William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[Esquilax]

After being spoken to about it? So you admitted it once someone sussed you, is that what you're saying? You know that the most read post in any threat will be the OP. What you are doing is feeding a myth atheists propagate about Christianity and Christians.

Oh, fuck off, you legalistic little shit.

You know exactly what I'm saying, stop trying to force nefarious intent into everything I say. Misrepresentation requires representation, and the moment someone brought up what I'd said I'd made it clear that it wasn't a literal representation. How is it a misrepresentation if I'd made it clear it wasn't at the first fucking step?

To be clear, if you insist on this, you're saying that you know more about what I was thinking than I do, and if you actually think that's true, then you're being little more than a presumptuous ass, and I don't see why I need to take your claims of telepathy seriously at all.

You avoided the point by making a counter claim that the premise implies such a thing as something which exists uncaused. This is what you object to, but not the premise itself, apparently, which you still havn't addressed.

I addressed it last time, that we haven't seen anything beginning to exist at all. And the first time, for that matter; it's either a distinction without a difference, if you're insisting that it doesn't imply the existence of a secondary category, or it's an unjustified assertion if it does. So which is it? Is the premise pointless, or unjustified?

Oh, and also? The premise is itself an assertion, since it doesn't establish that everything that begins to exist has a cause. And it's arguably a false assertion anyway, since virtual particles come into existence without a cause.

As for your objection, it has no grounds because you've made no case for an infinite regression. If you hold that nothing can exist uncaused, you need to make that case. If you can't make a case for infinite regression, something must exist uncaused.

False dichotomy: simply demanding that only two categories exist doesn't make it so. Again, nor is your unjustified assertion the default simply because you say so. Do you know anything at all about how logic and argumentation work?

Absolutely, I began to exist, you began to exist, a tree began to exist, any sound begins to exist, any feeling begins to exist, the vast majority of scientists believe the universe began to exist, and with it all matter and energy. You've not answered the question though, to describe why i should believe anything can begin to exist without a cause.

Oh, and now you're not listening.

You and I didn't begin to exist, we are new formats for pre-existing matter. Trees too. Sounds are pre-existing energy expressed via our vocal cords. Feelings are neurochemicals brought on by environmental stimuli, and both parts of that equation are pre-existing. The vast majority of scientists believe no such thing, in fact recently proposed models don't feature a beginning at all. Stop thinking your assertions become truth, just because you say them. We have never seen matter, energy, or anything come into existence from nothing.

I did, as above. Is your theory regarded by scientists are more likely than the universe having a beginning?

We get it, you misunderstand what scientists say. You don't need to keep repeating it.

We're dealing with likelihoods here, what is most reasonable. Its true that neither of us know, but we can discuss where the evidence leads - to a beginning of the universe and a necessarily existing prime mover.

Assertion, assertion, assertion. I know we're discussing this probabilistically, and the fact of the matter is, if you read the science with a view toward nuance and not simply confirming what you already believe, you will see that the "beginning" is little more than a beginning to expansion, and beyond that point our language and notions of physics aren't adequate to describe it.

1: My claim was that the most ascribed models of the universe posit a beginning, and you've just confirmed it. I am not saying the universe certainly began, or that there aren't other possibilities, but we're looking at weights of evidence here and deciding what is most reasonable.

I confirmed your claim that the science generally ascribes a beginning to the universe, by providing evidence that shows that the scientist you cited in support of that claim doesn't think that his research supports the idea that the universe has a beginning? The scientist that you yourself said was renowned in the field? Why would you think that? Are you insane?

2: The chief result of the paper is irrelevant, as it was established to a large extent prior to its publishing that the universe -probably- began to exist.

So on the one hand you hold up Vilenkin as support for your position, but then you dismiss Vilenkin's actual work as irrelevant the moment that it disagrees with you? Hypocrite much?

3: Guth didn't "say" anything, he held a board up, if i remember correctly, and Craig was unable to look for clarification because it was prerecorded.

Guth's answer was unambiguous: "I don't know if the universe had a beginning." Regardless of the format it came in, you can hardly claim that this means that he does know that the universe had a beginning.

4: "[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."

So you're basically saying you want us to take the simplistic route, rather than the accurate one that includes nuance? Says a lot about your position.

5: You say "Vilenkin dismisses the idea that his views can be used to support the God conclusion", but again you are misrepresenting, because the actual quote from your own source is:

"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. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian"

"Does not give much of an advantage", is far from "does not support the God conclusion". It would be more accurate to infer from that source that Vilenkin does indeed believe the findings support the God conclusion, as he implies it gives them a slight advantage, it merely shouldn't be taken as proof, aka confirmation of God.

"Is it proof of the existence of god? This view would be far too simplistic."

Why is it you're so insistent that we take the simplistic view on every issue?

Excluding "before" then, you are saying "it created itself from itself" which is equally paradoxical.

Yeah, our temporal language isn't equipped to deal with a pre-expansion universe; stuff was weird back then, and essentially unpredictable to our current methods. We are going to reach weird paradoxical statements at every turn, simply by dint of the way our language and understanding of time work. That's why I'm pretty comfortable admitting that we just aren't there yet; unlike you, Craig and Kalam, I prefer to be honest about things.

Vilenkin is a proponent of the multiverse hypothesis, because he is a scientist. Science always assumes an infinite chain of cause and effect, although it has no grounds to do so.

So when you think you can twist the science to fit what you already believe, science is a trustworthy source of information, but the moment it diverges from what you believe, suddenly it's this baseless tangle of assumptions. So... essentially just whatever will get you to your pre-drawn conclusion, then?

You've not presented any evidence for the multiverse, because there isn't any. Fine tuning is taken to be evidence of a multiverse, if you have apriori concluded that naturalism is all that exists, as scientsits working in their field have to do.

Fine tuning doesn't exist, and I'm under no obligation to defend a position I don't hold, regardless of whatever simplistic binary you insist is a feature of all argumentation.

Secondly, your position is that i am wrong, but you've provided no good argument.

No, my position is that your claims are unjustified, and this is plenty evidenced by the self serving, hypocritical nature of your amateurish attempts to support them.

WLC doesn't give this as an argument for Christian theism, it is used to assure Christians, the actual experience of something is such strong evidence in itself, it defeats other evidence. He is not actually claiming that if all the evidence says Christian theism is untrue, he would still be a Christian, because his experience is evidence, and in balance that evidence trumps purported evidence from other sources.

He claimed that if the basis of the christian religion, the claim that Jesus Christ was the son of god and resurrected from the dead, was proven to be false, he would still believe. He literally said that. The question was, if christianity was proven false, would you still be a christian, and Craig said he would. No amount of wriggling is going to change that fact: he said that if he could watch Jesus not rise from the dead (in other words, if he could experience that not happening) he would still believe that it did. Craig was asked a question about whether that experience would change his mind, and he said it wouldn't; I don't know why you're still trying to spin this as though Craig advocates for the accuracy of personal experience. His answer literally revolves around dismissing personal experience where it conflicts with his presuppositions.

But its not just "i'll believe in God no matter what you say!", it is "I believe in God because of the evidence of the Holy Spirit within me, which trumps whatever you can tell me."

See above. You keep avoiding this point, most likely because you have no answer for it.

I agree that experience isn't necessarily true, but neither is exterior evidence. Look at all of the fraudulent evidence for evolution which has been presented over the years, starting from Haeckel's drawings to Piltdown man and onwards. Inner experience trumps such 'evidence', and rightly so.

Your claims with regards to evolution are bullshit, misrepresented and exaggerated by creationists in ways that do not match up with what actually happened.

Second of all, evidence points to one thing: the truth. Our ability to properly interpret the evidence, or realize when we don't have complete evidence, is what is in question, but actual evidence points one way only. Of the two, evidence and personal experience, the former is correct more often than the latter, something that numerous studies into the efficacy of eyewitness accounts attest to.

Your example doesn't have any point, yes, one experience must be wrong, but there are plenty of examples of contradictory scientific hypothesis, each with their own set of evidence, and one of those must be wrong too. You don't deny both sets of evidence merely because they are contradictory, likewise you cannot dismiss personal experience of all religions merely because not all of them can be true.

If one thing is right, and the other is wrong, we need some way to determine that. You can't appeal to personal experience to justify personal experience; if you did that you'd get a shouting match of a bunch of people essentially saying "because I said so!" over and over. The way you confirm personal experience is by confirming that it matches with objective reality, not just by re-asserting that the experience is what it is.

Your inability to understand logic and basic epistemology is breathtaking. Dunning and Kruger would be proud.