 2012, 18:55

@Mr Joseph Caruana
"Firstly, it does not help to use the argument from authority. Your last response is simply the logical fallacy of "argumentum ad verecundiam" in disguise."

The word "disguise" betrays the fact that yours is a subjective interpretation of the motivations behind my statement. What is disguised cannot be seen, but you claim to know what thing is being hidden even though it cannot be seen, therefore yours cannot but be an assumption.

Hawking is an atheist, if I wanted to give the impression that Hawking thinks that a creation would neccessary require a God creator I wouldn't have revealed that he is an atheist in the same sentence. Hawking did not say that if the laws of physics break down at the moment of creation then God exists, what he said is that science wouldn't have an answer as to what brought the universe into being, and at the same time religion would have the answer to that question. We all know that religion have the answer to that question, but the fact that religion have the anwer to that question doesn't mean that it is the correct answer.

David Seychell

Jun 17th 2012, 19:24

@Mr Joseph Caruana
"And since time did not exist before the Big Bang, there was no freedom for a creator to exist beforehand."

I would love to get into those sort of philosophical arguments, but my aim here is NOT to argue that if the Universe or Multiverse (if such a thing exits) had a beginning therefore a God creator is required. My aim here was to stick to science and scientific evidence to show that:

1) Ramon's favourite model of a universe without a beginning (cyclic universe) was discredited. By science.

2) The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that any universe that satisfy a specific condition, namely Hav > 0, must have had a beginning. And since ALL the observational evidence we have about our Universe tell us that such condition is true for our Universe then that proof can be applied to our Universe.

"Cosmology has moved forward since then." Indeed, Cosmology today tell us that the Universe (or Multiverse if it exists) did have a beginning, whether atheists like it or not. And if you are "wary of popular accounts" I suggest you to go directly to the source, and read the recent (april 2012) scientific paper by Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin.

Mr Joseph Caruana

Jun 18th 2012, 00:41

"My aim here was to stick to science and scientific evidence"

Yet, you are not, as a few lines down you keep maintaining that certain models have been discredited, whereas they have not. It's not as clear-cut as you are trying to make it seem, David. It's evident enough that you're clinging to snippets from articles and quoting them to try and make them suit your biased view, without actually having understood what we talk about when describing these models of the universe.

"Indeed, Cosmology today tell us that the Universe (or Multiverse if it exists) did have a beginning"

The universe can be extrapolated back to a singularity. But starting with a singularity has nothing to do with the universe having had to be created, which is the argument that I have been attacking.

"And if you are "wary of popular accounts" I suggest you to go directly to the source, and read the recent (april 2012) scientific paper by Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin."

Well, I have to read direct sources every day, as it's part of my day job as an astrophysicist to keep updated with the latest literature. And now that we're at it, please bear in mind that what Mithani & Vilenkin try to show in that paper is merely that a singularity must have occurred. I myself, in my own first response, began with that very notion - there was a singularity! Also, note that these are cutting-edge questions to which no definite answer exists as yet. (If you really read that paper, you'll have noticed that the authors use a particularly cautious phrase when addressing the question of whether the universe had an origin: "it *seems* that the answer to this question is *probably* yes". That is, these matters are far from being settled. So much so, that if you really were the sort who kept up-to-date with the subject, you'd have also been honest in your response and noted that Susskind posted another paper addressing Mithani & Vilenkin's arguments, which ends with "we may conclude that there is a beginning, but in any kind of inflating cosmology the odds strongly (infinitely) favor the beginning to be so far in the past that it is effectively at minus infinity."

I'm afraid I will have to stop here. It is not productive to keep replying to each of your frantic attempts at misquoting articles or papers. That will simply get us nowhere. Have a good day.

David Seychell

Jun 18th 2012, 12:32

@Mr Joseph Caruana
"Yet, you are not, as a few lines down you keep maintaining that certain models have been discredited, whereas they have not... It's evident enough that you're clinging to snippets from articles..."

I will not quote from newspapers or science magazines but directly from the scientific paper by eminent cosmoligists Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin and then will let the readers decide for themselves whether the model of the Universe without a beginning -favored by Mr Casha was actually proved to require a beginning or not:

"Another possibility could be a universe which cycles through an infinite series of big bang followed by expansion, contraction into a crunch that transitions into the next big bang. A potential problem with such a cyclic universe is that the entropy must continue to increase through each cycle, leading to a 'thermal death' of the universe. This can be avoided if the volume of the universe increases through each cycle as well, allowing the ratio S=V to remain finite. But if the volume continues to increase over each cycle, Hav > 0,
meaning that the universe is past-incomplete."

"Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have Hav > 0, which means that they must be past-geodesically incomplete. We have also examined a simple emergent universe model, and concluded that it cannot escape quantum collapse. Even considering more general emergent universe models, there do not seem to be any matter sources that admit solutions that are immune to collapse."

At the recent conference in Cambridge held in honor of Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday, Alexander Vilenkin concluded: "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” -Vilenkin

Think about it. It’s not just that the evidence for the beginning of the universe outweighs the evidence that the universe is past eternal; rather there's no evidence that the universe is eternal. All the evidence says that the universe began to exist.

“Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” -Stephen Hawking

David Seychell

Jun 18th 2012, 12:36

@Mr Joseph Caruana
"Susskind posted another paper addressing Mithani & Vilenkin's arguments, which ends with "we may conclude that there is a beginning, but in any kind of inflating cosmology the odds strongly (infinitely) favour the beginning to be so far in the past that it is effectively at minus infinity."

First, it's is relevant to note here that not even a heavyweight like Leonard Susskind, founder of string theory and the man who proved Hawking wrong (winning the famous bet), managed to find any flaws in Vilenkin's proof and in the end Susskind too had to conclude that the Universe had a beginning.

Secondly, the fact that the beginning of the universe (or multiverse if such a thing exist) may have happened a long, long time ago is irrelevant because, what I claimed is that Vilenkin showed that the various models of the Universe/multiverse cannot be past eternal and thus there was a beginning. I never claimed that the beginning of the Universe/Multiverse happend a short time ago! That wasn't my point. Therefore I'm afraid your objection will have to be catalogued as a red herring.

Mr Joseph Caruana

Jun 18th 2012, 14:43

David, you may quote as much as you like; as long as you lack the ability to critically analyse what is being said in these papers, copying/pasting quotes means nothing. If I were to question you about the fine, technical points of those papers, you would falter, as what you are doing is simply blind copying. I have already pointed out that the arguments brought up in Mithani & Vilenkin's paper have been responded to by Susskind in his own paper, but you chose to ignore that completely in your reply. You are not achieving anything by giving me quotes from papers with which I am more than familiar already.

I will not delve into technical issues here, firstly because you are not a cosmologist anyway, so that would have little benefit, and secondly because this comments section is not a place for technical discussion of scientific papers.

However, what the general reader out there should take from this exchange is that NO, contrary to what you pettily claim (by means of blind copying of quotes), we have NOT yet ruled out many of these models, partly because our current data is simply not good enough. When we do science, we discuss, challenge and debate these ideas on a daily basis, be it over a cup of tea or during a conference. At our astrophysics department at Oxford we maintain a blog where we discuss such topics. Here is a post very much related to this topic, which hopefully will help you see how we still have not resolved these issues:
http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/blog/astro-blog/2011/11/16/what-happened-before-the-big-bang

I should soon be posting another related entry on the same blog, so you might want to watch that space.

Also, this is a discussion with one of our colleagues from Cambridge, John Barrow:
http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/john-barrow-on-the-big-bang-singularity/

You might find this interesting as well:
http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/universe-kalam-and-equivocation/

Unfortunately, I lack the time to continue engaging in this discussion, so I will leave it here. However, I hope you'll realize that these questions are far from settled.

Mr Joseph Caruana

Jun 18th 2012, 18:14

David, you may quote as much as you like; as long as you lack the ability to critically analyse what is being said in these papers, copying/pasting quotes means nothing. If I were to question you about the fine, technical points of those papers, you would falter, as what you are doing is simply blind copying. I have already pointed out that the arguments brought up in Mithani & Vilenkin's paper have been responded to by Susskind in his own paper, but you chose to ignore that completely in your reply. You are not achieving anything by giving me quotes from papers with which I am more than familiar already.

I will not delve into technical issues here, firstly because you are not a cosmologist anyway, so that would have little benefit, and secondly because this comments section is not a place for technical discussion of scientific papers.

However, what the general reader out there should take from this exchange is that NO, contrary to what you pettily claim (by means of blind copying of quotes), we have NOT yet ruled out many of these models, partly because our current data is simply not good enough. When we do science, we discuss, challenge and debate these ideas on a daily basis, be it over a cup of tea or during a conference. At our astrophysics department at Oxford we maintain a blog where we discuss such topics. Here is a post very much related to this topic, which hopefully will help you see how we still have not resolved these issues:
http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/blog/astro-blog/2011/11/16/what-happened-before-the-big-bang

I should soon be posting another related entry on the same blog, so you might want to watch that space.

Also, this is a discussion with one of our colleagues from Cambridge, John Barrow:
http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/john-barrow-on-the-big-bang-singularity/

You might find this interesting as well:
http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/universe-kalam-and-equivocation/

Unfortunately, I lack the time to continue engaging in this discussion, so I will leave it here. I hope you'll realize that these questions are far from settled.

David Seychell

Jun 19th 2012, 05:39

@J. Caruana
"..we have NOT yet ruled out many of these models, partly because our current data is simply not good enough."

I didn't not say that those models have been ruled out, what I said is that it was shown that they cannot be beginningless as previously thought.


"I hope you'll realize that these questions are far from settled."

Of course not. Just because today's evidence point towards a beginning of the Universe/multiverse doesn't mean we have a guarantee that in the future we won't have new evidence that would revolutionise our view of the Cosmos. But whilst it is healthy to keep an open mind, at the end of the day one should let the present evidence lead the way.

Mr Joseph Caruana

Jun 19th 2012, 13:51

"I didn't not say that those models have been ruled out, what I said is that it was shown that they cannot be beginningless as previously thought."

That's precisely what I meant. We cannot rule out the possibility of their being beginning-less, as our data is absolutely not good enough to allow us to do that (not to mention that we still have to agree upon which parameters would need constraining etc.) And even from a theoretical viewpoint, scenarios such as eternal inflation are still possible (as you'd have seen for yourself if you read through our blogpost on the topic which I mentioned before: http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/blog/astro-blog/2011/11/16/what-happened-before-the-big-bang)

"Just because today's evidence point towards a beginning of the Universe/multiverse doesn't mean we have a guarantee that in the future we won't have new evidence that would revolutionise our view of the Cosmos. But whilst it is healthy to keep an open mind, at the end of the day one should let the present evidence lead the way."

Completely wrong. All the discussion so far was from a theoretical perspective, and even that is not agreed upon so far, as I have tried to show you. Evidence has not even mildly come into this yet. As I said, our data is not good enough, so your statement "one should let the present evidence lead the way" is meaningless. There is no such "present evidence".

David Seychell

Jun 19th 2012, 20:00

@Joseph Caruana
"Evidence has not even mildly come into this yet."

That's a surprising statement because if what you say is true then Vilenkin's statement would make no sense "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Evidence is an indication that something is likely to be true whereas a proof means excluding all other possibilities. The more evidence you have the higher the probability. Consider for instance a case where someone claims to be my son. A court orders a dna test with the result being a complete match. The dna test would constitute the current evidence in favour of the hypothesis that I'm the father. However that does not give you the guarantee that in the future new evidence won't come out to discredit that hypothesis. In fact it could turn out to be that I have a twin brother I wasn't aware of. The dna test cannot distinguish the father from the uncle if they are twins. So as you can see from this scenario, at one point you might have convincing evidence in favour of hypothesis A, and then just one unexpected new element puts your hypothesis back into question.

Were it really true that "evidence has not even mildly come into this yet" we would not have been in a position to largely discredit the "Steady State theory", just to give you one example.


"Unfortunately, I lack the time to continue engaging in this discussion, so I will leave it here."

Same thing here.

Mr Joseph Caruana

Jun 20th 2012, 14:35

"That's a surprising statement because if what you say is true then Vilenkin's statement would make no sense "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”"

Again, that's a misinterpretation. It's one thing to say that we have evidence for a universe that started with a Big Bang (eg. from baryon ratio/primordial nucleosynthesis, increasing redshift with distance, existence of CMB etc.), quite another to say that we have evidence suggesting that a model of eternal inflation is discouraged. That's not the case, as was also explained in our blog post which I keep referring you to. Let me copy/paste the relevant bit here:

'The idea is that once, the Universe was so hot and dense that tiny random fluctuations could actually have enough energy to power the "inflation," or very rapid expansion, of a small patch of the Universe that would grow to an immense size and contain all the galaxies we currently see - and in fact make up what we call the observable Universe today. Meanwhile, other fluctuations could have caused other patches of the Universe to expand into what other observers over there would then describe as their observable universe. And in this picture, isolated inflating patches like these could have been occasionally blowing up here and there, forever. A multiverse with a history stretching back into the infinite past! Perhaps a more satisying, but also a more dizzying, notion than time starting at a single Big Bang.'

Now, the problem is that our data is not good enough at the moment to be able to tell (as is also explained further down in the same post).

"Evidence is an indication that something is likely to be true whereas a proof means excluding all other possibilities. The more evidence you have the higher the probability."

Good explanation, but unnecessary; being an astrophysicist means that I have to know as basic a concept as what constitutes evidence.

"Were it really true that "evidence has not even mildly come into this yet" we would not have been in a position to largely discredit the "Steady State theory", just to give you one example."

That's completely off the point. Steady State theory is one thing, eternal inflation, for instance, is another. Evidence for the Big Bang (which in essence is evidence for a changing universe) excludes the Steady State Theory, but NOT eternal inflation. We have ample evidence against the steady state theory, but NOT against eternal inflation.

Andy Farrugia

Jun 16th 2012, 12:46

Perhaps he was contemplating how assorted nihilists would fit into the scheme of things!

Victor Pulis

Jun 16th 2012, 19:56

Andy you always come up with the right answers! You're so convincing!!

Victor Pulis

Jun 17th 2012, 09:15

Mr. Farrugia your answers are always so convincing! Us rebels, revolutinaries and radicals (AKA nihilists) don't stand a chance against your wise and profond answers!!

Andy Farrugia

Jun 17th 2012, 16:12

Hahaha! Rebels without a cause, as you do not believe in God anyway!

Victor Pulis

Jun 17th 2012, 17:59

Another meaningful answer which leaves us nihilists speechless!

Andy Farrugia

Jun 17th 2012, 23:00

Oh no! Coherence is what you lack not speech; indeed you do make an awful lot of noise about what you believe to be nothing, non-existent!

Reuben Zammit

Jun 22nd 2012, 11:04

Even Mohammed, Sidharta and the Chinese euneuch general Gang Bing were real persons, and actually have many reliable sources affirming their existence. So what's your point?

Ramon Casha

Jun 15th 2012, 05:53

Wow, I've been promoted? Cool. The incumbent vice chair may be annoyed that nobody informed him though.

Roger Tirazona

Jun 15th 2012, 10:15

And yet again, the senior lecturer, continues to entertain us with his personal attacks with big words, but without a rebuttal to any of the original arguments put forward. Endlessly hilarious but also the stuff of kindergarten.

Andy Farrugia

Jun 15th 2012, 12:41

I seem to have attracted the opprobrium of the motley crowd of Ditchkins acolytes. Hope they have some soothing pomade to tend to those raw nerves! Hahaha!

Karl Consiglio

Jun 15th 2012, 16:34

@Andy Farrugia,

Laughter aside, what's your point please?

Ramon Casha

Jun 15th 2012, 05:51

1. Those passages were written almost a century later and are a short description of Christians and their beliefs, based on what Christians themselves said. Remember that Tacitus himself was not even born when Jesus died. As a historian Tacitus is known to have drawn from other writings available in his time, and certainly several gospels were already available, and are likely to have been the only record in Rome of an instance of crime and punishment in a remote prefecture like Judea.

2. I never suggested that M-theory or Hawking's concept has been proven. However, it is thus far one of several models that match what is known. In other words, while there is no scientific evidence that points to M-theory to the exclusion of other models, there is evidence that points to either M-theory or one of the other models (or one that has not yet been put forward).

3. Thanks for the offer, and I'm sure they are indeed interesting discussions, not to mention good beer, but I don't have to travel to Cambridge to get either.

Ramon Casha

Jun 14th 2012, 18:38

1. Certainly, scientists question and challenge each other all the time. It's in the nature of the scientific method to do so.
2. I agree with all except the last sentence. The fact that there are scientists who are theists does not mean that they found evidence of God with their science. Science could eliminate the need for a god to explain anything, and still there would be people who believe.
3. There are references to Christians, not to Jesus - except as the deity that Christians worship.
4. If these biographies said that Alexander the Great could walk on water, or raise people from the dead, then yes historians would certainly question their reliability. Besides, although the full biographies dated from later, there were other inscriptions, remains and so on.

Franco Farrugia

Jun 15th 2012, 20:03

That is up to the readers to decide, when they have deciphered exactly what you are out to say.

Ramon Casha

Jun 14th 2012, 18:29

"My favourite model" has not yet been discredited, although of course there are physicists who favour a different model. That is a standard misinformation propagated by creationists. There are many things which are not yet clearly understood about the nature of the universe and this gives rise to multiple models, all physically and mathematically valid, many of which require no beginning of all existence.

The idea that the BGV theorem mathematically proves the universe has a beginning is a misinterpretation given by creationist theologian Willian Lane Craig. The 2003 paper however says that "almost all" inflationary models of the universe have a beginning. Note the word "almost", which Craig conveniently leaves out. Vilenkin himself, when asked specifically about this interpretation, said the following: "If someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” "

Not to mention that, of course, you're making an assumption that the BGV theorem is correct.

Nice try though :)

David Seychell

Jun 14th 2012, 20:08

First of all here is the remaining part of the quote you provided:

"If someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."

"Not to mention that, of course, you're making an assumption that the BGV theorem is correct."

You clearly don't know what the BGV is all about. I'm not assuming the BGV theorem is correct, because the BGV is mathematically proved. The BGV theorem states that any Universe that have been on average positively expanding, must have had an absolute beginning.

"The 2003 paper however says that "almost all" inflationary models of the universe have a beginning. Note the word "almost", "

Yes I noted that. But the proof does not say almost all inflationary models of the universe but of a universe. That's the point. This means that if other inflationary universes exist, this theory does not apply to them if their expantion where not always on average positive. The point is not what may or may not apply to other possible Universes that may or may not exist, the point is what applies or not to OUR Universe which is the only Universe we know it exists. Since all the scientific evidence shows that our Universe has always been on average positively expanding, this means that the proof applies to our Universe.

David Seychell

Jun 14th 2012, 20:45

I actually managed to find the scientific paper in pdf form, but it's very technical.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf

"Again we see that if Hav > 0 along any null or noncomoving
timelike geodesic, then the geodesic is necessarily
past-incomplete."

Which means that if "H", that is, the expansion of a universe, is on average positive, then that universe must have had a beginning. Again, all the experimental and observational evidence shows that this condition is satisfied by our Universe and therefore the proof applies to our Universe.

Wally Vella-Zarb

Jun 14th 2012, 23:03

A question, if I may. You wrote "Which means that if "H", that is, the expansion of a universe, is on average positive, then that universe must have had a beginning."

The statement "is on average positive" implies that there are/were both positive AND negative values of 'H'. Would this not indicate both positive and negative expansion - in other words, contraction? If so, would this not indicate a pulsing 'universe' that is expanding at times while it is contracting at others?

David Seychell

Jun 15th 2012, 17:02

@Wally Vella-Zarb

We are talking here about the only condition that a universe needs to have for this theorem to apply to that universe. Vilenkin says about this condition in his book Many Worlds in One:

"A remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. . . . We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. . . . The only assumption we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value. . . . This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible."

Now I will quote the technical description of this condition required by the theorem from the scientific paper itself:

"This is the chief result of our paper. The result depends on just one assumption: the Hubble parameter H has a positive value when averaged over the affine parameter of a past-directed null or non-coming time-like geodesic."

" If so, would this not indicate a pulsing 'universe' that is expanding at times while it is contracting at others?"

Honestly, I don't know if a universe that at times is contracting may also satisfy the condition required by this theorem, but to me it seems as if the answer is yes.

David Seychell

Jun 15th 2012, 17:24

@Ramon Casha
"The 2003 paper however says that 'almost all' inflationary models of the universe have a beginning. Note the word 'almost', which Craig conveniently leaves out."

Whether the theorem applies to all inflationary models or almost all inflationary models is irrelevant. What matters is that the theorem applies to just one inflationary model, that is, the model that correctly represent our physical Universe. You can have many different models of a universe that are mathematically coherent, for instance you could have a model of a universe which is open and you could have another one where the universe is closed but if the observational data shows that our universe is for instance closed than the model of the open universe needs to be discarded. If the observational data contradicts your favourite model, you don't throw away the data, you discard the your model and use another one. That's how science works.

"For the proof of our theorem, however, we find that it is
sufficient to adopt a much weaker assumption, requiring
only that a congruence with Hav > 0 can be continuously
defined along some past-directed timelike or null
geodesic.
In Section II, we illustrate our result by showing how
it arises in the case of a homogeneous, isotropic, and spatially
flat universe."

Highly accurate recent measurements of the cosmic MBR by the WMAP probe indicate that our universe is flat and therefore, so far, all observational data shows that our universe satisfy the condition of the theorem.

Mr Duncan Scerri

Jun 14th 2012, 15:22

"And Josephus apart, there is of course a whole range of Roman reference to Christians..."

Yes. Christians were documented, there were not any references to the existence of Jesus the Nazarene. Bit of a difference. Interesting to note that as accommodating as the Romans were to other religions, they termed this "cult of the cross" as being a dangerous superstition.

The author of the Gospel of Matthew is unknown. There is no evidence that the disciple "whom Jesus loved" is the author of the Gospel of John. Slight side note, I wonder what Jesus would have thought about gay marriage? He certainly never spoke against it.

"Regrettably they had no facebooks or even newspapers to record events mentioned in the Gospels..."

But there had been media for recording all kinds of events for thousands of years. And people were recording the goings on in Palestine in those days. But outside of the Bible, there are no records. In fact, I suggest you take some time to read some of the Gospels in the Nag Hammadi texts. They are quite enlightening.

Franco Farrugia

Jun 14th 2012, 15:04

I am not ridiculing Casha at all. I am merely pointing out the futility of such wasting of time, even on his part, to try convincing the rest of creation - hark, creation! - that God does not exist. And you call it 'a bit of fresh air'.
I am glad you believe in 'democratic Malta' and I wonder where you were in the 70s and 80s where there was no 'freedom of expression' on the part of a good portion of society in our country.
It is disgustingly shallow of you to try and somehow exaggerate the reaction that Casha and his ilk rightfully receive by comparing it to what happens within Muslim society.
I am sure you follow most if not all comments on this medium and therefore you should be privy to my writings in favour of the secular and of religion being in its correct place - so your long-winded attack seems to originate from some other unfathomable reason.
No, I personally do not 'hear everyone'. I do not suffer fools so easily.
And yes, I think that your comment, sir, is extremely long-winded, an exaggeration, and uncalled-for. When you read it over and over again, you will find that it says nothing.

Ramon Casha

Jun 15th 2012, 05:55

Thanks Francis.

As it is even in democratic Malta I risk 6 months in jail. Of course it's not like Malta is a place where people get arrested for dressing up as nuns in carnival, or newspaper editors charged under the blasphemy law is it?

:)

Franco Farrugia

Jun 15th 2012, 13:16

@ Ramon Casha: Suppost tafhom il-fehmiet tieghi dwar iz-zewg kazijiet li qed issemmi. Jigifieri, u qed inkellmek bil-Malti biex zgur tifhimni u bla problemi: tilghabhiex tal-vittma mieghi biex minghalik tipprova tilhaq il-livell 'gholi' ta' min hu wara z-zewg kazijiet li qed issemmi int. Punto, e basta.

Mr Duncan Scerri

Jun 14th 2012, 14:22

I suspect he's not as young as you might imagine. Although I'm sure he will be flattered to hear you have written so.

As for "his new form of deity", Ramon is neither a theist nor a deist, but an atheist. There are profound differences between the three. I would suggest that a young whipper-snapper, such as yourself, read up on the distinctness of each prior to your next comment.

Mr Duncan Scerri

Jun 14th 2012, 14:17

"I shall say to the Hindus that your life will be incomplete unless you reverentially study the teachings of Jesus."

Comes across a little differently when one quotes correctly.

Karl Consiglio

Jun 14th 2012, 17:35

Well thats just Gandhi's opinion. you think I'm going to believe it just because I heard it from Gandhi?

Victor Pulis

Jun 16th 2012, 14:23

This could also be said to christians about the teachings of Buddha. And incidentally gandhi was a hindu and never converted to christianity.Is there a Pope brave enough to advise christians to read up on Buddhism or islam or whatever? of course not. We are only good at sticking labels on ourdoors warning Jehovah's witnesses not to ring our bell. A sure indication that catholic Maltese are unable to defend their own faith.

Jason Fenech

Jun 14th 2012, 13:10

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.

- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, April 19, 1955