Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

I would love to see a credible citation that states "The probability that our reality began to exist is above 50%".

I would be very surprised. But I'm always happy to be corrected. As far as I know, no one is in a position to perform such a calculation with any accuracy. Even if it did begin to exist, just announcing that it must have "a cause" is speculation too, however you're using the word. It's a word that can mean many things. No one knows. I find it astonishing how people think they know more than the expert scientists who study this stuff for a living. Again, trying to apply observations within our reality to reality itself is the fallacy of composition. Some people just don't seem to care about this. Entities do not necessarily adopt all the qualities of their contents or component parts.

Cosmological rubbish garbage nonsense fuck-brigade bastards. It's so totally broken and pointless. Even if you grant the whole thing, it's of no consequence. An "uncaused cause" could be almost anything. At the very best, the whole thing is a tautology of definition based on speculative premises. Well done.

Also, I'm sick of people saying, "God created the universe". If the universe is everything that exists, then either God created himself or God doesn't exist. If the universe isn't everything that exists, and there's a bit of other stuff too, then continuing with this language to imply "god made everything" is an equivocation. This is why I prefer to say "Our reality". It allows for there to be other things to exist, or not, whatever the case may be.

The singularity as the beginning of our universe seems to be the standard model. This is not a thing. It is a boundary point. What caused all space-time/matter/energy to explode out of a single point is not known. Because space-time is the arena in which all matter and energy exist, the beginning of space-time is also the beginning of all matter and energy. It’s the beginning of the universe.

Even if you want to theorize that some quantum field resulted in the singularity, then that would be the beginning of the universe.

WLC has addressed your objection regarding the fallacy of composition:

"The reader apparently is under the impression that one justifies seeking a cause of the universe by arguing compositionally – that because everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe as a whole has a cause. That is just manifestly incorrect. That is the fallacy of composition. But if you read my work I think you will find nowhere in anything that I've ever written or published or said have I defended the causal principle or there being a cause of the universe by composition. That would be obviously fallacious. Rather what I argue is that the principle “everything that begins to exist, everything that comes into being at some point, must have a cause which brings it into existence.” This is rooted in the metaphysical truth that something can't come out of nothing. Moreover, I think that this principle is constantly confirmed in our experience. So I would not think to try to justify the kalam cosmological argument's conclusion by arguing from composition. That would just be wrong, but he is setting up a straw man here which no one has defended." http://www.reasonablefaith.org/more-obje...z45ihBzsDh

If it can be "almost anything", describe an uncaused cause.

The universe is not everything that exists.

[robvalue]

So, no citations then to back up your probability statement. You're just interpreting what you think scientific ideas sound like they are saying.

Yes, that's a load of complete crap from WLC. He's just assuming his conclusions as usual. "Something can't come from nothing, because I say so. Oh, except where I reach the conclusion and then in fact something does come out of nothing."

He's a conman, he's a trickster, a liar and a fraud. He's too intelligent not to be aware of his own deception. I am sad he has so many people taken in.

Metaphysical truth my arse.

[RoadRunner79]

So, no citations then to back up your probability statement. You're just interpreting what you think scientific ideas sound like they are saying.

Yes, that's a load of complete crap from WLC. He's just assuming his conclusions as usual. "Something can't come from nothing, because I say so. Oh, except where I reach the conclusion and then in fact something does come out of nothing."

He's a conman, he's a trickster, a liar and a fraud. He's too intelligent not to be aware of his own deception. I am sad he has so many people taken in.

Metaphysical truth my arse.

I'm a little surprised, that someone; such as yourself, that touts science constantly  is so unaware of the big bang model of cosmology and the reasons that scientist believe it to be true about reality. 

I also think that it is interesting, that you are supporting that something can begin to exist, without a cause or reason.   And find it ironic, that you are demanding reason for this.  This is a basic philosophical principle and key to science.  You also seem to be denouncing inductive reasoning here, in which much of science, including evolution does not have a case, if you do so.   

I think this is all sophism, and that much of what you said about Dr. Craig here, is merely self reflection.

[robvalue]

I have given up debating you, so someone else can analyse all that if they would like.

I might as well say I'm giving up with Steve too. Our discussions never go anywhere.

[RoadRunner79]

That's ok... I can just comment. I won't direct anything to you, if you would like.

[robvalue]

Sure, feel free to comment. Just letting you know I'm not ignoring you. Thanks for being gracious about it.

[Simon Moon]

The whole truth of the conclusion rests entirely on the premises being entirely accurate, because that's all it's built on. If one of the premises is wrong for just one tiny area of reality, or if they don't apply to reality itself, or if there are any other premises which may in any way alter the conclusion, the whole thing is completely flawed. There is no way to assess just how off-course this takes it. It's not a case of "how close" they might be, it rests on complete accuracy. Unlike science, where the suitability of the premises can be tested by making predictions. These arguments without evidence produce a blind, useless result.

How exactly do you calculate the probability that the premises are totally accurate, for all of our reality and beyond, and that no relevant premises have been excluded? I'd estimate it at 0%. Can you produce a calculation that says otherwise?

That does not make the argument invalid. 

My understanding of assigning probability to an inductive argument is looking at the relationship of the probability of the premises and the conclusion. 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

Fallacy - Affirming the consequent.

What this premise does, is say there are 2 sets: 1 is the set of everything that begins to exist. The other is the set of everything that does not begin to exist. 

So Steve, how many members are in the set of everything that does not begin to exist, and what are they?

2. The universe began to exist

Fallacy - equivocation.

Uses a different definition of the phrase "began to exist" than in the first premise. 

The first premise is describing things we observe in the universe that are a rearrangement of existing matter/energy. THis is creation ex material.

While, in premise 2, you are describing creation ex nihilo.

3. The universe has a cause (and we can assign some description to the cause)

Due to invalid modus ponens, the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Assign a probability to each premise and the conclusion's probability cannot be lower than the lowest of the premises. It can be higher. There are only two of them so it is not all that complex. Since each premise is reasoned out and defeaters for them seem to be at least less plausible, the conclusion that the universe has a timeless, powerful, transcendent cause seems to also be > 50%.

There is no reason to even try to discuss probabilities until you present a valid and sound argument. 

I am not saying this is 100% proof for God. Only saying that it supports the concept of the God of the Bible.

Even if the argument was valid and sound, it only would support a first cause.

Which could in fact be, a phase change in the singularity. 

No gods required.


EDIT: Oh yeah. The argument also contains the fallacy of composition, since just because something is true of part of the universe, does not mean it is true for the universe itself.

[robvalue]

WLC apparently thinks he knows more than every scientist in the world, though. His word is so powerful, that he can simply insist that the universe did in fact begin to exist, and that it cannot have come from nothing.

[robvalue]

But this is what pisses me off the most about all this.

The only people making a positive claim that the universe was created out of nothing, are the very same people using the impossibility of that same statement as a premise.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting I know that things can come from nothing. I'm simply saying we can't discount such a possibility, just because it "sounds illogical". We don't have any experience of "nothing", in the true sense. We have no experience of realities coming into being. We have no data yet at all. We have models that go back so far and then break down. No one knows what happened before that point.

Yet many people are quite happy to claim that they do.

[SteveII]

So, no citations then to back up your probability statement. You're just interpreting what you think scientific ideas sound like they are saying.

Yes, that's a load of complete crap from WLC. He's just assuming his conclusions as usual. "Something can't come from nothing, because I say so. Oh, except where I reach the conclusion and then in fact something does come out of nothing."

He's a conman, he's a trickster, a liar and a fraud. He's too intelligent not to be aware of his own deception. I am sad he has so many people taken in.

Metaphysical truth my arse.

Is it more likely than not that the universe had a beginning at the boundary of the singularity? The professionals believe the "big-bang" based theories best fit the most data. "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods..."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

I hear throughout your objections (here and other places) a series of terms that imply the argument is not sound. This seems to be the cool-aid that the various atheist boards share between themselves. WLC has notices this and gave a talk (linked further below). His opening paragraphs made me laugh.

"In my published work on the kalam cosmological argument, I always try to anticipate and respond to objections that might be raised against the argument, so that readers might be equipped to deal with them should someone bring them up in conversation.[1] I figured that I had basically dealt with virtually all the objections that critics might raise and that any further debate would be over the adequacy of my responses.

Alas, however, I discovered that I've been unsuccessful in covering all the bases! For what I've come to realize is that some objections are so squirrelly, so off the wall, so bad that I could never have anticipated them. These criticisms are not found in scholarly publications. Instead, they're found in popular critiques of the argument on the Internet and YouTube. Up to now, I've focused on the scholarly critiques of the argument and just ignored such popular criticisms because I figured they were so misguided that there was just no point in responding to them. But tonight I've chosen to use this opportunity to address the worst of them."

Objections So Bad I Couldn't Have Made Them Up


http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/obj...de-them-up

Look through them. It seems yours are all there!!