William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[YGninja]

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.

I dont consider it necessary to further argue this point, your position is indefensible.

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?

And I refuted that point, we have seen everything begin to exist. Ourselves, every sound, every emotion. Your only defense is that we havn't seen matter begin to exist, to which i appeal to scientific consensus which promotes that matter began to exist at the beginning of the universe.

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.

Quantum vacuums aren't 'nothing'. As Theoretical Physicist David Albert writes:

“[V]acuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff...the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those [quantum] fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing."

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?

"Not knowing", isn't an alternative, it is not another possibility missing from the statement "you need a prime mover or an eternal regression", its a cop-out. There is no false dichotomy here, just "science of the gaps" argumentation. We're talking about logical probability, neither of us know anything. You've provided no logical justification of your objection, which only works if you can make an argument for an eternal regression.

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.

I listened very closely, you asked for "anything" which begins to exist.

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.

It doesn't matter what "recently proposed models", are, unless they are subscribed to by more people who know what they're talking about, than the existing model which posits a beginning, and they aren't.

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.

I'll take this as forfeiture of the point. Your theories are fringe theories, which exist but have very little backing.

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.

So your argument is that everything recedes into a point in time where we can no longer understand what is happening. This pretty much constitutes a beginning to me, as all you have is an argument of ignorance "we cna't know, it could be possible, some way, that there wasn't a beginning". You recognise we're looking at the matter probabilistically, and hence you should concede the point.

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?

You are misrepresenting your own source now, which i have already fully quoted.

"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."

The theorem implies a beginning, but there are potential work-arounds. Again the evidence is in my favour.

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?

What this amounts to is failure to distinquish relevance from irrelevance. The chief result of his paper isn't relevant to us, who are only concerned with a tiny part of it.

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.

I never argued that he knows anything, this is just a bad attempt at a straw man. We're talking about likelihoods. His answer doesn't pertain to where the evidence is leading whatsoever. The only fact we can glean from it is that he isn't 100% certain, which we already knew.

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.

No, it says alot about your position that you recognise we are arguing about probabilities, yet you want to portray " there are ways to get around having a beginning" as a defeater to the fact that the scientific consensus thinks the universe "probably" had a beginning. Its hilarious, or deceitful, take your pick.

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?

Again, difference between evidence and proof. As i already stated, proof shows something is true, evidence argues that it might be true. All he is saying here, is that his findings don't prove Gods existence, he is not saying that they cannot be taken as evidence, and he even implies that it is evidence when he confirms " In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian". If you want to debate it'd be helpful if you knew the meanings of basic words you use.

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.

Well i am not afraid to follow where the evidence leads and discuss things on a probabilistic basis. All you are making is another "science of the gaps" argument.

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?

How am i twisting science? You need to make the case before you make the assertion. You've offered no evidence for any kind of multiverse. The only evidence for it is predicated on apriori naturalism, which is why scientists acting as scientists, who are naturalists by profession and definition, take the appearance of fine tuning as evidence for the multiverse - because the only other reasonable explanation is not naturalistic. They therefor have no choice but to posit and infinite multiverse which would sooner or later spit out a universe such as ours. They're just doing their job, and their job does not include or assume the supernatural. This is the paradigm of science.

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.

Hmm, you are copping out of this one too, then. The appearance of fine tuning does exist, hence the multiverse theory is imagined as a naturalistic explanation.

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.

He said "putative evidence", and explains his position thoroughly in the quotes i originally provided, which were provided for the very reason of clearing this issue up, and the false inferences people such as yourself have made. Your quotes are earlier, my quotes are clearing up the quotes which you gave.

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.

Really, the guy fakes drawings of human embros to make the look like other creatures to support evolution, and im misrepresenting when i call it a fraud? You've provided no argument, just assertion so i don't feel the need to respond with much.

Piltdown Man - the greatest hoax in the history of science? Natural History Museum.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/scien...-man-hoax/

This was the hoax which was originally used to get evolution into schools. And even though it was shown to be a fraud, evolution remains.

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.

No, we're appealing to personal experience to justify personal belief. Its completely rational and you cannot make an argument showing otherwise without misrepresentation.