The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Bucky Ball]

Please provide the EXACT source of Vilenkin's statement. There are many many mischaracterizations of his statements, which he later denied were his statements.
He may have been a smart guy (maybe), but he also had no further evidence than anyone else has. His assumptions are just a faulty as anyone else's.

Vilenkin (you misspelled his name) :
"The question, however, remains whether the big bang was truly the beginning of the universe. A beginning in what? Caused by what? And determined by what, or whom? These questions have prompted physicists to make every attempt to avoid a cosmic beginning."

https://inference-review.com/article/the...e-universe

[Angrboda]

Physicists reason like this, as the above excerpt also shows: (1) the universe is constantly expanding, (2) extrapolating backward, said expansion could not have been indefinitely continued in the past (3) Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Planck time, etc, is irrelevant to this conclusion.

What did I just tell you about simply repeating things? Dr. Lincoln is using beginning in the sense of an epoch, rather than in the sense of an event; you are equivocating on the term.

Alternative models, where the average expansion of the universe throughout its history does not hold, have been proposed under the notions of emergent spacetime, eternal inflation, and cyclic models. Vilenkin and Audrey Mithani have argued that none of these models escape the implications of the theorem. In 2017, Vilenkin stated that he does not think there are any viable cosmological models that escape the scenario.

Sean M. Carroll ... added that Alan Guth, one of the co-authors of the theorem, disagrees with Vilenkin and believes that the universe had no beginning. Vilenkin argues that the Carroll-Chen model constructed by Carroll and Jennie Chen, and supported by Guth, to elude the BGV theorem’s conclusions persists to indicate a singularity in the history of the universe as it has a reversal of the arrow of time in the past.

Wikipedia || Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem
[emphasis mine]

Here we see that there is disagreement among the various authors of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem as to whether it implies a beginning. Maybe they should have asked you to settle the matter for them.

[Silver]

The theistic mode of interpretation is less for thinking and more for connecting everything to a god through ill reason.

[Bucky Ball]

Physicists reason like this, as the above excerpt also shows: (1) the universe is constantly expanding, (2) extrapolating backward, said expansion could not have been indefinitely continued in the past (3) Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Planck time, etc, is irrelevant to this conclusion.

What did I just tell you about simply repeating things?  Dr. Lincoln is using beginning in the sense of an epoch, rather than in the sense of an event; you are equivocating on the term.

Alternative models, where the average expansion of the universe throughout its history does not hold, have been proposed under the notions of emergent spacetime, eternal inflation, and cyclic models. Vilenkin and Audrey Mithani have argued that none of these models escape the implications of the theorem. In 2017, Vilenkin stated that he does not think there are any viable cosmological models that escape the scenario.

Sean M. Carroll ... added that Alan Guth, one of the co-authors of the theorem, disagrees with Vilenkin and believes that the universe had no beginning. Vilenkin argues that the Carroll-Chen model constructed by Carroll and Jennie Chen, and supported by Guth, to elude the BGV theorem’s conclusions persists to indicate a singularity in the history of the universe as it has a reversal of the arrow of time in the past.

Wikipedia || Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem
[emphasis mine]

Here we see that there is disagreement among the various authors of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem as to whether it implies a beginning.  Maybe they should have asked you to settle the matter for them.

Thanks for that. 
I haven't seen this argument since Carroll did his debate with WL Craig, where Carroll basically destroyed him. 

Craig, their big hero, who writes on his "Reasonable Faith" is still operating on the basis of his "reason leads to my god, not yours, nener nener".
Unfortunately St. Paul said “By grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9. 

[Bucky Ball]

Angrboda. Did you watch your own video? Around 20-30 seconds, Dr. Lincoln says: "the Big Bang, which is the Beginning of the Universe itself". Lol. And again, the description in the video: "The Big Bang is the term that scientists use to describe the beginning of the universe. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln clears up many common misconceptions about this fascinating topic."

This is from Alexander Villenkin: "Loosely speaking, our theorem states that if the universe is, on average, expanding, then its history cannot be indefinitely continued into the past." He also wrote: "the answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed ... my own view is that the theorem does not tell us anything about the existence of God"

Look, I get that you don't like the clearly Theistic implications of the Universe's having a Beginning. Even those who are Neutral or Undecided on the particular question of God's Existence quite openly say that the Universe had a Beginning is quite certain. The Big Bang is a Theory first proposed by a devout and highly learned Catholic Priest, a Master of Science, Fr. Georges Lemaitre; it was criticized in the early days by those who believed it was a Creation Theory. Ultimately, it essentially is one, as Physicists are discovering more and more.

You, Angrboda, are conflating or misunderstanding two things (1) Given the current state of physics, our measurements break down at around an infinitesimal time after the Big Bang, and (2) We cannot therefore, allegedly, know the Universe had a beginning. Your conflation of the 2, or your allegation that 2 is a necessary consequence of 1, is a simple non sequitur on your part.

Physicists reason like this, as the above excerpt also shows: (1) the universe is constantly expanding, (2) extrapolating backward, said expansion could not have been indefinitely continued in the past (3) Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Planck time, etc, is irrelevant to this conclusion.

Since Eternal Happiness is not formed by successive addition, nor is it a collection like an alleged infinite number of balls, that's another non sequitur. Rather, it's a Spiritual State of Perfect Bliss, that comes from God's Free Choice to allow us to participate in His Divine Presence in Heaven.

Bucky, I didn't study in a Catholic College, I studied in a Secular One, NIT, Trichy, the best Engineering Institutes in India after the IIT's. I did Engg. in Undergrad, and Mgmt in Post-Graduation, quite a common combination in B-School. Anyway, some don't like the implication that the observed Expansion of the Universe cannot be continued indefinitely in the past, which itself is like the Thomistic Argument; so they try to evade the conclusion. Other Astronomers and Physicists say it quite explicitly and openly, yes, the Universe had a beginning, and is not infinite in the past

Presently, the smartest man in the world, Roger Penrose, a friend of Stephen Hawking, totally disagrees with them. 

[The Grand Nudger]

Why is this still a thing that you’re arguing? You’ve already spent your bastardization of bbt….and…explained how, in no uncertain terms, it has literally nothing to do with why you believe? God found your keys and cured your grannies glaucoma and that’s that……?

[Belacqua]

Aquinas does not object in principle to an infinite regress. He argues that the existence of the world, however, cannot be attributed to such a series.

[...] Aquinas’ objection comes from the wholly derivative nature of essentially ordered series, not from a general antipathy to infinite series. Indeed, in his commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics Aquinas, following Aristotle, explicitly states that whether the intermediate causes are finite or infinite in number makes no difference to whether there must be a first cause: “Nor again does it make any difference whether there are a finite or infinite number of intermediates, because so long as they have the nature of an intermediate they cannot be the first cause of motion.”35 Aquinas does not reject infinite essentially ordered causal series because he rejects series that go on to infinity.36 Indeed, Aquinas allows for several types of infinite series, including certain sorts of infinite causal series.

Similarly, Aquinas does not reject these series because they would lack a temporal beginning, as is clear from his position that reason cannot demonstrate that the world has a temporal beginning.37 Now these infinite series would all be actually infinite, since all their members would exist at once, and Aquinas does give a general argument against the possibility of any simultaneously actual infinite multitude later in the ST.38 However, even if Aquinas would deny that there can be a simultaneously actual infinite multitude, that denial is not the grounds for his rejection of infinite essentially ordered causal series. As I just noted, he is happy to wave his objection to the actual infinite in order to make clear the fundamental reason for rejecting infinite essentially ordered causal series. Moreover, in later texts Aquinas seems to allow for the possibility of an actually infinite multitude of spiritual entities.39 This suggests that Aquinas would concede that an actually infinite multitude of necessary beings having their necessity from another, such as angels, is possible. Indeed, later in the Summa Aquinas also allows that certain causal series that are not wholly derivative can be infinite while in the Quaestiones de quolibet he suggests that the existence of an actual infinite would not be contrary to God’s power.40

https://philarchive.org/archive/COHTMB

[no one]

Nish, you said you were good at math. Did you mean meth?

[Deesse23]

This ignoramus gets about every single scientific issue which he addresses completely wrong, yet he boasts about his excellent education.
What i am however taking more issue with than his ignorance per se, is his WILLFUL ignorance. He will, no doubt, avoid to learn anything new and correct his errors.

[Silver]

If theists could reason past their ignorance, they wouldn't be theists.