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

[robrecht]

I do not necessarily except your selective one sentence sound bite citations of scientists to justify your agenda. When a selective citing of Filippenko was offered. I provided a more complete citiation and another picture emerged. ...

The other picture that emerges appears to be your own one-sided interpretation of Filippenko. Clearly it seems to be the hypothetical option that Filippenko himself prefers, but it does not address the fact that Filippenko himself mentioned two distinct hypothetical options, which is Kbertsche's reading of Filippenko. Are you specifically claiming that Kbertsche has misunderstood Filippenko's text?

[robrecht]

Sorry Jim, I gave the wrong Vilenkin link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I

But even in this link it says: it might be the vacuum of some pre-existing space time, or it could be nothing at all-that is all concepts of space and time were created along with the universe itself.

Nothing at all, as Vilenkin says in the You Tube link: no matter, no space, no time. And if there is no space or time where does this pre-existing energy live?

seer, you keep posting the same brief YouTube video of Vilenkin, and in it he is not really saying what you think he is saying. Is there another video that you are thinking of, perhaps? Otherwise, it might be better if you read and linked to a full-length text of Vilenkin.

[seer]

seer, you keep posting the same brief YouTube video of Vilenkin, and in it he is not really saying what you think he is saying. Is there another video that you are thinking of, perhaps? Otherwise, it might be better if you read and linked to a full-length text of Vilenkin.

Actuallty it does, he makes it clear that we don't need pre-existing time or space or matter for the universe to spontaneously come into existence, all we need are the laws of physics.

[shunyadragon]

Sorry Jim, I gave the wrong Vilenkin link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I

But even in this link it says: it might be the vacuum of some pre-existing space time, or it could be nothing at all-that is all concepts of space and time were created along with the universe itself.

Nothing at all, as Vilenkin says in the You Tube link: no matter, no space, no time. And if there is no space or time where does this pre-existing energy live?

Again, my accusation of both Kbertsche and you stands. Selective sound bites of Vilenkin and other scientists should not be used to justify a theological agenda. If you take the whole context of Vilenkin's view it is the scientific 'nothing' that is described as the matrix of the greater cosmos is where our universe exists and originates by natural laws and processes, and that there are possibly an infinite number of universes that form in various possible muti-verse scenarios from this scientific 'nothing.'

I demonstrated this on the selective and biased use of one sentence sound bites of Filippenko. When the full context of these 'one sentence' quote minings are put in the broader context of Filippenko's real view a different picture emerges. First, Vilenkin clearly acknowledged the possible alternatives to his cosmological models. Second, Vilenkin clearly proposes that the origin of our our universe from the scientific 'nothing' is in context of a multiverse scenario where an infinite number of universes possibly exist. Third, Vilenkin and Filippenko speak in terms of possibilities and alternate views of the origins of our universe, and all possible universes. Selective citing of these scientists to justify a theological agenda is unethical and dishonest.



Again, in a more complete citation of Vilenkin's scientific view you see the following on how he views this nothing which is not 'nothing at all nor no energy;

- Vienkin.

[seer]

Again, in a more complete citation of Vilenkin's scientific view you see the following on how he views this nothing which is not 'nothing at all nor no energy;

- Vienkin.

Right Shuny, the laws of physics are the ONLY things that need to exist according to Vienkin for the universe to spontaneously come into existence. But the laws of physics are NOT themselves physical things. Like he said they exist in the Platonic sense, i.e. non-physical.

[Kbertsche]

https://www.astrosociety.org/publica...-from-nothing/"something", namely a vacuum teeming with quantum fluctuations.

This is one possibility that they mention, which as they say, comes with some sort of pre-existing space-time. The other is what they call "absolute nothing", with no vacuum or space-time.

[Kbertsche]

Yes, one possibility, according to Filippenko, is that the energy came from nothing at all, highly unlikely in my view, and another is that it came from a pre-existing vacuum. The fact that it is conjecture, that it isn't known where the energy came from, or whether or not it is past eternal, refutes WLC's Kalam cosmological argument.

Its seems to me Kbertsche that you are the one who hears only what you want to hear, ignoring that which you don't want to hear. Now, you can believe that energy, along with the universe, just popped into existence from out of nothing if you want, at this point its an argument that can not be positively refuted, its not observable one way or the other, but I prefer to base my reasoning on what we do know by experience, i.e. that nothing comes from nothing.

I am not agreeing with these views or defending them as correct. I am just trying to explain them. Numerous leading cosmologists really do suggest that our universe came from "absolutely nothing" in the physics sense: no mass, no energy, no space, no time. I agree that this sounds ridiculous.

[Kbertsche]

[cite=http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning]

Again, in a more complete citation of Vilenkin's scientific view you see the following on how he views this nothing which is not 'nothing at all nor no energy;

- Vienkin.

Shuny, how can you read this and deny what it means? He does not say that there is pre-existing energy in this view. He says there is only the laws of physics. This implies no energy, especially since there is no space-time for energy to reside in.

[shunyadragon]

Right Shuny, the laws of physics are the ONLY things that need to exist according to Vienkin for the universe to spontaneously come into existence. But the laws of physics are NOT themselves physical things. Like he said they exist in the Platonic sense, i.e. non-physical.

Platonic sense?!?!?! How silly!

[shunyadragon]

The other picture that emerges appears to be your own one-sided interpretation of Filippenko. Clearly it seems to be the hypothetical option that Filippenko himself prefers, but it does not address the fact that Filippenko himself mentioned two distinct hypothetical options, which is Kbertsche's reading of Filippenko. Are you specifically claiming that Kbertsche has misunderstood Filippenko's text?

No he gives a one sided selective view of these references to justify his agenda, and he himself proposes that the models cannot falsify the multiverse models these scientists propose. He his trying to draw one conclusion that 'no energy' existed despite the fact that scientists offer these views a alternatives and possibilities.

Actually off topic

Still waiting . . .

All this discussion is interesting concerning different scientists understanding of the scientific nature of nothing in terms of the nature of our greater cosmos, but it does not address the subject of the thread, which you choose to ignore. The subject of the thread is whether the 'scientific evidence' supports WLC's Kalam cosmological arguments that the most probable origin of our universe (and only our universe) is Created from '(Philosophical) absolutely nothing.'

[shunyadragon]

I am not agreeing with these views or defending them as correct. I am just trying to explain them. Numerous leading cosmologists really do suggest that our universe came from "absolutely nothing" in the physics sense: no mass, no energy, no space, no time. I agree that this sounds ridiculous.

I do not consider the existence of Quantum fluctuation, Quantum gravity and the Laws of Physics absolutely nothing.

I clarified my original question as referring to the subject of the thread as folows and you choose to ignore it.

All this discussion is interesting concerning different scientists understanding of the scientific nature of nothing in terms of the nature of our greater cosmos, but it does not address the subject of the thread, which you choose to ignore. The subject of the thread is whether the 'scientific evidence' supports WLC's Kalam cosmological arguments that the most probable origin of our universe (and only our universe) is Created from '(Philosophical) absolutely nothing.'

Still waiting . . .

[robrecht]

I do not consider the existence of Quantum fluctuation, Quantum gravity and the Laws of Physics absolutely nothing. ...

Nor does Kbertsche. I think you are misunderstanding his posts.

[seer]

Platonic sense?!?!?! How silly!

That is what Vienkin SAID - about 2:35 into the talk!!!!

[seer]

I do not consider the existence of Quantum fluctuation, Quantum gravity and the Laws of Physics absolutely nothing.

But the laws of physics, which Vilenkin said it the only things necessary for the creation of the universe, are not physical things.

[shunyadragon]

But the laws of physics, which Vilenkin said it the only things necessary for the creation of the universe, are not physical things.

Of course, when we are talking about the Quantum world of the Greater Cosmos there are no 'physical things nor matter.