A Science Question For Any Willing Christians.

[Fernweh]

 

So in what way do you give it meaning Fern.....proof of God?

 

 

Within the context of this thread meaningless is exactly the way BAA described it. Science does not exist to prove or disprove god. Science exists to discover the nature of the universe and nothing else.

[Guest end3]

 

So in what way do you give it meaning Fern.....proof of God?

 

Within the context of this thread meaningless is exactly the way BAA described it. Science does not exist to prove or disprove god. Science exists to discover the nature of the universe and nothing else.

 

Lol, but we're here trying to attach meaning to field yielding singularity so we can do what?

[Fernweh]

 

 

So in what way do you give it meaning Fern.....proof of God?

 

Within the context of this thread meaningless is exactly the way BAA described it. Science does not exist to prove or disprove god. Science exists to discover the nature of the universe and nothing else.

 

Lol, but we're here trying to attach meaning to field yielding singularity so we can do what?

 

 

Maybe you should start your own thread to search for god in black holes.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

So in what way do you give it meaning Fern.....proof of God?

 

Within the context of this thread meaningless is exactly the way BAA described it. Science does not exist to prove or disprove god. Science exists to discover the nature of the universe and nothing else.

 

Lol, but we're here trying to attach meaning to field yielding singularity so we can do what?

 

 

Maybe you should start your own thread to search for god in black holes.

 

I guess we can see where BAA wishes to go.

[mymistake]

 

Relax.  You are projecting.  Calm down.

Yeah, just some thoughts come immediately to mind, none of which are outside the analogous versions in the Bible.

 

Questions like what is Higgs field expanding and decaying into.....the original singularity?

 

God's mechanism to transfer Spirit to mass?

 

Great cool stuff these great minds achieve, but just leads to more questions IMO.

 

 

Higgs field is definitely outside of the Bible.  It is thousands of years ahead of the Bible.

 

God has no mechanism to transfer Spirit to mass.  If you want a god that does that then you will need to invent your own religion.

[bornagainathiest]

Hey BAA, if this derails, don't answer. If it doesn't: can you describe whether William Lane Craig's frequent references to "the singularity" (a term also used by OrdinaryClay) are references to the singularity as understood now by Guth and others, or does WLC refer to an earlier, now inadequate understanding, perhaps one incorporated in the traditional Big Bang theory?

 

Well now, isn't that $1,000,000 question, Ficino?

.

.

.

 

In 'traditional' pre-Inflation Big Bang Cosmology, there's only a singularity, this universe and whatever lies beyond it.

How far this universe extended beyond our visual limits simply can't be addressed by observations, of course.  But in traditional BBC there was a direct causal link between the singularity and this universe. The first caused the second.  This is WLC why is so keen to use the singularity.  It gives him a timeless, spaceless gap into which he can insert an a-causal creative agent - God.  It also provides him with a direct causal link between God and our universe.

 

Inflationary Big Bang cosmology is very different.

There is an initial singularity and then a never-ending, exponentially accelerating process of 'pocket' universe generation caused by the decay of the Higgs field.  So, is our 'pocket' universe the 1st to decay or is it the 2nd, the 22nd or 239,530,818,409,334,700,930,882nd?  There's no way to tell.  But there are rules in place to govern how cosmological science should be used and how someone citing a scientific paper should treat the contents of that paper.

 

These are the Copernican and Cosmological Principles.

And this is where OrdinaryClay plays dirty.  He cites this paper... http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 ...where Borde, Guth and Vilenkin have calculated that even though Inflation never ends, it cannot be eternal into the past.  It must have had a beginning.  The 'past boundary' is the initial singularity, which is this beginning.  So, as before there's no past, prior to the singularity.  That's fine.  That's kosher.  But what Clay then does is conflate the Inflationary singularity with the singularity of 'traditional' pre-Inflation cosmology.  He disingenuously claims that Borde, Guth and Vilenkin's paper proves the existence of a traditional singularity and this allows him to use the Kalam argument with impunity.

 

(I can show you where Clay does this if you like.)

 

Clay dodges applying the Copernican and Cosmological principles, either correctly or at all.

They require us to treat the status of our particular pocket universe in exactly the same way as all the others.  Since Clay cites an Inflationary cosmology paper he should also abide by the ground rules of cosmology and come clean about the status of our observable universe.  But he won't do that.  Doing that would mean him treating our universe as just another pocket universe... like any other ...no different from a zillion other universes generated by the decay of the Higgs field.

 

Clay tries his darndest to re-link the singularity directly back to this universe.

That way, he can still claim that everything that exists is directly related to our pocket universe, our planet and us humans and that God is the direct causal agent of both the singularity and it's product - our universe. But the Copernican and Cosmological principles don't allow him to do that.  He knows this.  He knows that I know what he's doing.  But he either ignores my posts completely or blithely states, "I'm under no obligation to answer your questions."

.

.

.

That's what Clay does.  So what about WLC?

 

Well, if you can give me some time Ficino, I can get my act together, consult Guth's book and answer your question more fully.  I think I can also provide some helpful links too.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Guest end3]

 

Hey BAA, if this derails, don't answer. If it doesn't: can you describe whether William Lane Craig's frequent references to "the singularity" (a term also used by OrdinaryClay) are references to the singularity as understood now by Guth and others, or does WLC refer to an earlier, now inadequate understanding, perhaps one incorporated in the traditional Big Bang theory?

 

Well now, isn't that $1,000,000 question, Ficino?

.

.

.

 

In 'traditional' pre-Inflation Big Bang Cosmology, there's only a singularity, this universe and whatever lies beyond it.

How far this universe extended beyond our visual limits simply can't be addressed by observations, of course.  But in traditional BBC there was a direct causal link between the singularity and this universe. The first caused the second.  This is WLC why is so keen to use the singularity.  It gives him a timeless, spaceless gap into which he can insert an a-causal creative agent - God.  It also provides him with a direct causal link between God and our universe.

 

Inflationary Big Bang cosmology is very different.

There is an initial singularity and then a never-ending, exponentially accelerating process of 'pocket' universe generation caused by the decay of the Higgs field.  So, is our 'pocket' universe the 1st to decay or is it the 2nd, the 22nd or 239,530,818,409,334,700,930,882nd?  There's no way to tell.  But there are rules in place to govern how cosmological science should be used and how someone citing a scientific paper should treat the contents of that paper.

 

These are the Copernican and Cosmological Principles.

And this is where OrdinaryClay plays dirty.  He cites this paper... http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 ...where Borde, Guth and Vilenkin have calculated that even though Inflation never ends, it cannot be eternal into the past.  It must have had a beginning.  The 'past boundary' is the initial singularity, which is this beginning.  So, as before there's no past, prior to the singularity.  That's fine.  That's kosher.  But what Clay then does is conflate the Inflationary singularity with the singularity of 'traditional' pre-Inflation cosmology.  He disingenuously claims that Borde, Guth and Vilenkin's paper proves the existence of a traditional singularity and this allows him to use the Kalam argument with impunity.

 

(I can show you where Clay does this if you like.)

 

Clay dodges applying the Copernican and Cosmological principles, either correctly or at all.

They require us to treat the status of our particular pocket universe in exactly the same way as all the others.  Since Clay cites an Inflationary cosmology paper he should also abide by the ground rules of cosmology and come clean about the status of our observable universe.  But he won't do that.  Doing that would mean him treating our universe as just another pocket universe... like any other ...no different from a zillion other universes generated by the decay of the Higgs field.

 

Clay tries his darndest to re-link the singularity directly back to this universe.

That way, he can still claim that everything that exists is directly related to our pocket universe, our planet and us humans and that God is the direct causal agent of both the singularity and it's product - our universe. But the Copernican and Cosmological principles don't allow him to do that.  He knows this.  He knows that I know what he's doing.  But he either ignores my posts completely or blithely states, "I'm under no obligation to answer your questions."

.

.

.

That's what Clay does.  So what about WLC?

 

Well, if you can give me some time Ficino, I can get my act together, consult Guth's book and answer your question more fully.  I think I can also provide some helpful links too.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Why does it matter if there was still an initial? There appear to be other entities in Heaven.

[Fernweh]

BAA, so far I've read Hawking's first book A Brief History Of Time. Is my understanding of singularities and the Big Bang, base on this book, out of date by current standards? 

[Guest end3]

Ok, so suppose we talk this until we are blue in the face. And Fern, you declare strict science only here. My question: What's the point? If we discern it all and give a label to everything, then the end result is what.....that we are an anomaly in some space time inflationary fuck-flux and some mass has derived meaning to their existence....

 

Thanks you atheists, now I can be satisfied that I'm a semi knowledgeable ass-rock.

[Guest end3]

Funny how God mentions giving humanity hope and atheists make you and ass-rock. To quote Brother Jeff, Glory!

[mymistake]

Gee End, why so angry?

[Fernweh]

Ok, so suppose we talk this until we are blue in the face. And Fern, you declare strict science only here. My question: What's the point? If we discern it all and give a label to everything, then the end result is what.....that we are an anomaly in some space time inflationary fuck-flux and some mass has derived meaning to their existence....

 

Thanks you atheists, now I can be satisfied that I'm a semi knowledgeable ass-rock.

 

I would rather go through life living like self aware matter created by stellar explosions than devote my time and energy worshiping a god that isn't there. I've looked through my telescope as both a devout Christian and an atheist. The view is stunning either way. 

 

Funny how God mentions giving humanity hope and atheists make you and ass-rock. To quote Brother Jeff, Glory!

 

Science seeks to understand how the universe is, religion seeks to make the universe what it wishes it to be. 

[Guest end3]

I guess designating ones self as an evolving flying rock takes the stress off of moral performance anxiety.

[thereisnoperfect]

I guess designating ones self as an evolving flying rock takes the stress off of moral performance anxiety.

No. Getting rid of the thought of a distant, hard-to-understand judge takes the stress off of moral performance anxiety. Now I can just try to do what's good and find a way to grow, and no one gets to come in later and second-guess me.

 

Plus, knowing true things is much more helpful for making useful predictions and decisions than "knowing" false things.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA, so far I've read Hawking's first book A Brief History Of Time. Is my understanding of singularities and the Big Bang, base on this book, out of date by current standards? 

 

No, it's ok Fernweh.

 

Hawking and Guth worked together on Inflationary cosmology in the late 80's.  So they're both (metaphorically) singing off the same hymnsheet when it comes to singularities.  I've got that book too and everything Hawking says about the initial singularity is in the context of Inflationary theory.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Fernweh]

I guess designating ones self as an evolving flying rock takes the stress off of moral performance anxiety.

 

You can beat on that morality strawman if you want but I'm not going there.

[mymistake]

I guess designating ones self as an evolving flying rock takes the stress off of moral performance anxiety.

 

 

You are making it very hard to have a meaningful conversation with you.  I think all this hostility you have is because you don't want to admit to yourself that your cherished beliefs are in conflict with reality.  But I can't get past that shell you create to keep people away.

[Guest end3]

 

I guess designating ones self as an evolving flying rock takes the stress off of moral performance anxiety.

 

 

You are making it very hard to have a meaningful conversation with you.  I think all this hostility you have is because you don't want to admit to yourself that your cherished beliefs are in conflict with reality.  But I can't get past that shell you create to keep people away.

 

I appreciate the effort MM. It's not you, nor is it questioning my beliefs....it's a culmination of many things. I shall PM you.

[♦ ficino ♦]

In 'traditional' pre-Inflation Big Bang Cosmology, there's only a singularity, this universe and whatever lies beyond it.

How far this universe extended beyond our visual limits simply can't be addressed by observations, of course.  But in traditional BBC there was a direct causal link between the singularity and this universe. The first caused the second.  This is WLC why is so keen to use the singularity.  It gives him a timeless, spaceless gap into which he can insert an a-causal creative agent - God.  It also provides him with a direct causal link between God and our universe.

Thank you for devoting time to answering, BAA. In the above paragraph, for "a-causal" do you mean "uncaused"?

 

Inflationary Big Bang cosmology is very different.

There is an initial singularity and then a never-ending, exponentially accelerating process of 'pocket' universe generation caused by the decay of the Higgs field.  So, is our 'pocket' universe the 1st to decay or is it the 2nd, the 22nd or 239,530,818,409,334,700,930,882nd?  There's no way to tell.  But there are rules in place to govern how cosmological science should be used and how someone citing a scientific paper should treat the contents of that paper.

Can Kalam types claim that you need to posit an uncaused agent as cause of the "initial singularity" even in IBB cosmology?

[bornagainathiest]

OK Ficino, here's what Guth has to say the 'traditional' singularity of pre-Inflation cosmology.

 

"While matter falls into a black hole and can never escape, matter emerges from a white hole but can never enter it.  The white hole is exactly the kind of initial singularity that was hypothesized in the standard [traditional] form of the Big Bang theory, but certainly there is no known way to create such a singularity in the laboratory.  In fact, there is really no conceivable way, since such a singularity marks the beginning of time, at least at a point if not everywhere.  Since the beginning of time cannot be caused by something that preceded it, there is no way to cause a white hole."

 

So, the traditional singularity of pre-Inflationary cosmology can be considered as a white hole - or if you like, a time-reversed black hole.  Guth goes on to say that general realtivity makes no distinction between the two directions of time.

 

Is this news to you , Ficino?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

In 'traditional' pre-Inflation Big Bang Cosmology, there's only a singularity, this universe and whatever lies beyond it.

How far this universe extended beyond our visual limits simply can't be addressed by observations, of course.  But in traditional BBC there was a direct causal link between the singularity and this universe. The first caused the second.  This is WLC why is so keen to use the singularity.  It gives him a timeless, spaceless gap into which he can insert an a-causal creative agent - God.  It also provides him with a direct causal link between God and our universe.

Thank you for devoting time to answering, BAA. In the above paragraph, for "a-causal" do you mean "uncaused"?

 

Yep.

Sorry 'bout that.

I did, of course mean, God as the uncaused cause.  My bad.

 

Inflationary Big Bang cosmology is very different.

There is an initial singularity and then a never-ending, exponentially accelerating process of 'pocket' universe generation caused by the decay of the Higgs field.  So, is our 'pocket' universe the 1st to decay or is it the 2nd, the 22nd or 239,530,818,409,334,700,930,882nd?  There's no way to tell.  But there are rules in place to govern how cosmological science should be used and how someone citing a scientific paper should treat the contents of that paper.

Can Kalam types claim that you need to posit an uncaused agent as cause of the "initial singularity" even in IBB cosmology?

 

 

That depends, Ficino.

 

As I understand it, the KCA is a line of argument that depends on 'classical' cause-and-effect.  Classical being defined in this case as macroscopic and compatible with both Newtonian and Einsteinian physics.  Cause always precedes effect in classical physics.

 

The catch is, at the sub-atomic scales in question, classical cause-and-effect breaks down and cannot be relied upon.  By how much, I don't know and I don't think anyone really knows for sure.  Quantum effects leave us being unable to define precise events or locations and force us to assign probabilities.  At the Planck scale nothing is 100% certain.

 

Therefore, I'd suggest that the classical foundations of the KCA crumble and it cannot be applied to account for events at quantum scales.  To me that seems like a very great problem for WLC and his supporters - but I don't hear them talking much about this crisis, do you?

.

.

.

I'll dig out some links to Andrei Linde and Sean Carroll's work.

They theorize that Inflation can be past-eternal.  If so, no uncaused cause would be needed and no initial singularity would be required to set Inflation into motion.  Also, Guth has something to say about Vilenkin's work.  There's a proviso on the the need for an initial singularity - a proviso that OrdinaryClay has never mentioned.

.

.

.

Offline until tomorrow now.

 

C u  then.

 

Bye,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Back again, Ficino!

 

Ok then, about the KCA.

Perhaps the best way forward is for me to draw up two versions; a pre-Inflation, traditional Big Bang singularity rendering of the Kalam and a post-Inflation, new Big Bang singularity version.  Then we can see how they differ.

 

TRADITIONAL BIG BANG SINGULARITY

 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of it's existence.

 

All three stages are directly linked by the causality chain originating with the initial singularity.

The singularity causes 'everything'.  The singularity is the starting point of space, time and the universe.  The singularity is the sole cause of the universe's existence. 

 

Therefore, the KCA is valid.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

INFLATIONARY BIG BANG SINGULARITY

 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence.

 

Not proven.

The jury is still out on the past-eternality of Inflation.  Despite what OrdinaryClay asserts to be the case, the 1994 work by Borde & Vilenkin is not a cast-iron proof of the need for a beginning (the singularity) of the Inflationary process.  A (debatable) set of technical hypotheses must be accepted first, before going on to accept that their work indicates the need for a true beginning.

 

2. The universe began to exist.

 

Our pocket universe began to exist when the Higgs field decayed, creating the space-time continuum.  That is all that can be validly stated.

 

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of it's existence.

 

Agreed.  The direct cause of our universe is the decay the Higgs field, not the singularity.

 

The direct cause of the Higgs field is the initial singularity.  Our universe's relationship to that singularity cannot ever be established.  So the initial singularity (if there ever was one) can only be said to be the indirect cause of our universe's existence.  There is no possible way to establish a direct causal relationship between the singularity and our pocket universe.

Inflationary cosmology cuts us adrift from the initial singularity.

 

The KCA cannot be declared valid.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now please read this, F.

 

I'll explain the highlighted points below.

 

The Inflationary Universe, p 344. (Glossary)

 

WHITE HOLE:

The time-reversal of a black hole.  A white hole is a singularity from which matter emerges unpredictably, but into which matter cannot enter.  The initial singularity of the standard big bang theory is an example of a white hole.  It can be shown that the creation of a new universe from a false vacuum bubble in the context of classical general relativity would require a white hole singularity, which means essentially that it cannot be done, even in principle.  However, a false vacuum bubble could conceivably grow to become a new universe thru a process of quantum tunnelling.

 

standard

Cosmologists use the terms, standard, traditional and classical interchangeably.  They all mean pre-Inflationary Big Bang cosmology.

 

false vacuum

This is what the Higgs field is known as before it decays.  When it does so it changes from being the false vacuum to being the true vacuum.  This is what our space-time continuum is - the true vacuum.

 

quantum tunnelling

As I mentioned yesterday, quantum physics works just fine at the Planck scale.  However, classical physics doesn't.  It breaks down and cannot be relied upon.  Therefore, classical cause-and-effect cannot be claimed or asserted to be valid at these scales.  Quantum uncertainty and probability dominate.

.

.

.

As you can see from Guth's description, the singularity WLC relies for his arguments on is a White Hole. 

.

.

.

A further point to consider.

Q. What is the size of this White Hole singularity?

A.  It has no size at all.  It is infinitely small, having zero spatial dimension.

 

So how can classical cause-and-effect (which breaks down at quantum scales) possibly function thru or via a zero-dimensional entity like a singualrity?

.

.

.

 

Hmmm.... ?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

I've got it, Ficino!     

.

.

.

 

Follow me thru this and you should see it too.

 

This is all you need to know about the Copernican principle. (Hereafter, for the sake of ease, I'll refer to it as the CP.)

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/copernican_principle.html

 

THE KCA IN TRADITIONAL BIG BANG COSMOLOGY

 

1.

God causes the singularity.

This is the beginning of time and space.  There is no 'before' or 'beyond' the singularity.  The CP cannot apply to any regions or times before or beyond the singularity, because they don't exist.

 

2.

The singularity causes the universe.

Here, 'the universe' means only what we can see - the observable universe.  It can't mean anything else because this isn't inflationary cosmology... it's traditional Big Bang cosmology.  In the traditional paradigm there is no such thing as Inflation.  Nor is there a Higgs field (the false vacuum) which will decay into a true vacuum, generating umpteen pocket universes.

 

Therefore, the singularity causes only the observable universe.

The fact that there's a limit to how far we can see has no effect on the argument.  Yes, there could be regions beyond the observable limit, but they will never be observed and there's also no Inflationary mechanism at work here to argue for their existence.  This is the traditional paradigm, remember?  One singularity = one universe. Period.

 

3.

So the CP applies only within the observable universe.

It has no effect on the direct causal links presented in the KCA, either. 

 

God --->  Singularity --->  Traditional Big Bang --->  Universe. 

 

Therefore...

 

Universe --->  Traditional Big Bang --->  Singularity ---->  God.

 

Because this is traditional big bang cosmology, there are no other regions generated by the singularity which must then fall under the remit of the CP.   In the traditional paradigm the singularity doesn't generate a Higgs field - it only causes our universe to exist, nothing more.  So, there is no Higgs field to decay.  With no Higgs field there can be no other pocket universes to be caused by this decay. 

 

The CP only comes into effect when there's more than one region of space-time in question.

If there were many regions, the CP would equalize them all, barring us from concluding that our region is special.  But, in the traditional paradigm, there is only one region - our observable universe.  So the CP's remit stops at the observable limit of our universe.

 

With me so far?

.

.

.

Assuming you are, let's move on.

 

THE KCA IN INFLATIONARY BIG BANG COSMOLOGY

 

1.

There may or may not have been an initial singularity... the jury's still out on that.

Whatever the mechanism for time and space to come into existence(assuming it didn't always exist), the very first manifestation of it is the Higgs field, which is an unstable region of false vacuum energy.  The Higgs field isn't static, but behaves in a very specifically-defined way.  It expands from the singularity in a never-ending, exponentially-accelerating manner.  During that expansion, regions of the field spontaneously and chaotically decay from being a false vacuum into a true vacuum.  These true vacuum regions become 'pocket' universes that are spatially separate and disconnected from each other.

 

If the singularity is a necessity for the Higgs field to exist, then the same rules about time and space that applied in the traditional paradigm also apply here.  The Higgs field doesn't expand out from the singularity, into a region of space.  The Higgs field itself IS the fabric of space, albeit in a radically different form than we'd recognize. 

 

If the singularity isn't a necessity, then the Higgs field may well be eternal.

Eternal in every sense of the word.  Matter and energy will always have existed.  As mentioned above, this remains unknown and also under debate.  The bottom line re: the KCA is that the direct causal links and certainty of the traditional paradigm can no longer apply.  The argument breaks down from get go because direct causal links between it's stages cannot be validly established. 

 

But things get even more interesting when we bring the CP into play!

 

2.

The Higgs field causes many, many pocket universes to form -  not just ours.

Also, the calculations of Inflationary theory show that the observable universe cannot be all that there is to our pocket universe.  The true volume of our pocket cannot be known but is calculated to be at least 1,000 times the volume of the small portion we can see. 

 

Guth writes...

"If Inflation is correct, then the inflationary mechanism is responsible for the creation of essentially all the matter and energy in the universe.  The theory also implies that the observed universe is only a minute fraction of the entire universe, and it strongly suggests that there are perhaps an infinite number of other universes that are completely disconnected from our own."

 

Here, the words, 'entire universe' mean... just ...our pocket universe. 

The tiny portion we can observe is calculated to be a little under 100 billion light-years across.  This sounds like a lot.  But it isn't.  Compared to the entire volume of our Higgs-generated pocket, it's just a minute speck.  A mote.  Perhaps the size of this period...     .     ...compared to the whole of this page.

 

Now the CP comes into play.

Now we don't just have one region to consider, as per the traditional paradigm... now we have many.  The CP rules that we cannot assert or conclude that our universe is special in any way.  It is no different than any other.  It's status is equal.  Therefore, we cannot assert or conclude that everything came into existence because of our universe.  Nor can we assert or conclude that our universe was the very first region of the Higgs field to decay.   The uniqueness and specialness of our universe is denied. 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Can you see where I'm going with this, F?

.

.

.

As you can tell, I'm extremely excited about this new leap in my understanding of cosmology!

 

Please get back to me, asap.

I value your input.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

BAA, thanks so much for what you have written. I and the rest of us benefit greatly from the time and thought you have put into these questions. We appreciate how you share your treasures with your friends.

 

Give me some time to digest the above. Will get back to you, F

[♦ ficino ♦]

I THINK I'm with you so far.

 

3 things. These very questions may betray that I'm not really with you so far...

 

1. for the fundamentalist, the questions would arise, will there be other Adams and Eves in other pocket universes? Other snakes, other Jesuses? Or would there be other Gods, one god per pocket universe? Ans from the fundy POV: we can't answer this, but we know this universe's God will fry your ass in this pocket universe's Hell unless you repent. (If someone points out that maybe there's polytheism after all, etc. etc.... don't know how many questions along these lines a fundy can deal with.)

 

2. Last year you were posting about the multiverse. Is the multiverse the sum of all pocket universes derived from the SAME singularity? Or is it a step back from the singularity, i.e. perhaps an eternal Higgs Field w/ multiple singularities and universes?

 

3. Can the Kalam proponent bump all this up to a higher level by sacrificing the term "universe" and substituting something like "universe prime," i.e. the sum of all universes? If the Higgs field turns out itself to come from some singularity, so that we can't say it's eternal, then can the KCA work a level or two "up"?