Stump the Christian?

[Esquilax]

Composition Fallacy?

The argument is in the classic form Modus ponens:

P implies Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.

1. All men are mortal. (Everything that begins has a cause.)
2. Socrates was a man. (The universe began.)
3. Therefore, Socrates is moral. (Therefore, the universe has a cause.)

The argument does not imply that because some things in the universe have a cause, therefore the whole universe must have a cause.

Oh, it doesn't? Great! Then you're just arguing on factually incorrect or equivocatory premises, and I can easily correct those!

[*]Something cannot come from nothing.
[*]If something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything does not come into being from nothing. If the universe can come into being out of nothing, why not root beer? Or bowling balls? And why don't they appear out of nothing at random?

[*]

You're equivocating here, because we're talking about two radically different states of reality, and you're pretending they're exactly the same state. As I've said before, the pre-expansion, pre-big bang universe is, as the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper you fallaciously cite below states, something unlike anything we've encountered before, requiring entirely different physics models to properly map it. To simply assert that something cannot come from nothing in our current universe may be true- but it also might not be; you've made the assertion but have done nothing at all to back it up, as usual- but it's also entirely irrelevant,  because our current universe did not exist at the time we're talking about. At the time that we're thinking something may have come from nothing, everything was different, in fact, the basic motions of the universe, that have persisted for the entirety of its expansion, had not yet begun. The universe we're talking about was different at every conceivable scale, right down to its fundamentals. Time and space are linked, and neither of those things were in the shape that they are now; you cannot rely on your understanding of this universe to see you through.

[*]Modern cosmologists, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, have proved that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history, cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. This also applies to multiverses – if there is such a thing. Vilenkin said,

“This means that scientists “can no longer hide behind a past eternal-universe. There is no escape; they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

[*]

[*]

Have you read the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper, Randy? Or are you like so many other theists who seek to use it without having read it or understood it? Because I have read it, and they're talking about a beginning to universal expansion, not a beginning of the universe. That's something they flatly state; in fact, the, and I quote, "chief conclusion" of the paper is, indeed, that universal expansion cannot be past-eternal, that it had to have a beginning, and that beyond that point, one would need an entirely new physics model to properly describe it. They do not, in fact, state that therefore this is the beginning of the universe, which is something that's made clear in the fucking abstract, so evidently you haven't read the paper past the first paragraph:

Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.

[*]

[*]

Hey I have an idea: maybe next time you read the source you cite before you cite it, because why would we need physics to describe something past the boundary of inflation if, as you claim, past that point constitutes the beginning of the universe, wherein there is nothing before it?

Incidentally, the physicists you quote don't agree with you: in a debate with William Lane Craig, who also misuses the same scientists that you do, Sean Carroll anticipated this argument and asked Alan Guth for his view. His response was unambiguous: "I don't know whether the universe had a beginning. I suspect that it did not have a beginning." So, who is misinterpreting the paper: the person who wrote it, or the non-physicist attempting to bend science to his biases?

Vilenkin doesn't like what you're selling either, Randy; in his 2006 book, "Many worlds in one," he has this to say about theologians attempting to hold up his work as proof of god:

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 over the scientist.

[*]

[*]

"Far too simplistic." Hmm... sounds like what I've been saying about your arguments from the start!

This all took me a few minutes research on google, by the way. It's nice knowing that a few minutes' thought on the subjects you speak so authoritatively on is beyond your grasp.