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

[seer]

The inflation theory is older than his particular theory on how inflation originated.

Yes, you are correct, but the problem is that they can not get to an eternal past with inflation - so perhaps creation out of nothing solves the problem. At least in their minds.

[shunyadragon]

It was the point that Vilenkin does endorse the idea of the universe springing from literally nothing, unlike Krauss' nothing. And that that was not the same theory as his inflation theory - unless he was suggesting that the multi-verse sprang from literally nothing, but he was not clear on that point.

The problem is Vilenkin's description of nothing is a scientific nothing, and not the philosophical nothing.

There is also a problem of clinging selectively to one cosmologist or scientist is that different scientistshave proposed viable theories and models concerning the origins of the cosmos. For example:

Source: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

© Copyright Original Source

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qua...verse.html#jCp

My bottom line is the origins and ultimate nature of physical existence remains unresolved, and claims of singular solutions are more than questionable, especially when there is a theological agenda involved. I let science by science, and we have only begun to understand what we presently know, and too much remains unknown.

[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.)

The Creation 'ex nihilo' is central to the WLC Kalam argument, and yes it is'absolutely (philosophical) nothing, and key is the question; Why is there something and not nothing?

Actually, WLC opposes the origin of the universe is that a universe can originate from the physical 'scientific nothing.'

WLC proposes that ony God existed before the universe, and God Created the universe 'ex nihilo (out of nothing).'

[JimL]

Nonsense Shuny, Vilenkin made it clear that in the model he was speaking of required "literally" nothing, and in the video he also made it clear that the ONLY thing that was required were the laws of physics (those being non-physical in the Platonic sense). Space, time or matter were not required. And a multi-verse would require space and time and matter. This is not his inflation theory, which could possibly lead to a multi-verse, but he also made it clear that the multi-verse can not be past eternal, it too needed a beginning. So we are only pushing the problem back one step.

One might ask what is meant by literally nothing. I don't think there is any such state as nothingness. If the universe continues to expand forever, does it become nothingness, can that which exist become non-existent? I don't think so, that is as bad an assumption to make, in my opinion, as the notion that non-existing things can pop into existence out of literally nothing. My guess is, and it is only a guess of course, is that the vacuum state out of which our universe of material space is thought to have emerged, is the same state, by way of its expansion, that the universe returns to, and that the energy that it is made of is never destroyed. In other words, in heat death, though there would be no space, no matter, there would be a cosmic void, a vacuum, void of everything but energy, and it is out of that cosmos and the laws that govern it, that possible universes are given birth, age, and eventually die ad infinitum.
In such a case seer, space, time and matter would not be required, the only thing required would be energy and the void.

[Kbertsche]

The Creation 'ex nihilo' is central to the WLC Kalam argument,

No, not at all.

WLC's Kalam argument simply establishes that the universe "began to exist" and that this must have a "cause". He does not demand or assume that this must be ex nihilo. He considers a number of possible causes (multiverse, self-generation, God, etc.). He then argues, on philosophical and scientific grounds, that divine creation ex nihilo is the most plausible option.

In other words, creation ex nihilo is not his assumption, but his conclusion.

and yes it is'absolutely (philosophical) nothing, and key is the question; Why is there something and not nothing?

Actually, WLC opposes the origin of the universe is that a universe can originate from the physical 'scientific nothing.'

Yes, I agree with you (and with WLC).

WLC proposes that ony God existed before the universe, and God Created the universe 'ex nihilo (out of nothing).'

Again, I agree with you and with WLC.

[Tassman]

Yes, you are correct, but the problem is that they can not get to an eternal past with inflation - so perhaps creation out of nothing solves the problem. At least in their minds.

They're getting there, not that you will ever accept facts which contradict your religious presuppositions. That's the beauty of blind faith.

"The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once." AND "the [problems relating to the] Big Bang singularity can be resolved by the new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end."

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp[/url]

(Link courtesy of shunya)

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qua...verse.html#jCp

You forget that science is a work in progress.

[shunyadragon]

No, not at all.

WLC's Kalam argument simply establishes that the universe "began to exist" and that this must have a "cause". He does not demand or assume that this must be ex nihilo. He considers a number of possible causes (multiverse, self-generation, God, etc.). He then argues, on philosophical and scientific grounds, that divine creation ex nihilo is the most plausible option.

As I have argued consistently the problem here is the claim of the 'scientific evidence.' The philosophical nothing, ex nihilo, has no basis supported by the present 'scientific evidence.' The whole argument is based on a philosophical/theological claim and assumptions as to what the 'beginning' represents.

The bottom line is that WLC's argument is NOT simply based on demonstrating that the universe has a beginning.

In other words, creation ex nihilo is not his assumption, but his conclusion.

I very much disagree, but nonetheless whether in the assumption or conclusion it is an integral part of his argument, because if 'ex nihilo' is not the case before the beginning of our universe, and this is definitely the 'most pausible' conclusion of ALL theories and models concerning the origins of our universe, than there is no viable argument. The assumption that the 'universe has a beginning,' clearly makes the assumption that this beginning is 'ex nihilo.' Also, the second assumption, 'everything that has a beginning has a cause' clearly is based on the assumption, and false claims of support of scientific evidence and the misuse of math (actual infinities) that the beginning cannot have a natural origin.

Twebers, element 771 and seer conclude that the 'scientific' nothing is equivalent to the philosophical 'ex nihilo' is very much a misuse of science as is WLC's argument, because regardless of what the scientific 'nothing' in reality is, the scientific evidence supports a natural origin of our universe, all possible universes, and possible multiverses from this 'nothing.' I believe the present evidence supports the conclusion that this 'nothing' is eternal even if all possible universe and multiverses are naturally finite in in time and space.

[seer]

They're getting there, not that you will ever accept facts which contradict your religious presuppositions. That's the beauty of blind faith.

"The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once." AND "the [problems relating to the] Big Bang singularity can be resolved by the new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end."

This is pure assumption, talk about blind faith! You will believe anything if "science says."

[seer]

The problem is Vilenkin's description of nothing is a scientific nothing, and not the philosophical nothing.

That is nonsense Shuny, Vilenkin's model is a philosophical nothing except for the NON-PHYSICAL laws of physics, like he said - laws in the Platonic sense. Nothing physical is needed.

There is also a problem of clinging selectively to one cosmologist or scientist is that different scientists have proposed viable theories and models concerning the origins of the cosmos.

I read this link last year, and? Where are all the physicists jumping on the bandwagon. You are ready to believe anything that supports your religious belief that matter and energy are co-eternal with your god. And I would not put Ahmed Farag Ali in your link on the same level as Vilenkin.

[seer]

As I have argued consistently the problem here is the claim of the 'scientific evidence.' The philosophical nothing, ex nihilo, has no basis supported by the present 'scientific evidence.' The whole argument is based on a philosophical/theological claim and assumptions as to what the 'beginning' represents.

Again nonsense, Vilenkin gave a scientific model that only requires the non-physical laws of physics. With no need for preexisting matter, space or time - how is that not very similar to creation ex nihilo.

[element771]

Twebers, element 771 and seer conclude that the 'scientific' nothing is equivalent to the philosophical 'ex nihilo' is very much a misuse of science as is WLC's argument, because regardless of what the scientific 'nothing' in reality is, the scientific evidence supports a natural origin of our universe, all possible universes, and possible multiverses from this 'nothing.' I believe the present evidence supports the conclusion that this 'nothing' is eternal even if all possible universe and multiverses are naturally finite in in time and space.

How is this a misuse of science? Please inform me oh layman.

Once again you are jamming together multiple threads of arguments into one because that is how you avoid being wrong.

This has nothing to do with science but how we use language to communicate ideas. The English language cannot be bent and altered simply to fulfill the whims of certain people. The definition of nothing is the absence of anything. I have no problem with creation out of the vacuum energy if that is where the science takes us. I accept reality whether I like it or not. But that is, by definition, something. There is energy there and since E=mc2....there may as well be matter there because it is the same thing.

Of all people...you should appreciate this misuse of language. You rant and rail if someone says that something is not technically correct. Yet, you have no objection for someone taking a word (nothing) and making it mean something it doesn't (with the explanation being that is not what I mean when I say the word nothing). But like everything it seems, you are willing to give things a pass if they fit within your worldview.

[element771]

They're getting there, not that you will ever accept facts which contradict your religious presuppositions. That's the beauty of blind faith.

Yes they are getting there and the Big Bang may be wrong.

However, if the situation was reversed and the Big Bang was a "good" thing for atheists...you would be calling religious people our for citing new theories that eliminate the Big Bang as established science.

Just to be clear...I am not saying that we should not look to science to describe the natural world or anything remotely like that. I am just saying that when science suggests something like the universe has a beginning, your worldview overrides your logic and looks for ways to not accept this possibility. It is the same thing that the young earth creationists and the Intelligent Design people do.

This sword cuts both ways...

[Sea of red]

Yes, you are correct, but the problem is that they can not get to an eternal past with inflation - so perhaps creation out of nothing solves the problem. At least in their minds.

Not true.

Anthony Agurrie (a well respected cosmologist) has derived a model of cosmic inflation that produces a past eternal universe, while avoiding an geodesic boundary from Borde-Guth-Vilenkin.

Eternal Inflation, past and future.

Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0571

Cosmological inflation, if it occurred, radically alters the picture of the `big bang', which would merely point to reheating at the end of inflation. Moreover, this reheating may be only local, so that inflation continues elsewhere and forever, continually spawning big-bang-like regions. This chapter reviews this idea of `eternal inflation', then focuses on what this may mean for the ultimate beginning of the universe. In particular, I will argue that given eternal inflation, the universe may be free of a cosmological initial singularity, might be eternal (and eternally inflating) to the past, and might obey an interesting sort of cosmological time-symmetry.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Not true.

Anthony Agurrie (a well respected cosmologist) has derived a model of cosmic inflation that produces a past eternal universe, while avoiding an geodesic boundary from Borde-Guth-Vilenkin.

Eternal Inflation, past and future.

Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0571

Cosmological inflation, if it occurred, radically alters the picture of the `big bang', which would merely point to reheating at the end of inflation. Moreover, this reheating may be only local, so that inflation continues elsewhere and forever, continually spawning big-bang-like regions. This chapter reviews this idea of `eternal inflation', then focuses on what this may mean for the ultimate beginning of the universe. In particular, I will argue that given eternal inflation, the universe may be free of a cosmological initial singularity, might be eternal (and eternally inflating) to the past, and might obey an interesting sort of cosmological time-symmetry.

© Copyright Original Source

Well I was speaking of the Vilenkin Guth model and especially Vilenkin's comments on the subject. This is what started that particular exchange: I have read Vilenkin, and his and Guth's inflation theory certainly could portend a multi-verse. And I have read him enough to know that he clearly states that his inflation/multi-verse theory is not past eternal - in other words the multi-verse too needs a beginning.

Of course there are all kind of theories that suggest an eternal past (like Steinhardt's cyclic model), but have any of them really panned out?

[Kbertsche]

There is also a problem of clinging selectively to one cosmologist or scientist is that different scientistshave proposed viable theories and models concerning the origins of the cosmos. For example:

Source: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

© Copyright Original Source

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qua...verse.html#jCp

My bottom line is the origins and ultimate nature of physical existence remains unresolved, and claims of singular solutions are more than questionable, especially when there is a theological agenda involved. I let science by science, and we have only begun to understand what we presently know, and too much remains unknown.

If you survey enough medical doctors, you can find some which disagree with any modern medical treatment of your choice, no matter how well-accepted the treatment is. Likewise, you can find physicists who propose fringe, speculative ideas. The fact that a crazy idea has been proposed does not make it "viable".

The proposal of Ali and Das is highly speculative and purely theoretical, with no observational or experimental support. It rests on nonstandard and highly questionable physical concepts. It is not testable in the foreseeable future. Here is a discussion of its problems.

You and Tass are pretty desperate to grasp at straws such as this!