Comments

Here is my comment policy, and technical help if you want to include equations in your comments:

1) You are welcome to leave comments on old posts—pretend they were all written yesterday!  Please make some attempt to put your comment on a topically suitable top-level article, e.g. the one which you are responding to.  (If you can't find a good place, go ahead and put it somewhere random—I don't mind the occasional off-topic comment, but it's awkward if it could have been on-topic had you put it in the correct place.)

2) You can include LaTeX formulae in your comments by putting double dollar signs on either side.  For example, {\mathrm \$\$\verb|\|frac\{e\verb|^|\{-X\verb|^|2 / 2\}\}\{\verb|\|sqrt\{2\verb|\|pi\}\} \$\$ } becomes \frac{e^{-X^2 / 2}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}.  If you want to break it out into its own line, just place an "!" immediately after the first pair of dollar signs.  (Don't try to use the wordpress.com format, since that doesn't work on wordpress.org blogs)

3) Don't use the symbols < or > in your comment (unless you use just one), as WordPress may intepret them as an html tag and mutilate your comment!  You can make these symbols by inserting \lt or \gt inside of the double dollar signs, for < or > respectively.  Alternatively you can use the html escape codes \&lt; or \&gt; even outside of the double dollar signs.

4) This is a Christian website, which exists for the purpose of glorifying God.  Commenters with other beliefs are welcome to comment on the site for purposes of friendly discussion, but I ask that you refrain from gratuitious blasphemy (i.e. derogatory insults and jokes directed at God which aren't necessary in order to respectfully state your position.)  I also ask that you be civil to the other commenters.

5) Commenters should provide a valid email address in the comment form, so that I can write to you privately if there is an administrative issue that shouldn't be shared with everyone.  This email address is not visible to the public.

6) If you figure out any other way to abuse the process, I may have to invent some ex post facto rules in a hurry.  But I would rather have a community of people who use common sense when deciding what kinds of comments are suitable.

Last updated Nov 16, 2014.

2 Responses to Comments

  1. David S. says:

    Hey. I'm a Christian and I'm very interested in apologetics. When I saw the Craig-Carroll debate, I was very concerned because Alan Guth, one of the authors of the BGV theorem, said that the universe is "very likely eternal". This would be a serious problem for the second premise of the kalam cosmological argument. It caught me off guard since Alexander Vilenkin, another author of the BGV theorem, said that Craig properly represented the implications of the theorem (that the universe had a beginning) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-bgv-theorem. Is the BGV theorem a reliable way of showing the universe had a beginning? Please help

  2. Aron Wall says:

    David S,
    Are you putting your trust in theorems about Nature, or the one who made Nature? If the latter, I don't see why you should be "very concerned" if the BGV theorem turns out to say less than you hoped. Of course, when we construct arguments for the Christian faith it is easy to become emotionally invested in the premises we are drawing upon, but remember that most of the saints through history found a way to believe in Christ without the aid of the BGV theorem! Apparently there are other ways of coming to know God.

    The BGV theorem very roughly tells us that inflation can't have gone on forever to the past, but it does not automatically imply that there was an absolute Beginning, as I discuss here. This was part of a longer series about the question of whether there was a beginning, according to the our current scientific knowledge.

    The fact that Vilenkin and Guth have different views from each other is a normal difference in scientific opinion, coming from the fact that our best current theories of Nature break down in the very early universe. Personally I think Vilenkin's view is better supported by the evidence, but I can't say it's been scientifically proven.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>