So this muslim argument reads “Since we could not find any of the qualities of existence in God, we then defined it as having none of the qualities.” I.e. you defined God as nonexistent and then said that because it fits the definition, it exists. It requires more than that to prove the existence of something.

Even Borde, Guth and Vilenkin clearly suggest that a “beginning” is merely one possibility that might correspond to the boundary condition. They wrote: “Inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary. This is the chief result of our paper.” In an exchange of emails between Vilenkin and the physicist Victor Stenger, Vilenkin said that “you can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.”

So, it’s clear it doesn’t prove the universe had an “absolute beginning.”

(2) In addition, Alexander Vilenkin explained that the theorem predicts that if the universe is everywhere expanding (on average), then the histories of most particles cannot be extended to the infinite past. In other words, if we follow the trajectory of some particle to the past, we inevitably come to a point where the assumption of the theorem breaks down—that is, where the universe is no longer expanding. However, Anthony Aguirre clarified that this is true for all particles, except a set of measure zero. In other words, there are rare particles whose histories can be infinitely long. These particles have worldlines [trajectories in space-time] that extend indefinitely into the past, and can prevent there being a time at which the universe is not expanding. The fact that they are rare does not make them unimportant, because they nonetheless thread a physical volume.

In other words, not all geodesics are incomplete: in particular, it does not apply to the comoving geodesics themselves. Thus there is nothing preventing some geodesics from continuing arbitrarily far into the past. Anthony Aguirre – Eternal Inflation, past and future (pg.20) and The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning (chapter 6.1.)

(3) Another problem with this theorem, according to Sean Carroll (article: Let the Universe Be the Universe) and Ivan Aguillo (Before the Big Bang: Loop Quantum Cosmology – SkyDivephil), is that it only takes classical spacetimes into account — “classical” in the sense that it is a definite four-dimensional Lorentzian manifold, not necessarily one that obeys Einstein’s equation of general relativity (It’s like saying “start with a path of a particle, but not necessarily one that obeys Newton’s Laws.”). Carroll explains that the theorem says that such a spacetime, if it has been expanding sufficiently fast, must have a singularity in the past. But the problem is that it’s naive to think that any result dealing with classical spacetimes can teach us anything definitive about the beginning of the universe. The moment of the Big Bang is a place where quantum gravity is supremely important. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin results are simply not about quantum gravity.

It’s extremely easy to imagine eternal cosmologies based on quantum mechanics that do not correspond to simple classical spacetimes throughout their history. The BGV is an interesting result to keep in mind, but nowhere near the end of our investigations into possible histories of the universe.

(4) Furthermore, Leonard Susskind, who is professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University, has argued that past-eternal inflation (that is, an eternal multiverse) is feasible (article: Is Eternal Inflation Past-Eternal? And What if It Is?). He presented equations to support this conclusion and addressed the arguments against his position. Yasunori Nomura (article: The Static Quantum Multiverse) also adopted this position. In the article titled Singularity Resolution in Loop Quantum Cosmology (pg.9), Abhay Ashtekar reinforced the idea that the BGV does not apply when quantum gravity is taken into account.

This universe is not only almost entirely hostile to life, it is just about as hostile to life as it could be and still contain life to be observed. Which is exactly what is predicted by random formation and counter-predicted by any “designed for life” hypothesis. Follow the links I’ve provided you.

And as to what you mean by matter that is nonliving becoming living, it’s still not clear which exact phenomena you are talking about, but you clearly don’t have any knowledge of biochemistry, which has already explained all this. There is no mystery as to how one set of chemistry becomes another: how chemical systems without metabolism, movement, and reproduction become chemical systems with metabolism, movement, and reproduction. There is no mystery at all to it now. It’s straightforward chemical mechanics. Which is actually evidence against anything supernatural being involved, much less gods.

And yes, biochemistry explains everything about this. Reproduction as a chemical computer. Metabolism and movement as a computed function governed by interactions between the stored information and the chemical agents that effect results. Even thought, neural systems, are entirely reducible to basic chemical interactions. There remain some unsolved questions (e.g. how to reach the level of consciousness; how to account for the qualia of consciousness), but those don’t exist in the biosphere until extremely late in the evolutionary timeline (and thus are not distinctive of life as such; but are only a highly complex form of life).

I don’t know what you mean about quantum mechanics. Life does not exist at a quantum level. It is formed by classical physical processes, which emerges from quantum mechanics, and are in some trivial ways affected by it. But quantum effects themselves are actually not required, or even all that importantly involved. They are just an unnecessary oddity. Yet more evidence against the involvement of any creator.

Dear Dr. Carrier,

First of all, I would like to say that I really appreciate you have taken the time to read my comments and provide clarification to them. I think I was not clear nor specific when writing my reply. So even it might be that you have already answer some of my points, I don’t want to lose the chance to extend my thoughts if you don’t mind. It took some time for me to answer as this time I wanted to do some research to better understand your reply, and to try to be clearer on mine.

First, I want you to know that I’m on your side, and don’t believe that our universe must have a purpose, and that there is a god behind it. But I’m trying to make a point (which might not be useful at all) to try to change the start point of the discussion from how the universe has been created, to the fundamentals of the creation of life. I personally think that if a god really exists, his purpose of o universe without life won’t make sense at all, therefore life itself must be the center of the discussion.

When I mean how life is constantly created, I don’t mean life here on earth, or even in other places in the universe where life already exists and continues to evolve. What I wanted to mean is to the precise moment in between when an organic material crosses the barrier from being inert to be alive, or how life have begun at all, considering the definitions that distinguishes something from being dead to that that is alive (like for example, the fact that living organisms manage the conversion of ingested fuel into usable energy which only living organisms can do).

You are right as I have not read enough. But I tried to change this. Now I know that even when I didn’t know, I have already read some protobiological literature, just was not aware of the concept at all, and I’m glad to know now that I was already in agreement with the concept.

Also, I have also read now several articles related to physical models for the transition from standard chemistry to biochemistry. I might not have the right knowledge to fully understand all the concepts that are related into this. But at a basic level what I have understood is that they try to understand the biochemistry that takes place within every living organism, and the approach taken where quantum mechanics tries to explain these processes, as it seems that that these reactions can’t be fully explain in a common laboratory. But what I want to mean about a starting point of life, is not to understand how living organisms operate, but at a more fundamental level, why do they started to behave as a living organism at all. Do these models try to explain this too? Is there any literature you could recommend me where I can read about?

Thank you,
Ricardo.

All you are doing is repeating the same thing: that some theologians have “said” God must exist or have existed nowhere and never. And I am telling you that’s illogical. Continuing to repeat their illogical statements doesn’t make them logical.

Now I just made a mistake. I meant to say that I think he meant to say pan-en-theism.

I’m not Muslim but I understood “all” of what he said. I disagree with most of Islam but that doesn’t mean they can’t observe or reason out some truths by observing and pondering this universe. There are (I think I’m assuming we’ll, I don’t know all religions) most likely truths in all religions, including atheism. I think he meant, however, to say pantheism rather than polytheism. I think you are rushing through these comments. You certainly distorted or misunderstood my comments so far.

May I try again [please delete the previus unintelligibl comment]

Your response sounds very much like the anthropomorphisers/corporealists salafe/ibn/taymeyya/wahhabe objection to sunne ashare/maturede belief: that the sunne god is but a figment.

The sunnes say that assigning a place to god ie that God is litrally above the throne in hevn – intails polytheism [shirk] since god cannot ixist any ‘where’ in any place (or in any ‘time’ or any ‘how’.)

T’ say god ixists must mean god ixists in some place nesasrily means he’s part’v the universe which is to make him part of creation – which is impossibl.

God ixist without a place ie without a universe.

You seem less opposed to god ixisting without a ‘when’ ie timeless.

Do you also hold that to ixist at no time is to ixist not at all? As you hold with place?

[the sunnes also say that the beatific vision will hapn without direction or distance]

A sunne skolar Sadr ush-Shareah Allāmah Mufte AmjadAle `Azame states:

“Allāh is free from direction, space, time, movement, station, shape, size and all that which is creatid [hādith].

How life was or is constantly created is the unanswered question that might lead to a god existence.

I don’t know what you mean by “constantly” created. Where do you see it being “constantly created”? Do you mean, how life reproduces? That is not an unanswered question. We’ve fully answered it in chemistry. And indeed, that it’s all just blind chemistry is evidence against it being supernaturally caused.

If you mean instead biogenesis, we have not observed a second instance; we can only calculate that such instances are highly likely universe-wide. We do not know sure sure which of many processes we know can do it did it in our case, because the evidence has been destroyed. But we have enough evidence to know there are many random processes that would inevitably have done it somewhere in the universe; and we will then be one of those somewheres.

Indeed, the total body of evidence regarding this so far is evidence against it being supernaturally caused.”>is evidence against any god being involved.

No quantum or relativity theories or any other I have read off attempt to explain the phenomena describing the transition from unanimated to living organisms (from pure matter and energy to living things).

Then you have not read any relevant science. You need to catch up on the vast body of protobiological science published to now. We have numerous physical models for the transition from standard chemistry to biochemistry. All are plausible and rely only on confirmed or observed phenomena.

And I’m not thinking of elements and conditions suitable for life, but to the actual transition from organic materials, to self-motivated living organisms (at their more fundamental level).

You seem to be confusing various different things here.

Motivations are a property of neural systems, which are very late comers in the evolution of life. How neural systems manifest motivations in general is actually reasonably well understood. As is how they evolved from other organic systems.

But for most of the earth’s history (billions of years) no life had neural systems, or indeed organs at all. The first life was protocellular. Which evolved into single called organisms (e.g. bacteria). Which are just biochemical computers, and their operation and reproduction and behavior we have fully explained down to the atomic level. Then after a billion or so years these evolved into undifferentiated multicellular organisms (e.g. algae). Then after hundreds of millions more years these evolved into differentiated multicellular organisms, i.e. organisms with different tissues and organs constructed out of single cells copied over and over. These included plants, which have no neural systems; and animals, which do. And we know quite a lot now about how all this happened, including why it took so long, and started so basic.

A last thought: If infinite can’t exist, then how god might exist at all? This implication would mean no possible god proving by any sort of scientific/logical/probabilistic means, and all possible explanation may be well left to good will or faith. In which giving the case too, this debate and its arguments proving god existence is nonsense.

I’m not sure what you mean, but yes, some philosophers have pointed out the problem that if actual infinities cannot exist, God cannot have infinite knowledge. But that would only entail a modification to the abilities of God. It’s not really an argument against God.

None of your last comment is intelligible.