I have something I started a while back and its not finished and I need to get back into it and clean it up but I figured I would post it. Keep in mind that it is from a theistic point of view. If there is a God I really don't believe that smart people have exclusive rights to him so I tried to write from a perspective that most adults could understand.

tinyurl.com/83f26sm

I didn't wana copy and paste it because its long but you don't need to read the whole thing I state at some point that the information isn't organized.

Hi Shawn! Here are my comments.

You are begging the question that the universe has a purpose with life -- you are starting from a theistic view. You just need to realize that. Besides, it is very anthropocentric to assume that life is the purpose for everything -- perhaps there is something beyond our comprehension.

Research, yes, but it has been clearly demonstrated that, due to cognitive biases (illusions of the mind) we cannot trust our memory, nor our senses -- at least not completely. We can say that "research" (reason, logic, mathematics, empirical data) must prevail.

A godless universe only requires belief in one unobservable thing -- the fact that it is OK not to have all the answers.
I assume this will be demonstrated. But this must work both ways, that is, it would a delusion to insist God exists if the observations do not support it.
Holy patooties. This is like saying, "we can observe that God exists" and concluding your paper. There is so much you have to explain here. Hoping it will come later.

We have tools and other verifications for our senses. We can only rely on our senses to an extent.

Again, our memory is perhaps the least reliable method of epistemology.

Perhaps I am jumping the gun here, but I see this major fallacy among theists many times. They assume "God" is the "simplest explanation", yet fail to acknowledge the unfathomable complexity of such a being, as well as the complex circumstances under which such a being can exist. Again, sorry if you weren't going there.

Prejudicial language, as well as false dichotomy. We have observed matter coming into existence via virtual particles. Nothing is "created".

Actually, it is not reasonable to say that. This is like saying without life, water would not exist. Water was a precursor to life, just as gravity and other laws could have been a precursor to matter.

You have defined "nothing" as the absence of matter -- this is not the case. The universe is mostly the absence of matter, and empirically proven to be not "nothing" (www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091102121644.htm).

You are talking about invalidating a mathematical equation based on invalid inputs. We can attempt to divide any number by zero, but that does not mean that equation/formula is invalid (non-existent); it just means the values are invalid.

This is the standard "eternal universe" argument, which I have never heard anyone seriously defend -- it is a strawman. There are a great number of theories attempt to explain what happened "before" the Big Bang, regardless, all any honest person can say is, "we don't know" -- we can speculate, but that is all it would be.

All we know is what happened after Planck time. If you read the works of Hawkins, Deutsch, and other theoretical physicists, there are many possibilities, none of which require a "prime mover". The point is not that any of these theories are founded on more evidence, but they do offer possible explanations without calling on the supernatural -- ie. appealing to the gods like our ancestors did for that which they could not explain. We know better -- or at least we should.

Once again, the problem with the "prime mover" is that it is a magic wildcard -- a way to put everything unexplainable in one package that is immune from any testable, falsifiable, observable, empirical, and even logical laws. It is not an explanation to anything -- it is way out of having to explain.

"Elegance" is a human concept that we assign to things like the universe. It is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Only for evolution deniers. Carl Sagan does a good job at explaining how this happens:



He acknowledges that evolution has a 4 billion year head start on our experiments. The study of abiogenesis is making great progress, and provides more than ample evidence that life is a result of the evolutionary process.

Evolution by natural selection is not the same as an "accident". Also, the fact that you made this post is also a mathematical impossibility -- given every event that must have happened since the beginning of time. The paradox is that mathematical impossibilities are mathematical certainties -- they do not suggest the need for the divine.

As such, we see the need for humans to make sense of what they don't understand by anthropomorphizing concepts into "beings" like us. IF everything you wrote so far were true, all we can say is that some "force" precedes creation.

For humans.

Nonsense. There is no "before" time just as there is no "north" of the north pole.

"present"? He can't take up space, be in time, so now we must create this "spirit" world completely ad hoc to accommodate this "being" we created. This creates even more impossibilities and assumptions not based on anything but "faith".

Apparent to whom? We are incapable of knowing what it is like to exist as anything (or anyone else). This cannot be assumed.

This is because they all derive from the same texts.

A whole other topic. The Jews know their book very well -- what Christians pose a "prophecies" for Jesus, are not even close.

I hope I have demonstrated how many assumptions have to be made for a god, how impossibly complex this God must be, and how observation leads to no such conclusions.

An emotional appeal, in case the reason didn't work Here is mine: Imagine spending your life worshiping a being who does not exist. Giving credit to this being for all that is good in your life, instead of giving it to those who deserve it -- doctors, parents, friends, yourself. Imagine spending countless hours praying to this being to make changes in your life, rather than doing what it takes to make the changes yourself. Imagine spending your time and energy trying to please this imaginary dictator, when there are countless people on this earth who desperately need your time and energy. Imagine going through life believing that you are worthless sinner, deserving of eternal torture, and living in fear that you might not be pleasing the god enough to save you from that fate, instead of knowing that you are a wonderful person who will do his best to help humanity, appreciating each and every day on this earth -- knowing that this is the time we have, and making the most of it.

@Bo
Thanks for your comments I'll have to take my time and look at them individually and make amendments to the paper for some. Especially the assertive nature of the paper. I'll try to bring some replies in for the others. You gave me a lot to look at I appreciate it.

No problem... I love this stuff. I am happy to discuss any of this in more detail.

@Bo


My point here is that without intelligence we can't evaluate a purpose if there is one. We can still attempt to evaluate one even if there isn't one. I don't mean to assert that life is the purpose but that there may be a purpose.
I absolutely agree with you. However, I am merely trying to say we still need reliable memory and senses to do this.
I'll have to amend my paper here. I think theists need to come to this conclusion as well. But in order to assert there is absolutely no intelligent creator a non-intelligent prime mover of some kind must be discovered.
I need to amend this too I find the statement I made far to assertive. I think it was some sort of response to the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins If a Christian wrote such a scathing attack against atheism I'd be ashamed of it. I'm sure some have now that I think of it. So Thanks for your bringing that up.
I see you point and Dawkins uses Occam's Razor the opposite way based on the same explanation. Though I find that to be a form of special pleading. The details of any prime mover proposed are likely to be complex as are the details of an eternal universe which would be infinitely complex unless they reached a pattern. Additionally, quantifying complexity of explanations by going into detail of them seems arbitrary. Quantifying them by the number of separate explanations needed seems less arbitrary.
Forgive me if I misunderstand virtual particles. I believe that in order for the virtual particles to create themselves out of an electron positron field which is overlaid on what we call spacetime that field must first be established. This begs the question does space have this field preexisting in it and then what created this field. So I don't understand these particles to come from nothing but from the field. I didn't go into this because I wasn't interested in a paper that was exclusive to people who understand virtual particles. I'll have to take more time to think about what to do here.
You're right gravity could have preexisted matter but it would do nothing. So does something that does nothing exist and never did anything exist? I guess my point is philosophical. It certainly isn't falsifiable. But I have a problem with matter existing and the first two laws of thermodynamics existing all at once today and in the past. It doesn't seem possible.
I see, I think I need to revisit nothing as well. Because I see a difference in empty space between bodies of mass and whatever is outside wave of the universes expansion. Thanks for pointing that out.
I was covering all possible scanareos no creation, intelligent creation, unintelligent creation. I address all 3 I didn't intend to strawman any position. Some people do believe that before the big bang there were an infinite number of bangs.
Noted, this is my opinion. I'll consider putting some quantitative things here.

After that you're totally right my paper gets way too assertive and needs to be totally retouched.

I plan on writing a detailed explanation of this. We can explain everything in the world with "magic" -- one single explanation, this does not make it better, more helpful, or certainly more true. Quantity of separate explanations is not always better.

In simpler terms, they are not created out of "nothing" -- which is a prevailing argument among modern physicists (Laurence M Krauss - A Universe from Nothing) -- the assertion is that what we see as "nothing" is and always was "something". Creation (as we think of it) is not happening; it is more accurately a change of forms (energy/matter).

You should ask that question about God

Almost 100 years ago Eisenstein demonstrated that matter is energy, just a different form. I have heard this argument before but never clearly articulated -- so I don't know exactly how to respond... if there is a response. I would like to see you touch more on this.

Correct and I'll admit Occam's Razor isn't always right its just playing the odds I suppose. If there is a way to quantify complication of assumptions I'd say eternity and God are both concepts that human minds cannot fathom fully.

Right, though at least now I am not seeing how this interaction can account for everything. It's certainly interesting and is the field really "nothing". Is empty volume something? In other words is the part the universe hasn't expanded into the same as the empty part within it? These are neat questions that I don't think we can answer. I find it interesting that virtual particles don't exist for an arbitrary unit of time but one interval of plank time. (I might be wrong about this Ill check in a minute I need to change computers)

I totally agree. If I believed God never did anything and doesn't do anything now then I would have to say God doesn't exist. I kind of anticipated that comment so I had it coming
Right and even in a 0 energy universe if that is indeed what we have, there seems to be no reason for even virtual particles to exist. The fact that a force such as gravity exists rather than does not exist baffles me. When I asked this question once I was ridiculed with the response because it does. I think a better reason is because it has to.

Shawn, you should check out this lecture by physicist Lawrence Krauss: -- and for much more, buy his book. In his book at least, he discusses the behavior of virtual particles, and of course, offers an explanation of a universe from "nothing" without appealing to the gods. Again, he does not have to be right -- but he does show (along with many of his peers) show how appealing to the gods is not necessary.

Thanks Bo I'll check it out soon,
My fiance is the librarian so I can evoke my perk and not buy the book until after I read it. I also enjoyed Hawking's books though I think The Grand Design is a leap or at least has some oversights.

Also, I made some changes to the paper and I'm not done so I do take your comments seriously and I'm sorry I didn't keep the original paper as it was I didn't mean any dishonesty so I wanted to say everything Bo commented on was originally in my paper and may have been changed or removed. I didn't mean dishonesty but that paper is a work in progress.

On the document linked to:

Preface
Fine.

Introduction
Inaccurate. There are several explanations for the origin of matter, whether it be a natural law we don't know of, or simply that the current laws came into existence with matter. Further, it's better to say 'matter did not exist in its current form', rather than just 'did not exist'. Even that agrees with the theistic world-view: it existed as potential, in the mind of God. I think virtual particles have already been mentioned. Maybe the answer's in higher dimensions than those we're familiar with: should they exist, they'd have been formed also.
Not to mention, 'random chance' is a very dangerous thing to discuss on this scale. We're talking of an infinite timescale, and possibly infinite space. The probability of something not happening would be next to nothing. There's the classic statement that if you lock ten thousand monkeys with a typewriter each, for a hundred years, at least one would have written the complete works of Shakespeare. A little extreme, but makes the point.

So Where Should We Start?
Fine.

Matter
On your discussion of the oscillating universe theory, while it's not one I personally hold, your mention of expansion doesn't contradict it at all if the universe is a four dimensional 'bagel': go far enough in one direction, you'll end up where you started.
Not to mention, matter could exist only as energy: it goes back to what I said earlier, 'matter did not exist in its current form'. And virtual particles have been mentioned, so there's not much more to say there.

What is the prime mover?
It's probably better to refer to this just as the 'source', due to the connotations of 'Prime Mover', it reads too much as if you're presupposing God. That's just a literary note though.
Though not everything leading up to this point has been unquestionably true, this section is mostly fine, on a theoretical level. It doesn't give any reason to believe the source is sentient or any more than a basic force or some such thing, though I assume that's covered in the next section.

Intentional Creation
This section is dishonest, to say the least. Sorry for sounding harsh, but it can't really be read any other way: for a point to begin at, the appearance of intelligence doesn't denote intelligence. Look at salt crystals: and even beyond that, the idea is truly bizarre if you think about it. Natural things, such as DNA, are intelligently made: and we can ell that, because? They don't look like natural things?
Not to mention, this is just probability play. While chance may not be the most satisfying response, it's nonetheless valid: on the scales discussed, eternity and possibly infinity, any chances become meaningless. As said before; on a smaller scale, flip a coin. Will it be heads? It's 50/50, but if you flip it ten times, the chances of it not being heads are 1/1024 (at a rough calculation). Very unlikely: but keep doing it, say, a million times, you're likely to achieve that. Extend to infinity, flip a coin or roll a dice infinite times, you're as good as certain to get a billion heads or a billion sixes consecutively.
On an infinite scale, statistics become as good as useless. Saying things look organized is just saying it's unlikely it's not designed.
Also, the last sentence is again flawed: you've shrunken the universe to just the portion we can observe. Maybe the process is continuing, just at a distance so far from us that it's inconceivable. It could be a trillions-to-one chance that the process takes place, in which case it's explained. It could be a 90:10 chances that it takes place, and we're just the exception and that we're further from other such ones.

About The Creator
This will probably sound harsh, I'm not trying to offend but you're being very selective in when you apply human standards: you make a point earlier that the Creator would not obey human laws of Physics etc (e: being timeless), but then say they have to obey essentially psychological rules: that creating something intentionally means there's a reason. If we're ascribing human traits, it could just be boredom: but who's to say the Creator would need a plan?
That's assuming they're sentient.

Conclusion
Sorry, but I don't find the above overly convincing. Some interesting thoughts, and an interesting take on classic arguments, but still some flaws. For example, 'chaos' can, on rare occasions, lead to what appears to be order. Evolution has its basis in chaos, yes, but from it, things become weighted, and fairly well-designed bodies come from it. You could flip a coin and end up with your name in binary, or get Shakespeare from ten thousand monkeys, it doesn't matter: but the roots are randomness, and chaos, and the results are seeming order.

Authors And Their Works
Then there are writers; like Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes, doing things because they have to rather than because it fascinates or interests them. Or Arthur C Clarke and Childhood's End, which gives a picture of an earlier state of mind which later changed (belief in the paranormal). The traits could be outdated, or simply wrong.

Fine-Tuning
Again, there seems to be a limitation on chance put in place. The chances against are infinite: but so is the universe. Chances of it happening? Infinity over infinity, and given that eternity is a greater magnitude of infinity, then the chances of it happening become very likely.
And as for non-lethal numbers, chances are we simply haven't noticed them as they're too basic: we just skip over them. We notice the impressive things, and the rest... Like pi; if the dimensions were a little different, it could maybe be six. That probably won't affect life, though again, we can't really check.
Anyway, one more note: you mention that we don't observe information without a mind. Even if that's true, you give two examples being the apparent exceptions: fine, but we also don't know of any minds being timeless/eternal. Allowing one but not the other just raises a whole new issue.

Survival of the Fittest
Only in the examples we've seen. And not even then. 'Fittest' implies life anyway, and thus a mind of some description in most eventualities, but in any case, just look at plants. You can assume a mind behind them: but that makes the argument circular.

More On Prime Mover
Theoretically sound, un-testable, but again no reason to suppose sentience, though I assume that wasn't being argued for at this specific point.

More On Oscillating Universes
From what I can tell, this again assumes that you know the shape of the universe, which is unfounded.

Morality
Fine, but I don't think that was the point it was trying to make.

Random Force Configurations
Depends on who you ask, but the question here is: why can't the force be eternal?

Synthetic Attempts to Create Life
Fine.

Multiverse
As mentioned above, there are only four forces that we've noticed. And also, while there could be infinitely many variations, why can't one of those variations be one in which only four are needed?
Also, while we're on the issue, the idea of a multiverse is a fairly well founded one. If one universe can exists: over infinity and eternity, why not another, and another? The problem is that everything won't happen: everything possible will, and that's an important note. There could be one which visits every other universe: and one which is completely isolated and never visited, which forms a contradiction.

What We Know and What We Think
No scientific law removes the possibility of almost every God, though they do work against the Bible being literally true. If Genesis is literal, the sky is water and light exists without a light source. Science doesn't work to disprove God, but merely shows he's unnecessary. Steven Hawking said something to that effect, I believe.

God Requires More Assumptions and Multiple Creators
I'll address these together as the responses are linked. While there's little reason to suppose multiple creators, I'll dwell on your mention of a group working in tandem essentially being one Creator. That's a good analogy as you suppose a God capable of this, this and this: which could be Creator A doing this, Creator B doing this, and Creators C and D doing the last 'this'.
That's not too important, I just wanted to elaborate. Anyway, scientific laws don't break down at creation, it's just different ones that are needed: in the same way Newtonian mechanics becomes meaningless at the quantum level, different laws would no doubt be needed at the start.
And the problem is, creation does break scientific laws. The prime mover would themselves need to be able to break all of those same laws (which, while explained by being above them, does not negate the need), while simultaneously possessing intent and ability.

Without Matter
Fine, mostly, though it's worth pointing out that the reason science needs matter to work is that science has no possible way to work without matter. Also, without matter a question should be asked of the prime mover: where do they get a motivation to create from? Possibly explainable if they have an utterly alien mindset, if a mindset at all, but then your earlier statement on intent becomes meaningless.

Random Processes
Oh, so you have heard of the saying. Heh, I always heard it as Shakespeare.
Anyway, how do you know there aren't lots of failed universes out there? They may well not be that close to us. The theoretical monkey could wander off as soon as it finishes typing 'the end': and for abiogenesis, I don't know what it was, nor how it occurred. you're assuming you do, and that it's a continuing process that leaves genetic strings lying around. It could've been caused by a lightning bolt or soemthing: anyway, there could be genetic strings lying around, they're simply not on a level we can expect to see. can you see genes?

Just a note, there's a typo under 'additional assumptions' ('witch' rather than 'which'). Also, there's nothing you've said that makes the prime mover al 'all powerful' God, only a timeless Creator with intent: even assuming the statements were correct.

@Rowena
Thanks for taking the time to read and reply to my paper so thoroughly I truly appreciate it. I read over your comments on the organized portion of the paper and skimmed some of the rest. I fully intend to read them and look into them later.

Some thoughts
I can't fully entertain every theory on theories like virtual particle behavior, the shape of the universe and so on. But these theories present possible exceptions to the laws of physics and so I found the assumptions unnecessary (but interesting).
I made a point to say that these are only observations that can be made and evidence that can point to these conclusions. I admit the language needs to be retouched. "Prime mover" however seems to be an offensive term to theists as well. I might consider revising it but I felt it was a neutral term and a scientific term as well.

To intentional process
This could be good discussion however I would consider the process of evolution to be a process governed by intelligence. It takes some intelligence to survive and pass your genetic information on. With less intelligent organisms probably less intelligence is required but some survival still seems necessary and not random or accidental. I appreciate your comments I will make changes when I can but I'll be busy for a few weeks.

Shawn wrote: You're welcome: it was an interesting read.They're not necessarily assumptions: the shape of the universe is a hypothesis but one arguably backed up by some evidence, as the universe is still expanding, after all. I'm not a physicist, so I'm not certain, but it's one possibility.
Also, they're not necessarily meant to be taken as valid facts, it's just an alternative explanation of the facts to God, whether by direct example or principle: for example, virtual particles are uncaused by their very nature, so who's to say something else couldn't be in essence uncaused, even should it have a beginning?Careful with that! Just to say: it's a fine line between only arguing with existing knowledge, and an argument from ignorance.The intelligence is just that of the organisms in question, if I'm reading this right.

@Rowena
I hadn't wrapped my head around it fully but I can see problems with a universe shaped in such a way that things come back to their starting point. One we don't see anything coming back toward us but that could be explained by relative motion, timeline placement, etc. But it also yields an exception to the second law of thermodynamics. I also think it leaves a problem with why would the universe wait for all the energy in the universe to come together before each big bang. That fact to me would suggest some kind of intelligence but I find the concept to be an unnecessary assumption.

After a little research I found that Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error. map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
I agree if you presuppose there is no God (or at least not one who created life as we know it). However, if you presuppose God created life and therefore designed the process then there is a bit more intelligence at play.

Shawn wrote: Not necessarily: there'd need to be the correct conditions for such a thing to happen, and arguably sufficient density etc: even assuming that everything needs to get there first. We wouldn't notice otherwise: force of the explosion, etc, the particles would be forced away. There's also the issue of size, but I'll mention that below:I'm not certain that the link's referring to this topic specifically. There isn't a limit to the possible radius of the universe: take the Earth, we don't notice a curve because it's vast in comparison to us. This also explains why things don't come flying back at us: it'll simply take a phenomenally long time.
If it helps visualize it, imagine a 3D bagel. Start at any one point, go as far along in any one direction as you want: you'll end up exactly where you start. An equivalent shape in four or more dimensions, and there you go. No evidence for it: but no evidence notably against it given a sizeable radius.
Then this argument would seem to be circular: you need to presuppose one or another side in order to gain evidence for that side. Isn't it better to simply presuppose nothing?
It works fine without a guiding intelligence, those that survive gaining the instinct for survival, obviously a useful trait for survival, and thus surviving, the useful traits perpetuated and... Well, that's just evolution in general. Where's the need for a guiding intelligence?

@Rowena
I'm sure that the article I posted is referring to the shape of the universe.
When possible. But this situation presents itself as an apparent dichotomy so its better to presuppose both separately and be aware of both presuppositions than to presuppose one and not be aware of our own biases. Again, its not a good way for me to debate that my God exists by beginning the argument with the assumption that he does not exist.

Shawn wrote: Not in this context. As I said, the reasons they gave wouldn't be valid for a larger radius of the universe as the degree change would be negligible, that's simple mathematics. I think they're referring to the known universe as opposed to the whole of the universe, even that beyond the big bang. Existence, if you will, rather than the universe.
I'd agree with this, except for the last sentence. It's arguably better to supposed that you're wrong to start the debate: it's the scientific method and sometimes mathematical. If there are any errors in the point of view put forwards, it's the best way to find them.
In any case, if the statement relies on presupposing one or the other point of view, just don't include it. There'd need to be evidence to presuppose one point of view, which would make the statement itself unnecessary.

@Rowena
To shape of the universe: If your proposal doesn't assume an eternal oscillating universe than there is no reason for me to address it because it doesn't support or oppose my position. So I took it that I should address the position as such. The shape of the universe is determined by the density of the universe.

There is also evidence against such a shape such as the Doppler effect showing accelerating expansion outward with no evidence of such a curve or anything that got around and headed back toward us. The second law of thermodynamics still prohibits this model because it is a closed system.

My last sentence "its not a good way for me to debate that my God exists by beginning the argument with the assumption that he does not exist." I was only making the philosophical statement that conceding is not the best way to win a contest. I meant it somewhat facetiously.

Shawn wrote: It does: continual expansion will result in contraction, but if the radius of the universe is larger then we wouldn't be able to tell whether or not we were in a bagel or a flat 'plane'. Density does determine it, yes: but considering we can't detect well over half the universe, and that that will affect the density, we do not know the density. The link says as much, appealing to another theory which, looking at the page on it that's linked to, states only that the universe is 'nearly flat': which is what I've said. There's still a slight curve, ever-so-tiny for the space near us, and no doubt continuing as such.
To illustrate, look out your window: the Earth appears completely flat, generally. Does that mean the Earth itself is flat? The universe appears the same. So...
I'm not advocating a scientific theory by any means: there's no reason to believe it, but there's equally no reason to disbelieve. One of two things will happen in this universe: either gravity will prove too much for the expansion and draw everything back in, so the bagel isn't necessary. Alternatively, things will continue as there are no resistive forces outside the universe, until they end up essentially where they started, piling together until Big Bang Two.
Only as far as we can see. It's akin to looking out your window and concluding that the Earth is flat. It'd be millennia before anything went far enough to head back at us.Only in three dimensions.

@RowenaI understood it as the bagel expanding. If it didn't you would have a problem of gravitational feedback. Gravity being a force with infinite range could rise to infinite with a wrap around effect like that even with an offsetting force in the opposite direction. We would see different background radiation if the wave got all the way around. There is no reason for all matter to converge into one point again at the same time. The unintelligent phenomena called the big bang doesn't know all matter is in the singularity so you would have lots of Big Bangs with only part of the matter of the universe in such a model. This would result in some matter moving toward us and a more even distribution of matter throughout the universe given infinite time. While the model is possible and unlikely it makes a great deal of assumptions and begs the question why is it shaped that way.

Shawn wrote: Yes: when it gets all the way around, and to a point close enough to us.
Don't forget the need for a trigger. Something needs to set the universe off; when that's done, there has to be the right amount to successfully expand, and keep on expanding. The remnants of other bangs would just be gathered up by gravity in galaxies closer to the edge of this universe.No assumptions, save for the typical, circular presupposition. It's not meant to be a valid theory, as I've said, just an alternative: in the same way that your argument presupposes a non-pandeistic deity with a somewhat-human mindset.
And, why wouldn't the universe be shaped that way? It's just an alternative explanation, not a scientific theory, as I've said. With that one presupposition, God is rendered unnecessary: it's not necessarily true, but...

Given the infinite time it has had under the oscillating model this should have happened. If you don't assume the oscillating model I have no reason to contest the theory.

Additionally, there lacks a mechanism to initiate big bangs.

While you didn't subscribe to the theory you did indicate it was one I should have included in my paper. I am just trying to illustrate that I don't even think anyone can take the theory seriously at this point.

Shawn wrote: Given that much time, the radiation of previous universes would've dispersed to become negligible, and that of our own simply wouldn't reach us again.Not at all: simple matter can fulfil the role here. God is theorized as a prime mover: here, there's already energy and matter aplenty, coalescing into one point, yes, but there just needs one momentary instability which is easy to come by due to the velocities involved: I can't phrase it too well, sorry.You already included it: you just dismissed it prematurely. I'll stop here as we're getting too in depth to be of use to the topic, just to say that it might be worth pointing out why the shape of the universe cannot be relevant to this issue.

@Rowena
I don't think its fair to say it wouldn't reach us again. If it oscillates it has infinite time to reach us so it can and will and we would see matter and energy from previous oscillations.

It seems like this theory needs the stable force of gravity to be highly unstable, or one of the other stable forces to be highly unstable for a long period of time long enough for all matter to reach escape velocity (so we'd need to explain that), the universe must assume an odd shape (so we'd need to explain that), and there needs to be a reason why there is no evidence for it(so we'd have to explain that). I can't even find someone who wrote a decent paper on this hypothesis. It seems to make too many unnecessary assumptions. But yes I don't think discussing it is going anywhere.