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

[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.

You are neglecting an interesting issue of the point of my question, and the nature of the scientific view of 'nothing' that has taken up so much time and speculation by many scientists. Concerning the nature of the 'scientific nothing' none of these speculative views referred to in this thread can in reality be falsified. We have insufficient information to at present falsify this, which is the reason for the wording of speculation by scientists concerning this.

I made clear the original question referred to WLC's assertion that the scientific evidence supports his Kalam argument as the most probable scenario for the origin of our universe, and only our universe.

Still waiting. . .

[seer]

I made clear the original question referred to WLC's assertion that the scientific evidence supports his Kalam argument as the most probable scenario for the origin of our universe, and only our universe.

Still waiting. . .

Can you directly quote what Craig said that you disagree with?

[JimL]

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

Seer, common sense should inform you that in order for physical laws to be of any use at all, they would need a physically existing object to follow, or obey them. I don't think that Vilenkin's assertion, if he means what you think he means, i.e. that the laws are pre-existent is even sensible. The only reason, in my opinion, that the laws exist at all, is because they are just descriptive of that which does exist. The physical laws are the way in which the physically existing object is, by its own nature, determined to act. If nothing existed, if our universe didn't exist, then there is no reason to believe that laws describing its possible existence have any existence either.

[shunyadragon]

Can you directly quote what Craig said that you disagree with?

Already cited Craig specifically where I disagree with his claim that the 'scientific evidence' supports his Kalam Cosmological Argument that our universe, and our universe alone, was Created from absolute (philosophical) nothing, as the most probable scenario of the origin of our universe.

[Tassman]

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.

[shunyadragon]

Can you directly quote what Craig said that you disagree with?

I have cited this several times before:

Source: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-scientific-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz4LZcPH6Rz

Conclusion

The first premiss of the kalam cosmological argument is obviously more plausibly true than its contradictory. Similarly, in light of both philosophical argument and scientific evidence, its second premiss, though more controversial, is again more plausibly true than its negation. The conclusion of the argument involves no demonstrable incoherence and, when subjected to conceptual analysis, is rich in theological implications. On the basis of the kalam cosmological argument it is therefore plausible that an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

© Copyright Original Source

[Kbertsche]

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 . . .

Can you please present a quote from WLC where his Kalam argument includes the claim that "the most probable origin of our universe (and only our universe) is Created from '(Philosophical) absolutely nothing.'"?

(I've never seen this as part of his Kalam argument formulation.)

[shunyadragon]

Can you please present a quote from WLC where his Kalam argument includes the claim that "the most probable origin of our universe (and only our universe) is Created from '(Philosophical) absolutely nothing.'"?

(I've never seen this as part of his Kalam argument formulation.)

OK, in part my maybe bad. The correct citation is 'more plausible, and not 'most probable,' which remains NOT supported by 'scientific evidence. It remains that WLC's argument is a theological/philosophical argument that requires philosophical nothing prior to the beginning of our universe. Read the citation again concerning his conclusion.

Source: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-scientific-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz4LZcPH6Rz

Conclusion

The first premiss of the kalam cosmological argument is obviously more plausibly true than its contradictory. Similarly, in light of both philosophical argument and scientific evidence, its second premiss, though more controversial, is again more plausibly true than its negation. The conclusion of the argument involves no demonstrable incoherence and, when subjected to conceptual analysis, is rich in theological implications. On the basis of the kalam cosmological argument it is therefore plausible that an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

© Copyright Original Source

Go with this wording or mine, but both mean the same thing, and remains unsupported by 'scientific evidence.' You previously acknowledged that the nothing of philosophical/theological Kalam arguments is not the same as the scientific 'nothing.' Are you back peddling on this?

[shunyadragon]

OK, in part my maybe bad. The correct citation is 'more plausible, and not 'most probable,' which remains NOT supported by 'scientific evidence. It remains that WLC's argument is a theological/philosophical argument that requires philosophical nothing prior to the beginning of our universe. Read the citation again concerning his conclusion.

Source: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-scientific-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz4LZcPH6Rz

Conclusion

The first premiss of the kalam cosmological argument is obviously more plausibly true than its contradictory. Similarly, in light of both philosophical argument and scientific evidence, its second premiss, though more controversial, is again more plausibly true than its negation. The conclusion of the argument involves no demonstrable incoherence and, when subjected to conceptual analysis, is rich in theological implications. On the basis of the kalam cosmological argument it is therefore plausible that an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

© Copyright Original Source

Go with this wording or mine, but both mean the same thing, and remains unsupported by 'scientific evidence.' You previously acknowledged that the nothing of philosophical/theological Kalam arguments is not the same as the scientific 'nothing.' Are you back peddling on this?

Reread my question carefully:

I have asked this question repeatedly without a response. Can you provide a reference to Physicists or Cosmologists that propose a hypothesis for a 'beginning of our universe' without proposing preexisting matter and/or energy as a part of that hypothesis?

All the statements by the scientists were speculative concerning your claim of a 'no energy' greater cosmos, and were worded clearly in terms of possibilities, and not a falsifiable hypothesis that 'no energy' existed prior to the beginning of our universe.

Note: I corrected this question slightly to word matter and/or energy. The singularity is often defined as super concentrated matter prior to the expansion of the universe, and most scientists believe the Quantum world of Quantum zero-point energy is devoid of matter, except possibly what results from Quantum fluctuations.

[robrecht]

Can you please present a quote from WLC where his Kalam argument includes the claim that "the most probable origin of our universe (and only our universe) is Created from '(Philosophical) absolutely nothing.'"?

(I've never seen this as part of his Kalam argument formulation.)

I'm a little confused by your question, particularly the part about 'only our universe' since it is your interpretation of Craig's Kalam argument, and not Shuny's, that Craig only intended to apply the argument to the creation of this universe and not to counter theories of a multiverse. Am I misunderstanding something here?

[Kbertsche]

I'm a little confused by your question, particularly the part about 'only our universe' since it is your interpretation of Craig's Kalam argument, and not Shuny's, that Craig only intended to apply the argument to the creation of this universe and not to counter theories of a multiverse. Am I misunderstanding something here?

I am confused as well. This is not my interpretation of WLC's Kalam argument, but Shuny's. I presented a direct quote of Shuny's question from this message:

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 . . .

(I think Shuny is misrepresenting WLCs Kalam argument, and I am asking him to present a direct quote from WLC showing that he is not.)

[Kbertsche]

OK, in part my maybe bad. The correct citation is 'more plausible, and not 'most probable,' which remains NOT supported by 'scientific evidence. It remains that WLC's argument is a theological/philosophical argument that requires philosophical nothing prior to the beginning of our universe. Read the citation again concerning his conclusion.

Source: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-scientific-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz4LZcPH6Rz

Conclusion

The first premiss of the kalam cosmological argument is obviously more plausibly true than its contradictory. Similarly, in light of both philosophical argument and scientific evidence, its second premiss, though more controversial, is again more plausibly true than its negation. The conclusion of the argument involves no demonstrable incoherence and, when subjected to conceptual analysis, is rich in theological implications. On the basis of the kalam cosmological argument it is therefore plausible that an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

© Copyright Original Source

Go with this wording or mine, but both mean the same thing, and remains unsupported by 'scientific evidence.' You previously acknowledged that the nothing of philosophical/theological Kalam arguments is not the same as the scientific 'nothing.' Are you back peddling on this?

The word "nothing" does not appear in WLC's Kalam argument. From your link above, here is his Kalam argument:

Source: WLC

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

© Copyright Original Source

As you quoted above, WLC says:

Source: WLC

The first premiss of the kalam cosmological argument is obviously more plausibly true than its contradictory. Similarly, in light of both philosophical argument and scientific evidence, its second premiss, though more controversial, is again more plausibly true than its negation.

© Copyright Original Source

I agree, and you should as well! Note that premise 2 says only that "The universe began to exist." (In this premise there is no position on the definition of "nothing", or on causation, or on multiverses, or on any other red herrings that you or others want to introduce.) Observational scientific data indeed supports the standard model that "the universe began to exist" 13.7 billion years ago. Thus I agree with WLC: this premise is "more plausibly true than its negation."

How can you possibly accept the Big Bang but disagree with this?!?

[shunyadragon]

The word "nothing" does not appear in WLC's Kalam argument. From your link above, here is his Kalam argument:

Source: WLC

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

© Copyright Original Source

As you quoted above, WLC says:

Source: WLC

The first premiss of the kalam cosmological argument is obviously more plausibly true than its contradictory. Similarly, in light of both philosophical argument and scientific evidence, its second premiss, though more controversial, is again more plausibly true than its negation.

© Copyright Original Source

I agree, and you should as well! Note that premise 2 says only that "The universe began to exist." (In this premise there is no position on the definition of "nothing", or on causation, or on multiverses, or on any other red herrings that you or others want to introduce.) Observational scientific data indeed supports the standard model that "the universe began to exist" 13.7 billion years ago. Thus I agree with WLC: this premise is "more plausibly true than its negation."

How can you possibly accept the Big Bang but disagree with this?!?

Easy, because he concludes that the scientific evidence supports his conclusion that the universe was Created by God from absolute nothing, which he considers the most plausible conclusion. You are selectively misrepresenting the whole of WLC's Kalam cosmological argument. The conclusion is not just the existence of the begining of the Big Bang, but that it is the absolute beginning.

You'r citing the brief skeleton of the Kalam argument fails to take into consideration the whole argument by WLC. If this skeleton is all anyone has to offer, than this whole argument goes into the dumpster without further discussion.

'Whatever begins to exist has a cause,' is too vague anyway to part of a real argument. As far as scientific evidence the most plausible cause is indeed natural.

If you cannot provide anything else. In the dumpster the whole argument goes!

[JimL]

The word "nothing" does not appear in WLC's Kalam argument. From your link above, here is his Kalam argument:

Source: WLC

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

© Copyright Original Source

As you quoted above, WLC says:

Source: WLC

The first premiss of the kalam cosmological argument is obviously more plausibly true than its contradictory. Similarly, in light of both philosophical argument and scientific evidence, its second premiss, though more controversial, is again more plausibly true than its negation.

© Copyright Original Source

I agree, and you should as well! Note that premise 2 says only that "The universe began to exist." (In this premise there is no position on the definition of "nothing", or on causation, or on multiverses, or on any other red herrings that you or others want to introduce.) Observational scientific data indeed supports the standard model that "the universe began to exist" 13.7 billion years ago. Thus I agree with WLC: this premise is "more plausibly true than its negation."

How can you possibly accept the Big Bang but disagree with this?!?

I think that plausable may be to strong a term for WLC to use in support of his argument that a personal being created this universe. Is it possible, well yes, anything is possible, so what, but is a personal being, or creation out of nothing, based on sound reason? I don't think so, its possible, but I wouldn't say its plausable. Btw, I would argue the same point with regard to the beginning of the universe being caused by pre-existing laws.

[shunyadragon]

I am confused as well. This is not my interpretation of WLC's Kalam argument, but Shuny's. I presented a direct quote of Shuny's question from this message:

(I think Shuny is misrepresenting WLCs Kalam argument, and I am asking him to present a direct quote from WLC showing that he is not.)

I am not misrepresenting his argument. He calims more than the skelton you offered .The following as a good example.

Source: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe

The kalam cosmological argument, by showing that the universe began to exist, demonstrates that the world is not a necessary being and, therefore, not self-explanatory with respect to its existence. Two philosophical arguments and two scientific confirmations are presented in support of the beginning of the universe. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, there must exist a transcendent cause of the universe.

Source: "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe." Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991): 85-96.

© Copyright Original Source

I have already addressed the weakness in his companion argument for actual infinities and demonstrated he flagrantly misrepresents math further crippling his Kalam argument.