Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Time Traveler]

---

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.

---

The Stenger book and salient quotes postdate the Velinkin quote from the book you quoted. I also addressed Velinkin's conclusion from the video itself. But referring to the book you quote, Velinkin goes on to say...

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.

And there are many different scientific models describing the potential origin of our universe and the possibilities of a multiverse - none of which invoke God in their model. It is not a "shell game" to acknowledge these different models and possibilities.

You seem to believe that the BGV theorem somehow proves our universe had a beginning from absolute nothing, starting with an actual singularity in which only your God of the Gaps can account for. That's why Craig quotes the BGV theorem, and why you quote Craig. But this is not at all the conclusion the scientists who put forward the theorem draw. It's an ad hoc addition posited by a Christian apologist with no background in physics and no support from science. There is not one credible cosmologist that says something like, "Oh, because of the BGV theorem, we now know Gawdidit!" The theorem just doesn't help your case the way you want it to.

Then you ask, "If there is a multiverse, do you think that avoids the problems with past infinite?" So you are clearly open to the possibility that the BGV does not prove our universe began from absolute nothing, and are willing to move your God of the Gaps theory further down the line hoping to explain how a multiverse came about. Very flexible of you!

I understand why you obsess over "the problems with past infinite." It's part of Craig's take on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. If actual infinites don't exist in reality, then there must have been a first cause, and that first cause must have been magic bunnies... er leprechauns... no, that's not right. Oh yeah, GOD! Specifically, the Christian God. (Because only three-gods-for-the-price-of-one can create universes. Duh.)

Much of the universe seems to defy common intuition (Special and General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, my teenage daughters). Even if we found that the universe began from absolute nothing, starting with a true singularity (which would itself entail "actual infinites" by the way - infinite density, infinite temperature, infinite space-time curvature), this would still not provide empirical evidence for the existence of any deity. It would only prove that universes can arise from absolute nothing starting from actual singularities. (With the help of magic bunnies and leprechauns, of course.)

And you still have not addressed my question, "when exactly in the past prior to creating the universe did God decide to exist timelessly?"