Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

Except where the scientific evidence would provide an answer; you can call the infinite regress- still not the thing I'm actually arguing, by the way!- a philosophical problem all you want, but when the evidence comes in saying one thing it doesn't matter what you're philosophical inclinations are. You won't be able to change reality just by thinking about it really hard.

If it can't happen in an analogy, then it can't happen in reality.

It's also something that you'd do if you didn't know what the universe was like prior to the big bang and were attempting to figure it out. Stop trying to stuff infinity into my corner like it's what I'm arguing for, and address the actual position I hold, which is that neither of us know.

Right, PRIOR to the big bang...which means that our universe had a beginning, which is what I've been arguing...it had a beginning, and therefore, it had a cause.

Actually, what WLC presents us is a second hand email purporting to be from Vilenkin. So what we've got here are two sources, both with emails from Vilenkin, in which he says two different things. The important point to note is that in the email I presented, there is no room for the kind of misinterpretation that WLC often engages in; the man is asked straight out whether his theory implies a beginning, and his answer is no. Given this kind of straight-talking answer, what can we say of Craig's response? My suggestion is that, as he is seen doing in the video I provided, Craig is wilfully misinterpreting Vilenkin's words to his own benefit, which is a tactic he is on record as doing many times.

I don't know about that. First off, I gave you a video where Vilenkin is presenting the theorem, and it seems pretty clear to me that he is advocating a finite universe. All of these quotes and stuff, I am not in the business of going back and checking references, because a lot of quotes are misquotes and are in fact down right deceitful...and I don't need quotes when I have a full video of Vilenkin explaining the theorem to an audience. Nothing else is needed.

Yes, and he also said later on: "The question of whether or not the universe had a beginning assumes a classical spacetime, in which the notions of time and causality can be defined. On very small time and length scales, quantum fluctuations in the structure of spacetime could be so large that these classical concepts become totally inapplicable. Then we do not really have a language to describe what is happening, because all our physics concepts are deeply rooted in the concepts of space and time. This is what I mean when I say that we do not even know what the right questions are.

Bolding mine. Well gee, you know what that sounds like? It sounds like what I've been saying all along, that our physics is not currently equipped to accurately handle descriptions of a pre-expansion universe! hock:

Ok, and? He is saying that hypothetically speaking, the one major criterion that gives the theorem its juice could be violated...but so far, this hasn't happened and all known cosmological models that has been presented have failed. So right now, this theorem is what is happening in cosmology, and it's been over 10 years since the paper, and scientists have tried and tried...so far, NOTHING. The question is simple...what is the best evidence that we have as of TODAY which supports a finite universe...and so far its been the big bang, plus the BGV theorem...and you can add the philosophical problem against infinite regress, and you are left with one big problem for anyone advocating an infinite universe.

It's funny, how you'll highlight the bits that you think agree with you, but stop short of including the conclusion Vilenkin makes at the end of his email, when it basically states what I've been saying all along.

Damn an email, I have a VIDEO from Vilenkin himself.

Or you could go to 2:56 on the video I posted and see a nice picture of Alan Guth on the projector, holding up text of his answer right there in the picture for all to see.

What? It was a freakin picture of Guth with Carroll narrating what Guth allegedly said. Why didn't he just have Guth do a short video (a 10-15 second snippet) saying exactly what Carroll quoted him as saying?? Bullcrap.

No, he had Guth right there on screen.

Yeah, a picture

And it's funny that you'll take WLC "quotes" of Vilenkin as factual, but when someone who disagrees with you quotes someone you cast aspersions.

I have a video of him explaining the theorem. It is hard to take a 40 minute video of the theorem's implication of context. I posted the vid, and you haven't addressed it yet.

Hilariously, again you cut out the bit where Guth agrees with me, and not you.

"So, as is often the case when one attempts to discuss scientifically a deep question, the answer is inconclusive. It looks to me that probably the universe had a beginning, but I would not want to place a large bet on the issue."

It's the last sentence, the conclusion. Good job with the dishonesty there.

Dishonesty? Please. You don't want to put a "large bet" on pretty much anything in science. The question is, according to the modern day cosmology, where does the evidence point...and as you just quoted Guth, he said to him, it probably did....and this was BEFORE the 2003 paper with Vilenkin and Borde.

And before you start saying that I've moved the goalposts, I'll point out that "we don't know" has always been my view. It's even the view Guth espouses in the video: "I don't know." I picked the BGV theorem specifically because it's fun to take an apologist's chew toy and use it against them, and you took the bait pretty hard on this one; misrepresenting this theorem is the WLC specialty, after all.

For the 9th time...I posted a video of Vilenkin presenting the theorem and explaining why the theorem proves the second premise of the kalam.

Incidentally, you do understand that the BGV theorem only discusses inflationary models of the universe, yes?

Because inflation is a key component of an expanding universe, that's why...so when they make theories, the theory has to reflect the background knowledge that we have from other observations.

As a response to physicists who use inflationary universes to assert an eternal universe? And that their conclusions, insofar as they suggest a beginning, suggest a beginning to the inflation, and not to the universe as a whole? Which is basically what the big bang is... the pre-conditions of which I've been telling you we know nothing about this entire time?

An obvious misrepresentation of the theory. When do they ever say "beginning of inflation' as opposed to "beginning of the universe". Wishful thinking...But, I can't blame you for that kind of false rendering. It must be hard knowing that a finite universe implies an external cause. That was Einstein's problem as well

Don't believe me? Here's a quote from the BGV theorem itself:

"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

"Unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics"

In other words, "if "if" was a "fifth", we would all be drunk".

Bolding and enlarging mine. So... even what you were originally referencing doesn't say what you were asserting it said. It says... what I said is the consensus of physicists.

I think that about caps it, when it comes to BGV. You can hardly argue with the paper itself, let alone its "chief result." I'm sure you'll try, but then, I knew what the BGV was describing from the beginning, and just wanted to give you some line so you could ensnare yourself. I took you as the kind of guy who wouldn't look deeply at what the results were, since the barest surface reading of the conclusions seem to agree with what you want to be true... and you didn't disappoint.

You hung yourself on this one, guy.

Ok, the 10th time...I have video of Vilenkin presenting the theorem and implying the finitude of the universe. The bottom line is, no model has come close to violating the one condition needed for the theorem to work, which is based on the average Hubble expansion being greater than 0.

---

The BGV theorem includes an entire passage towards its conclusion stating that it is not sufficient to describe conditions prior to the expansion of the universe, and it does not make a declarative statement about whether that "prior" represents a beginning, or something else. This, it says, is the chief conclusion of the paper. I know apologists use BGV a lot, but the point is that they are misrepresenting the conclusions of the theorem, as are you.

Vilenkin already told Dr. Craig that he represented the theorem accurately.

You also cut out a part of Vilenkin's answer where he specifically says this, and now, after misrepresenting and cherry picking, you accuse someone else of not understanding the paper? You're pretty much directly lying now.

11th time. I have a 40 minute video of Vilenkin presenting the theorem and stating its implications to an audience.

This is the kind of irony that makes my theist-whomping worthwhile. Incidentally, did you ever read the BGV theorem in its entirety? Or did you just get a cliff notes version from some apologist website?

12th time. I have a 40 minute video of Vilenkin presenting the theorem and stating its implications to an audience.

If you understand the theorem, would you mind telling us why you state that it says things that are directly contradicted by, and I quote, the "chief conclusion" of the theorem? And also things that none of the writers of the theorem were willing to come out and say? Would you mind telling us why you're misusing the theorem, and overreaching with what it describes, when the theorem itself only discusses universal expansion, and not universal beginnings?

You know, for someone who understands the theorem, you do seem to be making a lot of statements that are directly contradicted by the theorem.

13th time. I have a 40 minute video of Vilenkin presenting the theorem and stating its implications to an audience.

---

Do you deny, then, that the theory of evolution is currently accepted as factual by 98 percent of the scientific community, both theist and atheist, according to recent polls? What makes you think you know better than them?

The word of God will prevail over any scientific opinion. But hey, that is just my opinion.

Also, please do make your thread. I'm always willing to bitch slap stupid misrepresentations of evolutionary theory down.

If there is anyone that is going to do some slapping, it will be me