William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[YGninja]

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

"I'm going to run away now, but if I just say that your position is indefensible, that means I win! Nyah nyah!"

You quoted him for saying something that he did not say. Strike 1. Your reason for quoting him on something he did not say, was to ridicule him. Strike 2. You should have just said "yes i misrepresented him, so what? It was not with the intent to mislead other people, it was just a jibe", that would've been great.

And I refuted that point, we have seen everything begin to exist. Ourselves, every sound, every emotion.

Oh, that's funny: I wasn't aware that biological science maintains that whenever a woman is pregnant, she creates the matter that forms the baby from nothing. I thought that she developed the infant gradually over time using pre-existing materials gained from outside means; you'd think that there'd be a bigger deal being made of wombs breaking the laws of physics, but I guess it's just a secret only you know.

Did you ask for matter? You asked for "anything". Tell me, did you exist before you were born?? Did a sound exist before it sounded?

Your only defense is that we havn't seen matter begin to exist,

Given that your argument is about the beginning of all matter, I'd say it's rather an important point.

What is matter? Matter is only a certain arrangement of energy, there isn't actually any 'stuff' no 'matter' what magnification you got on that microscope, hence it is really no different from a sound, or anything else which we observe begin to exist. There is no cause to postulate a new rule for matter, again you fail occums razor.

to which i appeal to scientific consensus which promotes that matter began to exist at the beginning of the universe.

You don't have that consensus, as I've already provided quotes from cosmologists that you yourself said were big figures in the field stating otherwise. Beyond your misrepresentation of discussions of universal expansion, you have nothing more than bluff and bald assertions. Read the damn science more closely; it's not my problem that you refuse to read the things you claim to know about.

You've provided absolutely nothing except your own imagination that when a cosmologist says a beginning is inescapable, he isn't really meaning a beginning. I can provide dozens of sources refuting you, and refuting your idea that the universe existed eternally and then only suddenly exploded a finite time ago. Scientists have been through this; how could something explode having been stable for an eternity? If it were stable for an eternity why would it suddenly explode at a specific moment?

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."

I believe that statement had two contentions in it, the first being that nowhere in the premise does the Kalam argument establish its positive assertion that everything began to exist. You haven't addressed this.

I have addressed this multiple times: logically speaking you need an eternal prime mover, or an infinite regression - you've offered no other possibility and you have not defended an infinite regression, hence your objection has no grounds because the only thing which is left is that everything which begins has a cause. You attempted the tired "virtual particles come into existence without a cause" response which isn't true and is what was refuted in that quote.

"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.

It's intellectual honesty when we don't have enough information to make a solid conclusion. I get why that might be an alien idea to you. Again you simply demand that there are only two possibilities; how did you rule out a third path we haven't considered yet? Everything is unknown until the first time it's considered, after all.

You claimed i had provided a false dichotomy:
"False dichotomy: simply demanding that only two categories exist doesn't make it so", but actually it is you with the false dichotomy; the fact that neither of us know is a given, and we've already established that neither of us can offer a "conclusion", we can only look at the subject probabilistically, but you refuse to when you can't win and play the "we just don't know, look at how intellectually honest i am", card.

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.

So, in your mind the statement "You haven't made an adequate case for your position" is the same as "I make a competing claim"?

You refuse to acknowledge probability, and imagine a third option that science hasn't discovered yet.

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

And you even failed to provide that, unless you actually believe babies pop into existence from nowhere inside wombs, and aren't the product of a sperm and an egg.

Do you believe that you existed before you were born? Do you believe a sound exists before it sounds?

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.

You're veering into argument from authority territory there, asserting that the number of scientists who accept a given claim is more important than the content of the claim itself. At one point, I'm sure you'd be arguing that Phlogiston is a good explanation for fire; after all, lots of scientists believed in that elemental spirit of fire!

You havn't offered any content to refute, you've merely claimed there are other theories. Please, go ahead, offer one of these other theories.

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

My theory that I don't know has very little backing? I didn't realize intellectual honesty required that much support.

You offered your "recently proposed models", and your idea about the universe having preexisted for eternity before actually expanding. You play that "Look how intellectually honest i am for saying i don't know", card again when actually you are being perfectly dishonest, using it to avoid acknowledging having lost the point...

As for "very little backing" against your position, apparently Vilenkin is only an important scientific figure when he agrees with you, eh? And all the other scientists whose work you've misinterpreted, with your characteristic theistic layman's ignorance?

Nothing but claims

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.

If we don't know something, if the very basis of our descriptive tools is no longer adequate to describe something, it's not an argument from ignorance to admit that we don't know it. You're taking a point in time in which we can't yet describe what goes on, and saying "there was a beginning there." I'm admitting that if we can't even describe a thing, we don't know what happens there.

We know we don't know this is established. For the 18434th time... we're looking at likelihoods grounded in what we do know, which you refuse to acknowledge.

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.

Yes, you want to take the simplistic answer over subtleties, because the subtleties, the account that takes in all the evidence, doesn't agree with you. It's just like when you dismiss the chief conclusion of Vilenkin's own theorem, because it disagrees with you. This isn't about the actual evidence with you, just the bits you can cherry pick to suit the conclusion you came to before looking at any of it.

You've made no case they don't agree with me. The theorem implies a beginning but there are potential workarounds, so if you are really picky then perhaps it doesn't have to necessarily imply a beginning, but you'd still be "forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."

Some more Vilenkin quotes::

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

"Hard as physicists have tried to find some kind of an inflationary-model universe that does not have a beginning, still, every single cosmological model based on an inflationary hypothesis has to have a beginning."
"With reasonable assumption, one can show that, even in the context of inflation with many 'bubbles' forming, there would still be, somewhere, an absolute beginning."

"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".

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.

The chief result of the paper, that we require new, as yet undeveloped physics models to describe what happens before the beginning of universal expansion, is directly relevant to a discussion of what happened prior to the expansion of the universe, and it beggars belief that you'd call that irrelevant.

We know we need new physics to explain how it happened, but thats irrelevant to the fact that it has already been established that the universe almost certainly had a beginning - and not merely a beginning of expansion, but an "absolute" beginning, as Vilenkin says.

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.

So when Guth goes on to answer "I suspect the universe didn't have a beginning," you're claiming that he still thinks he does? Did you even look at the debate we're talking about before you made up your mind on it?

We don't know what this suspicion is grounded on, thats why it was so absurd in the debate because Craig couldn't ask. It could be a personal hunch, irrelevant of the science, which their work, as it happens, would support. I'll take a half dozen clear quotes from Vilenkin before taking an ambiguous board held up by Guth on prerecorded video, created for an atheist to use in a debate. You are grasping at straws and if you need to appeal to this kind of nonsense you should just give up now. I thought you said you were good at debating Kalam?

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.

"If I assert a scientific consensus in my favor over and over, it totally exists!"
Oh, also not your position. I know you have trouble with that.

It is in my favour, you've given nothing except a bunch of emotes and cynical appeals to intellectual integrity to mask the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the weight of evidence, as it stands, in my favour.

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.

Well, in my defense, I don't often debate with evasive players of sophistic word games; I find them tiresome.

I'm being evasive?? Another cop out. Can't you just once admit you were wrong? You claimed that "Is it proof of the existence of god? This view would be far too simplistic." means it is wrong to take it as evidence for God, you were wrong, again.

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.

But you aren't following the evidence, because you're actively misrepresenting the scientific models and outright dismissing whatever science doesn't fit with your conclusion. That may be christian science, but it's not the real kind.

You've offered no argument or counter evidence at all, this is just becoming farcical now. You've got 1: Your imagination that beginning means something other than beginning, although what you aren't willing to say, because you couldn't defend it. 2: Emotes, which i must say, make your strongest case, 3: Misrepresentation, incredulity and plays to the audience predisposition.

How am i twisting science? You need to make the case before you make the assertion.

When you think Vilenkin is arguing for your position, he's alright as a source. When I pointed out that he's a proponent of multiverse theory, suddenly he's unreliable, and just making assumptions. That's twisting science.

Never said Vilenkin is arguing for my position, his quotes favour my position, theres a difference. Do you know why Vilenkin is a proponent of the multiverse? No, atleast you havn't graced us with any argument to counter mine - that he's a scientist, who are by definition naturalists, and the only reasonable naturalistic explanation for the appearance of fine tuning we see is a multiverse, meaning the evidence for the multiverse is merely inferred by means of apriori naturalism. Ive invited you to show us all any evidence for the multiverse you or Vilenkin might have, but you've declined. (see below)

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.

I'm not required to provide evidence for a multiverse, as I don't necessarily accept that.

See above

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.

Fine tuning can only be a thing if you can first demonstrate that this particular universe, the appearance of life, whatever you're claiming the universe was fine tuned toward, was a goal state that it could have failed to reach. Without establishing that, this particular universe is no more or less likely than any other type of universe. You're assuming fine tuning without demonstrating that the universe was tuned at all.

Unsure of what you are attempting to say here, seems like a bunch of sciency-sounding mumbo-jumbo. The universe appears fine tuned because a bunch of its constants and quantities could have been anything, practically any configuration of which bar our own would have precluded the formation of a universe capable of permitting life.

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.

"Putative evidence," like his own experience? Like not seeing Jesus rise? You keep scrabbling for the primacy of personal experience, but then you ignore this point every time it's brought up. Are you trying to hide that it's there?

Because this claim only comes from atheist sources who don't attempt to cite WLCs explanation. ie, should he believe he actually went back in time, ahead of his personal experience in day to day life?

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.

Aww, you didn't watch the video before you disagreed with it, did you? Cute.

I don't need to watch a video, don't defer your debating responsibilities. If you have an argument, present it.

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

I can too: if I pump you full of hallucinogens, you can see some weird shit. You could use your personal experience of your hallucinations to justify your belief that they were real, but objective reality proves you wrong. Gee, I guess personal experience isn't necessarily completely true, huh?

It is reasonable to believe hallucinations, so long as you don't realise you are hallucinating, this is why they are so powerful. We trust our eyes from experience, we depend on them every single day, since the day we were born. Would it be wrong to depend on them every day, incase you might be hallucinating? Ofcourse not. Trusting experience takes precedence, the fact that it might not always be correct is irrelevant.