The misuse of science by William Lane Craig and othe Christian apologists.

[Kbertsche]

There is no reason to assume that this view is supported by science, because it ultimately remains that the present knowledge cannot support an absolute beginning of anything.

I disagree. The Big Bang is the beginning of mass-energy and of time, according to current science.

No, not all models for the beginnings of our universe and all possible universe support an absolute beginning of all the particles. There are currently viable cyclic and bounce models for the beginning of our universe. I will cite these in a later post.

Perhaps there are viable cyclic models, but I am highly skeptical. Our current scientific observations show that the expansion rate of the universe is increasing, thus universe can never undergo a "Big Crunch" and start a new cycle.

Careful of claiming absolute beginnings here even if all the particles absolutely began in the Big Bang. According to the present knowledge of science they did not begin from nothing. Our universe began as a singularity formed in the Quantum World.

Really?!? What scientific evidence supports either of these two notions (that particles "did not begin from nothing" or that "Our universe began as a singularity formed in the Quantum World")? I think these are metaphysical/philosophical claims, not scientific claims.

Again, claims absolute beginnings from 'nothing' cannot be falsified by objective scientific methods. As far as science is concerned only beginnings from previous existing material has been falsifiable by scientific methods.

Agreed. Science cannot address what happened "before" the Big Bang, or what caused it.

[Kbertsche]

You apparently do not understand quantum fluctuations, because they are indeed infinitesimal moments in time, and not continuous in a time/space relationship.

false! You need to re-think this; it's pretty basic. Per Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, conservation of (mass-)energy can be slightly violated for short times. The smaller the energy violation, the longer the time can be. These times are finite, not infinitesimal.

Here's a reference for you: http://hst-archive.web.cern.ch/archi...rticles/06.pdf

Note the following on p. 226:

Source: Jones

We will now see that a consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that we can take seriously the possibility of the existence of energy non-conserving processes—provided the amount by which energy is not conserved, Eviolation, exists for a time less than h/4π Eviolation.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

false! You need to re-think this; it's pretty basic. Per Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, conservation of (mass-)energy can be slightly violated for short times. The smaller the energy violation, the longer the time can be. These times are finite, not infinitesimal.

Read the reference for dummies. Infinitesimal quantum fluctuations are indeed finite. Whether (longer time? )finite or infinitesimal we are talking about a time frame that is not continuous in space/time until a singularity is formed and the result a universe is formed. If the considerations of quantum fluctuations resulting in the formation of a singularity and the resulting universe are a part of the String Theory, but this a special case for the fluctuations, because the Quantum World and Quantum zero-point energy is not continuously forming universes. See: http://www.livescience.com/17454-str...-big-bang.html

Still waiting for references concerning what you believe is possible or impossible concerning the nature of the Quantum World and the formation of universes.

[The Pixie]

...
Many now want to attribute our entire universe, and all 13.7 billion years of its existence, to a "quantum fluctuation". This would be theoretically possible ONLY if the total mass-energy of the universe is almost exactly zero (to a ridiculous number of decimal places). This is unreasonable, IMO.

Whether the total mass-energy of the universe is almost exactly zero depends on whether it is due to a "quantum fluctuation". If it is due to a "quantum fluctuation", then the total mass-energy of the universe being almost exactly zero is not just reasonable, but certain.

Of course, if you assume the universe is not due to a "quantum fluctuation", then it is unreasonable. But then you need some other explanation for why the total mass-energy of the universe is pretty close to zero.

[Rational Gaze]

The irony is that WLC addresses all of these points raised online and in his printed work.

[Rational Gaze]

Perhaps there are viable cyclic models, but I am highly skeptical. Our current scientific observations show that the expansion rate of the universe is increasing, thus universe can never undergo a "Big Crunch" and start a new cycle.

There are no viable cyclic models that are truly cyclic. LQG is the most viable of all potential cyclic models, as it overcomes the problem of BKL chaos (which plagues the majority of cyclic cosmological models) but there are no means of overcoming the build-up of entropy per cycle and the mass-energy density of the universe is such that the universe would have ended up in open-ended expansion the first cycle (if the parameters are independent of space-time, and thus unchanging, i.e. a cosmological constant), or could only undergo a finite number of cycles before the universe underwent open-ended expansion (if the parameters are dependant on space-time, and thus variable, i.e. quintessence).

The Baum-Frampton cyclic model attempts to account for entropy build-up, but the cited mechanism fails. In their model, the universe rips apart into causally disconnected patches, and only some of these patches have the entropy in them. These patches then contract, and the empty ones become new universes, whilst the entropic patches maintain their entropic content. The problem is that the parameter in their model that governs the scale at which micro-physics can interact reaches infinite size immediately prior to the turnaround mechanism kicks in, so all the patches come into causal contact with each other. There are some other problems, I think, but I can't quite recall them.

[Rational Gaze]

false! You need to re-think this; it's pretty basic. Per Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, conservation of (mass-)energy can be slightly violated for short times. The smaller the energy violation, the longer the time can be. These times are finite, not infinitesimal.

Here's a reference for you: http://hst-archive.web.cern.ch/archi...rticles/06.pdf

Note the following on p. 226:

Source: Jones

We will now see that a consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that we can take seriously the possibility of the existence of energy non-conserving processes—provided the amount by which energy is not conserved, Eviolation, exists for a time less than h/4π Eviolation.

© Copyright Original Source

The main problem with positing that the universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation is that quantum fluctuations require the existence of the quantum vacuum. The quantum vacuum is simply what we call 'space', which is not nothing, but a fluctuating sea of energy. As per the standard model of the universe, material things are not flying through already extant space, but space itself began to exist in the big bang as space itself is expanding. The implications of the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems and the BGV theorem is that all geodesics that have average positive expansion begun to exist. Moreover, even if we assume that the quantum vacuum (or a quantum vacuum) existed prior to our universe, it merely pushes the question back. You have to posit a cause that does not itself require a cause, i.e. beginningless, and a quantum vacuum cannot be beginningless. The same thing applies to the multiverse. You need a spaceless, timeless cause to evade the problem of an infinite regress, but an unconscious timeless entity could never enter into time. Whereas a conscious timeless entity could freely will to enter into time (which is what WLC argues online, in print, and in debates.

[Crackerjack]

I wish Craig's nonacademic critics would go beyond his public debates and read his written work. The man isn't just a public debater.

[Rational Gaze]

I'd recommend:
William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, from William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Wiley-Blackwell, (2009)
William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair, On Non-Singular Spacetimes and the Beginning of the Universe, from Yujin Nagasawa, Scientific Approaches to the Philosophy of Religion Palgrave-McMillan, (2012)

[The Pixie]

The irony is that WLC addresses all of these points raised online and in his printed work.

Cool. Can you respond to them then?

[Rational Gaze]

Whether the total mass-energy of the universe is almost exactly zero depends on whether it is due to a "quantum fluctuation". If it is due to a "quantum fluctuation", then the total mass-energy of the universe being almost exactly zero is not just reasonable, but certain.

Of course, if you assume the universe is not due to a "quantum fluctuation", then it is unreasonable. But then you need some other explanation for why the total mass-energy of the universe is pretty close to zero.

The irony with this post is that the energy-density of the universe being close to zero is part of the fine-tuning evidence appealed to in current versions of the teleological argument. The expected value of the cosmological argument is between 10⁵³ to 10¹²⁰ times larger than the maximum life-permitting range of the cosmological constant.
See: Robin Collins, The Teleological Argument, from William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Wiley-Blackwell, (2009), p216.

[shunyadragon]

The irony is that WLC addresses all of these points raised online and in his printed work.

The true irony is he fails to adequately address ALL of these points and more anywhere. If you believe so please cite him.

[shunyadragon]

The irony with this post is that the energy-density of the universe being close to zero is part of the fine-tuning evidence appealed to in current versions of the teleological argument. The expected value of the cosmological argument is between 10⁵³ to 10¹²⁰ times larger than the maximum life-permitting range of the cosmological constant.
See: Robin Collins, The Teleological Argument, from William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Wiley-Blackwell, (2009), p216.

The reason the energy-density of the universe is close to zero is because that is simply the way it is. The fine tuning argument cannot falsify that this value is either the only possible value, nor what the laws of nature would determine the possible ranges of the value, that all possible universes would not have a value similar to this. I will address the fine tuning fallacy problem in later posts.

The 'dice may well be loaded' as Einstein proposed and all possible universes would have a similar value.

[Kbertsche]

Whether the total mass-energy of the universe is almost exactly zero depends on whether it is due to a "quantum fluctuation". If it is due to a "quantum fluctuation", then the total mass-energy of the universe being almost exactly zero is not just reasonable, but certain.

Of course, if you assume the universe is not due to a "quantum fluctuation", then it is unreasonable. But then you need some other explanation for why the total mass-energy of the universe is pretty close to zero.

I judge it "unreasonable" because we never observe quantum fluctuations to give rise to things existing more than an extremely small fraction of a second. For a quantum fluctuation to give rise to a 13.7 billion year old universe seems ridiculous. Yes, it is theoretically possible, but this is similar to the unreasonable theoretical situations posed in a statistical mechanics class (e.g. The vanishingly small possibility that the air molecules in a room will randomly assemble all of the hot or cold molecules in one location, causing something to spontaneously combust or freeze; or the vanishingly small possibility that the molecules in a glass of water will all randomly have an upward velocity at the same instant, causing the water to jump out of the glass).

[Kbertsche]

Read the reference for dummies. Infinitesimal quantum fluctuations are indeed finite. Whether (longer time? )finite or infinitesimal we are talking about a time frame that is not continuous in space/time until a singularity is formed and the result a universe is formed. If the considerations of quantum fluctuations resulting in the formation of a singularity and the resulting universe are a part of the String Theory, but this a special case for the fluctuations, because the Quantum World and Quantum zero-point energy is not continuously forming universes. See: http://www.livescience.com/17454-str...-big-bang.html

Did you look at the reference that I provided? It is mainstream physics, from a mainstream physics journal (as opposed to a watered-down and oversimplified layman-level description).

Still waiting for references concerning what you believe is possible or impossible concerning the nature of the Quantum World and the formation of universes.

???When did I promise such a thing???
For the nature of quantum mechanics, see a good quantum mechanics textbook. But the "formation of universes" is more philosophy than science. Perhaps some of the proposals can be falsified, but so far as I know most of these ideas are not testable and not falsifiable.