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

[robrecht]

No, he does not!!!! He characterizes them as speculative metaphysics. If you cannot read his posts, I will site them specifically!!!!

I already cited him for you. See posts #s 724 & 726:

"I agree that models and theories are essential. The ability to create abstract, general theories is a crucial factor which distinguishes modern science from its predecessors."

Please try not to misrepresent the positions of others.

[seer]

Again there is no known boundary between inside and outside the universe. Our universe is simply expanding within a greater empty space in a greater cosmos.

Where is the actual evidence of this greater cosmos? Where is the evidence for anything existing "outside" of this universe? And is your greater cosmos expanding or existing in even a greater cosmos?

[shunyadragon]

None, of course.

What is the issue here?

[shunyadragon]

Where is the actual evidence of this greater cosmos? Where is the evidence for anything existing "outside" of this universe? And is your greater cosmos expanding or existing in even a greater cosmos?

The falsification of theories and hypothesis in Quantum Physics supported by scientific evidence for natural origins of our universe, and the existence of a greater cosmos. You selectively cite Vilenkin, and Vilenkin supports this view.

[JimL]

Where is the actual evidence of this greater cosmos? Where is the evidence for anything existing "outside" of this universe? And is your greater cosmos expanding or existing in even a greater cosmos?

What is outside of this universe is beyond our purview, but I think that common sense would suggest that some sort of spatial void, one might call that "nothing," must exist outside of this universe for the universe to be able to expand. Its just as absurd to assume that spacetime can emerge within absolute "nothing" as it is to assume that it can be created out of "nothing".

[shunyadragon]

I already cited him for you. See posts #s 724 & 726:

"I agree that models and theories are essential. The ability to create abstract, general theories is a crucial factor which distinguishes modern science from its predecessors."

Please try not to misrepresent the positions of others.

Your citation does not address this. The following is more accurate. I have not misrepresented Kbertsche!

Absolutely not. There are speculative scientific theories which suggest a natural origin of our universe (and which have serious philosophical problems), but there is no scientific evidence which supports a natural origin of our universe.

You continually confuse speculative theory with scientific evidence.

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!

[seer]

The falsification of theories and hypothesis in Quantum Physics supported by scientific evidence for natural origins of our universe, and the existence of a greater cosmos. You selectively cite Vilenkin, and Vilenkin supports this view.

Nonsense Shuny, you have no actual evidence and even Vilenkin's multi-verse needs a beginning. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

And as I have shown Vilenkin also has a theory where the universe spontaneously comes into being without the need of preexisting time, space or matter, the only thing that is required are the "laws" of physics, laws in the Platonic sense. Besides Shuny, doesn't your religion teach that God created this universe? Is your religion wrong?

[seer]

What is outside of this universe is beyond our purview, but I think that common sense would suggest that some sort of spatial void, one might call that "nothing," must exist outside of this universe for the universe to be able to expand. Its just as absurd to assume that spacetime can emerge within absolute "nothing" as it is to assume that it can be created out of "nothing".

OK, but common sense is not actual evidence.

[robrecht]

Your citation does not address this. The following is more accurate. I have not misrepresented Kbertsche!

They are all quotes of Kbertsche. None are more or less accurate than the others. The issue only appears to be your unwillingness to fairly represent his position. In neither of the quotes you provided does Kbertsche consider scientific theories, hypothesis, and models of the origins of our universe to be metaphysics. And the quote I provided for you proves that he considers these models and theories to be essential parts of modern science.

[robrecht]

What is the issue here?

Knee-jerk argumentativeness on your part, without your being willing to see and acknowledge areas of agreement by fairly perceiving and representing the positions of your discussion partners, preferring instead to claim some kind of scientific authority even when you don't quite fully understand the issues being discussed.

[shunyadragon]

They are all quotes of Kbertsche. None are more or less accurate than the others. The issue only appears to be your unwillingness to fairly represent his position. In neither of the quotes you provided does Kbertsche consider scientific theories, hypothesis, and models of the origins of our universe to be metaphysics. And the quote I provided for you proves that he considers these models and theories to be essential parts of modern science.

You have proved nothing concerning the issues I presented. The issue of what I was addressing in all my relevant posts does not deal with the vague general statement; '. . . he considers these models and theories to be essential parts of modern science.'

The real issues are what I specifically addressed concerning how Kbertsche views the theories, hypothesis and models concerning the natural origins of our universe. I am not misrepresenting Kbertsche on this issue. You have not responded to heart of the issue.

[shunyadragon]

Knee-jerk argumentativeness on your part, without your being willing to see and acknowledge areas of agreement by fairly perceiving and representing the positions of your discussion partners, preferring instead to claim some kind of scientific authority even when you don't quite fully understand the issues being discussed.

What?!?!!?

What is the issue here?

[robrecht]

You have proved nothing concerning the issues I presented. The issue of what I was addressing in all my relevant posts does not deal with the vague general statement; '. . . he considers these models and theories to be essential parts of modern science.'

The real issues are what I specifically addressed concerning how Kbertsche views the theories, hypothesis and models concerning the natural origins of our universe. I am not misrepresenting Kbertsche on this issue. You have not responded to heart of the issue.

What?!?!!?

What is the issue here?

Now you are merely proving my point without even realizing it. Thank you.

[shunyadragon]

Now you are merely proving my point without even realizing it. Thank you.

Still waiting . . .

I am not misrepresenting Kbertsche on this issue. You have not responded to the issue of my posts.

[element771]

Are you really not going to provide a direct quote from me to prove your point?