A possible 4th would be people who think that the question is non-sensical.  I'm not saying that I think this, but it is a position to hold. 

I guess they could say something like creation not even being relevant to the universe, and then giving some argument.  Perhaps it would be about the word 'creation' invokes not only a creator but a contrdiction of there being an action that somehow straddles the point where there was a universe and the "time" that there was not one.  It would be some complicated semantic argment that talks about the limitations of language, perhaps.

In this case, they don't believe that the universe was created, they don't believe it wasn't, and they seem to care because they are talking about it with some argumentation.   

Shaun 

You mistake me. It's not that believing something is irrelevant, it's believing that belief is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether I think the universe exists or not, it does. It doesn't matter what I believe happened in the past(creation or not), all that really matters is what happened. I don't know what happened, but belief is irrelevant to what happened. It happened whether I believe it or not. Whatever it was. If it was. Etc.

This is true. But my believing that you believe he was in a car accident doesn't matter to either of you, or the accident itself, or even to me.

*Shrug*
Maybe it is redundant. It just popped into mind due to mention of caring so I figured I'd post it. I have no objection with it being a revision instead of a point.

That should quite about sum it up, with the explicit 2) I believe the universe has always been in one form or another and was not created.

Thank you, ShaunPhilly, for being one of the few people to recognize that this position can be a valid one.

Personally, I believe that the question is gibberish. The terms at hand like "universe", "created" and "was" are deeply ingrained in the intent of the questioner, so the standardly vague definitions of these terms commonly used are insufficient for an answer to be meaningful, let alone true. Additionally, I cannot think of any sufficiently precise definitions which nevertheless agree with the questioner's apparent intent and produce a sensible question.

Of course, if you can provide compatible definitions for these three terms which provides for a precise, relevant question, I would be happy to rethink my position.

Additionally, because of your third option, I think I should say that I do care about this topic of thought/conversation/study, though I cannot imagine it being satisfactorily resolved even in principle.

More simply, "was the universe created?" sounds to me like "have you stopped beating your wife?"

...unless "created" is a term which does not make sense regarding the universe. For example eighteen is either purple or it is not purple.

As for my definitional issues, it appears that I need to clarify. All actions which we have words for and (I believe) of which we are capable of concieving happen over a span of time (however small that span may be). In other words, all actions we refer to using standard definitions are temporally embedded actions. Since the standard definition of "universe" includes the entirety of time, the universe being "created" entails there being a time during which time was constructed, which is incoherent. This is further brought up by use of the term "was" which, while I agree it is necessary since we have no appropriate atemporal words, requires that this "creation" is temporally located to our past.

I think it is trivial that the universe existed "for all time" since "all time" must by definition be included within the universe. If there is a time during which there was no universe then we are not talking about the universe correctly. This does not require that the past is infinite in length, though, since time may itself be finite. It seems to me that this is not what you were asking, but I will trust you that it is an answer, then, and choose number 2.

Of course, I may be imbuing the statement with more meaning than is typically conferred upon it, but to me "the universe was not created" suggests that it is temporally infinite in length, which is something I do not believe.

Additionally, it is unclear whether you are using the word "created" as an action requiring an intent or not, but that is not a factor in my descision.

Actually, the statement that "time is finite" and "time is contained within the universe" does not entail that "there was a time when the universe didn't exist" since the latter statement implicitly assumes a time outside the universe. 

I suggest attempting to look at space-time from the inside rather than attempting to picture it from "outside". From the inside we can see it the following way:

We can get extremely early in the history of the universe. In principle, an infinite decreasing sequence of temporal points can be constructed to converge on a point which does not actually have a temporal location. In other words, if we are at 1/2 we can realize that stuff happened at 0.0001, 0.00001, 0.000001 and so on. Seeing this, we can extrapolate the existence of time 0, but such a time does not actually exist. Hence, at every point in time there is universe which exists, but time extends only finitely back in time.

Of course, once again, this is speculation and may not be held up by further evidence, but it is one potential way of looking at the universe which is (as far as I know) consistent with existing evidence. 

Well, if we call the universe "everything" then it has to include time, right? If there can be time without the universe then the universe isn't everything. Of course, this is not to say that there couldn't be time without space or matter (although I do believe that they are linked too), simply that the idea of "universe" has to include time as well as space and matter and so time itself is a part of the universe.

Note, please, that this is a point I consider to be one of definition rather than one of metaphysics.

You are continuing to try and think of time from the outside. Why must there be anything before A?

Quite simply, you don't already need time to be finite to take the limit. We can take a limit of points converging on the present but that doesn't meat the present is the end of the universe, just of that particular sequence.

Actually, in order to mathematically represent time with an infinite past, 0 could not be the "beginning", it would have to be somewhere in the middle and times described by both positive and negative numbers. Negative numbers here are simply used to denote "before the point we've arbitrarily called 0", there need not be anything special about the state of the universe at that time.

You are correct that either it has a point zero or not, but not that if it does there has to be time before zero. Actually, this distinction seems to get right to the heart of my point here.

If we assume that time has a finite past and that 0 is the "beginning" point of the universe, there are two possibilities to represent time - that of an interval closed at 0 and that of an interval open at 0. Diagrammatically,

[----------------... or

(----------------...

In the first case, 0 is a particular time and the actual beginning point of the universe. This is a case which seems to me to correspond to case 1 in your trichotomy and it also seems to me to be unlikely.

In the second case, 0 is not included within time and does not actually exist, it is extrapolated as the limit of times that do exist. Since nothing says that time has to contain all of its limit points, this is perfectly acceptable as far as I can tell. It is a way of saying that whatever positive number we pick no matter how small there is a time associated with it, but there is no time associated with 0. In this case, the "beginning" of the universe is merely a conceptual device used by us to understand the progression of events in the early universe, but there is no actual time of beginning, hence no creation. The past remains finite, however.

Regardless, this is still merely a demonstration of how linear time might be finite. Finite linear time still has boundary points (in the above case, 0), but the universe does not necessarily have boundary points. A boundaryless finite space-time could have cyclic time and so our concepts of "before" and "after" need not apply on a global scale, merely a local one. As such, the universe may simply be and there does not have to even be an extrapolated "beginning".

Unfortunately, I don't know how to explain what a finite 4-manifold without boundary might look like in simple terms since I am not an expert in any area that deals with them regularly, but I will do some reading in the next couple of days and see what I can come up with.

No.  

This is not directed at you specifically, but to all theists who come up with 'cosmological arguments': Can ANY of you theists who debate one of the most complex sciences, cosmology, at least take the time to read ONE book on cosmology by an actual cosmologist before you offer us the wisdom or your experiences on our board?

Can you cite at least one cosmologist other than Hawkings, and then show how this cosmologist actually endorses your view? If not, then what are you offering us? The benefits of your ignorance on the matter?

No sane person would have the balls to suddenly, out of the blue, and with no experience, begin debating aerodynamics, or neuroanatomy, or molecular biology.... yet theists with junior college educations in liberal arts, with no more experience than watching one PBS special, come to our site to debate matters such as cosmology or evolutionary biology.

Get a grip on yourselves. 

What cosmologists are you citing here? What source have you read, prior to making these points? 

Here's my review of the literature, that demonstrates some of the errors laymen make in discussing cosmology.

1) Big bang theory is a creation account.

The "big bang" theory is not a 'creation theory', but a description of what occured at planck time, and immediately afterwards:

"A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory, partly described in the last two chapters, that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it ever really banged at all."

- Brian Greene "The Fabric Of The Cosmos."

Big bang theory only tells us about our universe from 'planck time'. Big bang theory can tell us nothing about the universe prior to this time. (this is what grand unified theories seek to accomplish)

"Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period (and nothing can be known from this period from the perspective of big bang theory).

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html

A quick point on Big bang and hyperinflation

"The inflationary hypothesis has generated considerable interest in cosmology. It proposes that during a dawning moment of cosmic history the expansion of the universe proceded much faster than had been thought - indeed at a rate far greater than the velocity of light. For reasons we shall strive to make clear the inflationary hypothesis not only solves several problems that afflicted earlier versions of the big bang theory but indicates that the universe is extremely large and flings open a door onto the startling speculation that our universe originated as a microscopic bubble arising from the space of an earlier universe which may in turn be among many universes strewn like stars across inaccessible infinities of random space and times and sets of natural laws"

- Timothy Ferris, The Whole Shebang

2) Either the universe was created, or it has always existed.

False dichotomy. There is no reason to hold that there MUST have been a creation point.

A singularity ("something timeless" prior to planck time) does not necessarily speak to ex nihilo creation - and again, big bang theory on its own, at the present, cannot tell us anything about the 'origin' of the singularity or if it has an origin at all.

I think people naturally hold that if the universe 'began' in a singularity, then it follows that it was 'created' or that it was 'caused'. But I think that cosmologists hold that it is an error to conflate the idea of a singularity with all existence being created ex nihlo.

According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity, not just one:

* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.

* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.

* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/bigbang.html

One particular explanation of the third option: The theory of Stephen Hawkings holds that the universe is finite, but boundless, without any "beginning point" http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html

"In his best selling book, A Brief History of Time, Professor Hawking suggests that in order for the "Big Bang" to work, the mathematics requires that the condition of the Universe at the beginning must have been finite and boundless. There must have been no edges, or points of discontinuity. Without this assumption, the laws of physics could not be used to explain the activity and state of affairs in the first moments of the creation of the Universe. By assuming that the Universe was and is finite, yet boundless, physicists are able to avoid the problems created by discontinuities."

In Hawkings "Universe in a Nutshell" he furthers this argument, by hold that a universe that his finite but boundless has no beginning or end point, and no need for a creator. Hawkings himself declared that this point would not possess any 'special' status. It would be akin to any other point in a circle - or more accurately, a globe. Hawkings states rather plainly that his model proposes a boundless, yet finite universe - without any special points in space or time. He covers this in Universe in a Nutshell.

Another third scenario option: Brane Theory

The Myth of the Beginning of Time String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state By Gabriele Veneziano

More on the theory:

'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory "

The new idea would not replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated cosmologists' thinking over how the universe began and evolved. But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time." This collision would provide the original energy. Brane theory holds that there would be no beginning or end to existence.

3) Religious Ex Nihilo arguments (something out of nothing) are arguments for a magical creation of the universe that violate all the laws of physics. Interestingly, there are ex nihilo cosmological arguments that do NOT violate physics.

But where would the matter come from?

"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631

Ok then, where does the energy come from?

As for the source of the original energy? There are several theories:

a) Edward Tryon has put forth the idea of a vacuum fluctation, which is NOT a violation of physical law, as the original source. Alan Guth's Inflationary Model explains the rapid expansion of this energy. Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth. Tryon makes the point that the total sum of positive and negative energy in the universe may well be ZERO, indicating again, that no physical laws are violated by the big bang event. As Tryon writes: "Im my model, I assume that our present universe did appear out of nowhere 10 to the 10th power years ago. Contrary to the popular belief, such an event need not have violated any of the conventional laws of physics. Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth. Note: this version is akin to ex nihlio creation, except that it does NOT violate any laws of physics and does not require a 'miracle'.

b) Alex Vilenkin proposed, in contrast to the Hartle-Hawkings boundless model, an initial state of no dimensional nothingness that is overcome by vacuum tunneling to a dimensional state. As per his model, 'eternal nothingness' is an absolute impossibility.

See my audio file on this: http://www.candleinthedark.com/exnihilo.mp3

c) See above comments on Brane theory. 'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory "

4) Everything that exists is merely a shadow of the 'real' universe that lies underneath.

"The materialist thesis is simply: that's all there is to the world. Once we figure out the correct formal structure, patterns, boundary conditions, and interpretation, we have obtained a complete description of reality. (Of course we don't yet have the final answers as to what such a description is, but a materialist believes such a description does exist.) In particular, we should emphasize that there is no place in this view for common philosophical concepts such as ''cause and effect'' or ''purpose.'' From the perspective of modern science, events don't have purposes or causes; they simply conform to the laws of nature. In particular, there is no need to invoke any mechanism to ''sustain'' a physical system or to keep it going; it would require an additional layer of complexity for a system to cease following its patterns than for it to simply continue to do so. Believing otherwise is a relic of a certain metaphysical way of thinking; these notions are useful in an informal way for human beings, but are not a part of the rigorous scientific description of the world. Of course scientists do talk about ''causality,'' but this is a description of the relationship between patterns and boundary conditions; it is a derived concept, not a fundamental one. If we know the state of a system at one time, and the laws governing its dynamics, we can calculate the state of the system at some later time. You might be tempted to say that the particular state at the first time ''caused'' the state to be what it was at the second time; but it would be just as correct to say that the second state caused the first. According to the materialist worldview, then, structures and patterns are all there are --- we don't need any ancillary notions."

http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html

Sources cited: I'm only a layman when it comes to cosmology, I've only read about 10 texts, including Alan Guth, Andre Linde, Tim Ferris, Stephen Hawkings, Briane Greene, etc.

Hey Tod, nice to see you around again.

Glad to see your in your usual mood of never giving into a single point.

Heh.. but I digress. You seem to be taking the thread into a couple new direction. The thread was a "question".. it was not a statement as "this is how it is".. I was asking for clarification to understand.

Furthermore.. I never mentioned the Big Bang theory... or any of the other cosmological theories (cept my infantile understanding of circular time theory).

You wrongly assert that I am assuming there is a creation point, when I never said anything of the sort.

My "false dichotomy" as you stated merely that the universe is finite (started/created/began) or it is infinite (did not start/was not created/did not begin).

Once again.. I thank you for taking a swipe at liberal arts degrees.. since it is, indeed, what I have.

Good form.

Sidenote: From reading your post, it still seems as if the trichotomy still stands. Either A, not eternal, or B, eternal, or C, we can't know.. something other than "A or B" (which is a negative characteristic and has no relevance to the conversation

They might all be different theories.. yet they are still coming back to the same concept of "finite" or "infinite" or some "limited knowledge" theory of neither "finite or infinite"-- which to me seems nonsensical.. or at least not relevant since they don't even attempt this "not finite or infinite" concept.

"Created" does not entail "Sentient Creator".. merely "Beginning"-- just making sure I bring up that clarification to the beginning trichotomy. 

(Point of order: A man does not need to know about quantum physics to know that a chicken can't be a duck if a duck can't be a chicken. Logic is the most basic, universal, form of understanding.. don't consider ignorance of a field of study as ignorance in general.)

(Btw, ever planning on getting back to the other thread? Just wondering.. left me sort of hanging there. It's fine if you don't want to continue, but you were incorrect in the assumption you made at that time when you stated that you had made the last post-- and I had not responded. At least that is what I infered.. of course you could've just been saying. "I call the conversation over, therefore it is over." Which is fine I suppose.. I left my contention there anyways.)

//

About four posts into I reformulated the trichotomy to clarify 3 as a belief held because believes, at this point in time, for knowledge to be limited to such a degree that they find taking a position not relevant in any degree.

Saying that it is not A or B but some other.. is a statement of ignorance.  Valid, yes, but still, speaking of limited knowledge.

If you want to properly represent what cosmologists actually say about their own field, then read what cosmologists say, and quote what they say.

They will give you what cosmology considers to be the current viable models.

I'm ADD .

And it's 1:21.

I caught your preface.. but I still took it as directly addressing me and the thread.. as opposed to a "general concept" of theistic though in general.

Why would I think you would be addressing anything other than the thread as is? In which the thread does not assume there MUST be a creation point?

Anyways.. ADD. Heh. 

OK 

No, there's no misapplicaiton of the law of identity here. 'X' is defined as a set of negative traits (omni traits), devoid of any universe of discourse (nature), ergo X is undefinable - incoherent.

This makes no sense. X is defined as per above.

Show me where I am misapplying the axiom of identit.

You conceded that 'god' was beyond logic, ergo your argument fails right there.

No, it means you can't speak of him at all, period, because to be outside of logic entirely is to be outside of identity.

Now you're contradicting yourself as far as I can see.

You've both affirmed (in the past), and denied (presently), that 'god' is beyond logic.

I really don't see why you need me to continue this line of discussion... if you'd like to talk logic, I'd be willing, but this discussion seems to be at a dead end.

Beyond does not mean to exclude that which it is beyond. It seems that you are assuming that it is and I am not. Which is perhaps where the confusion is coming from.

And to say, for the sake of argument, that an omnipotent being cannot act in a perfectly logical manner by choice is to say that he is not omnipotent in the first place. I believe him to be omnipotent.. and I am assuming that he has choosen to act in a logical manner, for, because to make no assumptions other than omnimax, would be, as you said, make the conversation incoherent.

I make the other assumptions because one must in order to have a conversation (as you stated).. neither is my assumption illogical, for omnimax does not mean that an omnimax must NOT act a certain way, merely that he CAN act in anyway he chooses.

Furthermore: Axiom, as you stated, A cannots be "NOTA". This is an axiom. Anything more then the strict adherence to this construct of A and NOT A, would be to misapply the axiom unless one is using words, with singular meanings, definitively correctly.

I contested that you did not. (Beyond, in this casE).

 //

 As for the circle bit.  No, I'm aware of this concept.  I addressed it to some mathematician.. I forgot his name at this moment.

I just disagreed with the equating of the concept of a written circle and a temporal circle.. as being the same conceptually. Yes.. we can say a written circle is finite because we measure it from point a to point a (as I stated to him).

But a temporal circle would have no points.. less those ones we arbitrarily set.. and in order to get back to that point that you arbitrarily set, one would need to make the entire circle... yet, conceptually, I cannot imagine making this movement.. for if we say the present is point A.. and try and say that one can move into the future only to come around to the exact same point A again, is beyond me.

Time maybe circular.. but it would still be infinite.. otherwise-- we've done all this before.. and this point A (present) will be no different (in any respects) as the point A after a revolution.

(Point A on a written circle is no different (in any respects) as point A when you come back around)

Time is bit more complex then written circles.

But.. I will agree this might be a fundamental disagreament.  I would consider a temporal circle infinite time..

They would not. 

It has to, otherwise, you're stealing from naturalism.

I never say this. Can you PLEASE cite my actual words, in context?

The point before you is that your god need not be limited by any law, and cannot be, seeing as any law must be contingent upon this god.... that's the actual point.

Please stop turning my points inside out... I feel like a mother, constantly having to unfold your T shirts from the dryer....

And once you concede that this 'god' is DEFINED as beyond 'any law' then it follows that you can't conceive of such a 'god' 

Please take note that this all follows from the DEFINITION, because another popular error is to argue that  holding to a ramificaiton of a definition is somehow making an inductive claim about a god, i.e. a self refutation, 

Bingo.

Read that back to yourself. That's MY point to YOU, so I can't fathom why we are arguing here... except that I can.... if you quote my words, and leave them in context, then you'd see where I am telling you this...

It's a version of the law of non contradiction that you've given me here, and yes, A cannot equal it's own negation.... that's necessarily false... unless you're doing some recursive computing and assigning a new value...

I don't think you're following my point to you... what you write here has nothing to do with my points on negative definitions!

My point is that if X is defined in negative terms, devoid of any universe of discourse, then X is meaningless... a cipher, a zero.

Show me how that leads to arguing that X= Not X. 

Good. That's all I am seeking to establish here. That there's more than just a linear approach to the zero/no zero dichotomy.

 Think about this. Any part of 'god' that is 'natural' would not tell you a thing about what "god is"... to know a 'god' you'd have to know the 'supernatural aspects'.  So even if we use the term 'more' rather than 'beyond' it changes nothing. The problem of 'supernaturalism' remains.

To say that the supernatural is somehow natural or 'nature plus' just doesn't work..... unless you provide an ontology for 'nature plus'

You have to start by giving us some new type of matter/energy.... Plato called this quintessence. It's neither matter nor energy. You have to also explain how our rational minds can comprehend it, sans any reliance on empirical methods.

So unless you can provide an ontology for quintessence, you're out of luck  

The key 'attribute' of 'god' in the most abstract sense is a negative trait: unlimitedness 

To limit 'god' for the sake of coherence would be like removing humor from comedy in order to understand the nature of comedy. It would be like elimating anything that has to do with wetness in order to better examine water.

You're really very confused on this part of the discussion.  

Aw.

Why not just consider what I have to say, and ask questions, rather than trying ot debate it? If anything, it's a good debate tactic, puts your opponent on his heels.... 

Yaib: I have tried to read this carefully.. and indeed, I have found many points fascinating.  Your presentation of circular time was very interesting as well as introducing a concept of "meta-time". 

 In anycase.. despite the fact that I do not post here on a regular basis, I ask the question still, how do you define the universe?  how do you define time?

 I believe that, perhaps, these should have been the basic questions.  I believe that, for awhile, we (or maybe just I, assuming (wrongly) your defintions) have been swaying back and forth.

In anycase, I'm very interested in your definition.. just for knowledge sake.  I know what the dictionary says.. but I'm wondering on how you interpret said definition.

"Everything" includes time? In which case if there was *only* time then that would be the universe. In this case, I believe, that neither could exist from the other.

Or does the universe only include "space and material things in that space"? Anyways.. let me know.  Sorry if I'm making you explain something you've felt you've explained already.. heh, if this is the case, don't worry about it, just give a smile. 

For example:

Tod: How do you define irrational within your argument that I, as a theist, can be nothing other than irrational in my belief?

I think this is our central problem.  I've read your post over and over again.  It's possible that I'm still missing something.. but.. in any case.. I think this is perhaps the most important question.

I think you believe that I believe that I can or want to explain a supernatural God rationally when, in fact, I merely wish to argue that a 'belief' in such a God can be rational.

I probably (who knows) would agree that the former of those two aims is impossible.. logically.  The latter however, I do not believe.

Within the construct of mathematics (help me out Yaib) one can hold as existent irrational numbers (infinite, 0, etc) in the construct of mathematics (a rational methodology) and use those irrational numbers, and make and apply implications, in a rational manner.  While such a process does not make the number anymore rational, likewise, its use, does not make the mathematician any less rational. 

In the same way one can hold and use an irrational concept (God) in the construct of beliefs (which's rationality is decided based upon the rationality of its application/methodology) and can use the concept and apply it, and can make and apply implications, in a rational manner.

Just like the mathametician.. the use of an irrational concept does not make the mathemetician anymore more or less rational.. it is merely how he applies it.

So.. as I stated.. how is it that you are defining "irrational" when/if you hold true the concept that all theists are irrational?

I do not believe I can explain 'God', in all his attributes, rationally or irrationally.  I can however, argue my own rationality in using a limited and applying a definition of 'God' under the knowledge that he is much more and that my understanding must be open to change.

Anycase.. that is all.  Hope all is well with your Tod.  Best Wishes.

You to Yaib.