Stump the Christian?

[Esquilax]

Based upon your understanding of the best science currently available, did the universe have a beginning or not?

The best science currently available tends to favor the idea that we need a remapping of our entire understanding of physics, and even the lexicon we use to discuss it, in order to begin to model what happens beyond a certain point of Planck time. The short answer, then, is that the current science does not know whether the universe has a beginning or not, which is one of the things I like about science; it prioritizes having a good basis for an answer over just having an answer, and if it can't get that good basis it will defer until it can get that basis. We can say with a good degree of certainty that there needs to be a beginning to our current expansionary model of the universe, that this specific universe state needs a beginning, but beyond that point, we lack the technology to properly map what goes on there. It's an unknown, and it's best to just admit that, rather than twisting to try and get it to fit Kalam. If we don't have the evidence, then we don't have the evidence, and the rational course is to defer judgment, even if we ultimately cannot get such evidence in future.

Even if science is totally incapable of producing the requisite evidence- since you seem to be on a "faith in science!" equivocation kick lately- the honest thing to do is acknowledge that we then have no basis for formulating a conclusion, rather than just making one up.

In response to Esq, yes, he wants to delve into the Bord-Guth-Vilenkin paper, and that is beyond me on a scientific level (if I had not quoted Vilienkin, my point would have remained unchanged - so this is a bit of a rabbit trail...unless Esq is arguing that the universe - any and all universes that may exist or may have ever existed - did not have a beginning at all). But that is not the same as discussing the alleged fallacies of the argument itself - which I did address with you.

The point I was making is that we don't know, and that when you bring up the BGV theorem as proof positive of the premises of Kalam, then you are in fact misusing the content of the BGV theorem. You might be right regarding universal origins, you might not, we don't know, but the pertinent takeaway is that if you're right, then you're right on accident and not due to the rigors of current scientific investigation.

All it was, was amending the record; you made a factual mistake, and it's one that can be amended. The honest thing to do would be to retract your argument's use of that particular paper.