NewStats: 3,261,489 , 8,174,147 topics. Date: Thursday, 29 May 2025 at 12:11 PM 2e252v

TenQ:

I didn't ask you to calculate the entropy of the universe.
I said:

But entropy must be calculated to be understood.
So before putting words out there, you should understand their meanings.

Below is the formula for calculating entropy of a system;

Myer:


But entropy must be calculated to be understood.
So before putting words out there, you should understand their meanings.

Below is the formula for calculating entropy of a system;

It is sufficient to state whether the entropy is a constant, increasing or decreasing.

Understanding thermodynamics is not the same thing as just quoting equations that which you can't even use.

Buliwyf:


Here we go again. I don't know how many times this has to be corrected and it is usually peddled by Christians who are trying to use it as an assertion that their god must have created the universe because it has a beginning. The picture attached below is from Wikipedia page about the BGV theorem. As you can see the theorem only claims to know the beginning of the universe as we know it. Not anything that exists before the Big Bang.

I don't even know how the theorem even proves the existence of the Christian god. We are discussing the beginning of the universe because the universe can be proven to exist. The problem is that Christians try to leapfrog this proof and claim that their god is everlasting and must have created the universe without first showing their god exists in the first place.

The only thing we know for sure without any doubt is that the universe exists in one form or another and we are a part of it. If there is a god, it is probably the universe itself and we are all just expressions of it. The universe is more believable as a deity than any guy on a throne behind the clouds who cannot manifest in any meaningful way but impregnates women to give birth to himself and still fail at his goal while his followers are splintered into a million factions with differing orders from him.

Could you kindly point out where I made mention of the BVG theorem making any assertions to anything prior to the existence of the universe?

Could you also point out where I made any assertions that the theorem makes any claims about any deity?

Finally I do have a copies of the sources used in the wiki link you marked out, so I'm reasonably certain of what the theorem asserts & what it doesn't.

a)"Mithani, Audrey; Vilenkin, Alexander (20 April 2012). "Did the universe have a beginning?". arXiv:1204.4658". - free online.(https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658)

b) Delia Perlov and Alexander Vilenkin, Cosmology for the Curious p. 331

Neither of them makes any claims that the universe does not have an ultimate beginning.
And the statement "However, Vilenkin and co-author Delia Perlov have also stated that, in their view, the theorem tells us only that inflation had a beginning and not that the universe had a not that the universe had a beginning" is incorrect.
There's no where in the book(Cosmology for the Curious) such an assertion is made.
Below is page 331 and it's context.

TenQ:

It is sufficient to state whether the entropy is a constant, increasing or decreasing.

Understanding thermodynamics is not the same thing as just quoting equations that which you can't even use.

I'm wondering why you brought up the entropy of the universe in the first place knowing fully well you dont and cannot understand it.

Myer:


I'm wondering why you brought up the entropy of the universe in the first place knowing fully well you dont and cannot understand it.

LOL!!
Really!?
You should have answered the question and then give me the lecture of my life!

I will at least have been humbled by you!
(Except you are trying to be evasive in answering the simple question)

I can give you time to read up if you can't answer the question now
What does science say about the entropy of the universe. Is it 1.constant,
2. decreasing or
3. increasing?

TenQ:
LOL!!
Really!?
You should have answered the question and then give me the lecture of my life!

I will at least have been humbled by you!
(Except you are trying to be evasive in answering the simple question)

I can give you time to read up if you can't answer the question now
What does science say about the entropy of the universe. Is it 1.constant,
2. decreasing or
3. increasing?

There are things that are too high for me and even for present day scientists. Psalm 131:1
I'm humble enough to it I cant calculate the entropy of the universe.

Which is why I was surprised you had the audacity to bring that up as an argumentative point.
Next time only focus on what you understand and leave those you cant possibly fathom.

Myer:


There are things that are too high for me and even for present day scientists. Psalm 131:1
I'm humble enough to it I cant calculate the entropy if the universe.

Which is why I was surprised you had the audacity to bring that up as an argumentative point.
Next time only focus on what you understand and leave those you cant possibly fathom.

An elementary knowledge of thermodynamics will tell you that it is impossible to calculate the exact entropy of the universe at any given time. The only thing you can scientifically do is to determine if the entropy of the universe is increasing, decreasing or remain a constant.
The question I have asked you is exactly that.

What does science say about the entropy of the universe. Is it 1.constant,
2. decreasing or
3. increasing?

jamesid29:


Could you kindly point out where I made mention of the BVG theorem making any assertions to anything prior to the existence of the universe?

Could you also point out where I made any assertions that the theorem makes any claims about any deity?

**Sigh** Christians and gymnastics.

You were the one that brought up the BGV theorem claiming it makes a claim about the beginning of the universe. I just bursted your claim by showing you that it only has to do with the inflation of the universe and not the universe itself. Now you have shifted to unrelated questions. Maybe I should attach a picture in case you forgot.

I don't know why you christians have to resort to gymnastics when all you need if for your god to just prove he exists in a meaningful way so that everyone can see without any doubt. He has only done as much as spiderman so far

Buliwyf:


**Sigh** Christians and gymnastics.

You were the one that brought up the BGV theorem claiming it makes a claim about the beginning of the universe. [b]I just bursted your claim by showing you that it only has to do with the inflation of the universe and not the universe itself. [/b]Now you have shifted to unrelated questions. Maybe I should attach a picture in case you forgot.

I don't know why you christians have to resort to gymnastics when all you need if for your god to just prove he exists in a meaningful way so that everyone can see without any doubt. He has only done as much as spiderman so far

I just edited my post prior to seeing your reply to show that @ bolded is incorrect from the source itself.

I'll repost it below again Incase you missed it

Could you kindly point out where I made mention of the BVG theorem making any assertions to anything prior to the existence of the universe?

Could you also point out where I made any assertions that the theorem makes any claims about any deity?

Finally I do have a copies of the sources used in the wiki link you marked out, so I'm reasonably certain of what the theorem asserts & what it doesn't.

a)"Mithani, Audrey; Vilenkin, Alexander (20 April 2012). "Did the universe have a beginning?". arXiv:1204.4658". - free online.(https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658)

b) Delia Perlov and Alexander Vilenkin, Cosmology for the Curious p. 331

Neither of them makes any claims that the universe does not have an ultimate beginning.
And the statement "However, Vilenkin and co-author Delia Perlov have also stated that, in their view, the theorem tells us only that inflation had a beginning and not that the universe had a not that the universe had a beginning" is incorrect.
There's no where in the book(Cosmology for the Curious) such an assertion is made.
Below is page 331 and it's context.

Finally here is a free online article where Vilenkin articulates his own speculative hypothesis but ultimately comes to the conclusion that as far as the physics go, that is a mystery and We have no way to begin to address this mystery
https://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

jamesid29:

I just edited my post prior to seeing your reply to show that @ bolded is incorrect from the source itself.

I'll repost it below again Incase you missed it

Could you kindly point out where I made mention of the BVG theorem making any assertions to anything prior to the existence of the universe?

Could you also point out where I made any assertions that the theorem makes any claims about any deity?

Finally I do have a copies of the sources used in the wiki link you marked out, so I'm reasonably certain of what the theorem asserts & what it doesn't.

a)"Mithani, Audrey; Vilenkin, Alexander (20 April 2012). "Did the universe have a beginning?". arXiv:1204.4658". - free online.(https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658)

b) Delia Perlov and Alexander Vilenkin, Cosmology for the Curious p. 331

Neither of them makes any claims that the universe does not have an ultimate beginning.
And the statement "However, Vilenkin and co-author Delia Perlov have also stated that, in their view, the theorem tells us only that inflation had a beginning and not that the universe had a not that the universe had a beginning" is incorrect.
There's no where in the book(Cosmology for the Curious) such an assertion is made.
Below is page 331 and it's context.

**Facepalm**
Am I the only one actually reading what you are posting? Even the evidence and paperwork you posted made it clear yet you are still on this matter.

BGV is about the beginning of the INFLATION of the universe. It has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe itself. Which is not what you stated initially when you replied LordReed. Your arguments has been about the beginning of the universe. BGV does not deal with that.

Please read the article you are posting as evidence well. Please!!! And notice it says inflation everything time. Read the summary too.

So inflation of the universe must have definitely had a beginning according to the BGV model but it doesn't say anything about the beginning of the universe itself.

Buliwyf:


**Facepalm**
Am I the only one actually reading what you are posting? Even the evidence and paperwork you posted made it clear yet you are still on this matter.

BGV is about the beginning of the INFLATION of the universe. It has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe itself. Which is not what you stated initially when you replied LordReed. Your arguments has been about the beginning of the universe. BGV does not deal with that.

Please read the article you are posting as evidence well. Please!!! And notice it says inflation everything time.

So inflation of the universe must have definitely had a beginning according to the BGV model but it doesn't say anything about the beginning of the universe itself.

I suggest you re-read again sir. You seem to be trying to impose something else other than that which the book is stating

jamesid29:

I suggest you re-read again sir. You seem to be trying to impose something else other than that which the book is stating

Lol this guy. Did you read the summary on that page 331? Because it seems you posted it without reading.

Buliwyf:


Lol this guy. Did you read the summary on that page 331? Because it seems you posted it without reading.

Again the summary of the text wasn't excluding the origin of the universe as opposed to the the origin of inflation. Read the whole page and the preceding page I posted sir
No such demarcation is made by the theorem, hence why I pasted the whole page and it's preceding context.
Basically, In the beginning was the beginning:
https://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning.
(Kindly read it, it help explains how the on a popular level, the beginning is the beginning. There's no beginning to the universe prior to the inflation. It's an interview with Dr Vilenkin)

You can subsequently the free online peer reviewed article I posted also. Here is the link once more: Mithani, Audrey; Vilenkin, Alexander (20 April 2012). "Did the universe have a beginning?". arXiv:1204.4658". - free online.(https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658)

Also read the free article online I posted earlier from Vilenkin where he states his theory and proposes his hypothesis of how the universe could have begun through natural processes. https://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

Also do read "22.2.2 A Proof of God?" from the pictures I posted on pages 331,where Vilenkin propses his own hypothesis on the second part of the cosmological argument( I'm guessing you know what it states).

In any case, I've given you multiple sources on what the theorem states, written by one of the authors itself. if you still choose to mis-interprete a single line of a summary without interacting with any other thing, maybe you should take a step and realise, maybe you are the one holding on strongly to a philosophical bias.




PS: I made an edit to the wiki page, removing the assertion made by the previous editor which none of the source materials nowhere makes and was contradictory to assertions made in the rest of the article.

Myer:


Atheism is a state of mind where you choose to deconstruct yourself from religious, family and societal expectations. You choose to find meaning to life and your existence.

Speaking from a Nigerian's perspective we are by birth and upbringing immersed either in Christianity, Islam or tradionalism. But most times as you grow more independent you start to question your belief system and its efficacy.

I believe every educated human being should through a phase of atheism before finally deciding whether to continue with atheism or discover the religion that they are comfortable with.

Theists are also finding meaning to life and existence. What you gave is not a definition of atheism, except the state of mind part.

By your “state of mind” definition, atheism seems to be what anyone feels in their heart

HellVictorinho3:
What's the essence of atheism?


Martinez39s,1Sharon,CAPSLOCKED, LordReed,adoyi8,kingsmaz,johnnydon22,helineus,MJBolt and every other atheist on Earth.

Atheists cannot give you a definition atheism.
And they will also struggle with the essence of atheism.

jamesid29:

Like I said sir, all known physics and theory states that the in universe has a beginning. Inflation might be eternal to the future but not to the past.
This is not just my opinion or theistic bias. This is standard cosmology.

A number of physicists have tried to create models of an eternal universe especially since we don't have a quantum theory of gravity but the BGV theorem is sweeping in its generality. It makes no assumptions about gravity or matter. Gravity may be attractive or repulsive, light rays may converge or diverge, and even general relativity may decline into desuetude: the theorem would still hold.
Basically as long as the average expansion rate is positive along a given world line, or geodesic, then this geodesic must terminate after a finite amount of time.

As you said sir, there has to be something before the universe. The first speck of space, energy & the fundamental laws have had to come from somewhere but that is outside of the hard sciences and into the realm of the meta physical & other disciplines.
But the point is, this universe did have an ultimate starting point. Any other conclusion draws not on what we know, but on what we don't know.

By the way, Vilenkin etc are agnostic as far as I know and do not ascribe the beginning of this universe to a deity or affirms the existence of one. As stated above, that's outside of what physics or what the theory can describe and of course speculations abound.
What is affirmed is that given the theorem the only way to avoid a beginning is to appeal to unknown physics.

Read this to get started:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/07/06/did-the-universe-have-a-beginning/?sh=5138f1244100

TenQ:

Can you define the universe?
Is the universe the same as the gravitational singularity that inflated to form space, time and matter as we know it?

The universe is the sum total of all that exists.

If time began how there be a before?

TenQ:

You just showed an example by not attempting to understand what you have rejected yet relishing the fact that your claim of lack of belief is the most intelligent response to whether you believe that hair on people have any benefit.

Agnostism is a position that claims that knowing is impossible!

Therefore your choice is based on not knowing.

Does not knowing make your position TRUE?

You are beginning to sound like your brain needs a reset. My claim that I lacked belief was clearly predicated on a lack of knowledge but here you are attempting to twist it up according to what ever delusion is driving you.

Is it that you just post stuff without bothering to understand what you quote. You posted a definition of agnostic that says is not known OR cannot it be known, clearly implying that there are 2 possible agnostic stances on the knowledge claim. But here you are insisting that it is exactly the one that fits your narrative. If you purpose for this discussion is to win then I am not interested because it means you are ready to use any means necessary instead of settling down to absorb information.

I didn't make a choice. The meaning of the word you brought was unknown to me, how can I form any belief or disbelief in what I don't know? The simple fact is in that state I have no belief but if you want to keep arguing you'll have to do it with yourself.

jamesid29:

Again the summary of the text wasn't excluding the origin of the universe as opposed to the the origin of inflation. Read the whole page and the preceding page I posted sir
No such demarcation is made by the theorem, hence why I pasted the whole page and it's preceding context.
Basically, In the beginning was the beginning:
https://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning.
(Kindly read it, it help explains how the on a popular level, the beginning is the beginning. There's no beginning to the universe prior to the inflation. It's an interview with Dr Vilenkin)

You can subsequently the free online peer reviewed article I posted also. Here is the link once more: Mithani, Audrey; Vilenkin, Alexander (20 April 2012). "Did the universe have a beginning?". arXiv:1204.4658". - free online.(https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658)

Also read the free article online I posted earlier from Vilenkin where he states his theory and proposes his hypothesis of how the universe could have begun through natural processes. https://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

Also do read "22.2.2 A Proof of God?" from the pictures I posted on pages 331,where Vilenkin propses his own hypothesis on the second part of the cosmological argument( I'm guessing you know what it states).

In any case, I've given you multiple sources on what the theorem states, written by one of the authors itself. if you still choose to mis-interprete a single line of a summary without interacting with any other thing, maybe you should take a step and realise, maybe you are the one holding on strongly to a philosophical bias.




PS: I made an edit to the wiki page, removing the assertion made by the previous editor which none of the source materials nowhere makes and was contradictory to assertions made in the rest of the article.

Listen to Sean Carroll here:

https://slate.com/technology/2016/02/sean-carroll-talks-about-the-beginning-of-the-universe.html

Nothingserious:


Theists are also finding meaning to life and existence. What you gave is not a definition of atheism, except the state of mind part.

By your “state of mind” definition, atheism seems to be what anyone feels in their heart

True my definition here is not the true definition of atheism.

Atheism is a state where you lack belief in god.

My point is simple. Every Nigerian was born into religion and worship of a god or gods or God/Allah.
So as an educated individual, you should deconstruct yourself from what you were born into and discover God for your self.

That's when you can truly know if you're an atheist or a theist or someone who is just practising the religion (s)he was born into or someone trying to please the society or family or cowering under peer pressure.

LordReed:


You are beginning to sound like your brain needs a reset. My claim that I lacked belief was clearly predicated on a lack of knowledge but here you are attempting to twist it up according to what ever delusion is driving you.

Is it that you just post stuff without bothering to understand what you quote. You posted a definition of agnostic that says is not known OR cannot it be known, clearly implying that there are 2 possible agnostic stances on the knowledge claim. But here you are insisting that it is exactly the one that fits your narrative. If you purpose for this discussion is to win then I am not interested because it means you are ready to use any means necessary instead of settling down to absorb information.

I didn't make a choice. The meaning of the word you brought was unknown to me, how can I form any belief or disbelief in what I don't know? The simple fact is in that state I have no belief but if you want to keep arguing you'll have to do it with yourself.

I gave you several hints
1. It was an old Yoruba word
2. It is depreciated
3. I gave you it's pronouncation
4. I used it in a sentence

A reasonable person would have asked a simple question before making conclusions. Of course the LordReed I know is far much more intelligent than that. However, because he thought "it's a trick question". He decided to play the ostrich.

Based on incomplete knowledge, you made a decision. It's a decision either based on deceit, willful ignorance or mischief. Either way, it's based on your BELIEF.

Is believing devoid of even an iota of knowledge?

LordReed:


The universe is the sum total of all that exists.

If time began how there be a before?

At the point of singularity all laws of physics break down. Even if we want to say the universe had always existed, the increasing entropy of the universe shows that the universe could only have been eternal if it's entropy was a constant. A contradiction: meaning that the universe could not have existed forever.

If the universe entropy is increasing, we can easily trace back to when entropy would have been minimum. As we cannot have negative entropy, we arrive at the same point of the universe not being eternal.

Sorry dear.

Myer:


True my definition here is not the true definition of atheism.

Atheism is a state where you lack belief in god.

My point is simple. Every Nigerian was born into religion and worship of a god or gods or God/Allah.
So as an educated individual, you should deconstruct yourself from what you were born into and discover God for your self.

That's when you can truly know if you're an atheist or a theist or someone who is just practising the religion (s)he was born into or someone trying to please the society or family or cowering under peer pressure.

Great input!

We also have so many Nigerians not born into theism but who have been convinced of its claims. That’s something.

We have so many non theists in many secular states like China who are now theists. Whatever convinced them to follow theism must be strong and convincing.

TenQ:

At the point of singularity all laws of physics break down. Even if we want to say the universe had always existed, the increasing entropy of the universe shows that the universe could only have been eternal if it's entropy was a constant. A contradiction: meaning that the universe could not have existed forever.

If the universe entropy is increasing, we can easily trace back to when entropy would have been minimum. As we cannot have negative entropy, we arrive at the same point of the universe not being eternal.

Sorry dear.

My question was about time not entropy. Try again but answer the question this time.

LordReed:


The universe is the sum total of all that exists.

If time began how there be a before?

According to Google but Google is wrong because there's no way you can have all that exists which is the same as the sum total of all that exists


The time of the universe means the universe is aging but existence is not aging

LordReed:


My question was about time not entropy. Try again but answer the question this time.

Time is meaningless without matter and space. Time is always measured with respect to changes.

Before the big bang, time doesn't exist just as space and matter didn't exist!

LordReed:


Read this to get started:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/07/06/did-the-universe-have-a-beginning/?sh=5138f1244100

Hmm first of all sir, an article on Forbes for a cosmological theorem is really not a good start.

To the main point I think you wanted to use the article for, the author stated

"So, then, where did inflation come from?
Was it eternal, or did it only last for a finite amount of time? In 2003, a theorem was published — the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem — that showed that inflating spacetimes are what we call “past-timelike incomplete,” which means that inflation cannot describe a “beginning” to the Universe. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the Universe had a non-inflationary beginning; it only implies that if inflation was not an eternal state, it must have arisen from a previous state that, perhaps, did have a beginning. (It is also uncertain whether the BGV theorem will apply to a fully quantum theory of gravity."

Again the reservation raised by the cosmologist has been addressed in actual peer-reviewed papers, some of which I've posted earlier. https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658, https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3836 , https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5513 etc.
It's also been dealt with in actual cosmological books with like the one the other guy was alluding to.

Also his portrayal of what the BGV theorem asserts & does not assert is incorrect and can be demonstrably shown by simply reading the articles & papers by the authors themselves.

LordReed:


Listen to Sean Carroll here:

https://slate.com/technology/2016/02/sean-carroll-talks-about-the-beginning-of-the-universe.html

Starting with another article from a popular level talk.

In any case, Could you kindly articulate what you understand about Dr Carroll's position?

TenQ:

Time is meaningless without matter and space. Time is always measured with respect to changes.

Before the big bang, time doesn't exist just as space and matter didn't exist!

But there wasn't nothing before the big bang no matter what it means.

jamesid29:

Starting with another article from a popular level talk.

In any case, Could you kindly articulate what you understand about Dr Carroll's position?

No matter what Carroll said,

it's impossible for nothing to exist or have ever existed.


It's impossible for the universe to be all that exists.

It's impossible for the universe to have no beginning.



Period!

HellVictorinho3:




But there wasn't nothing before the big bang no matter what it means.

That is how physicists state the problem.

TenQ:

That is how physicists state the problem.

Existence is the property or quality that is being displayed or demonstrated simultaneously by an unlimited set of combinations and non-combinations or anything related to them such that it (existence) shouldn't be regarded as having a beginning or an end or both towards a sum total called the universe or anything else towards naming such an illusion.

Either the universe is a combination or a non-combination or what cannot exist.


A combination is something with a size that only displays existence when two or more non-combinations remain together.


A non-combination is something with a size that displays existence whether or not there's a specific combination.



This means existence can be regarded as the set ∆={...2,A,@,AB,A+B,AC+B,...}


A may combine with B or combine with C or combine with B then leave B to combine with D


Space/Time is the extent to which a combination or non-combination displays existence.



There's no limit to the extent to which a non-combination displays existence.


So, the space/time required for a non-combination to display existence has no beginning or end or both.