The existence of God

Originally posted by DeepThought
On physics grounds alone eternal inflation is no more or less likely than the standard Big Bang theory.

I have to point out here that 'the standard Big Bang theory' starts with a singularity which is essentially an 'I don't know'. It does not make any assertions as such about whether or not time if finite.
Eternal inflation is described on Wikipedia as an extension of the Big Bang theory rather than an alternative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not clear what the distinction is.

In addition, if these points are 'extensions' and not real numbers, then their analogs are not real points in time, and there remains no actual problem of infinity being traversed.
It is similar to Zenos paradox in that you are setting up a form of discontinuity. You have an open infinite set then you tag on an ...[text shortened]... ase I think the existence of a point at infinity is highly suspect and an unnecessary invention.

Untenable means that it is necessarily not the case, due to a contradiction or some such, unrealized means that it is possible but just not found in nature.

You've got no basis for the first sentence of your second paragraph. If time is correctly described by the extended real line then they are real points in time, if not then they are not.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, the original claim was along the lines of "God necessarily exists because the universe had a beginning, things which begin must be caused, and without God there is no first cause.", so I'm entitled to "what if's" to knock down the certainty of the premises. On physics grounds alone eternal inflation is no more or less likely than the standard Big Bang theory.

What evidence would suggest that eternal inflation is as likely to have happened as the standard Big Bang? Or is it just imagined to be as likely?

Originally posted by DeepThought
You've got no basis for the first sentence of your second paragraph. If time is correctly described by the extended real line then they are real points in time, if not then they are not.

My basis is that time cannot be described by the extended real line, just as the real numbers cannot correctly be described by the extended real line. The two added points have certain properties that make them not real numbers. You cannot expect them to have all the properties of real numbers.
If you say, OK, we will extend the definition of time to include these two point, then you should not be surprised when some former properties of time do not hold up for those two numbers. It won't rule out time, but rather rule out one definition of time - which is unsurprising given that you have redefined time. You are playing a definition game nothing more.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
What evidence would suggest that eternal inflation is as likely to have happened as the standard Big Bang? Or is it just imagined to be as likely?

The total lack of evidence either way.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The total lack of evidence either way.

So you do take things by faith, even if you claim not to.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you do take things by faith, even if you claim not to.

No, I do not. Nothing in my post suggested that I take things by faith. Stop lying.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you do take things by faith, even if you claim not to.

How did you arrive at the faith thing?!

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I do not. Nothing in my post suggested that I take things by faith. Stop lying.

So you don't believe the big bang occurred?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you don't believe the big bang occurred?

That depends on what you mean by the Big Bang. As I pointed out in a previous post, eternal inflation is an extension of standard Big Bang theory not an alternative.
I believe the current evidence points to the universe being at one time very small. What happened before that is unknown and I hold no beliefs on the matter.
No faith.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That depends on what you mean by the Big Bang. As I pointed out in a previous post, eternal inflation is an extension of standard Big Bang theory not an alternative.
I believe the current evidence points to the universe being at one time very small. What happened before that is unknown and I hold no beliefs on the matter.
No faith.

"Scientists believe the Universe began in a hot ‘big bang’ about 13,600 million years ago."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/ocr_gateway/energy_resources/big_bangrev1.shtml

Do you not believe that the universe began with the Big Bang?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Do you not believe that the universe began with the Big Bang?

That depends on what you mean by 'began'. I do not believe we know whether or not there was anything before that. I do believe the evidence points to the universe once being very small (and hot) then rapidly expanding and continuing to expand to this day. I have not studied the physics in detail and do not know the strength of the evidence. I do not have faith of any kind with regards to it. You made that up.

Note that the article you referenced does not say anything about whether or not time is finite and says nothing that would contradict continuous inflation. It merely says:

The theory states that about 13.7 billion years ago all the matter in the Universe was concentrated into a single incredibly tiny point.

It says nothing whatsoever about what happened before that. It is also wrong - but such misunderstanding is common especially amongst journalists not trained in cosmology. The reality is that the Big Bang theory suggests that the universe was once very dense. It says nothing about whether or not it is finite, nor does it put a size on the universe. So at best one should use the term 'observable universe' in the sentence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That depends on what you mean by 'began'. I do not believe we know whether or not there was anything before that. I do believe the evidence points to the universe once being very small (and hot) then rapidly expanding and continuing to expand to this day. I have not studied the physics in detail and do not know the strength of the evidence. I do not have ...[text shortened]... size on the universe. So at best one should use the term 'observable universe' in the sentence.

So you think Stephen Hawking has no justification in saying that all the evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you think Stephen Hawking has no justification in saying that all the evidence suggests that the universe had a beginning?

Yes. I rather suspect that he too does not necessarily interpret that statement the way you do. If you had read the whole lecture you would have seen this:

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang.

So he does not entirely rule out time before that point.

Further, he later admits that his claim of a singularity is more opinion than evidence based:

Many people hoped that quantum effects, would somehow smooth out the singularity of infinite density, and allow the universe to bounce, and continue back to a previous contracting phase. This would be rather like the earlier idea of galaxies missing each other, but the bounce would occur at a much higher density. However, I think that this is not what happens: quantum effects do not remove the singularity, and allow time to be continued back indefinitely.

He also calls some of his further speculation 'proposals' rather than 'theory'.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
"Scientists believe the Universe began in a hot ‘big bang’ about 13,600 million years ago."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/ocr_gateway/energy_resources/big_bangrev1.shtml

Do you not believe that the universe began with the Big Bang?

That is a "popular" science website. It's a pretty good one, but popularizers of science speak in the vernacular of their audience. Scientists are people too and may believe lots of things that are or aren's about science, but as that site states, BB is a theory.. It's not the same kind of belief as, say, a belief based on the Bible.