An Infinite Past?

[shunyadragon]

Thank you. If I may ask a few more questions:

1. Would you use the term 'supernatural' for 'spiritual worlds of God beyond the natural'? If not, why not? How is it different?

Actually I prefer to describe the 'miraculous' and 'supernatural' as the appearance of 'miraculous' and 'supernatural' in the events not fully understood. Some events that appear miraculous to us are in reality in some way natural. Creation and Revelation is inherently natural. The interface between God and Creation is Revelation.

2. If Creation and Revelation are, at least in part, natural cyclic continuous progressive processes of God manifest in our natural existence, then I would suppose that these natural processes may be investigated with the assumptions of methodological naturalism. Yes? If so, then God is not completely opaque to the natural intellect and investigation?

It is opaque for the present Methodological Naturalism. In the Baha'i view science is form of Revelation revealing the nature of our physical existence, because it reveals the attributes of God's Creation in the form of science. Actually first there is Revelation, then knowledge in a cyclic progressive process. Modern science as we know it began in the 1840s as we transitioned from a Newtonian Science to a Relativist Science. From 'Seven Valleys and Four Valleys' by Baha'u'llah "Split the atom's heart, and lo! Within it thou wilt find a sun."

Future Revelation may reveal more of the spiritual worlds of God.



[

[robrecht]

Actually I prefer to describe the 'miraculous' and 'supernatural' as the appearance of 'miraculous' and 'supernatural' in the events not fully understood. Some events that appear miraculous to us are in reality in some way natural. Creation and Revelation is inherently natural. The interface between God and Creation is Revelation.

It is opaque for the present Methodological Naturalism. In the Baha'i view science is form of Revelation revealing the nature of our physical existence, because it reveals the attributes of God's Creation in the form of science. Actually first there is Revelation, then knowledge in a cyclic progressive process. Modern science as we know it began in the 1840s as we transitioned from a Newtonian Science to a Relativist Science. From 'Seven Valleys and Four Valleys' by Baha'u'llah "Split the atom's heart, and lo! Within it thou wilt find a sun."

Future Revelation may reveal more of the spiritual worlds of God.

Would you describe your views as pantheistic or panentheistic or not?

[JimL]

Shuny! I'm not asking you what "science says", I'm asking you - are matter/energy are self-existent?

Nobody can tell you that with any certainty seer, anymore than you can say that they are not. They could assert that to be the case, the way that theists assert knowing there to be an eternal self existing God/mind, but there is no empirical evidence to show for either case. My guess is that matter/energy is eternally self existent and just as it fills every cubic centimeter of our universe, even as it expands, it fills every cubic centimeter of the infinite Cosmos. Why do you think matter/energy need be created, but a God does not?

[Jedidiah]

It is well within the realm of possibility for the universe, or meta universe (whatever word you use to describe every thing) to be self existent. But if we suggest that there is a self existent Creator atheists go crazy.

[shunyadragon]

Would you describe your views as pantheistic or panentheistic or not?

Most definitely not 'pantheism,' because pantheism equates the universe=God, and is actually sort of atheistic.

Panentheism comes close in concept, but most definitions try to define the relationship to specifically, and in the Baha'i apophatic view this relationship cannot be defined as such.

[shunyadragon]

It is well within the realm of possibility for the universe, or meta universe (whatever word you use to describe every thing) to be self existent. But if we suggest that there is a self existent Creator atheists go crazy.

I agree that this is a possibility from an objective scientific view.

Yes, atheists argue against a self-existent Creator, but a strong issue from the atheist perspective is the ancient Biblical world view of God(s).

[JimL]

It is well within the realm of possibility for the universe, or meta universe (whatever word you use to describe every thing) to be self existent. But if we suggest that there is a self existent Creator atheists go crazy.

No ones going crazy Jed, we just have a difference of opinion. Anything is within the realm of possibility, but all that we have empirical evidence for is the natural world, and there is no good reason to believe that it was supernaturally created, ex nihilo.

[mattbballman31]

Craig certainly didn't interact with Vilenkin’s conclusion. And, being unqualified as a scientist, he is not equipped to argue for ANY premise except as a layman presenting his own personal opinions.

This is what’s so annoying about you vague purveyors of idiocy. You make dumb comments like this, and now I have to go through and quote you line by line where you’re just being dumb. You’re either a snob or lazy.

So, Craig doesn’t interact with Vilenkin’s conclusion:

“Any theorem is only as good as its assumptions. The BGV theorem says that if the universe is on average expanding along a given worldline, this worldline cannot be infinite to the past.”

Craig then says, “What’s remarkable about the BGV theorem is that it makes only one assumption: that the universe is, on average, expanding throughout its history. The theorem won’t apply to models where that isn’t true.”

HOW IS THIS NOT INTERACTION!?!?

Craig says, “But in his paper Vilenkin proceeds to close this loophole by showing that these models cannot be past-eternal for other reasons.”

Again, how is this not interaction?

What loophole? Vilenkin: “A possible loophole is that there might be an epoch of contraction prior to the expansion. Models of this sort have been discussed by Aguirre & Gratton and by Carroll & Chen. . . . . .”

Okay, the oft repeated ‘contraction prior to expansion’. Craig retorts: “So when Vilenkin says that they afford a “possible loophole,” the idea must be that because they deny the single assumption of the theorem, maybe that’s a way to avoid the beginning of the universe. But in his paper Vilenkin proceeds to close this loophole by showing that these models cannot be past-eternal for other reasons.”

How is this not interaction?

No mention of God. Craig is scientifically interacting with Vilenkin’s ‘conclusion’. All Craig is doing is proving that the assumption of the theorem doesn’t establish the universe’s past-eternality. Religiously neutral statement.

So, when Vilenkin talks about ‘not knowing the right questions to ask’ because ‘gravity becomes quantum’, Craig is puzzled. What does he do? Does he quote Scripture? Nope. Does he shrink into some mystical state? Nope. Does he say science is evil? Nope. He intellectually INTERACTS with Vilenkin’s published works. Not sure who Don Page is, but Craig says he’s an eminent cosmologist. Is Craig lying? Then, there’s a long quote of NOTHING BUT INTERACTION with the science. All Craig is arguing for is that the universe is not past-eternal? Who cares if Craig has a theological agenda. Are his thoughts accurate? Well, let me hold your hand.

Per Craig: “How are these statements to be reconciled? Here's my best attempt: A ‘classical picture of spacetime’ should not be equated with general relativistic spacetime. For special relativistic spacetime, for example, also is a classical picture of spacetime. So the theorem does not presuppose general relativistic spacetime but simply a spacetime that is classical in the sense that it is linearly ordered temporally and so can be said to be expanding in the ‘later than’ direction. In any such spacetime a universe that is, on average, in a state of expansion can’t be past-eternal. But in a quantum gravity regime, if the linear ordering of time is abolished, then it is impossible to speak of expanding, and so the theorem’s one condition isn’t met. The question, then, is not one’s gravitational theory, but whether time exists in one’s model. Quantum gravity theories that do feature a linear temporal ordering fall under the theorem and so will not be past-eternal.

Every statement is a scientific statement. Page said, ‘It’s one possible interpretation of what Alex wrote . . .’, though he doesn’t really know what he meant. A cosmologist/scientist said it’s a good interpretation. Even if you disagree, Craig is INTERACTING scientifically. Craig is trying to RECONCILE two things he finds inconsistent: Per Craig: “Rather the really interesting statement in this paragraph is the following: ‘the BGV theorem uses a classical picture of spacetime. In the regime where gravity becomes essentially quantum, we may not even know the right questions to ask.’ This is puzzling because Vilenkin has said in his published work that the BGV theorem has only one condition and doesn't even presuppose that gravity is described by Einstein's equations, so that if those equations need to be modified the theorem should still hold.”

So, Craig is wondering (interacting scientifically) how it is we don’t know the right questions to ask if V. also said Einstein’s equations don’t need to be modified for V.’s theorem to hold.
ALL THIS IS SCIENTIFIC INTERACTION.

1. Classic space/time (CST) doesn’t equal General Relativity space/time (GRST).
2. Classic space is compatible with Special Relativity space/time (SRST).
3. V.’s theorem doesn’t presuppose GRST.
4. V’s theorem presupposes CST.
5. CST presupposes time linearly ordered temporally (LOT).
6. LOT implies expansion in ‘later than’ direction.
7. CST presupposing LOT that’s, ‘on average’, expanding, isn’t past-eternal.
8. In Quantum Gravity Regime (QGR), if LOT is ‘abolished’, then there’s no expansion.
9. If there’s no expansion, V.’s one condition isn’t met.
10. V’s condition: “The BGV theorem says that if the universe is on average expanding along a given worldline, this worldline cannot be infinite to the past.”
11. Thus, QGR doesn’t meet V’s condition.
12. To meet V’s condition, we need LOT.
13. Thus, QGR needs LOT to meet V’s condition.
14. Thus, QGR, presupposing LOT, meets V’s condition, and we have expansion, and therefore, the universe not being past-eternal.

Even if confused, Craig is SCIENTIFICALLY INTERACTING with V., Krauss, Page, et al. So, Craig writes to V. on: (1) Aguirre-Gratton Model (AGM), and (2) Carroll-Chen Model (CCM).
Craig wants to know if these models show ‘probably’ that the universe is eternal.
Fair question. SCIENTIFIC territory. Is this the ‘possible loophole’ V. was referring to, a way to (play scary music) show the universe is eternal? Well, no. Krauss is a fibber. But that’s another point. The loophole doesn’t apply to past-eternality; it applies to the BGV (hereafter) theorem. Then Craig refers to the letter to Victor Stenger where V. says the ‘contraction prior to expansion’ business implies ‘messy’ singularities, that a ‘new expansion’ would be out of the question. ALL SCIENCE. Craig then asks if he has UNDERSTOOD/REPRESENTED him ‘accurately’. And ‘If not, I want to be corrected.’ Hmmmm.

V. says, ‘I THINK YOU REPRESENTED WHAT I WROTE ABOUT THE BGV THEOREM IN MY PAPERS AND TO YOU PERSONALLY VERY ACCURATELY.’

He says there’s, ‘no such thing as ‘definitive ruling out’ in science. Okay, Craig agrees. It’s all probability. No one disputes that. There’s ‘always caveats’.
Oh, and, ‘I would say the theorem makes PLAUSIBLE case that THERE WAS A BEGINNING.’ Hmmmm.

V. says that AGM ‘avoid singularities by postulating a small ‘initial’ closed universe and then allowing it to evolve in both directions of time’, ‘initial’, because AGM doesn’t understand it that way. V.’s opinion is that a ‘special condition is enforced at some moment in the history of the universe’, that it have ‘low entropy’ and be ‘very small’. BUT, that AGM, ‘DOES NOT SPECIFY A PHYSICAL MECHANISM THAT COULD ENFORCE SUCH A CONDITION.’

With CCM, ‘ the universe did not have to be small at that special moment’, but that, V. argues, ‘singularities are unavoidable’.

ALL SCIENTIFIC INTERACTION SO FAR.

So, for the kicker.
V. says Craig didn’t represent his view on what the BGV theorem says about God’s existence: “WHICH IS OK SINCE I HAVE NO SPECIAL EXPERTISE TO ISSUE SUCH JUDGMENTS.”
Well, what do you know? A humble scientist. V. says the theorem doesn’t imply anything about God’s existence, which Craig would agree with. All Craig is using the theorem for is rendering it plausible that the universe isn’t past-eternal, which would render plausible ‘the universe began to exist.’ THAT’S ALL.

V. says, “In particular, the beginning of the universe could be a natural event, described by quantum cosmology.” Great, it ‘could’ be. That’s fine. The next step would be SCIENTIFIC INTERACTION on that level. Nothing wrong with this. V. is NOT braying, ‘Craig. Leave me alone. You’re not a scientist.’
V.’s solution to Craig’s question:

CST implies the universe had a beginning. On small time/length scales (TLS), quantum fluctuations (QF) can be so large that CST concepts are ‘inapplicable’. If CST concepts are inapplicable, we don’t have a language to describe what’s happening, since physics concepts (PC) are ‘deeply rooted’ in CST concepts. So, we don’t know what the right questions to ask are.

BUT, BUT, BUT: ‘ if QF aren’t so ‘wild’ that they ‘invalidate’ CST, then BVG theorem is fine, no matter what changes we make to Einstein’s equations caused by QF.

So, are they wild or not? That’s the question. IN THE MEAN TIME, Craig is saying that the BVG theorem supports a universe that isn’t past-eternal. ALL SCIENTIFIC INTERACTION.

Craig even REITERATES for the billionth time that he isn’t saying there’s DEFINITIVE PROOF for premise 2; that it’s just ‘more plausible than not’, in synch with the scientific method.

Craig admits to SCIENTIFICALLY INTERACTING with V.s idea that the beginning was a natural event described by Quantum Cosmology in his books.

HOW ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH IS THERE NO SCIENTIFIC INTERACTION GOING ON?

Vilenkin refers to a possible theological implication in his model, in his “Many Worlds in One”, but dismisses it as “far too simplistic” (PP 176) and goes on to propose that cosmic origins could be better described in “purely scientific terms” in his “tunneling from literally nothing” model”. THIS is what the likes of Craig choose to ignore.

I will give you one chance to take that back. Craig DOES NOT ignore that model, you liar.

“A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunneling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions”.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/ph...om_nothing.pdf

Again, Craig is aware of ALL of this. De Sitter Cosmology (DSC) is posed as an EXCEPTION to BGV Theorem. So, this has NOTHING to do (literally nothing, lol) with Craig using the Theorem to render plausible a universe that’s not past-eternal.

And you’re citing an article written by Vilenkin in the 1980’s!!! Vilenkin disagrees with DSC! And even if so, NONE OF THIS proves that Craig hasn’t been SCIENTIFICALLY INTERACTING with Vilenkin.

You put offensive words into my mouth that I never uttered. I did NOT say or imply that Craig is: “a raving, blind, idiotic buffoon when it comes to understanding any physics”. These are your words, not mine and I take exception to being dragged down to your level of personal vitriol.

Wow. It’s hyperbole. A figure of speech. Would you be like the weird mom that overheard a middle school kid saying, ‘If I don’t make the basketball team I’ll die!’ who would report the kid to the police for threatening suicide? Lol. Or if I said, after lifting a heavy bag, ‘Wow. That bag weighed a ton!’, are you going to look awestruck by my amazing strength or accuse me of lying? Is here to be found the mystery of scientific numbskulls whose brains are wired to only understand the scientific language game?

This is NOT “philosophy of science” OR a philosophical argument about probabilities. Vilenkin is proposing probable hypotheses. This is how science works. It is the acquisition of new knowledge via observations, hypotheses and deductions to develop testable, falsifiable theories.

If you propose probable hypotheses, you’re presupposing a theory of probability: that’s called P-H-I-L-O-S-O-P-H-Y. Acquisition of new knowledge? Really? What is knowledge? Be careful! That’s epistemology. Via observations? Wow. You mean your sense perceptions are reliable? How do you know? Watch out! You’re about to do: philosophy. Hypotheses? You mean based on experience? Back to the ole’ epistemology assumptions. Deductions? That’s sounds eerily like LOGIC. A branch of philosophy! Developing testable, falsifiable theories? What is it for a theory to be testable, or falsifiable; and for that matter, what is a theory? That’s called PHILOSOPHY of science.

Craig is not qualified to argue probabilities in science. Unlike you I take my science from those qualified to talk about science, i.e. qualified scientists, NOT cherry-picking religious apologists attempting to sound “sciency” as they push their religious presuppositions.

Craig has read the same scientists as you, weirdo. By your own logic, you should listen to Craig, because he HAS READ qualified scientists. So, we either don’t listen to you, or we can listen to you and Craig. Which is it? All your rhetoric about cherry-picking is dumb. Poisoning the well. Craig received confirmation from V. himself. Have you? I’m guessing not.

Craig cannot escape the fact that a beginning of the universe can still be described in purely scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig tries to argue). In fact, the opposite is true and the authors make several suggestions about what can lie beyond the boundary of the seeming beginning – e.g. that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.

Craig doesn’t disagree that the past-eternal universe can be described in scientific terms; that’s why he uses science to prove Kalam’s second premise, weirdo. You scientists ignore philosophy, so you can’t understand that no matter how much science uncovers natural explanations for the beginning, whether it came from a quantum nucleation event, or whether THAT event came from something before, or that ‘nothing’ means the quantum vacuum, or that our universe is just one among an infinite amount of universes that tunneled from a multi-verse, or whether that multi-verse is one among an infinite multi-verses: what you can’t understand is that the philosophical arguments against an actual infinite, and the philosophical arguments against the possibility of attaining an actual infinite via successive addition, undercut ANY possible scientific discovery that will come about, and if those philosophical arguments are sound (which you’ll never know, because your type of science is a bunch of snobs and prigs and elitists), it tells you something about the fact that science won’t ever discover it at all, just as if philosophy proves that, say, ‘the parts are never greater than the whole’, that tells you that no matter how much science progresses, they’ll never get to a discovery that shows the parts can be greater than the whole. That’s what you snobs won’t get, because you snobbishly exclude philosophy from science, while being snobbishly oblivious to the fact that you’re using and presupposing philosophy in all your snobbish, dogmatic, scientific-sounding statements. If the philosophical arguments are sound, then at some point, there was ABOLUTELY NOTHING. And science will never explain that anything can come from that! They’ll redefine nothing. They’ll push the beginning back one step further, like that settles anything. They’ll say, ‘Science will find it someday!’ So, they’ll use science-of-the-gabs, all the while, with glaring hypocrisy, accuse those of the opposition, who have seemly sound arguments (but won’t be interacted with; just shot down because of their snobbish dispositions), of the god-of-the-gaps crap. But heaven forbid they ever even consider the philosophical elephants in the room. They just disregard them, because they don’t come wrapped in the AMAZINGLY BEAUTIFUL, the INTOXICATINGLY GORGEOUS trappings of science (play scary music again).

It is sheer opportunism for the likes of Craig to leap in and imply “therefore God” as a possible or likely conclusion. This is most certainly NOT what Vilenkin (the source of Craig’s argument) is saying.

It’s not sheer opportunism, you dolt. He’s deducting properties of whatever the heck-fire the cause has to have to be the cause of space/time/matter/energy. It’s a ‘assuming this universe had a beginning’ and ‘assuming there was NOTHING before it’, the cause of it would have to be something like x, y, z, etc . . . You’re an ignorant rhetorician.

The notion of a supernatural entity such as God cannot be shown to exist or studied scientifically. Claims of ANY occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences. There are no credible claims of non-natural or supernatural occurrences.

I guess my problem isn’t with the view (though I do have problems with it); it the dogmatism with which it’s held. In your tiny, egotistical mind, you actually think that if X can’t be studied scientifically, we can’t make credible claims about it. Now, I have no problem with someone who holds this view, and is ready to defend it philosophically. My problem is your neurotic attachment to it, the fact that you totally dismiss the opposing view as absolutely myopic. Now, again, as to the view itself, though I disagree with it, I’ve read some pretty smart people who hold to it, and I respectfully disagree (for philosophical reasons). You, though, with the wave of your hand, speak as if the opposing view is utterly delusional, that every eminent philosopher of science who has eloquently contradicted your view is utterly oblivious to your blinding genius that only scientifically verified facts can be credibly believed. I say this because of your obliviousness that when you say this crap, you’re not even noticing that you’re doing philosophy, that your entire quote is philosophical statements about science. You are under a delusional spell and you don’t even know it. The emperor has no clothes. I can argue against a brilliant guy like Quine who sought to make philosophy a branch of science. But you: you don’t even realize that you’re like a drunk teetotaler, the descent of Mercury who denounces language itself, who philosophically announces the death of philosophy, the Cretan saying that all Cretans are liars.

Vilenkin did NOT agree with Craig’s conclusion, which is the point. Vilenkin, speaking as an experienced physicist, considers there is most likely a natural explanation. See above.

V. admitted a natural explanation is possible, not likely. See above. V. said he didn’t have the EXPERTICE to comment on Craig’s conclusion. V. told Craig that he grasped his theorem fine, and how it goes against the past-eternality of the universe. That it had a beginning.

V. says, ‘I THINK YOU REPRESENTED WHAT I WROTE ABOUT THE BGV THEOREM IN MY PAPERS AND TO YOU PERSONALLY VERY ACCURATELY.’
Craig uses the V.’s theorem to prove premise 2 of Kalam, not God’s existence!

I'm unaware of any rational dialogue emanating from you.

Says the naked emperor.

Philosophy does not have the mechanism to test facts in order to derive a true premise – it can only derive a premise based on the knowledge of the day. And any acquisition of new knowledge via empirical verification is the province of science, NOT philosophy.

If you think philosophy CAN arrive at a true premise you need to explain HOW it can, not just rant about it. And, without a true premise a philosophical argument cannot arrive at a true conclusion - no matter how valid the argument may be.

Once again! Every one of these darn statements, THEN, aren’t testable, because they don’t have a mechanism to test them; they are only made based on the knowledge of the day. Every one of these sentences aren’t true, because they can’t arrive at a true conclusion no matter how valid they are, and because they aren’t subject to empirical verification. You slit your own throat.

[Jedidiah]

Matt, you are arguing with Tassman. Hopeless endeavor, reason is not a part of his skill repertoire.

[seer]

Great post Matt!

[Tassman]

This is what’s so annoying about you vague purveyors of idiocy. You make dumb comments like this, and now I have to go through and quote you line by line where you’re just being dumb. You’re either a snob or lazy.

So, Craig doesn’t interact with Vilenkin’s conclusion:

SNIP.

Craig didn't interact with Vilenkin’s conclusion was that’s point being made. And YES, one cares that Craig has a theological agenda. Like much of what this NON-SCIENTIST argues his conclusions are marred by his apologetics bias.

Vilenkin refers to a possible theological implication in his model, in his “Many Worlds in One”, but dismisses it as “far too simplistic” (PP 176) and goes on to propose that cosmic origins could be better described in “purely scientific terms” in his “tunneling from literally nothing” model”. THIS is what the likes of Craig choose to ignore.

I will give you one chance to take that back. Craig DOES NOT ignore that model, you liar.

LIAR!!!?

Well he, the philosopher/apologist, certainly ignores Vilenkin’s conclusions, but what would a mere cosmologist professor know?

Again, Craig is aware of ALL of this. De Sitter Cosmology (DSC) is posed as an EXCEPTION to BGV Theorem. So, this has NOTHING to do (literally nothing, lol) with Craig using the Theorem to render plausible a universe that’s not past-eternal.

And you’re citing an article written by Vilenkin in the 1980’s!!! Vilenkin disagrees with DSC! And even if so, NONE OF THIS proves that Craig hasn’t been SCIENTIFICALLY INTERACTING with Vilenkin.

Once again it’s the conclusion Craig doesn’t interact with, not that there's no interaction. Vilenkin never insists, as does Craig, that the universe began to exist. He specifically argues that a beginning of the universe can still be described in scientific terms. Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” which is where Craig (and you) is trying to take the argument.

Wow. It’s hyperbole. A figure of speech. Would you be like the weird mom that overheard a middle school kid saying, ‘If I don’t make the basketball team I’ll die!’ who would report the kid to the police for threatening suicide? Lol. Or if I said, after lifting a heavy bag, ‘Wow. That bag weighed a ton!’, are you going to look awestruck by my amazing strength or accuse me of lying? Is here to be found the mystery of scientific numbskulls whose brains are wired to only understand the scientific language game?

It wasn’t hyperbole it was bile. You specifically put into my mouth words I never uttered nor implied, namely that Craig is: “a raving, blind, idiotic buffoon when it comes to understanding any physics”. I do not accept being shown to be a foul-mouthed yobbo like you. I'm not.

If you propose probable hypotheses, you’re presupposing a theory of probability: that’s called P-H-I-L-O-S-O-P-H-Y. Acquisition of new knowledge? Really? What is knowledge? Be careful! That’s epistemology. Via observations? Wow. You mean your sense perceptions are reliable? How do you know? Watch out! You’re about to do: philosophy. Hypotheses? You mean based on experience? Back to the ole’ epistemology assumptions. Deductions? That’s sounds eerily like LOGIC. A branch of philosophy! Developing testable, falsifiable theories? What is it for a theory to be testable, or falsifiable; and for that matter, what is a theory? That’s called PHILOSOPHY of science.

Let’s drop the pretentious nonsense shall we? Vilenkin is doing science, which is generally categorized as the acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence using observations, hypotheses and deductions to develop testable, falsifiable theories, which can make predictions. This is called the Scientific Method. It is YOU trying to ‘tart it up’ as “philosophy of science” and a “philosophical argument about probabilities”.

Craig doesn’t disagree that the past-eternal universe can be described in scientific terms; that’s why he uses science to prove Kalam’s second premise, weirdo. You scientists ignore philosophy, so you can’t understand that no matter how much science uncovers natural explanations for the beginning, whether it came from a quantum nucleation event, or whether THAT event came from something before, or that ‘nothing’ means the quantum vacuum, or that our universe is just one among an infinite amount of universes that tunneled from a multi-verse, or whether that multi-verse is one among an infinite multi-verses: what you can’t understand is that the philosophical arguments against an actual infinite, and the philosophical arguments against the possibility of attaining an actual infinite via successive addition, undercut ANY possible scientific discovery that will come about, and if those philosophical arguments are sound (which you’ll never know, because your type of science is a bunch of snobs and prigs and elitists), it tells you something about the fact that science won’t ever discover it at all, just as if philosophy proves that, say, ‘the parts are never greater than the whole’, that tells you that no matter how much science progresses, they’ll never get to a discovery that shows the parts can be greater than the whole. That’s what you snobs won’t get, because you snobbishly exclude philosophy from science, while being snobbishly oblivious to the fact that you’re using and presupposing philosophy in all your snobbish, dogmatic, scientific-sounding statements. If the philosophical arguments are sound, then at some point, there was ABOLUTELY NOTHING. And science will never explain that anything can come from that! They’ll redefine nothing. They’ll push the beginning back one step further, like that settles anything. They’ll say, ‘Science will find it someday!’ So, they’ll use science-of-the-gabs, all the while, with glaring hypocrisy, accuse those of the opposition, who have seemly sound arguments (but won’t be interacted with; just shot down because of their snobbish dispositions), of the god-of-the-gaps crap. But heaven forbid they ever even consider the philosophical elephants in the room. They just disregard them, because they don’t come wrapped in the AMAZINGLY BEAUTIFUL, the INTOXICATINGLY GORGEOUS trappings of science (play scary music again).

OK! You’ve given notice that, like WL Craig, whatever the scientific evidence may be and no matter how conclusive it is, IF it does not conform to your presuppositions that “at some point, there was ABOLUTELY NOTHING” then it is wrong. Now THAT’S what I call following the evidence to where it leads <sarcasm>

I guess my problem isn’t with the view (though I do have problems with it); it the dogmatism with which it’s held.

SNIP.

As opposed to the “dogmatism” come-what-may that “at some point, there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.” Gotcha!

V. admitted a natural explanation is possible, not likely. See above. V. said he didn’t have the EXPERTICE to comment on Craig’s conclusion. V. told Craig that he grasped his theorem fine, and how it goes against the past-eternality of the universe. That it had a beginning.

V. says, ‘I THINK YOU REPRESENTED WHAT I WROTE ABOUT THE BGV THEOREM IN MY PAPERS AND TO YOU PERSONALLY VERY ACCURATELY.’
Craig uses the V.’s theorem to prove premise 2 of Kalam, not God’s existence!

No! Vilenkin specifically said that a beginning of the universe as described in the BGV Theory can still be described in scientific terms and he proposes several possibilities. He certainly did not imply that a “natural explanation is not likely”.

Once again! Every one of these darn statements, THEN, aren’t testable, because they don’t have a mechanism to test them; they are only made based on the knowledge of the day. Every one of these sentences aren’t true, because they can’t arrive at a true conclusion no matter how valid they are, and because they aren’t subject to empirical verification. You slit your own throat.

They have dictionary definitions to convey the commonly accepted meanings of the words being used. I’m not proposing a metaphysical premise, merely stating the fact that the premise of a metaphysical argument cannot be tested, but can only be based upon an assumption or axiom. Conversely a scientific premise can be tested and verified.

[shunyadragon]

I have many problems with Craig's arguments that 'the best explanation of the scientific evidence indicates our universe had a beginning.'

(1) He is a layman with limited knowledge of physics and cosmology. He clearly has a theological agenda. If his motivation is not to support his argument that 'the universe had a beginning' therefore the best argument is that God exists, what would be his motivation?

(2) He has devoted his efforts on arguing his case on one theorem, the BGV. There are numerous theorems and models in Physics and Cosmology that have a valid basis for understanding the origins of universe(s) and the greater cosmos that contains all possible universes.

(3) The fact that our universe and all possible universes have beginnings is widely accepted by many theorems and models, but not all. The origins and beginning of the greater cosmos remains an unknown question in physics and cosmology. Many consider this Quantum world timeless, and thus without possible beginning nor ending. Others consider the question unanswerable at present.

(4) Equally problematic is the fine tuning argument. For the most part 'any appearance of fine tuning' is from a very limited anthropomorphic perspective.'

(5) The question of absolute nothingness is a philosophical issue, and has no meaning what so ever in the question of the Quantum world beyond our known universe. What is occasional called 'nothing' when describing the Quantum world beyond our universe does not correspond to the philosophical absolutely 'nothing.'

The best debate that sets out these problems and glaring weaknesses with Craig's arguments is brought out in the Craig-Carroll Debate. I will address this in later posts.

The bottom line is that the question of whether the greater cosmos is infinite or finite, or temporal and eternal is at present unanswerable. Many physicists consider this Quantum world as timeless, which makes the question mote if they are correct.

[seer]

The bottom line is that the question of whether the greater cosmos is infinite or finite, or temporal and eternal is at present unanswerable. Many physicists consider this Quantum world as timeless, which makes the question mote if they are correct.

Again Shuny, there is zero evidence that a greater cosmos exists. We only know that this universe exists, and that it began in a hot big bang, so is finite.

[shunyadragon]

Again Shuny, there is zero evidence that a greater cosmos exists. We only know that this universe exists, and that it began in a hot big bang, so is finite.

There is insufficient evidence either way that the nature of our physical existence what ever exists is either finite and temporal nor infinite and eternal. It is ultimately an unknown. There is reasonable falsifiable evidence that the Zero state Quantum World exists in ALL the models and theorems concerning the cosmos. If Craig and you are going to use the BGV theorem, and not selectively misuse, you must accept that the multiverse is a part of the BGV theorem. By the way Craig argues that either the universe or the multiverse must have a beginning.

The bottom line is that the question of whether the greater cosmos is infinite or finite, or temporal and eternal is at present unanswerable. Many physicists consider this Quantum world as timeless, which makes the question mote if they are correct.

Since you have cynical, negative view of science in general, it is probably best for you to stick to your belief in the ancient archaic scriptural world view.

[shunyadragon]

Interesting analysis of Craig's argument:

Source: http://exapologist.blogspot.com/2012/09/on-craigs-appeal-to-borde-guth-vilenkin.html

On Craig's Appeal to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem in His Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Craig regularly appeals to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (BGV) as strong empirical evidence that (a) the universe or multiverse -- or at any rate, matter-energy -- had an absolute beginning. From there, he argues that (b) it had a cause, and that (c) the cause is a person.

Is Craig's appeal to BGV sufficient evidence for accepting (a)? Not unless the relevant experts agree with him that BGV is correct, and that it's strong evidence for (a). Appeal to an expert's testimony that P is legitimate if (i) the expert is reliable and credible in the given context, (ii) they're speaking within their area of expertise, (iii) their expertise is a genuine field of knowledge, and (iv) the consensus among the experts is that P. Therefore, unless the consensus of the relevant experts is that BGV shows what Craig's thinks it shows, Craig's assertion is an illegitimate appeal to expert testimony: whether Craig is right or not, I'm not justified in thinking so.[1]

But let's waive that. Suppose it shows what he thinks it shows: multiverse or not, there's an absolute beginning of space/time. Should I then infer (b) and (c)? Not obviously. For it's far from clear that the claim that the universe (or multiverse) arose from an efficient cause without a material cause is any more plausible than the claim that it arose from neither. For both involve a strongly counterintuitive origination of something from no pre-existing materials. (To say that a log cabin popped into existence out of nothing is bizarre; it is no less bizarre to be told that a lumberjack built it without using building materials.) Therefore, pending expert consensus about the implications of BGV pointing toward Craig's assertion (viz., that it shows an absolute beginning to the universe or multiverse), it's not clear why a G.E. Moore Shift against (a) isn't an equally plausible inference.

But suppose all this is wrong. Would Craig's inference to (c) (i.e., that the cause of the absolute beginning of the universe or multiverse is a person) then be the most plausible inference? Again, this is far from clear. For there are well-known serious concerns about the coherence of a timeless agent-cause of a temporal effect.

© Copyright Original Source

This reflects my previous objections to Craig's argument selectively misusing physics and cosmology to justify an archaic logical argument for the existence of God(s).