An Infinite Past?

[Tassman]

(i) The BGV theorem hasn’t been misused to support a theological agenda. The BGV theorem hasn’t been used to support the idea that at some point there was absolutely nothing. No one has disputed the claim that V. argues that the theorem (hereafter, BGVT) has a probable scientific explanation. Almost everything you write is wrong. Once again, BGVT is used by Craig to render more plausible than not the premise that the universe began to exist (X). You can use BGVT to support X and not a have a theological agenda. And if BGVT supports X, then it’s completely irrelevant that someone with a theological agenda can use such support in a deductive argument. You argue that philosophy is pointless because it’s not scientifically supported. Suppose you go to give me a proof for the premise that all claims not supported by science are both false and irrational. It would be irrelevant and fallacious for me to undercut your proof by saying you have a scientific agenda. The soundness of an argument is independent of the motives of the arguer. Drawing attention to Craig’s agenda is a red herring. It’s an ad hominem. It poisons the well. You’re basically saying that because Craig has a theological agenda, therefore Craig’s arguments aren’t reliable. Whether Craig has a theological agenda is another question. Focusing on it doesn’t address Craig’s arguments. Your focus on a theological agenda betrays an, as Aristotle would put it, “ignorance of the nature of refutation.” And I don’t know what you mean by saying V. argues that BGVT has a probable scientific explanation. Do you mean a natural explanation? Do you mean the singularity came to be via quantum tunneling? All of this isn’t incompatible with Kalam. Craig could be quite willing to admit that the universe tunneled into existence via a quantum tunnel. But the question is whether the quantum tunnel has always existed, or whether it spawned from a prior multi-verse. Since none of this has been empirically verified, physicists and cosmologists are free to speculate. Intricate models can be creatively constructed, or constructively created. But what it all boils down to is whether it is philosophically coherent to say that the universe, or the multi-verse, or the quantum vacuum, or whatever, can be past-eternal. Can it? Craig has provided arguments such that even if the scientific evidence is inconclusive, the philosophical arguments against the metaphysical possibility of traversing an actual infinite (which must have happened on the supposition that we have reached today, and that therefore an actual infinite amount of moments have elapsed to reach today) would still be sound. Your main objection is that the premises in these arguments aren’t grounded in science. Well, then I would shift the discussion to the arguments pro and con for/against scientism. If you want to go there, I will. But let’s not waste time obsessively kicking the dead horse of whether there is a theological agenda.

Nevertheless, despite your snide reference to “scientism”, Craig, the philosopher/apologist, has misappropriated the BGV Theorem to provide some ‘sciency’ sounding support for his theological agenda that the universe began to exist - DESPITE the fact that its proponents explicitly state there is a probable natural, explanation.

Whether or not the quantum vacuum is past eternal is a matter for science to determine, NOT metaphysics. The latter doesn't have the methodology to test its hypotheses. Furthermore, the rational logic of metaphysics is grounded in the macroverse of Classical Mechanics which, as opposed to the counter-intuitive microverse of Quantum Mechanics, is unable to explain several key features of the universe and its functioning.

(ii) What is wrong with quoting a scientist to support a premise even if the scientist would disagree with your conclusion? Craig argues that BGVT supports that the universe began to exist. Well, the universe beginning to exist is premise 2 in Kalam. V. disagrees with the nature of the cause in Kalam’s conclusion. How does this disable Craig from using BGVT to prove one premise in an argument, the conclusion of which V. disagrees? It doesn’t. Craig can use BGVT to support premise 2. V. can agree that it does support premise 2. But to say that Craig can’t use BGVT to support premise 2 because V. disagrees with the nature of the cause in Kalam’s conclusion is like saying that the Prosecution in courts of law can’t use evidence X to disprove an alibi for an accused murderer, because the Defense uses evidence X to support some other conclusion letting the accused off the hook.

See above.

(iii) I have arrived at my true premise by non-scientific, yet rational means, and deduced the true conclusion that a beginningless series of events is metaphysically impossible (absurd), and deduced the further conclusion that if no series of events can be beginningless, then at some point there was absolutely nothing. If a beginningless series of events is metaphysically possible, then an actual infinite collection of events can be formed, by adding one event after another from the eternal past. In this case, you’re not counting to infinity; you’re counting down from infinity. But this assumes that an actual infinite is traversed by arriving at the present. But that seems wrong: why not yesterday, or last year, or last century? – what’s so special about today? Yesterday, or last year, or last century, the actual infinite should have already been formed! So, no matter what time I go to in the past (to the quantum vacuum, to the singularity, to the Big Crunch, to the multi-verse, etc), an actual infinite would already be formed. So, if you place a one-to-one correspondence between beginningless series of events and negative, natural numbers, then – in the real world – it should be metaphysically possible for someone to count down from eternity past, so that the counter was at -2 two days ago, -1 yesterday, and 0 today. But if he’s been counting down from eternity, then we’ll have to say that no matter where we go to in the past, our hypothetical counter, when he was at -834,643,473,999,112, he was already finished counting! But this contradicts the premise that he is in fact counting down to 0 from eternity. This makes a count-down metaphysically absurd, since the count-down is already done at any point in the eternal past. This proves that infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist in reality. Therefore, at some point the universe, or the quantum tunnel, or the multi-verse, did not exist, since it cannot be past-eternal. Therefore, at some point, there was absolutely nothing.

This is an Argument from Incredulity and “proves” nothing about “reality”. Physicists have not yet reached a consensus about the nature of the universe. And basing your argument upon the classical metaphysics of an intuitive macro-universe rather than the scientific physics of the counter-intuitive micro-universe of quantum theory is not the way to go. Things in the subatomic world of quantum mechanics seemingly defy the rational logic of the macroscopic world.

Your assertion “that at some point there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING” has NOT been deduced from a demonstrably “true” premise at all - merely one that you think is true, based upon our current state of knowledge. Thus, your alleged “true” conclusion cannot be shown to be true and may well be overturned by advances in physics - as increasingly seems likely.

The current state of cosmology is summed up by Templeton Prize Laureate Paul Davies agreeing with Hawking’s views as expressed in ‘The Grand Design’: “Our universe is just one infinitesimal component amid this vast – probably infinite – multiverse, that itself had no origin in time. So according to this new cosmological theory, there was something before the big bang after all – a region of the multiverse pregnant with universe-sprouting potential…” This is what's referred to as the eternal 'quantum vacuum' or 'cosmological constant'.

[mattbballman31]

I forgot about the quoting thing. Quoting is better.

Nevertheless, despite your snide reference to “scientism”

Snide? Okay . . .

Craig, the philosopher/apologist

And theologian . . . You're speaking of the co-author of Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity , author of Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity, co-author of the painstakingly detailed "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" in the The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, in which The standard Hot Big Bang Model, Exceptions to the Hawking-Penrose Theorems, Eternal Inflationary Models, Exceptions to BVG singularity theorems, Loop Quantum Gravity Models, Cyclic Universes, Baum-Framton 'Phantom Bounce' cyclic cosmology, Time Deconstruction, Quantum Gravity Models, String Models, Pre-Big Bang Inflation, String Quantum Transitions, Ekpyrotic/Cyclic Models, the Hawking/Hartle Model, and Quantum Tunneling are all discussed. Yea, he really sounds like a push-over.

has misappropriated the BGV Theorem to provide some ‘sciency’ sounding support

So vague. No examples? No specifics? More rhetoric.

for his theological agenda that the universe began to exist

Already proved how having an agenda has no bearing on whether the arguments are sound. Next!

- DESPITE the fact that its proponents explicitly state there is a probable natural, explanation.

Still no specifics. Yea, the physicists have authority on their side. That's why Craig carries the burden of proof. He has written arguments contrary to the 'probable natural explanation', now answer them, please. Show exactly where these 'proponents' address Craig's arguments. Can you?

Whether or not the quantum vacuum is past eternal is a matter for science to determine, NOT metaphysics.

Why is it, Mr. Scientism Snob, that Ellis, Kirchner, and Stoeger ask, "Can there be an infinite set of really existing universes? We suggest that, on the basis of well-known philosophical arguments, the answer is No" (Ellis, Kirchner, and Stoeger 2003, p. 14). Or, why is it they say, "This is precisely why a realized past infinity in time is not considered possible from this standpoint - since it involves an infinite set of completed events or moments."? Or, why do they conclude, "The arguments against an infinite past time are strong - it's simply not constructible in terms of events or instants of time, besides being conceptually indefinite."?

Also, you obviously adhere to scientism. Past-eternality, according to you, is something that philosophy can't even open its mouth about; almighty science is the final arbiter. Even Sean Carroll disagrees with your attitude in his blog Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things about Philosophy!

The latter doesn't have the methodology to test its hypotheses.

Yes it does. It's just not a scientific methodology. It's a logical one. Richard Gale, Graham Oppy, Wes Morriston, Howard Sobel, and others all take the philosophical arguments seriously, and have philosophical objections that are mounted. If rejoinders to the rebuttals have weight, the hypothesis is tested and thrown out. That's where the battle is fought.

Furthermore, the rational logic of metaphysics is grounded in the macroverse of Classical Mechanics which, as opposed to the counter-intuitive microverse of Quantum Mechanics, is unable to explain several key features of the universe and its functioning.

Again, even Sean Carroll admitted that the indeterministic interpretations of Quantum Mechanics are implausible. Bohm's is deterministic. There's at least 10 different interpretations, only one of which (that I know of) is indeterministic (Copenhagen). Interpretation of them is still in the dock. Even the guy you quoted before (Victor Stenger) admits: "Other viable interpretations of quantum mechanics remain with no consensus on which, if any, is the correct one" . . . he is "open to the possibility that causes may someday be found for such phenomena (Has Silence Found God? pg 188-89, 173).

See above.

This is an Argument from Incredulity and “proves” nothing about “reality”.

No, it's not. What I wrote has nothing to do with this fallacy. What are you talking about? I'm not arguing:

1. I can't imagine how we can traverse an actual infinite.
2. If we could traverse an actual infinite, I could imagine it.
3. Therefore, we can't traverse an actual infinite.

Where in the blazes did you get that? I gave a logical argument.

Craig puts it thus:

1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2. The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite

There are solid arguments for both premises, thus proving the conclusion deductively. This is one of two arguments supporting: the universe began to exist. You can apply it to the multi-verse for all I care! You can't go back forever. That's the point. It's not a far cry to conclude from this that, therefore, there was a point where there was NOTHING.

Physicists have not yet reached a consensus about the nature of the universe.

These guys aren't the Popes on knowledge.

Your assertion “that at some point there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING” has NOT been deduced from a demonstrably “true” premise at all - merely one that you think is true, based upon our current state of knowledge.

Well, I made the premises pretty explicit above, because you need your hand held. Now you tell me which one you have a problem with, and why.

Thus, your alleged “true” conclusion cannot be shown to be true and may well be overturned by advances in physics - as increasingly seems likely.

Science of the gaps!

“Our universe is just one infinitesimal component amid this vast – probably infinite – multiverse

Probably infinite, based on what?! He's not a philosopher: fallacious appeal to authority.

that itself had no origin in time.

Based on what?

So according to this new cosmological theory, there was something before the big bang after all – a region of the multiverse pregnant with universe-sprouting potential…”

Yea, because that's been empirically verified! Yea, right.

This is what's referred to as the eternal 'quantum vacuum' or 'cosmological constant'.

Craig is aware of all of this. Care to rebut his arguments, or are we just going to throw around elephants all the time?

[seer]

Also, you obviously adhere to scientism. Past-eternality, according to you, is something that philosophy can't even open its mouth about; almighty science is the final arbiter. Even Sean Carroll disagrees with your attitude in his blog Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things about Philosophy!

That was an interesting piece by Carroll. Given what I saw in his debate with Craig I wouldn't have guessed that Carroll had such a high respect for the discipline of philosophy. I wonder if Tass will even read it...

[mattbballman31]

That was an interesting piece by Carroll. Given what I saw in his debate with Craig I wouldn't have guessed that Carroll had such a high respect for the discipline of philosophy. I wonder if Tass will even read it...

Took me by surprise too! Let's see if Tassman cherry-picks his physicists like he claims Craig cherry-picks his science.

[Tassman]

That was an interesting piece by Carroll. Given what I saw in his debate with Craig I wouldn't have guessed that Carroll had such a high respect for the discipline of philosophy. I wonder if Tass will even read it...

[robrecht]

I agree with Carroll. I have always maintained that philosophy and logic are indispensable tools of science; they are the glue that holds the whole enterprise together. But that said: “Carroll is an atheist, who argues that scientific thinking leads one to a materialist world-view. He turned down an invitation to speak at a conference sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation, on the grounds that he did not want to appear to be supporting a reconciliation between science and religion.” - Wiki.

Bolding mine. I wonder if this is a key element of disagreement here. Do you consider philosophy and logic to be merely tools of science? Or do you consider a philosophical pursuit of meaning in our human context to be a valid discipline in and of itself, one which might even use science and scientific truths as tools or elements in the construction of what some might consider a higher level of meaning?

[Tassman]

And theologian . . . You're speaking of the co-author of Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity , author of Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity, co-author of the painstakingly detailed "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" in the The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, in which The standard Hot Big Bang Model, Exceptions to the Hawking-Penrose Theorems, Eternal Inflationary Models, Exceptions to BVG singularity theorems, Loop Quantum Gravity Models, Cyclic Universes, Baum-Framton 'Phantom Bounce' cyclic cosmology, Time Deconstruction, Quantum Gravity Models, String Models, Pre-Big Bang Inflation, String Quantum Transitions, Ekpyrotic/Cyclic Models, the Hawking/Hartle Model, and Quantum Tunneling are all discussed. Yea, he really sounds like a push-over.



So vague. No examples? No specifics? More rhetoric.




Already proved how having an agenda has no bearing on whether the arguments are sound. Next!



Still no specifics. Yea, the physicists have authority on their side. That's why Craig carries the burden of proof. He has written arguments contrary to the 'probable natural explanation', now answer them, please. Show exactly where these 'proponents' address Craig's arguments. Can you?

Why is it, Mr. Scientism Snob, that Ellis, Kirchner, and Stoeger ask, "Can there be an infinite set of really existing universes? We suggest that, on the basis of well-known philosophical arguments, the answer is No" (Ellis, Kirchner, and Stoeger 2003, p. 14). Or, why is it they say, "This is precisely why a realized past infinity in time is not considered possible from this standpoint - since it involves an infinite set of completed events or moments."? Or, why do they conclude, "The arguments against an infinite past time are strong - it's simply not constructible in terms of events or instants of time, besides being conceptually indefinite."?

Also, you obviously adhere to scientism. Past-eternality, according to you, is something that philosophy can't even open its mouth about; almighty science is the final arbiter. Even Sean Carroll disagrees with your attitude in his blog Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things about Philosophy!



Yes it does. It's just not a scientific methodology. It's a logical one. Richard Gale, Graham Oppy, Wes Morriston, Howard Sobel, and others all take the philosophical arguments seriously, and have philosophical objections that are mounted. If rejoinders to the rebuttals have weight, the hypothesis is tested and thrown out. That's where the battle is fought.



Again, even Sean Carroll admitted that the indeterministic interpretations of Quantum Mechanics are implausible. Bohm's is deterministic. There's at least 10 different interpretations, only one of which (that I know of) is indeterministic (Copenhagen). Interpretation of them is still in the dock. Even the guy you quoted before (Victor Stenger) admits: "Other viable interpretations of quantum mechanics remain with no consensus on which, if any, is the correct one" . . . he is "open to the possibility that causes may someday be found for such phenomena (Has Silence Found God? pg 188-89, 173).

No, it's not. What I wrote has nothing to do with this fallacy. What are you talking about? I'm not arguing:

1. I can't imagine how we can traverse an actual infinite.
2. If we could traverse an actual infinite, I could imagine it.
3. Therefore, we can't traverse an actual infinite.

Where in the blazes did you get that? I gave a logical argument.

Craig puts it thus:

1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2. The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite

There are solid arguments for both premises, thus proving the conclusion deductively. This is one of two arguments supporting: the universe began to exist. You can apply it to the multi-verse for all I care! You can't go back forever. That's the point. It's not a far cry to conclude from this that, therefore, there was a point where there was NOTHING.

These guys aren't the Popes on knowledge.

Indeed! Science never makes infallible ex cathedra pronouncements as the pope's do. Scientific knowledge is always potentially falsifiable. Nevertheless, a scientific consensus is good indication that they are on the right track.

Well, I made the premises pretty explicit above, because you need your hand held. Now you tell me which one you have a problem with, and why.



Science of the gaps!

Probably infinite, based on what?! He's not a philosopher: fallacious appeal to authority.



Based on what?



Yea, because that's been empirically verified! Yea, right.



Craig is aware of all of this. Care to rebut his arguments, or are we just going to throw around elephants all the time?

[seer]

Of course there are many as yet unresolved problems with such a scenario, there always are at the cutting-edge of science. But our universe emerging out of an infinite multiverse is increasingly being viewed in cosmology as the best explanation to the facts and there is every reason to think this will continue despite the best efforts of WL Craig and his religious presuppositions.

One of the unresolved problems Tass is that there is no actual physical evidence for any of this. So Craig is perfectly justified in assuming God, just as you are assuming nature.

[mattbballman31]

I agree with Carroll. I have always maintained that philosophy and logic are indispensable tools of science; they are the glue that holds the whole enterprise together.

So, what's your point? If science can use philosophy, then why can't it use philosophy to find out that the universe isn't past-eternal? Isn't this what Ellis, Kirchner, and Stoeger (philosophers of science/cosmologists) are doing? I mean, I can name more if you want.

And he agreed to a debate with Craig, why?

I'm speaking of WL Craig, the philosopher/apologist - unqualified in science

Who, as a qualified philosopher, quotes qualified scientists . . .

who specifically misappropriated the BGV Theorem

How? Still waiting on that one . . .

to support his theological presupposition that the universe began to exist

Nope. 'The universe began to exist' is theologically neutral. Nice try.

regardless of the fact that its proponents explicitly state there is a probable natural, explanation.

Still waiting on their arguments for this explanation. Still waiting on how they rebut Craig's arguments.

Why would any scientist respond to purely philosophical arguments which are not grounded in facts and which have an agenda?

I don't know; why don't you ask all the scientists that have debated Craig? Oh yea, having an agenda doesn't invalidate the argument, for the zillionth time. Oh yea, only scientism excludes philosophical arguments not grounded in facts.

This is the man who has admitted multiple times that he will not change his faith no matter what the evidence points to

So, what? You can still be a Christian and not be convinced by the Kalam argument.

In short, NO facts will shake his religious presuppositions and yet you claim that Craig doesn't have a theological agenda.

Yea, the universe beginning to exist isn't a religious presupposition. And having an agenda doesn't invalidate the argument. You have an anti-theological bias, but I wouldn't say that automatically makes you wrong. You wrong, because your arguments are awful.

Come now! Craig is selectively misuses science to support his unwavering theological position come what may.

Why is it I hear crickets when I ask for specifics? Anyone?

The endless controversy and disagreement of all philosophers cautions us against accepting any of their arguments as knowledge.

Red herring. Address the arguments. Get to specifics.

And whether or not the quantum vacuum is past eternal is a matter for science to determine not metaphysics, because it is a question about the natural world.

Worst reason of all time . . . maybe. So, how in the world is science ever going to confirm that the vacuum is past-eternal, without doing a conceptual analysis of 'infinity', without discussing set theory, without discussing legitimate thought-experiments with infinite, and so on?

And the appropriate place to resolve questions about the natural world is with science.

Empirically, yes. Non-empirically, no. Science will never, can't ever, confirm, using its method, that the vacuum is past-eternal.

It doesn't violate Kalam's first premise, the plausible interpretations. That's the point.

More unsupported scientism.

Hence, you can't prove your conclusion that the universe absolutely had a beginning.

That word 'hence' isn't very appropriate. It's more like: hence, your conclusion doesn't follow because you have as yet to prove your snobby scientism.

A very charitable paraphrase.

and while it may be a seemingly solid argument in the context of the macroverse it does not necessarily apply to the counter-intuitive nature of Quantum Mechanics and the microverse. See above.

See above is a cop-out. You can't fudge the fact that none of what you're saying violates premise 1 of Kalam. See above.

Indeed! Science never makes infallible ex cathedra pronouncements as the pope's do.

The funda-literalist strikes again!

Scientific knowledge is always potentially falsifiable. Nevertheless, a scientific consensus is good indication that they are on the right track.

Or not?

No! An acknowledgement that science is a work in progress!

Yea, so is philosophy of religion/science! But you can use your gaps, but we can't use ours?

And, given that your metaphysical arguments are based upon the existing knowledge of the universe

What? They're based on the acknowledged metaphysical absurdities that would follow if an actual infinite would exist. The argument would be sound even if there were no universe.

and that this knowledge continues to evolve courtesy of science

And conceptual analysis of scientific concepts courtesy of philosophy allows science to evolve . . .

It is completely unacceptable that you break Paul Davies' quote into several, out of context, one-line sound-bites and then attempt to knock them off one-by-one.

Prove how I took him out of context! Who cares if the quote was broken up? How is what I said making meaning meaningless?

Need I remind you that Davies is one of the few physicists well disposed to your cause?

Yea, I'm persuaded by arguments. Your point? Cool! He disposed to my cause! That means I have to automatically agree with him? Maybe that works for weak-minded people, like . . . never mind.

Once again:

What a great argument! Oh wait. Never mind. Oh, and Craig discusses Hawking. Next! It's so fun not to get to specifics, isn't it?

Great descriptions! Fluid, poetic language! Any arguments? Nope.

Of course there are many as yet unresolved problems with such a scenario, there always are at the cutting-edge of science.

But hey! Don't worry, folks! You have FAITH that science will fill in those gaps one day!

But our universe emerging out of an infinite multiverse is increasingly being viewed in cosmology as the best explanation to the facts

Still waiting on specifics . . .

[shunyadragon]

The problem is selectively quoting one scientist to justify a religious agenda. There are many models and theorems in science is unethical. Nothing in Vilenkin's work indicates this is anything other than one of many models and theorems that may reach different conclusions, and many very valid ones do.

[JimL]

One of the unresolved problems Tass is that there is no actual physical evidence for any of this. So Craig is perfectly justified in assuming God, just as you are assuming nature.

There is no actual physical evidence seer, but direct physical evidence of the object itself doesn't mean that there is no evidence. In Einsteins GR there was no physical evidence of Black holes, but the theory predicted their existence, and we know they exist now only due to the nature of their effects which are observable. In Maxwell electromagnatism there was no physical evidence that we were awash in an ocean of electromagnetic fields but the theory predicted it. Science is replete with stories like this, where there is no direct evidence but the theory predicts it. So the two assumptions are not equally justified.

[Tassman]

One of the unresolved problems Tass is that there is no actual physical evidence for any of this. So Craig is perfectly justified in assuming God, just as you are assuming nature.

There was “no actual physical evidence” for the Higgs Boson either but, as so often in cosmology, it was predicted on the basis of existing knowledge and inference. As Jim correctly says, General Relativity predicted Black Holes long before they were discovered and even now we only know of their existence by their effects upon the surrounding galaxies. But there’s no doubting they exist. The same applies with Dark Matter and much of cosmology including very probably, multiverse theory.

[Tassman]

So, what's your point? If science can use philosophy, then why can't it use philosophy to find out that the universe isn't past-eternal? Isn't this what Ellis, Kirchner, and Stoeger (philosophers of science/cosmologists) are doing? I mean, I can name more if you want.

Philosophy cannot ascertain new truths about nature, merely expose and reformulate the truths contained in the existing models, theories and laws of nature. It may well reveal the established "truths" in a new light but they are not new truths per se.

And he agreed to a debate with Craig, why?

So...?

Who, as a qualified philosopher, quotes qualified scientists . . .

How? Still waiting on that one . . .

...and arrives at conclusions directly contrary to the very scientists he is quoting as the basis of his argument.

Nope. 'The universe began to exist' is theologically neutral. Nice try.

Ah, so the Kalam Cosmological argument is irrelevant. I see.

Still waiting on their arguments for this explanation. Still waiting on how they rebut Craig's arguments.



I don't know; why don't you ask all the scientists that have debated Craig? Oh yea, having an agenda doesn't invalidate the argument, for the zillionth time. Oh yea, only scientism excludes philosophical arguments not grounded in facts.

your habit of breaking a response into one-line sound-bites (not even complete sentences) taken out of context and attempting to refute the out of context sound-bites one-by-one. Interesting that you feel the need to adopt such tactics!

So, what? You can still be a Christian and not be convinced by the Kalam argument.



Yea, the universe beginning to exist isn't a religious presupposition. And having an agenda doesn't invalidate the argument. You have an anti-theological bias, but I wouldn't say that automatically makes you wrong. You wrong, because your arguments are awful.

Really! Then explain why most religions have a creation myth and why Craig is so big on The Kalam Cosmological Argument for a first cause?

Why is it I hear crickets when I ask for specifics? Anyone?



Red herring. Address the arguments. Get to specifics.



Worst reason of all time . . . maybe. So, how in the world is science ever going to confirm that the vacuum is past-eternal, without doing a conceptual analysis of 'infinity', without discussing set theory, without discussing legitimate thought-experiments with infinite, and so on?



Empirically, yes. Non-empirically, no. Science will never, can't ever, confirm, using its method, that the vacuum is past-eternal.

Argument from ignorance! Many scientists think they can. See below re scientific inference and predication upon existing knowledge and observation.

It doesn't violate Kalam's first premise, the plausible interpretations. That's the point.

More unsupported scientism.




That word 'hence' isn't very appropriate. It's more like: hence, your conclusion doesn't follow because you have as yet to prove your snobby scientism.

it does not follow the intuitive, rational logicality of Classical Mechanics upon which Classical philosophy is grounded.

A very charitable paraphrase.



See above is a cop-out. You can't fudge the fact that none of what you're saying violates premise 1 of Kalam. See above.

The funda-literalist strikes again!




Or not?




Yea, so is philosophy of religion/science! But you can use your gaps, but we can't use ours?

What? They're based on the acknowledged metaphysical absurdities that would follow if an actual infinite would exist. The argument would be sound even if there were no universe.

See above.

And conceptual analysis of scientific concepts courtesy of philosophy allows science to evolve . . .

Scientific knowledge evolves based upon new evidence gained from observation, inferences and testing those inferences against reality. Conversely, metaphysical arguments are based upon the existing knowledge of the universe, i.e. they're based upon the world-view of the day.

Prove how I took him out of context! Who cares if the quote was broken up? How is what I said making meaning meaningless?

By acknowledging that you are in fact breaking up the quotes into sound-bites, you are admitting to taking them out of their proper context.

Yea, I'm persuaded by arguments. Your point? Cool! He disposed to my cause! That means I have to automatically agree with him? Maybe that works for weak-minded people, like . . . never mind.

probably infinite

Once again:



What a great argument! Oh wait. Never mind. Oh, and Craig discusses Hawking. Next! It's so fun not to get to specifics, isn't it?



Great descriptions! Fluid, poetic language! Any arguments? Nope.



But hey! Don't worry, folks! You have FAITH that science will fill in those gaps one day!



Still waiting on specifics . . .

[seer]

There was “no actual physical evidence” for the Higgs Boson either but, as so often in cosmology, it was predicted on the basis of existing knowledge and inference. As Jim correctly says, General Relativity predicted Black Holes long before they were discovered and even now we only know of their existence by their effects upon the surrounding galaxies. But there’s no doubting they exist. The same applies with Dark Matter and much of cosmology including very probably, multiverse theory.

Yes, but we have actual physical evidence for Higgs Boson and Black Holes now. Theories are all very fine but without physical evidence they will forever remain merely concepts or ideas. So again until you have said evidence Craig is perfectly justified in assuming God. You certainly can assume nature, but it too remains an assumption.

And like I posted before the whole inflation/multiverse theory may be fundamentally flawed:

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf

[JimL]

Yes, but we have actual physical evidence for Higgs Boson and Black Holes now. Theories are all very fine but without physical evidence they will forever remain merely concepts or ideas. So again until you have said evidence Craig is perfectly justified in assuming God. You certainly can assume nature, but it too remains an assumption.

There is a difference though seer, theoretical predictions for the existence of black holes, the higgs, and now the multi-verse are not made up out of whole cloth, they are predicted by the science and are then discovered.

And like I posted before the whole inflation/multiverse theory may be fundamentally flawed:

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf

Inflation is still not fully understood which leaves room for disagreement among phycisists, but inflation is only one of the many theories that predict that our universe is only one of many universes born from out of an infinite Cosmos or non-zero vacuum if you like.