Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

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.”

You are simply refusing to call the space-time boundary the beginning of our universe. And then somehow you conclude because WLC calls it the beginning (as does Vilenkin), WLC does not understand the science. 

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. 
-------

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.

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. 

---

And I posted this rebuttal 'way back in the thread' which negates your conclusions regarding Vilenkin in his own words...

Vilenkin also agrees with Hawking that, "the most promising approach appears to be the Quantum nucleation of the universe from nothing." ~35:15 Furthermore, when asked "Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?" by Victor Stenger, Vilenkin replied, "No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. [emphasis mine]" Vilenkin then goes on to quote the work of Gratton, Carroll and Chen who propose that the universe could very well have been contracting before it started expanding. (Stenger, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p.128).

Clearly Vilenkin doesn't draw the same conclusions about God you do.

And you ignore Jehanne's post on Velinkin:

---

Vacuum bubbles may nucleate and expand during the inflationary epoch in the early universe. After inflation ends, the bubbles quickly dissipate their kinetic energy; they come to rest with respect to the Hubble flow and eventually form black holes. The fate of the bubble itself depends on the resulting black hole mass. If the mass is smaller than a certain critical value, the bubble collapses to a singularity. Otherwise, the bubble interior inflates, forming a baby universe, which is connected to the exterior FRW region by a wormhole. A similar black hole formation mechanism operates for spherical domain walls nucleating during inflation. As an illustrative example, we studied the black hole mass spectrum in the domain wall scenario, assuming that domain walls interact with matter only gravitationally. Our results indicate that, depending on the model parameters, black holes produced in this scenario can have significant astrophysical effects and can even serve as dark matter or as seeds for supermassive black holes. The mechanism of black hole formation described in this paper is very generic and has important implications for the global structure of the universe. Baby universes inside super-critical black holes inflate eternally and nucleate bubbles of all vacua allowed by the underlying particle physics. The resulting multiverse has a very non-trivial spacetime structure, with a multitude of eternally inflating regions connected by wormholes. If a black hole population with the predicted mass spectrum is discovered, it could be regarded as evidence for inflation and for the existence of a multiverse.

---

You should quit trying to quote Vilenkin, because his actual stance on these matters is NOT what you want it to be!

First, the Stenger book predates the Velinkin lecture from my youtube post.

Second, Velinkin is not a theist. Commenting on a promising approach by Hawking (similar to his own), does not change the conclusion of the theorem (which is NOT a cosmology model). Of course he thinks that a further explanation is needed. Did you not see the slide at 35:00? What part of that is confusing? 

Regarding Jehanne's post, Concluding sentence of the abstract: "If a black hole population with the predicted mass spectrum is discovered, it could be regarded as evidence for inflation and for the existence of a multiverse." What point is this supposed to be making? If there is a multiverse, do you think that avoids the problems with past infinite?

Regarding Hartle-Hawkings model (which is similar to Velinkin's), imaginary time variables can create a theory without a singularity. But it is not avoiding a beginning (see lecture around 34:30). I like the shell game though of switching out the models to make different points.