William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[YGninja]

(1) Its a mockery and a misrepresentation. You cannot deny it is not a misrepresentation because you have a: Used quotation marks, implying the words are his own & b: Admitted that those are not his words which you quoted.

If I admitted that those were not his exact words literally the next post I made after being spoken to about it, I can hardly be accused of seriously attempting to misrepresent Craig's position, can I? A real attempt at misrepresentation requires that I seriously try to sell my quote as Craig's actual position, which I didn't even attempt to do.

After being spoken to about it? So you admitted it once someone sussed you, is that what you're saying? You know that the most read post in any threat will be the OP. What you are doing is feeding a myth atheists propagate about Christianity and Christians.

(2) You are not answering the question, just sidestepping.

You asked me if I objected to the premise that everything begins to exist has a cause, and I answered you, detailing what my objections were. What more do you want? If you want to ask additional questions then fine, but don't pretend I didn't answer exactly what you asked me at the time.

You avoided the point by making a counter claim that the premise implies such a thing as something which exists uncaused. This is what you object to, but not the premise itself, apparently, which you still havn't addressed.
As for your objection, it has no grounds because you've made no case for an infinite regression. If you hold that nothing can exist uncaused, you need to make that case. If you can't make a case for infinite regression, something must exist uncaused.

Does everything which begins to exist have a cause? Are you aware of anything which began to exist, which does not have a cause, or even any argument describing how something could begin to exist without a cause?

Are you aware of anything that began to exist at all? Everything that exists today is a reformatting of pre-existing materials; we've literally never seen ex nihilo beginning to exist, period.

Absolutely, I began to exist, you began to exist, a tree began to exist, any sound begins to exist, any feeling begins to exist, the vast majority of scientists believe the universe began to exist, and with it all matter and energy. You've not answered the question though, to describe why i should believe anything can begin to exist without a cause.

Speaking of sidestepping, though, you've apparently chosen to ignore my objection that Kalam's "begins to exist" language doesn't establish the existence of a category for things that didn't begin to exist, which is the main objection I had with the implication. Kalam is kind of a non-starter if you can't establish that other category; you might be tempted to say that a non-caused thing must exist to start the chain, but there's an alternative to that. I've often posited, as a hypothetical, a cyclical series of causes, each one a direct mirror of the one before it, where one leads to the other, which promptly reverses until it causes the first again... There's really no reason to take Kalam's false dichotomy as seriously as it wants us to.

I did, as above. Is your theory regarded by scientists are more likely than the universe having a beginning?

As for what you feel is implied, that something can exist without a cause, do you have any argument against something which necessarily exists? Something must, surely, necessarily exist from which everything else came, otherwise you are implying an infinite regress exists, which you've given no supporting argument for.

Are you often in the business of shifting the burden of proof to cover for your unjustified assertions? I'm not going to play that game, nor do I need to imply an infinite regress; I'm quite comfortable just admitting that neither of us know the answer to that question yet. Seeing that you haven't supported your claims does not entail I take up the exact opposite position.

We're dealing with likelihoods here, what is most reasonable. Its true that neither of us know, but we can discuss where the evidence leads - to a beginning of the universe and a necessarily existing prime mover.

(3) That the universe began to exist is the leading scientific opinion.

" It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)." - A.Vilenkin, perhaps the worlds most prominent cosmologist.

Have you read the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem? I have- and not coincidentally I'm also familiar with Vilenkin's correspondence with WLC, too- and there's a subtle distinction here that you're missing. Vilenkin's own work only establishes that our current expansionary models of the universe require a cosmic beginning, not all models everywhere, and that the beginning he's talking about is a beginning to expansion, not to the universe as a whole. In fact, Vilenkin's own paper concludes that at some point, our understanding of the universe breaks down, and we require new physics to discuss whatever else is beyond that point; this point is the beginning of universal expansion, but this is not the same thing as a beginning to the universe as a whole:

Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20]. This is the chief result of our paper.

You see? The "chief result" of the paper is that we need new physics to describe what happens at the edge of universal expansion, not that it means the universe had a beginning. Alan Guth, who co-wrote that paper, came out and said exactly that for Sean Carroll- another physicist- in his debate with Craig, and Vilenkin has also come on record as stating that an answer to whether his theorem states that the universe had a beginning, if one is willing to entertain the subtleties of the theorem, is no.

Moreover, Vilenkin also doesn't think that the universe had an external cause, as WLC attempts to address in his review of the very source you cited yourself. Vilenkin is a favorite of theist apologists, because his views are subtle, and can easily be misinterpreted to support one thing, when in fact they support the opposite, as a number of unambiguous quotes from the man attest to. Incidentally, Vilenkin also dismisses the idea that his views can be used to support the god conclusion, which is precisely what you and WLC are attempting to do, so...

1: My claim was that the most ascribed models of the universe posit a beginning, and you've just confirmed it. I am not saying the universe certainly began, or that there aren't other possibilities, but we're looking at weights of evidence here and deciding what is most reasonable.
2: The chief result of the paper is irrelevant, as it was established to a large extent prior to its publishing that the universe -probably- began to exist.
3: Guth didn't "say" anything, he held a board up, if i remember correctly, and Craig was unable to look for clarification because it was prerecorded.
4: "[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."
5: You say "Vilenkin dismisses the idea that his views can be used to support the God conclusion", but again you are misrepresenting, because the actual quote from your own source is:

"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian"

"Does not give much of an advantage", is far from "does not support the God conclusion". It would be more accurate to infer from that source that Vilenkin does indeed believe the findings support the God conclusion, as he implies it gives them a slight advantage, it merely shouldn't be taken as proof, aka confirmation of God.

(4) Mostly covered in (3), however, the cause of something which begins to exist, cannot be the thing itself, because otherwise you are saying that it existed before it existed, and i don't think any more needs to be said on how absurd that idea is.

If that thing is the universe, and spacetime is a property that necessarily requires the universe to exist in, then there is no "before" for the universe to exist within prior to its own creation.

Excluding "before" then, you are saying "it created itself from itself" which is equally paradoxical.

(5) The vast majority of scientists agree that time began at the birth of the universe. If you want to postulate some kind of universe within a universe or multiverse type theory, 1: You've got no evidence for such a thing, 2: You are killing occums razor, 3: You would only succeed in pushing the problem of the prime moving first cause back. The premises are justified, your objections aren't.

So, first of all, Vilenkin is a proponent of the multiverse hypothesis, so which is it: is Vilenkin's expertise worth considering or not? In fact, your initial citation of his comes from a whole book where he does nothing but explore the evidence for a multiverse; your first and second claims are bunk.

Secondly, again, I'm not required to take any position at all, in order to tell you that what you're arguing lacks justification and is fallacious. In the absence of an alternative, your fiat assertions about Kalam do not become true by default; the truth is that neither of us has sufficient justification to make the declarative statements that you are.

Vilenkin is a proponent of the multiverse hypothesis, because he is a scientist. Science always assumes an infinite chain of cause and effect, although it has no grounds to do so. You've not presented any evidence for the multiverse, because there isn't any. Fine tuning is taken to be evidence of a multiverse, if you have apriori concluded that naturalism is all that exists, as scientsits working in their field have to do.

Secondly, your position is that i am wrong, but you've provided no good argument.

(6) I didn't see and still can't find your "what if you went back in time and saw the resurrection was a lie?" argument.

That's cool, I have it here: As it says here, Craig's answer can be found in two places, years apart, after being asked the same question by two distinct individuals.

WLC doesn't give this as an argument for Christian theism, it is used to assure Christians, the actual experience of something is such strong evidence in itself, it defeats other evidence. He is not actually claiming that if all the evidence says Christian theism is untrue, he would still be a Christian, because his experience is evidence, and in balance that evidence trumps purported evidence from other sources.

"The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel. Only the ministerial use of reason can be allowed. ... Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." (p. 36) Reasonable Faith, WLC.

You can't defend this kind of attitude. It is, pure and simple, a presupposition: "I'll believe in god no matter what you say!"

But its not just "i'll believe in God no matter what you say!", it is "I believe in God because of the evidence of the Holy Spirit within me, which trumps whatever you can tell me."

[quote] One more time, you are changing the subject. "tell that to all other religions...." isn't an argument, its a diversion. What is experienced can be rationally preferred to putative objections.

You think everything is a diversion, but it says more about your own ignorance than it does my argument, because you've missed the point every time you've dismissed what I'm saying as diversionary. Personal experience cannot be rationally preferred to actual evidence, because personal experience does not necessarily lead one to true conclusions, as my example of other religions shows. The practitioners of other religions claim personal experience with gods that Craig claims not to exist, meaning that we now have two sets of personal experience that are in direct conflict; they can't both be true, which means that in at least the majority of the cases, personal experience cannot be rationally preferred over evidence, as that personal experience is false, whereas the evidence is true.

I agree that experience isn't necessarily true, but neither is exterior evidence. Look at all of the fraudulent evidence for evolution which has been presented over the years, starting from Haeckel's drawings to Piltdown man and onwards. Inner experience trumps such 'evidence', and rightly so.
Your example doesn't have any point, yes, one experience must be wrong, but there are plenty of examples of contradictory scientific hypothesis, each with their own set of evidence, and one of those must be wrong too. You don't deny both sets of evidence merely because they are contradictory, likewise you cannot dismiss personal experience of all religions merely because not all of them can be true.

[Natachan]

Absolutely, I began to exist, you began to exist, a tree began to exist, any sound begins to exist, any feeling begins to exist, the vast majority of scientists believe the universe began to exist, and with it all matter and energy. You've not answered the question though, to describe why i should believe anything can begin to exist without a cause.

Nice sidestepping. That isn't what was meant. A tree doesn't begin to exist out of nothing. It is a reconstitution of existing matter and energy. Same with people. You did not come to be out of nothing. You were formed from existing proteins that were reorganized to form you.

And as to the vast majority of scientist believing the universe began to exist, the jury is still out. Some believe that. Some data indicates a past-infinite universe (I like that theory).

And yes, things DO pop in and out of existence without apparent cause. It happens all the time on the quantum scale. It's now fairly well researched and documented.

We're dealing with likelihoods here, what is most reasonable. Its true that neither of us know, but we can discuss where the evidence leads - to a beginning of the universe and a necessarily existing prime mover.

I'm going to for the moment pretend I accept the premise that the universe had a finite beginning. Now I'm going to ask the question that pisses off all my teachers when they say something must be so (ask a differential equTions teacher this, it's funny). Why is there a necessarily existing prime mover? What reason do you have for this? Why must this force have intent? Why must this thing exist? And "because I say so" is not a valid response.

But its not just "i'll believe in God no matter what you say!", it is "I believe in God because of the evidence of the Holy Spirit within me, which trumps whatever you can tell me."

A question I've asked theists on here before and have received no good reaponse is, how do you know this experience of the Holy Spirit is credible? How do you differentiate it from hallucination or self-delusion? Both of these are extremely powerful and not to be taken lightly.

[Esquilax]

After being spoken to about it? So you admitted it once someone sussed you, is that what you're saying? You know that the most read post in any threat will be the OP. What you are doing is feeding a myth atheists propagate about Christianity and Christians.

Oh, fuck off, you legalistic little shit.

You know exactly what I'm saying, stop trying to force nefarious intent into everything I say. Misrepresentation requires representation, and the moment someone brought up what I'd said I'd made it clear that it wasn't a literal representation. How is it a misrepresentation if I'd made it clear it wasn't at the first fucking step?

To be clear, if you insist on this, you're saying that you know more about what I was thinking than I do, and if you actually think that's true, then you're being little more than a presumptuous ass, and I don't see why I need to take your claims of telepathy seriously at all.

You avoided the point by making a counter claim that the premise implies such a thing as something which exists uncaused. This is what you object to, but not the premise itself, apparently, which you still havn't addressed.

I addressed it last time, that we haven't seen anything beginning to exist at all. And the first time, for that matter; it's either a distinction without a difference, if you're insisting that it doesn't imply the existence of a secondary category, or it's an unjustified assertion if it does. So which is it? Is the premise pointless, or unjustified?

Oh, and also? The premise is itself an assertion, since it doesn't establish that everything that begins to exist has a cause. And it's arguably a false assertion anyway, since virtual particles come into existence without a cause.

As for your objection, it has no grounds because you've made no case for an infinite regression. If you hold that nothing can exist uncaused, you need to make that case. If you can't make a case for infinite regression, something must exist uncaused.

False dichotomy: simply demanding that only two categories exist doesn't make it so. Again, nor is your unjustified assertion the default simply because you say so. Do you know anything at all about how logic and argumentation work?

Absolutely, I began to exist, you began to exist, a tree began to exist, any sound begins to exist, any feeling begins to exist, the vast majority of scientists believe the universe began to exist, and with it all matter and energy. You've not answered the question though, to describe why i should believe anything can begin to exist without a cause.

Oh, and now you're not listening.

You and I didn't begin to exist, we are new formats for pre-existing matter. Trees too. Sounds are pre-existing energy expressed via our vocal cords. Feelings are neurochemicals brought on by environmental stimuli, and both parts of that equation are pre-existing. The vast majority of scientists believe no such thing, in fact recently proposed models don't feature a beginning at all. Stop thinking your assertions become truth, just because you say them. We have never seen matter, energy, or anything come into existence from nothing.

I did, as above. Is your theory regarded by scientists are more likely than the universe having a beginning?

We get it, you misunderstand what scientists say. You don't need to keep repeating it.

We're dealing with likelihoods here, what is most reasonable. Its true that neither of us know, but we can discuss where the evidence leads - to a beginning of the universe and a necessarily existing prime mover.

Assertion, assertion, assertion. I know we're discussing this probabilistically, and the fact of the matter is, if you read the science with a view toward nuance and not simply confirming what you already believe, you will see that the "beginning" is little more than a beginning to expansion, and beyond that point our language and notions of physics aren't adequate to describe it.

1: My claim was that the most ascribed models of the universe posit a beginning, and you've just confirmed it. I am not saying the universe certainly began, or that there aren't other possibilities, but we're looking at weights of evidence here and deciding what is most reasonable.

I confirmed your claim that the science generally ascribes a beginning to the universe, by providing evidence that shows that the scientist you cited in support of that claim doesn't think that his research supports the idea that the universe has a beginning? The scientist that you yourself said was renowned in the field? Why would you think that? Are you insane?

2: The chief result of the paper is irrelevant, as it was established to a large extent prior to its publishing that the universe -probably- began to exist.

So on the one hand you hold up Vilenkin as support for your position, but then you dismiss Vilenkin's actual work as irrelevant the moment that it disagrees with you? Hypocrite much?

3: Guth didn't "say" anything, he held a board up, if i remember correctly, and Craig was unable to look for clarification because it was prerecorded.

Guth's answer was unambiguous: "I don't know if the universe had a beginning." Regardless of the format it came in, you can hardly claim that this means that he does know that the universe had a beginning.

4: "[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."

So you're basically saying you want us to take the simplistic route, rather than the accurate one that includes nuance? Says a lot about your position.

5: You say "Vilenkin dismisses the idea that his views can be used to support the God conclusion", but again you are misrepresenting, because the actual quote from your own source is:

"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian"

"Does not give much of an advantage", is far from "does not support the God conclusion". It would be more accurate to infer from that source that Vilenkin does indeed believe the findings support the God conclusion, as he implies it gives them a slight advantage, it merely shouldn't be taken as proof, aka confirmation of God.

"Is it proof of the existence of god? This view would be far too simplistic."

Why is it you're so insistent that we take the simplistic view on every issue?

Excluding "before" then, you are saying "it created itself from itself" which is equally paradoxical.

Yeah, our temporal language isn't equipped to deal with a pre-expansion universe; stuff was weird back then, and essentially unpredictable to our current methods. We are going to reach weird paradoxical statements at every turn, simply by dint of the way our language and understanding of time work. That's why I'm pretty comfortable admitting that we just aren't there yet; unlike you, Craig and Kalam, I prefer to be honest about things.

Vilenkin is a proponent of the multiverse hypothesis, because he is a scientist. Science always assumes an infinite chain of cause and effect, although it has no grounds to do so.

So when you think you can twist the science to fit what you already believe, science is a trustworthy source of information, but the moment it diverges from what you believe, suddenly it's this baseless tangle of assumptions. So... essentially just whatever will get you to your pre-drawn conclusion, then?

You've not presented any evidence for the multiverse, because there isn't any. Fine tuning is taken to be evidence of a multiverse, if you have apriori concluded that naturalism is all that exists, as scientsits working in their field have to do.

Fine tuning doesn't exist, and I'm under no obligation to defend a position I don't hold, regardless of whatever simplistic binary you insist is a feature of all argumentation.

Secondly, your position is that i am wrong, but you've provided no good argument.

No, my position is that your claims are unjustified, and this is plenty evidenced by the self serving, hypocritical nature of your amateurish attempts to support them.

WLC doesn't give this as an argument for Christian theism, it is used to assure Christians, the actual experience of something is such strong evidence in itself, it defeats other evidence. He is not actually claiming that if all the evidence says Christian theism is untrue, he would still be a Christian, because his experience is evidence, and in balance that evidence trumps purported evidence from other sources.

He claimed that if the basis of the christian religion, the claim that Jesus Christ was the son of god and resurrected from the dead, was proven to be false, he would still believe. He literally said that. The question was, if christianity was proven false, would you still be a christian, and Craig said he would. No amount of wriggling is going to change that fact: he said that if he could watch Jesus not rise from the dead (in other words, if he could experience that not happening) he would still believe that it did. Craig was asked a question about whether that experience would change his mind, and he said it wouldn't; I don't know why you're still trying to spin this as though Craig advocates for the accuracy of personal experience. His answer literally revolves around dismissing personal experience where it conflicts with his presuppositions.

But its not just "i'll believe in God no matter what you say!", it is "I believe in God because of the evidence of the Holy Spirit within me, which trumps whatever you can tell me."

See above. You keep avoiding this point, most likely because you have no answer for it.

I agree that experience isn't necessarily true, but neither is exterior evidence. Look at all of the fraudulent evidence for evolution which has been presented over the years, starting from Haeckel's drawings to Piltdown man and onwards. Inner experience trumps such 'evidence', and rightly so.

Your claims with regards to evolution are bullshit, misrepresented and exaggerated by creationists in ways that do not match up with what actually happened.

Second of all, evidence points to one thing: the truth. Our ability to properly interpret the evidence, or realize when we don't have complete evidence, is what is in question, but actual evidence points one way only. Of the two, evidence and personal experience, the former is correct more often than the latter, something that numerous studies into the efficacy of eyewitness accounts attest to.

Your example doesn't have any point, yes, one experience must be wrong, but there are plenty of examples of contradictory scientific hypothesis, each with their own set of evidence, and one of those must be wrong too. You don't deny both sets of evidence merely because they are contradictory, likewise you cannot dismiss personal experience of all religions merely because not all of them can be true.

If one thing is right, and the other is wrong, we need some way to determine that. You can't appeal to personal experience to justify personal experience; if you did that you'd get a shouting match of a bunch of people essentially saying "because I said so!" over and over. The way you confirm personal experience is by confirming that it matches with objective reality, not just by re-asserting that the experience is what it is.

Your inability to understand logic and basic epistemology is breathtaking. Dunning and Kruger would be proud.

[Cyberman]

I tell you what I find breathtaking; in fact it really pisses me off, probably more than it should but never mind. It's when presups and similar literalists make accusations of being represented unfairly, that we haven't bothered to research their arguments or position, then do precisely that themselves by tossing out random references to "evolutionist hoaxes" that they picked up from Kent Hovind videos. It would be laughable if it wasn't so egregious.

[Mudhammam]

We're dealing with likelihoods here, what is most reasonable. Its true that neither of us know, but we can discuss where the evidence leads - to a beginning of the universe and a necessarily existing prime mover.

Even if someone were to grant your cute little exercise in Aristotelian logic as both valid and sound, can you stop throwing "necessarily existing prime mover" around like you have any fucking clue what such a combination of words even mean in actuality?

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you can't make a case for infinite regression, something must exist uncaused.

Out of the massive shitpile that is your post, I choose to focus on this statement, because it demonstrates in one sentence exactly how simple-minded and didactic you are.

Clearly you've forgotten the third answer: "I don't know". Or, perhaps, you cannot bring yourself to admit it.

It may well be the case that we will never know what occurred in the mists of time. That does not mean that you can plump an internally incoherent story which beggars logic, physics, and morality, and name it the truth, simply because no one can refute it.

There's an invisible dragon in my garage.

[robvalue]

Can you send him home? I've been looking for him. I accidentally left the metaphysical door open at night.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You've not presented any evidence for the multiverse, because there isn't any.

Oh, I almost missed this one. Read 'em and weep, Charlie:

"It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously."

Other researchers agreed on the link between inflation and the multiverse.

"In most of the models of inflation, if inflation is there, then the multiverse is there," Stanford University theoretical physicist Andrei Linde, who wasn't involved in the new study, said at the same news conference. "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow [a] multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real."

http://www.space.com/25100-multiverse-co...waves.html

Is our universe merely one of billions? Evidence of the existence of 'multiverse' revealed for the first time by a cosmic map of background radiation data gathered by Planck telescope. This past week, the first 'hard evidence' that other universes exist has been claimed to have been found by cosmologists studying the Planck data. They have concluded that it shows anomalies that can only have been caused by the gravitational pull of other universes.

"Such ideas may sound wacky now, just like the Big Bang theory did three generations ago," says George Efstathiou, professor of astrophysics at Cambridge University."But then we got evidence and now it has changed the whole way we think about the universe."
Scientists had predicted that it should be evenly distributed, but the map shows a stronger concentration in the south half of the sky and a 'cold spot' that cannot be explained by current understanding of physics. Laura Mersini-Houghton, theoretical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Richard Holman, professor at Carnegie Mellon University, predicted that anomalies in radiation existed and were caused by the pull from other universes in 2005. Mersini-Houghton will be in Britain soon promoting this theory and, we expect, the hard evidence at the Hay Festival on May 31 and at Oxford on June 11.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...dence.html

(PhysOrg.com) -- By looking far out into space and observing what’s going on there, scientists have been led to theorize that it all started with a Big Bang, immediately followed by a brief period of super-accelerated expansion called inflation. Perhaps this was the beginning of everything, but lately a few scientists have been wondering if something could have come before that, setting up the initial conditions for the birth of our universe.
In the most recent study on pre-Big Bang science posted at arXiv.org, a team of researchers from the UK, Canada, and the US, Stephen M. Feeney, et al, have revealed that they have discovered four statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The researchers think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes. If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist.
The idea that there are many other universes out there is not new, as scientists have previously suggested that we live in a “multiverse” consisting of an infinite number of universes. The multiverse concept stems from the idea of eternal inflation, in which the inflationary period that our universe went through right after the Big Bang was just one of many inflationary periods that different parts of space were and are still undergoing. When one part of space undergoes one of these dramatic growth spurts, it balloons into its own universe with its own physical properties. As its name suggests, eternal inflation occurs an infinite number of times, creating an infinite number of universes, resulting in the multiverse.

http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-...erses.html

There is more evidence for the multiverse model than there is for your god. Will you follow it, or will you pull a Craig, plug your ears, and shout "LALALALALALALALALALALALA" for everyone to hear?

---

Can you send him home? I've been looking for him. I accidentally left the metaphysical door open at night.

Hell no. He keeps the gremlins away.

[Esquilax]

I tell you what I find breathtaking; in fact it really pisses me off, probably more than it should but never mind. It's when presups and similar literalists make accusations of being represented unfairly, that we haven't bothered to research their arguments or position, then do precisely that themselves by tossing out random references to "evolutionist hoaxes" that they picked up from Kent Hovind videos. It would be laughable if it wasn't so egregious.

Well, you can hardly expect theists to understand what they're talking about, that'd be an absurd imposition on their brains!

That's why I keep that AronRa video handy, since it explains the creationist favorite Piltdown Man within the first few minutes, and handily also deals with Haeckel within the first few seconds. The actual history behind these things is pretty interesting, so as usual the theist is missing out on a real story in favor of pointing at a simplified, exaggerated fake one.

I would be interested in finding out where YGNinja got his "information" about Piltdown and Haeckel; for all his pretensions to intellectual rigor it's impossible that he got it from an unbiased source, since they would have represented the history realistically. It's just a matter of picking which creationist, now. Ham, possibly? Hovind seems too derpy, even for this guy. Did WLC ever dabble in lying about biology?

Oh, I almost missed this one. Read 'em and weep, Charlie:

I did something similar to this, reminding the dude that Vilenkin accepts the multiverse theory, and you posted citations from Guth; between us, we have two thirds of the people who wrote the papers that YGNinja is relying on in his case that the universe had a beginning. Astoundingly, the same scientists that he relies on at one point, he dismissed out of hand regarding the multiverse; I guess they're only reliable sources when they're saying what he wants them to say.

[Thumpalumpacus]

His shittery reads a lot like Henry Morris, to my eyes.