eh

The argument comes up all the time on philosophy boards whenever contingency is discussed. I just think claims the universe is contingent to be a bit unjustified given our current understanding.

Probably not. Even if the universe existed as a vacuum with the lowest possible energy state, expansion would still occur. No matter what intital state or size you have, you would still have an expanding universe, and the big bang is merely the intital state.

But why then, don't we live in an empty, featureless universe? Cosmologists believe that inflation occured after the big bang, taking a small region of the vacuum and inflating it to an expanding fireball. So if by universe, you mean a world with stars, galaxies, people and art, then yes that is contingent. And that is created from a pre existing space-time.

What does that mean? The only thoughts we know of occur in sequence, and the only consciousness we know of is contingent. See below.

No, I literally mean the concept is undefined. To say God is outside of time only tells us something God is NOT, but does not tell us what he IS. Since we have no experience with anything that exists outside of space and time, you would have explain what it actually means. Defining such concepts with negatives, only tells us what the being is not.

It's the same as saying he is conscious, yet not in any definition we have of consciousness. You would have to provide a definition of God's consciousness is, or it is obviously undefined. So it has nothing to do with personal incredulity, as a concept that doesn't have any coherant definitions, is quite undefined.

Galan

I don't think it actually appears in "The Varieties of Religious Experience".

It's a fairly well-known (often repeated) story, but I'm not sure where he first reports it. Good question though.

Galan

That link was to a copy of a recently published paper in pdf format, so you may want to make sure that your browser has the plug-in for pdf files.

In the same earlier post I also gave links to a couple of CTMU websites:
http://www.ctmu.org/
http://www.teleologic.org/

eh

Interesting. Any testible predictions made by this model?

luvluv

SRB:

In invoking an infinite regress you are essentially saying that we ourselves our caugt up in an infinite series of events. That means we would have to regard the present moment as the end of infinity. But an infinity, by defintion, cannot have an ending. Therefore, there cannot be an infinite regress of events.

If I were to say, of this present moment, that there could be infinitely numerous successive momments, this is a possibility. But if I say that this present moment is the END of an infinite series of momments, that is not a logical possibility. I think the present momment falsifies the notion of infinite regress.

eh:

Hold on a second. I am not trying to defend or explain any concept. You made the argument that there is an infinite regress involved in God's thoughts. Infinite regress is only a problem in the real world because of the sequential progress of time. In a timeless reality, there is no sequential progress of time. Therefore, there is no problem of an infinite regress vs a first cause. I am not trying to make it make sense to you, I am only telling you that if the Christian God exists His thoughts would not represent an infinite regress.

You are basically saying "that is inconceivable". The fact that you or I or humanity in general cannot conceive of a state of affairs has no bearing on whether or not such a state of affairs actually obtains. "Not logically explicable" does not mean "logically impossible."

What caused the big bang? What caused inflation?

Galan:

I have an acrobat reader, but my browser says the file is too large or something. I may have too many windows open. I'll try again later.

Galan

I think questions on CTMU-specific predictions, and the general issue of "testable predictions" in models of reality, are addressed by the author on the web sites listed above, and in the pdf document already linked to.

Since I'm still studying it, and therefore undecided on its merits as well, other than to say that it's definitely original and very interesting, it's probably best to just refer you to the author's material for now.

K

luvluv:

Nope. I've just been busy with a move, change of jobs, and a new addition to the family. I went for the hat trick in high stress activities.

Shadowy Man

The only correct answer anyone can give to these questions is:

"I don't know."

eh

But this timeless reality is undefined. Not impossible, but undefined. You can see how something like that doesn't have a lot of explanatory power.

I agree.

As I said before, it seems that a universe with any amount of energy will expand. This is due to the nature of energy/the universe.

The cause of inflation is quite technical, but I can provide some links if you want. But since inflation occurs after the big bang, it is no more relevant to the contingency of the universe than the creation of stars is.

luvluv

eh:

What are you expecting it to explain? You claimed that God's thoughts involve an infinite regress, and timlessness implies that they do not. I only invoked it to explain that your counterexample does not apply to our conception of God.

I'm not going to beat a dead horse, here, but why exactly would this energy not have expanded, or been expanding, from all eternity? These are the points Craig explains in his fully fleshed out defense of the cosmological argument. If energy naturally expands, and energy is eternal, then the universe should also be eternal.

In the end, I would agree with you that the cosmological argument is not completely sound(I don't know how I've been baited into defending it for this long), but I don't think the explanations of modern cosmology (as regards the cause of the big bang) are very good either (so far as I understand them, which probably ain't far). Therefore, it being that I have various independant reasons for believing in God, I believe God caused the begining of the universe.