(April 15, 2016 at 4:32 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 1:51 pm)LostLocke Wrote: I was only arguing about the use of the word 'nothing'. It was others who were talking about a 'universe from nothing'.

Where does gold come from?

Gold is unicorn poop, right?

(April 15, 2016 at 6:39 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 6:26 am)SteveII Wrote: A couple of things. The multiverse hypothesis does not avoid a beginning. The multiverse is inflationary and must have a boundary at some time in the past.

Don't confuse actual infinity with potential infinity. You can always add  1 more and you never get to infinity.

This is NOT the viewpoint of modern physicists and/or cosmologists who hold to actual infinities being a physical possibility.  Both Craig and you are wrong on this point.  You can listen to Sean Carroll discuss actual infinities, both in space and in time, right here:

http://www.closertotruth.com/contributor...ll/profile

The mathematical meaning of the term "actual" in actual infinity is synonymous with definite, completed, extended or existential,[1] but not to be mistaken for physically existing. The question of whether natural or real numbers form definite sets is therefore independent of the question of whether infinite things exist physically in nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity 

Are you saying that physicists believe there to be actual infinite quantities of anything (objects or events) in the physical world?

(April 15, 2016 at 6:09 am)SteveII Wrote: So you can't find a place in the debate transcript where Craig did not know what Carroll was talking about. LOL, and you love to start the "oh how we hate WLC and here's why" threads and you can't come up with an example!! 

I can. Why can't you?

My favorite moment in that debate, and the one most emblematic of the issue you're trying to pretend doesn't exist in order to prematurely do your touchdown dance, is when Craig goes up and says that the universe had a beginning, and that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem supports this view. Carroll responds not only by explaining what the theorem actually means (and having read it myself, I can say that yes, Craig severely mischaracterizes it because, yes, he doesn't know what he's talking about) but by bringing in Alan Guth himself, one of the writers of the paper, to set the record straight and state that his work does not indicate what Craig asserts it does, and that he himself believes the universe is most likely eternal. Craig, having been proven wrong but unable to admit this, dismisses Guth's statements as just his personal opinion. So not only does Craig clearly not know what he's on about, he's also employing a dishonest double standard: when Guth's work appears to comport with what he already believes, Craig considers Guth to be an adequate source. When Guth's work does not do this, then it doesn't matter what he thinks.

In fact, here's a six-and-a-half minute compilation of moments where Craig shows he doesn't know the science, and Carroll has to correct him... only for Craig to not give up his bullshit, even when corrected by an actual scientist:





Now, you clearly place a lot of credence on academics and degrees, since you bring up Craig's so emphatically: given this, surely you recognize Carroll's clear advantage in discussing physics and cosmology, since Carroll is himself a PhD with more than 20 years of experience in that field? And since you seem to accept that trained professionals in the field know more about that field, wouldn't you then have to admit that Craig's refusal to give up his flawed conceptualizations of the science, even when corrected by an actual scientist in that area, is profoundly bad form?

(April 15, 2016 at 6:31 am)SteveII Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 11:08 pm)Evie Wrote: Dr Craig is a liar?

Yup.

But at least he's not a lair.

Except no one showed he was remotely lying about anything. Oh, wait. It's okay to make and then accept statements like that if as long as we aim them at the hated WLC.

Lol. All he does is misrepresent his opponent and make fallacies, but he's not stupid. He knows exactly what he is doing. He does it on purpose.

Kids, it's okay to lie as long as it's for Jesus

(April 15, 2016 at 11:12 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 6:09 am)SteveII Wrote: So you can't find a place in the debate transcript where Craig did not know what Carroll was talking about. LOL, and you love to start the "oh how we hate WLC and here's why" threads and you can't come up with an example!! 

I can. Why can't you?

My favorite moment in that debate, and the one most emblematic of the issue you're trying to pretend doesn't exist in order to prematurely do your touchdown dance, is when Craig goes up and says that the universe had a beginning, and that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem supports this view. Carroll responds not only by explaining what the theorem actually means (and having read it myself, I can say that yes, Craig severely mischaracterizes it because, yes, he doesn't know what he's talking about) but by bringing in Alan Guth himself, one of the writers of the paper, to set the record straight and state that his work does not indicate what Craig asserts it does, and that he himself believes the universe is most likely eternal. Craig, having been proven wrong but unable to admit this, dismisses Guth's statements as just his personal opinion. So not only does Craig clearly not know what he's on about, he's also employing a dishonest double standard: when Guth's work appears to comport with what he already believes, Craig considers Guth to be an adequate source. When Guth's work does not do this, then it doesn't matter what he thinks.

In fact, here's a six-and-a-half minute compilation of moments where Craig shows he doesn't know the science, and Carroll has to correct him... only for Craig to not give up his bullshit, even when corrected by an actual scientist:

Now, you clearly place a lot of credence on academics and degrees, since you bring up Craig's so emphatically: given this, surely you recognize Carroll's clear advantage in discussing physics and cosmology, since Carroll is himself a PhD with more than 20 years of experience in that field? And since you seem to accept that trained professionals in the field know more about that field, wouldn't you then have to admit that Craig's refusal to give up his flawed conceptualizations of the science, even when corrected by an actual scientist in that area, is profoundly bad form?

First, regarding your favorite part, WLC, says "...all of the models that Dr. Carroll has mentioned have been shown to be either untenable or not to avert the beginning of the universe.[24] Alex Vilenkin says flatly, “there are no models at this time that give a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.”[25] footnoted as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

and later on... "Dr. Carroll does hold out hope that quantum cosmology might serve to restore the past eternality of the universe; but I would say that not only is there no evidence for such a hope, but I would agree with Vilenkin that if there is a quantum gravity regime prior to the Planck Time, then that just is the beginning of the universe. 

So when we come to your favorite part with Alan Guth, what does he say: “I don’t know whether the universe had a beginning. I suspect the universe didn’t have a beginning. It’s very likely eternal but nobody knows.” what is he really saying. That his theorum avoids a beginning? (no) That he considers the quantum gravity regime prior to Planck time to be eternal? (perhaps) That he realizes that the question cannot be answered by science? (possibly). 

"Dr. Carroll says you can have quantum descriptions of the universe that are eternal, and that is certainly true, but the question is: why would the universe transition to classical spacetime just 13 billion years ago? It could not have existed from infinity past in an unstable quantum state and then just 13 billion years ago transition to classical spacetime. It would have done it from eternity past, if at all."



Additionally, WLC also reviewed the transcripts and summarized it this way: 

Let’s sum up this portion of the debate. The causal premiss

1. If the universe began to exist, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.

does not presuppose any particular analysis of the causal relation but was deliberately formulated to be as neutral as possible in that regard. So Carroll’s charge that it assumes an Aristotelian concept of causation (the tenability of which remains moot) is vacuous.

(1) is also consistent, as Carroll comes to admit, with the universe’s being self-contained in the sense that a complete physical description of the universe can be given at any time t. So Carroll’s repudiation of a transcendent cause on the basis of the completeness of physics is gratuitous.

I have offered three arguments in support of (1). First, it is grounded by an obvious metaphysical first principle that something cannot come into being from nothing. If Carroll’s naturalism requires him to flout this principle, then his view, being worse than magic, heartily deserves the incredulous stare. In the end, however, Carroll, by adopting a tenseless theory of time according to which beginning-to-exist does not imply coming-into-being, does not, in fact, flout this first principle. Given this first principle, a tensed theory of time is sufficient for (1). The question then for Carroll becomes two-fold: (i) what justification can he offer for a tenseless theory of time, and (ii) is (1) true even on a tenseless theory, that is, is a tensed theory of time merely a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition for (1)? Those questions remain to be addressed.

Second, if something can come into being without a cause, then it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything does not do so. Carroll might try to avoid this argument by appealing once again to a tenseless theory of time. But it is not evident that this argument will not also work even on a tenseless theory. One may simply re-phrase it to remove any reference to temporal becoming: if something can begin to exist without a cause, then it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything does not do so.

Third, we have overwhelming inductive evidence in support of (1). Carroll’s attempt to subvert this inductive inference by pointing out that two features of immanent events, namely, their being temporally embedded and explicable in terms of natural law, do not apply in the case of the universe’s beginning to exist fails to show that these features are necessary conditions of the requirement of causal explanation. Indeed, it is unintelligible why being located at a first moment of time and being naturally inexplicable would enable an event to occur without a cause. A common condition shared by both immanent events and an initial cosmic event is beginning to exist, and it is this commonly shared condition that is plausibly sufficient for the need of causal explanation. Hence, the inductive inference goes through.

So we have good grounds for affirming (1), whereas Carroll’s proffered defeaters of (1) are either inconclusive or outright failures.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/some-refl...z45v3y1x9O

(April 15, 2016 at 2:06 pm)SteveII Wrote: First, regarding your favorite part, WLC, says "...all of the models that Dr. Carroll has mentioned have been shown to be either untenable or not to avert the beginning of the universe.[24] Alex Vilenkin says flatly, “there are no models at this time that give a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.”[25] footnoted as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A

Which is an argument from ignorance, for one, and also irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem does not support the idea that the universe had a beginning. That's not even a conclusion that it countenances. Have you read it? I have: the "chief conclusion" of the paper is that beyond a certain point in time, our ability to describe spacetime in a classical sense breaks down, which is something Carroll points out to correct WLC. The BGV theorem concludes that what's required is a new set of physical laws and lexicon to describe what goes on beyond that point, which is something we haven't developed yet, let alone even developed the technology by which we could detect the observations we'd need to begin on that score.

The conclusions of the paper match the current scientific consensus: not that the universe has a beginning, but that we don't know, and are not currently equipped to know. What we can conclude is that, after a specific point on the timeline, we are no longer safe in applying models reflective of the universe we can observe, to the universe that was. Craig is, quite simply, misrepresenting the theorem by asserting that it even suggests that the universe definitively had a beginning, and you can do what Craig has done, and say that all of Carrol's models don't work, but to assert that because Carrol cannot provide an alternative Craig's bald assertion that isn't reflected in the paper must be true is an argument from ignorance, which Craig as a philosopher should definitely have been able to spot, and probably would have, had it not confirmed what he wants to be true.

Vilenkin, by the way, is also speaking about classical spacetime models- the only ones we have enough data to create workable theorems around- when he talks about the beginning of the universe, which is a subtle distinction but an important one that Craig is overly, suspiciously willing to gloss over when he talks about it: Vilenkin talks about our current, expansionary universe, and Craig wrongly interprets this to mean reality as a whole, which it doesn't. Universal expansion began at the Big Bang, a point in time beyond which our understanding breaks down, but the beginning of the expansion is not the same thing as the beginning of the universe as a whole, and Vilenkin, as demonstrated in the conclusions of his work with Borde and Guth, is not willing to speculate beyond that point. So... no, you're wrong on every point, here.

Quote:and later on... "Dr. Carroll does hold out hope that quantum cosmology might serve to restore the past eternality of the universe; but I would say that not only is there no evidence for such a hope, but I would agree with Vilenkin that if there is a quantum gravity regime prior to the Planck Time, then that just is the beginning of the universe. 

So when we come to your favorite part with Alan Guth, what does he say: “I don’t know whether the universe had a beginning. I suspect the universe didn’t have a beginning. It’s very likely eternal but nobody knows.” what is he really saying. That his theorum avoids a beginning? (no) That he considers the quantum gravity regime prior to Planck time to be eternal? (perhaps) That he realizes that the question cannot be answered by science? (possibly). 

Your last potential answer- with the addition of a "yet" in there somewhere- is the primary conclusion of the theorem. You don't need to speculate at all, on this point: just look at the writing itself. If the theorem is a good citation then its conclusion does not match Craig's assertions, and he is wrong. If it isn't, then why is Craig using it at all?

Quote:"Dr. Carroll says you can have quantum descriptions of the universe that are eternal, and that is certainly true, but the question is: why would the universe transition to classical spacetime just 13 billion years ago? It could not have existed from infinity past in an unstable quantum state and then just 13 billion years ago transition to classical spacetime. It would have done it from eternity past, if at all."

What a completely nonsensical statement: if the universe expanded into linear spacetime then, even taking Craig's rather bizarre notions about infinities seriously, from that point on you would have a measurable chronological progression, in which 13 billions years have currently passed. From that point out it would have to have been some positive number, it's impossible that you could be existing in a universe that had developed linear time without that linear time having come into existence X number of years ago. What is even the problem here?

But let's take it back to the beginning: you challenged us to present a single example of Craig not understanding the science in the debate. Craig cites the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem as proof that the universe has a beginning. I have a copy of that paper right here: so what does it have to say about the boundary point that Craig asserts is the beginning of the universe?

Quote:What can lie beyond this boundary?

Why would you even need to ask that, if your paper concluded that this boundary is the beginning of the universe? If it's the creation event, nothing lies beyond it.

Quote: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.

The "chief result" of the paper is not that the universe had a beginning, but that beyond the beginning of the expansion boundary, new physics are required to give accurate descriptions. In fact, the conclusion actually brings up a potentially eternal model of the universe, a recycling model, that fits right into their physics, but that requires additional analyses. So not only do the actual conclusions specifically avoid giving an answer on the beginning of the universe, not only are they ill suited to actually do so anyway, but they bring up an alternative that matches an eternal universe just fine.

Now that you know this, now that you've had it directly quoted to you from the paper itself- and there are pdfs of it online if you cared to read them- do you agree that Craig's assertion that the paper demonstrates the universe had a beginning is incorrect? Was Craig wrong on the science here, since you now know what the contents of the science actually are?

(April 15, 2016 at 11:12 am)Esquilax Wrote:

---

(April 15, 2016 at 6:09 am)SteveII Wrote: So you can't find a place in the debate transcript where Craig did not know what Carroll was talking about. LOL, and you love to start the "oh how we hate WLC and here's why" threads and you can't come up with an example!! 

I can. Why can't you?

My favorite moment in that debate, and the one most emblematic of the issue you're trying to pretend doesn't exist in order to prematurely do your touchdown dance, is when Craig goes up and says that the universe had a beginning, and that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem supports this view. Carroll responds not only by explaining what the theorem actually means (and having read it myself, I can say that yes, Craig severely mischaracterizes it because, yes, he doesn't know what he's talking about) but by bringing in Alan Guth himself, one of the writers of the paper, to set the record straight and state that his work does not indicate what Craig asserts it does, and that he himself believes the universe is most likely eternal. Craig, having been proven wrong but unable to admit this, dismisses Guth's statements as just his personal opinion. So not only does Craig clearly not know what he's on about, he's also employing a dishonest double standard: when Guth's work appears to comport with what he already believes, Craig considers Guth to be an adequate source. When Guth's work does not do this, then it doesn't matter what he thinks.

In fact, here's a six-and-a-half minute compilation of moments where Craig shows he doesn't know the science, and Carroll has to correct him... only for Craig to not give up his bullshit, even when corrected by an actual scientist:





Now, you clearly place a lot of credence on academics and degrees, since you bring up Craig's so emphatically: given this, surely you recognize Carroll's clear advantage in discussing physics and cosmology, since Carroll is himself a PhD with more than 20 years of experience in that field? And since you seem to accept that trained professionals in the field know more about that field, wouldn't you then have to admit that Craig's refusal to give up his flawed conceptualizations of the science, even when corrected by an actual scientist in that area, is profoundly bad form?

---

I had watched this debate, and I like Sean Carol. He is well composed, and very likeable. I also appreciate his denouncing of some of his colleges dismissal of philosophy, who then going on to make poor philosophical claims.

However; this video which you referenced reminds me of one of the critiques of the debate. Dr. Carroll didn't really refute any of the evidence given by Dr. Craig; or show that another view was more reasonable. He offered a number of theoretical models, which if I'm remembering correctly, he said that he didn't think any of which where correct. I'm also cautious of overly assumptions claims in light of quantum mechanics, which exceed what our knowledge of this area tell us.

And in regard to the claim by Guth, in regards to the universe having a beginning, before you do your happy dance, I think that you would need to show more behind his reasoning here, before jumping on Craig, for saying it was an opinion. For what was given in that video was just that, with no foundation for how he was forming that opinion. Now if he has reasons either not written in his work, or another part of his work, which Craig is ignoring, then it may be valid. But that wasn't presented here.

Personally, I don't buy, the insinuation that the one doing the work is automatically best to interpret (unless what they published is incomplete). Sometimes someone with another perspective, may not be stuck in the same rut of a way of thinking. I think that we need to look at the reasons why one interpretation is better than another, and not who is making them.

And there have been some very well respected scientist throughout the years, who have admitted, that they are uncomfortable with the idea, that the universe had a beginning.

Who knows what they're talking about, the physicist or the apologist for Christianity?

Sigh. Questions like this shouldn't need asking.

Le sigh.

(April 15, 2016 at 3:37 pm)Evie Wrote: Who knows what they're talking about, the physicist or the apologist for Christianity?

Sigh. Questions like this shouldn't need asking.

Le sigh.

I take it in your appeal to authority, that you didn't watch the other video posted.