Dr. Craig is a liar.

[wiploc]

- I'm not sure this is true.  Asimov said the universe began at the big bang, but then he immediately hedged, saying something like, "At least we can call it the beginning, since we don't know what happened before that."  Hawking made the same move in A Brief History of Time.  

But I keep reading this claim, made by Christians, as if the beginning of the big bang was literally the beginning of all.  They often talk as if this issue were scientifically settled.  They often talk as if doubting them on this is unscientific.  But they are often the same people who say that begun things have to have causes, so I have to wonder if they don't support science only when they think it supports them.  Often enough they'll say first that nothing comes from nothing, and then turn around and say that Jehovah created the universe from nothing.  

So I went on campus and found a cosmologist and put the question to him.  He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang.  Nobody knows what happened before the big bang.  Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."  

Bertrand Russell said something like this:  "When the experts are agreed, the layman does well not to hold the opposite opinion; when the experts are not agreed, the layman does well not to hold any opinion at all."  

So here's my opinion as to whether the beginning of the big bang was the ultimate beginning:  I don't know.  

I'm not aware of a scientific consensus on the matter, and I don't have the expertise that would warrant me having my own opinion.

-

I have some concern about equivocation on the word "universe."  To me, this usually means everything that exists.  So, if a god exists, it is part of the universe.  So I don't see how a god could create the universe.  That would mean, among other things, creating itself.  

But if we only mean some things, rather than all things -- for clarity, we can call it a partaverse as opposed to the allaverse -- then I don't see what this premise gets you. 

"P2: Some things had a beginning."  Yes, I'm happy to agree with that, but I don't think you can build a first cause argument on that foundation.

I posted this way back in this thread:
-------
For reference, the BVG paper was 2003.

Vilenkin in his book (which comes 3 years after the paper): "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)."

In the Youtube video I posted (2012) Vilenkin showed that models which do not meet this one condition (any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past) still fail for other reasons to avert the beginning of the universe. Vilenkin concluded, “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”

So that's one guy.  He may be an expert, but I think most experts disagree with him.  I could be wrong about that.  If I am wrong, I'd love to hear about it.  

You are simply refusing to call the space-time boundary the beginning of our universe.

You made that up.  I don't know why you accuse me of thoughts I don't actually have.  It's going to get old fast.

And then somehow you conclude because WLC calls it the beginning (as does 

Vilenkin), WLC does not understand the science. 

Again, I don't know why you do this.  Are you confusing me with someone else?  Do you just like fictionalizing my opinions?  

For the record, I don't think WLC is ignorant or stupid; I think he's a liar.  And that has nothing to do with space-time boundaries.  If he understands space-time boundaries, he's way ahead of me.  

It is unavoidable. If you need "new physics", a universe generator, or some other mechanism (a cause) to move across the boundary than you have a beginning of our universe. 

I don't know what you're talking about.  

I think of causes as preceding effects.  I'd call that a matter of definition.  If we agree on that, and if you think time began at the beginning of the big bang, then there can't be a cause of the the universe.  A cause would have to be before the universe, before time.  That would be a contradiction.  It is logically impossible.

Alternatively, we can posit that causes need not precede effects.  In that case, we don't need your magic-throwing god.  The universe can be caused by some future event, perhaps involving a particle accerator.  

Either way, we don't wind up with a creator god.  

-------

You are correct, science breaks down as you pass through the singularity (not a thing but a boundary) and models do not help us.  So, we cannot use science prior to that point. Now the only way to ponder that question is to use metaphysics.

We can use logic.  And logic tells us that if you invent a fantasy realm that contradictorily existed before time, then you don't get to make up the rules of the place.  You can't arbitrarily declare that nothing physical exists there, and that minds can exist without matter, and that all the other attributes of your god just happen to line up in that realm.  

Regarding the universe includes God: that would not be the definition of the universe. The universe is all space-time and physical matter that came into being 13 billion years ago. 

Thanks for clarifying.  

I'm not going to say you're wrong, because that's what you mean by the word, so for you it is true by definition.  You're not alone in preferring that definition.  As I've made clear, though, that's not the definition I like.  

We don't want to talk past each other.  I could try to use your definition, or you could try to use mine, but I'm afraid we would get tripped up.  

I propose to continue using "partaverse" to mean what you mean by "universe."  If I use the word "universe," your first guess should be that I meant the allaverse.

[/quote]