Atheism is unreasonable

[Esquilax]

If it can't happen in an analogy, then it can't happen in reality.

And you haven't established that it can't happen in either. You've just... said it a bunch, as though your incredulous exclamations count for anything.

Right, PRIOR to the big bang...which means that our universe had a beginning, which is what I've been arguing...it had a beginning, and therefore, it had a cause.

You realize that a singularity is not nothing, right? It is, in fact, something. One might be tempted to point out that, actually, it is everything. So, prior to the big bang, all the matter in the universe still existed, just compressed down to a hyper-dense point. Are you really attempting to argue that there was a beginning of our universe in which our universe already existed in a different state?

Your knowledge of this stuff is profoundly flawed; nowhere in the scientific models does it state that the big bang represented the beginning of our universe. For all we know, it could simply be a change in state from another form of being; all the big bang actually is is an expansion of local spacetime into our current universe. What lies beyond it is still a mystery, but you have no reason at all to declare that nothing at all lies beyond it.

I don't know about that. First off, I gave you a video where Vilenkin is presenting the theorem, and it seems pretty clear to me that he is advocating a finite universe. All of these quotes and stuff, I am not in the business of going back and checking references, because a lot of quotes are misquotes and are in fact down right deceitful...and I don't need quotes when I have a full video of Vilenkin explaining the theorem to an audience. Nothing else is needed.

Yeah, you completely misinterpreted that video. Did anyone else watch it? Did anyone else see the first three minutes, where Vilenkin states that one would need new physics prior to the boundary conditions of a past-finite universe? In other words, one would need new physics to describe what happens before the beginning of our universe? Does that sound like someone asserting a beginning of the universe, full stop? No, it sounds like exactly what I was fucking saying all along.

Vilenkin goes on to say a lot of other things that confirm what I've been saying and are mutually exclusive with what His_Majestic_Incompetence is saying, like, say "expansion is not really a property of spacetime, it is a property of a congruence of geodesics," meaning that universal expansion is not the same thing as the universe exclusively expanding. It's hardly surprising that you're oversimplifying things to your own advantage, that's what apologists do, but it's not going to work here.

Ok, and? He is saying that hypothetically speaking, the one major criterion that gives the theorem its juice could be violated...but so far, this hasn't happened and all known cosmological models that has been presented have failed. So right now, this theorem is what is happening in cosmology, and it's been over 10 years since the paper, and scientists have tried and tried...so far, NOTHING. The question is simple...what is the best evidence that we have as of TODAY which supports a finite universe...and so far its been the big bang, plus the BGV theorem...and you can add the philosophical problem against infinite regress, and you are left with one big problem for anyone advocating an infinite universe.

What did I just say, about oversimplifying things? You're just so desperate to throw infinity at me, despite what I'm actually saying. By now, it's just an outright lie. My point is that we don't know, as Vilenkin says, that we "don't even know what the right questions are," and furthermore I doubt I'm going to be trusting you, Mr "There is no fossil record," to detail the state of any scientific field to me. Might I just say how completely hypocritical it is of you to lean on (what you think is) science when it suits you, while throwing out any science that doesn't agree with what you already believe?

Damn an email, I have a VIDEO from Vilenkin himself.

A video in which he repeatedly says that one needs new physics once one gets to the boundary in universal inflation.

What? It was a freakin picture of Guth with Carroll narrating what Guth allegedly said. Why didn't he just have Guth do a short video (a 10-15 second snippet) saying exactly what Carroll quoted him as saying?? Bullcrap.

You can't argue with visual evidence, fool. Guth is right there on screen, literally holding the text of his answer. The fact that you (baselessly) decided that a mysterious something is wrong with it, that it doesn't live up to your randomly decided standards, doesn't mean a thing, other than that you'll dismiss whatever's convenient for you, for whatever reason you can scrabble to.

I have a video of him explaining the theorem. It is hard to take a 40 minute video of the theorem's implication of context. I posted the vid, and you haven't addressed it yet.

I have now: you're wrong about what he's talking about. Does that make you happy? Vilenkin even says, toward the end that his approach is to follow the universe back as far as he can using classical spacetime, whereupon he reaches a point where he can't follow any more, beyond which "it's not clear what happens."

Sure sounds like a person saying we don't know what happens prior to the universal inflation of the big bang to me.

Dishonesty? Please. You don't want to put a "large bet" on pretty much anything in science. The question is, according to the modern day cosmology, where does the evidence point...and as you just quoted Guth, he said to him, it probably did....and this was BEFORE the 2003 paper with Vilenkin and Borde.

He also said that the answer was inconclusive... which was the point I have been arguing for, through all your strawmen, since the very beginning.

For the 9th time...I posted a video of Vilenkin presenting the theorem and explaining why the theorem proves the second premise of the kalam.

Yeah, and you really fucked up when you did because the video absolutely does not confirm what you claim it does, as my quotes from it above demonstrate. You do this counting thing a lot during this post, it's clear you think you've got a real trump card here, so I want all the readers out there to remember just how proud His_Majestic_Ego is of this point, versus how badly it actually reflects what he wants to be true. The irony will be quite bracing.

Because inflation is a key component of an expanding universe, that's why...so when they make theories, the theory has to reflect the background knowledge that we have from other observations.

... Yes, and the reason the universe is expanding is because of the big bang, meaning that prior to that there would be no expansion, and the BGV theorem would no longer be discussing the universe, would it?

An obvious misrepresentation of the theory. When do they ever say "beginning of inflation' as opposed to "beginning of the universe". Wishful thinking...But, I can't blame you for that kind of false rendering. It must be hard knowing that a finite universe implies an external cause. That was Einstein's problem as well

They say it in the part that I quoted.

"Unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics"

In other words, "if "if" was a "fifth", we would all be drunk".

Fuck you. "If" and "unless" are entirely different words. For starters, science doesn't run on certainty, only on possibility; "if" is merely a part of the scientific lexicon when it comes to writing papers because declarative statements are easier to prove wrong with new information later. The fact is that you have no idea about even basic parts of the scientific method, as you've just shown.

But that's not the point, either. The point is that unless says something else entirely. It says that this condition needs to be avoided for what I quoted to be untrue, and it also says that at the time the BGV theorem was written, it was not avoided. Meaning that, when the BGV theorem was written, the quoted part, their chief conclusion, was something they could not avoid. I mean, it's interesting already that you'll dismiss what they wrote as their chief fucking conclusion as merely an "if," when obviously they didn't think so, to put it in such strong language, but the fact is that "unless" and "if" are not the same word, they mean different things, and simply pretending that they don't does not change the context of the quote I posted.

You are fucking wrong and you know it, that's why you just fled from this point with a glib little dismissal.

Ok, the 10th time...I have video of Vilenkin presenting the theorem and implying the finitude of the universe. The bottom line is, no model has come close to violating the one condition needed for the theorem to work, which is based on the average Hubble expansion being greater than 0.

And you misinterpreted that video.

Vilenkin already told Dr. Craig that he represented the theorem accurately.

I don't know why he did that, but that doesn't erase the rest of his writings either.

11th time. I have a 40 minute video of Vilenkin presenting the theorem and stating its implications to an audience.

So you don't have any response beyond your own flawed interpretation?

The word of God will prevail over any scientific opinion. But hey, that is just my opinion.

Maybe try demonstrating that god is real, else his words can't prevail over shit.

If there is anyone that is going to do some slapping, it will be me

The fact that you still think that is hilarious.