William Lane Craig and the Kalam argument

[37818]

A fallacy by any other name is still a fallacy.

Ah, the Fallacy fallacy.

[37818]

Yes in a science thread in the appropriate section. You are disrupting this thread please

If science is used in an argument here in the Apologetics 301 forums I was not aware that it could not be used here. Science can be understood as a non-religion subject.

[robrecht]

I think some would say that the smooth homogeneity of the background radiation (and other observations) are evidence of some kind of inflation prior to the Big Bang, but there are obviously competing theories about this and detractors so I too would be very cautious in considering this as evidence for any one particular theory, 'though some might think there is something of a scholarly consensus as to this being evidence for something prior to the so-called Big Bang. Please Note, I have ZERO expertise in Physics, theoretical or otherwse. I am just an interested layman hoping to see the discussion continue.

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/...inflation.html

Note the 2007 opinion of Linde:

The total duration of inflation in this model is about 10−30 seconds. When inflation ends, the scalar field φ begins to oscillate near the minimum of V (φ). As any rapidly oscillating classical field, it looses its energy by creating pairs of elementary particles. These particles interact with each other and come to a state of thermal equilibrium with some temperature Tr [25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]. From this time on, the universe can be described by the usual big bang theory. ...

... at present we do not have any reason to believe that there was a single beginning of the evolution of the whole universe at some moment t = 0, which was traditionally associated with the Big Bang. ...

Inflation is not just an interesting theory that can resolve many difficult problems of the standard Big Bang cosmology. This theory made several predictions which can be tested by cosmological observations. Here are the most important predictions: [see link for list of 7 observations]

An attempt to avoid the use of the standard inflationary mechanism (though still use a stage of inflation prior to the big bang) was made in the pre-big bang scenario [76]. This scenario is based on the assumption that eventually one will find a solution of the cosmological singularity problem and learn how one could transfer small perturbations of the metric through the singularity. This problem still remains unsolved, see e.g. [77]. Moreover, a detailed investigation of the homogeneity, isotropy and flatness problems in the pre-big bang scenario demonstrated that the stage of the pre-big bang inflation introduced in [76] is insufficient to solve the major cosmological problems [78]. ...

In this respect, inflationary theory has a very important advantage: it works practically independently of the solution of the singularity problem. It can work equally well after the singularity, or after the bounce, or after the quantum creation of the universe. This fact is especially clear in the eternal inflation scenario: Eternal inflation makes the processes which occurred near the big bang practically irrelevant for the subsequent evolution of the universe. ...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.0164.pdf

[37818]

And if there are not really any singularities.

Where:
mc²(1 / sqr( 1 - v²/c²) - 1) = GMm/r

[shunyadragon]

Ah, the Fallacy fallacy.

No 'appeal to ignorance.'

[shunyadragon]

If science is used in an argument here in the Apologetics 301 forums I was not aware that it could not be used here. Science can be understood as a non-religion subject.

It could be if relevant, but the 'appeal to ignorance' in the argument is not based on evidence as per the definition.