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

[JimL]

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

Then isn't it true that according to Vilenkin that what we call the quantum vacuum doesn't require spacetime as you previously suggested? If the beginning of the universe, i.e the beginning of spacetime, could have been a natural event, descibed by quantum cosmology, then the quantum vacuum out of which the universe of spacetime emerged would need be external to spacetime itself, no?

[Kbertsche]

Then isn't it true that according to Vilenkin that what we call the quantum vacuum doesn't require spacetime as you previously suggested? If the beginning of the universe, i.e the beginning of spacetime, could have been a natural event, descibed by quantum cosmology, then the quantum vacuum out of which the universe of spacetime emerged would need be external to spacetime itself, no?

You are reading a lot into Vilenkin's statement that he didn't actually say. He simply said that "the beginning of the universe could be a natural event, described by quantum cosmology". He said nothing of causation, only of description. He said nothing of quantum vacuum, only of quantum cosmology.

[Tassman]

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.

IS settled science, so as to support the premises of his Kalam argument.

But, in fact, Vilenkin offers several possibilities... one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event, which discusses the universe coming into being through quantum mechanics.

https://mukto-mona.com/science/physi...om_nothing.pdf

[Tassman]

You are reading a lot into Vilenkin's statement that he didn't actually say. He simply said that "the beginning of the universe could be a natural event, described by quantum cosmology". He said nothing of causation, only of description. He said nothing of quantum vacuum, only of quantum cosmology.

But, given that WLC is basing his argument upon Vilenkin's theorems, this possibility alone is sufficient to render WLC's Kalam argument moot.

[Kbertsche]

But, given that WLC is basing his argument upon Vilenkin's theorems, this possibility alone is sufficient to render WLC's Kalam argument moot.

Look at Vilenkin's quote again. He said that WLC "represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately". He said that their disagreement is not on the science itself, but on its implications. He is clear that the comment about a natural origin for the universe is his own personal (metaphysical) view.

[element771]

IS settled science, so as to support the premises of his Kalam argument.

But, in fact, Vilenkin offers several possibilities... one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event, which discusses the universe coming into being through quantum mechanics.

https://mukto-mona.com/science/physi...om_nothing.pdf

I have never seen or heard WLC say that the science is settled. He certainly argues for this possibility as being likely but that isn't the same.

Again, why is this a problem?

Just say that you don't buy the argument because the science isn't settled. It doesn't need to be taken one step further and say that he is either ignorant or misuses the science.

[element771]

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.

I don't see how this is misuse of scientific data / knowledge.

I think misuse is more of applying theories about evolutionary biology to cosmology. To me, that is shoehorning two disparate scientific concepts into one idea.

[Carrikature]

I don't see how this is misuse of scientific data / knowledge.

I think misuse is more of applying theories about evolutionary biology to cosmology. To me, that is shoehorning two disparate scientific concepts into one idea.

It's a misuse where it utilizes only a portion of the hypothesis and shoehorns it into theological claims.

[element771]

It's a misuse where it utilizes only a portion of the hypothesis and shoehorns it into theological claims.

What is the other portion of the hypothesis that he is leaving out?

Part of my belief in God stems from my work as a scientist. Is that shoehorning science into a theological claim?

Because if it is, then atheism cannot use science either. The idea that evolution argues against a deity is then no longer a viable argument.

The "sword of science" that many atheists use to justify their worldview cuts both ways...even if you don't like that it does.

[JimL]

You are reading a lot into Vilenkin's statement that he didn't actually say. He simply said that "the beginning of the universe could be a natural event, described by quantum cosmology". He said nothing of causation, only of description. He said nothing of quantum vacuum, only of quantum cosmology.

Well he didn't actually say that specifically, but what else could he have meant by "the universe may have emerged naturally, i.e. that its creation may have been a natural event, unless there were a pre-existing natural substance that caused it, i.e. unless its natural cause, is a naturally existing cause? I guess what I'm getting at is that it makes no sense to argue that the universe, our particular spacetime, was born of a quantum vacuum, if that quantum vacuum only pertains to the spacetime universe that it bore.

[Tassman]

I have never seen or heard WLC say that the science is settled. He certainly argues for this possibility as being likely but that isn't the same.

Again, why is this a problem?

Just say that you don't buy the argument because the science isn't settled. It doesn't need to be taken one step further and say that he is either ignorant or misuses the science.

the universe has a beginning of its existence, therefore the universe would have a cause of its existence.

[Kbertsche]

Well he didn't actually say that specifically, but what else could he have meant by "the universe may have emerged naturally, i.e. that its creation may have been a natural event, unless there were a pre-existing natural substance that caused it, i.e. unless its natural cause, is a naturally existing cause? I guess what I'm getting at is that it makes no sense to argue that the universe, our particular spacetime, was born of a quantum vacuum, if that quantum vacuum only pertains to the spacetime universe that it bore.

But Vilenkin did not say that "the universe, our particular spacetime, was born of a quantum vacuum". Rather, he said that in his opinion, its beginning could be "described by quantum cosmology".

Do you see the difference in wording? This is a fundamental and crucial difference. Vilenkin is not claiming here that a quantum vacuum state existed in the absence of space-time.

[Tassman]

Look at Vilenkin's quote again. He said that WLC "represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately". He said that their disagreement is not on the science itself, but on its implications.

entire connected spacetime region.

He is clear that the comment about a natural origin for the universe is his own personal (metaphysical) view.

https://mukto-mona.com/science/physi...om_nothing.pdf

[JimL]

But Vilenkin did not say that "the universe, our particular spacetime, was born of a quantum vacuum". Rather, he said that in his opinion, its beginning could be "described by quantum cosmology".

Do you see the difference in wording? This is a fundamental and crucial difference. Vilenkin is not claiming here that a quantum vacuum state existed in the absence of space-time.

I see the difference in wording yes, but what if anything is the difference practically speaking? The beginning of the universe being described by, and being caused by quantum cosmology, seem to mean the same thing here? No?

[Kbertsche]

entire connected spacetime region.

???

As I've said throughout this thread, I believe that WLC is referring to this present universe in his Kalam argument. That's exactly what Vilenkin refers to; the "universe" is the "entire connected spacetime region", and excludes any hypothetical universes which are disconnected from ours.

I think WLC and Vilenkin have essentially the same definition of "universe". I don't understand why you think there is a problem?!?