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

[37818]

You have selected this quote from a larger more comprehensive theory proposing possible multi-verses. An individual universe may not have an eternal past, but in this theory there are possibly an infinite number of universes.

This is one proposed theory or hypothesis concerning the origin of universes, and should not be selectively cited to justify a theological assertion.

Every one of them must have a beginning.

[JimL]

I wouldn't say that the quantum vacuum equates with space-time, but it is a property of space-time. Without space-time (which was created, or "began to exist" at the Big Bang), there is no quantum vacuum.

How do we know this? Our universe, our particular space time, could have originated from out of, and possibly exist within, an otherwise infinite empty space, or quantum vacuum. No?

[Tassman]

If this is the bar....you cannot take a position on any of this because you are also not a physicist.

Of course I can. For expertise in matters of physics one turns to a qualified physicist. WLC is a philosopher, not a physicist.

Every one of them must have a beginning.

...and does each one have its own creator god?

[seer]

Of course I can. For expertise in matters of physics one turns to a qualified physicist. WLC is a philosopher, not a physicist.

Then we can listen to Vilenkin and Mithani.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4...d-a-beginning/

[37818]

...and does each one have its own creator god?

Well from the Christian view there is only one Creator. ". . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . ."

[element771]

Of course I can. For expertise in matters of physics one turns to a qualified physicist. WLC is a philosopher, not a physicist.

Then so can WLC and that is what he is doing.

Its not like he is claiming to have done the research himself.

[Kbertsche]

How do we know this? Our universe, our particular space time, could have originated from out of, and possibly exist within, an otherwise infinite empty space, or quantum vacuum. No?

According to the standard (ΛCDM) Big Bang model, both space and time began at the Big Bang. Your suggestion would mean that space (and time) existed before the Big Bang. This would be a radical and fundamental departure from our current model, and I am not aware of any cosmological theories that suggest this. (But if any do exist, I'm sure Shuny will find them!)

[Kbertsche]

Of course I can. For expertise in matters of physics one turns to a qualified physicist. WLC is a philosopher, not a physicist.

Yes, WLC is a philosopher, not a physicist. But WLC's understanding of cosmology is amazingly good for a non-physicist. He is one of the best-informed non-physicists that I've seen on the subject. His understanding of the subject is certainly much better than that of the non-physicists who post in this forum.

[Sea of red]

According to the standard (ΛCDM) Big Bang model, both space and time began at the Big Bang. Your suggestion would mean that space (and time) existed before the Big Bang. This would be a radical and fundamental departure from our current model, and I am not aware of any cosmological theories that suggest this. (But if any do exist, I'm sure Shuny will find them!)

According to that same Lambda Cold Dark Matter model (for those interested in it's name) the likely hood of other universes is pretty high via inflation - which is standard. You can't pick and chose what elements you want to keep, you need to stick to the horse you back. It doesn't matter anyways. The models you're talking about are based on General Relativity which breaks down at the Planck length, where quantum mechanics will have to be incorporated, and that's were exotic quantum gravity frameworks come in.

[Sea of red]

Yes, WLC is a philosopher, not a physicist. But WLC's understanding of cosmology is amazingly good for a non-physicist. He is one of the best-informed non-physicists that I've seen on the subject. His understanding of the subject is certainly much better than that of the non-physicists who post in this forum.

Not really. The guy seems to have a rough understanding of the subject enough that he can take things of context, using physicists that would very much disagree with his conclusions - like Vilenkin and Guth. He takes advantage of the fact that the general public has next to no knowledge of the subject, and that they can't tell good science from bad. This enables to take highly complex topics and reduce them to what sounds good, rather than what simply agrees with the data we have.

[JimL]

According to the standard (ΛCDM) Big Bang model, both space and time began at the Big Bang. Your suggestion would mean that space (and time) existed before the Big Bang. This would be a radical and fundamental departure from our current model, and I am not aware of any cosmological theories that suggest this. (But if any do exist, I'm sure Shuny will find them!)

Yes, I get that our particular spacetime universe had a beginning, and the idea as I see it is that it emerged from out of the quantum vacuum. So I guess my question is; is material space itself necessary for there to be what we call the quantum vacuum? Perhaps our universe of space and time emerged from out of such a spaceless, timeless void, or perhaps it emerged from out of another spacetime universe such as our own. Perhaps there is no such thing as spacelessness, perhaps space itself is infinite and baby universes, spacetimes, are being born of it all the time.

[Kbertsche]

Not really. The guy seems to have a rough understanding of the subject enough that he can take things of context, using physicists that would very much disagree with his conclusions - like Vilenkin and Guth. He takes advantage of the fact that the general public has next to no knowledge of the subject, and that they can't tell good science from bad. This enables to take highly complex topics and reduce them to what sounds good, rather than what simply agrees with the data we have.

I think his understanding is much better than you portray. I suggest that you (and the other WLC critics here) take a look at this posting, which includes correspondence between WLC and Vilenkin. Here's part of what Vilenkin wrote to WLC:

Source: Vilenkin

I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately. This is not to say that you represented my views as to what this implies regarding the existence of God. Which is OK, since I have no special expertise to issue such judgements. Whatever it's worth, my view is that the BGV theorem does not say anything about the existence of God one way or the other. In particular, the beginning of the universe could be a natural event, described by quantum cosmology.

© Copyright Original Source

[element771]

I think his understanding is much better than you portray. I suggest that you (and the other WLC critics here) take a look at this posting, which includes correspondence between WLC and Vilenkin. Here's part of what Vilenkin wrote to WLC:

Source: Vilenkin

I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately. This is not to say that you represented my views as to what this implies regarding the existence of God. Which is OK, since I have no special expertise to issue such judgements. Whatever it's worth, my view is that the BGV theorem does not say anything about the existence of God one way or the other. In particular, the beginning of the universe could be a natural event, described by quantum cosmology.

© Copyright Original Source

This is what bothers me about the argument that WLC doesn't know what he is talking about.

1. WLC has to have command of this subject. He is a debater who debates physicists on this topic. It would not be a good look if he didn't know what he is talking about.

2. Vilenkin confirms that WLC understands and represents his theorem well. What's the problem?

Just admitting that WLC understands the physics that he uses in his argument doesn't mean that you have to agree with the argument.

Why is it not good enough to say...well, WLC seems to understand the BGV theorem but I still think that the science is not settled. Therefore, I don't agree that his argument is sound.

[Carrikature]

This is what bothers me about the argument that WLC doesn't know what he is talking about.

1. WLC has to have command of this subject. He is a debater who debates physicists on this topic. It would not be a good look if he didn't know what he is talking about.

2. Vilenkin confirms that WLC understands and represents his theorem well. What's the problem?

Just admitting that WLC understands the physics that he uses in his argument doesn't mean that you have to agree with the argument.

Why is it not good enough to say...well, WLC seems to understand the BGV theorem but I still think that the science is not settled. Therefore, I don't agree that his argument is sound.

To me there is a distinction between misuse and misunderstanding. I certainly haven't made the claim that WLC doesn't understand the science (at least not intentionally). That doesn't necessarily mean he's applied it well even ignoring the other pieces to his arguments.

[Carrikature]

There are far too many pages in this thread for me to keep up with at my present ability to post. You'll have to bear with me (or not).

As I've said and supported earlier in this thread, I do not agree. AFAICT, the basic Kalam argument presented by WLC is talking only of a beginning to this present universe. WLC as a philosopher is very careful in his wording. His Kalam argument speaks only of "the universe", he points to the Big Bang as it beginning, ergo he is speaking only of this present universe.

When WLC argues specifically against the multiverse, as he does in the two links that I posted earlier, he does not do so on the basis of point two of his Kalam argument. Rather, he argues on the basis of the details of the multiverse theories themselves.

I believe that WLCs opponents (Shuny, Tass, Carikature) are incorrectly conflating WLCs Kalam argument and his opposition to the multiverse.

Please explain how we can possibly be incorrectly conflating WLC's KCA and his opposition to the multiverse when you explicitly layout above how WLC equates "this present universe" with "the universe". Were he as careful in his wording as you suggest, he would in fact limit the KCA to "this present universe" regardless of his other arguments involving multiverses.*

It's weird to see you disagree with my claim while providing support for my claim.









*It's worth noting that this is hardly my only objection to the KCA, just the one most pertinent to this thread.