Dr. Craig is a liar.

[RoadRunner79]

---

P1 said "whatever begins to exist has a cause". If P1 and P2 are true, then the conclusion is true. We inductively reason what could be the cause of the universe (or its predecessors). That entity would be:

eternal-uncaused-did not begin to exist (avoids the infinite causal chain problem)
timeless (existed before time)
non-physical (exists before all of physical matter existed)
has intent (decided to create something rather than not create something)
powerful enough to make something out of nothing

This is all the conclusions we get from this particular question. Note I did not conclude the God of the Bible.

---

As i pointed out quite a bit earlier in this thread, since you only believe one thing did not begin to exist, your argument is guilty of the fallacy affirming the consequent.

Unless you believe there was more then one thing that did not begin to exist.

The KCA is in the same form as the classic syllogism:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

Affirming the consequent would read...

All men are mortal
Socrates is mortal
Therefore Socrates is a man

If Socrates is the name of my dog, then this is clearly incorrect even though both premises are true.   

Where do you think, that this is being done in the discussion of the KCA?  I think that you are merging separate arguments, to get to affirming the consequent; which, I may understand the confusion, but I don't think your getting this from the conclusion of the argument.

[Jehanne]

---

---

As i pointed out quite a bit earlier in this thread, since you only believe one thing did not begin to exist, your argument is guilty of the fallacy affirming the consequent.

Unless you believe there was more then one thing that did not begin to exist.

The KCA is in the same form as the classic syllogism:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

Affirming the consequent would read...

All men are mortal
Socrates is mortal
Therefore Socrates is a man

If Socrates is the name of my dog, then this is clearly incorrect even though both premises are true.   

Where do you think, that this is being done in the discussion of the KCA?  I think that you are merging separate arguments, to get to affirming the consequent; which, I may understand the confusion, but I don't think your getting this from the conclusion of the argument.

The first two premises of the KCA are suspect ("that everything that begins to exist has a cause" and that the "universe began to exist").  Another great lecture by Professor Sean Carroll discusses this point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI

[RoadRunner79]

The KCA is in the same form as the classic syllogism:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

Affirming the consequent would read...

All men are mortal
Socrates is mortal
Therefore Socrates is a man

If Socrates is the name of my dog, then this is clearly incorrect even though both premises are true.   

Where do you think, that this is being done in the discussion of the KCA?  I think that you are merging separate arguments, to get to affirming the consequent; which, I may understand the confusion, but I don't think your getting this from the conclusion of the argument.

The first two premises of the KCA are suspect ("that everything that begins to exist has a cause" and that the "universe began to exist").  Another great lecture by Professor Sean Carroll discusses this point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI

53 min.WTH. ... Your going to have to present the reasons why you think they are suspect.

[Jehanne]

The first two premises of the KCA are suspect ("that everything that begins to exist has a cause" and that the "universe began to exist").  Another great lecture by Professor Sean Carroll discusses this point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI

53 min.WTH. ... Your going to have to present the reasons why you think they are suspect.

Because modern quantum field theory, as Professor Carroll notes, describes physical events that happen without any cause whatsoever.  Likewise, just because our Universe has a finite age does not preclude an infinite age for the multiverse, a beginning-less Cosmos.  Craig is simply wrong when he says that the BGV theorem applies to a multiverse; no cosmologist is making such a claim.  Besides, with Hawking's no boundary proposal, a sufficient answer exists for the origin of our Universe, one of finite age but also one without a beginning.  We can simply be satisfied with the fact that our Universe just is, which means that it is its own explanation, and its own cause.  We need not invoke anything further to explain it; it explains itself.

You are certainly free to believe in "god" but "god" makes no empirical, testable predictions of anything, and whether "god" has any additional "explanatory power" is a subjective conclusion.  For many (such as Us), invoking "god" just describes one mystery with an even greater mystery, and it is silly to say that "god" is a "necessary being" without also conceding that the Universe and physical law are, perhaps, just "brute facts" which need no explanation beyond the fact that 2+2 = 4.

[wiploc]

I understand this part.  I don't see anything about it not to understand.  Three points, though:

A- I have no reason to believe it is true.
 
B- I believe it is contrary to the current scientific consensus

C- It seems to me arbitrary and self-serving, as if the worshipper of, say, a blue devil, proclaimed that everything that isn't blue has a cause.   

We can still look at whether your argument is valid, but it already doesn't seem to be sound.

A. 
1. Something does not come from nothing. 

If we accept WLC's claim that nothing comes from nothing, then your theory is dead in the water.  A god cannot create a universe from nothing.  No creator god can exist. 

2. If something can come from nothing, how come we do not see that happening now? Since nothing has no properties, there cannot be any difference between nothing before the universe and nothing now. Our physical laws cannot constrain nothing--because there is nothing to constrain.

Are you arguing that anything that can ever happen must happen all the time?  There can't be old quasars far away because we don't see any new ones happening around here?  

Don't you see what that line of thought does to your theory?  If that's a reasonable argument, then we must conclude that no gods ever created universes because we don't see it happening here now.

3. All of our experiences are 100% in support of this statement. science is based on it.

You made that up.

You would have to present a pretty good reason why we should ignore our experience and intuition when it becomes inconvenient for your theory.

I don't know what you think my theory is.  You keep claiming, in effect, that you know more about my mental processes than I do.  

B. How can there be a consensus when we don't understand enough about quantum mechanics and can't come up with a unified theory of gravity?

My understanding is that most cosmologists like the Copenhagen Interpretation.  I don't have any idea what you think this has to do with a unified theory.

Since none of them can be correct, which theory do you want to say indicates that things can exist uncaused? [emphasis added]

1. The Copenhagen Interpretation.  

If you want to go against that, you can proceed in either of two ways.  You can show that I'm wrong about most cosmologists supporting it, or you can show that you have the personal expertise to contradict the scientific consensus.  

2. Your own theory that a god exists uncaused.  

You now claim that your own theory is among those which you have described as, "none of them can be correct."  

[/quote]

[wiploc]

- I'm not sure this is true.  Asimov said the universe began at the big bang, but then he immediately hedged, saying something like, "At least we can call it the beginning, since we don't know what happened before that."  Hawking made the same move in A Brief History of Time.  

But I keep reading this claim, made by Christians, as if the beginning of the big bang was literally the beginning of all.  They often talk as if this issue were scientifically settled.  They often talk as if doubting them on this is unscientific.  But they are often the same people who say that begun things have to have causes, so I have to wonder if they don't support science only when they think it supports them.  Often enough they'll say first that nothing comes from nothing, and then turn around and say that Jehovah created the universe from nothing.  

So I went on campus and found a cosmologist and put the question to him.  He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang.  Nobody knows what happened before the big bang.  Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."  

Bertrand Russell said something like this:  "When the experts are agreed, the layman does well not to hold the opposite opinion; when the experts are not agreed, the layman does well not to hold any opinion at all."  

So here's my opinion as to whether the beginning of the big bang was the ultimate beginning:  I don't know.  

I'm not aware of a scientific consensus on the matter, and I don't have the expertise that would warrant me having my own opinion.

-

I have some concern about equivocation on the word "universe."  To me, this usually means everything that exists.  So, if a god exists, it is part of the universe.  So I don't see how a god could create the universe.  That would mean, among other things, creating itself.  

But if we only mean some things, rather than all things -- for clarity, we can call it a partaverse as opposed to the allaverse -- then I don't see what this premise gets you. 

"P2: Some things had a beginning."  Yes, I'm happy to agree with that, but I don't think you can build a first cause argument on that foundation.

I posted this way back in this thread:
-------
For reference, the BVG paper was 2003.

Vilenkin in his book (which comes 3 years after the paper): "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 (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)."

In the Youtube video I posted (2012) Vilenkin showed that models which do not meet this one condition (any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past) still fail for other reasons to avert the beginning of the universe. Vilenkin concluded, “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”

So that's one guy.  He may be an expert, but I think most experts disagree with him.  I could be wrong about that.  If I am wrong, I'd love to hear about it.  

You are simply refusing to call the space-time boundary the beginning of our universe.

You made that up.  I don't know why you accuse me of thoughts I don't actually have.  It's going to get old fast.

And then somehow you conclude because WLC calls it the beginning (as does 

Vilenkin), WLC does not understand the science. 

Again, I don't know why you do this.  Are you confusing me with someone else?  Do you just like fictionalizing my opinions?  

For the record, I don't think WLC is ignorant or stupid; I think he's a liar.  And that has nothing to do with space-time boundaries.  If he understands space-time boundaries, he's way ahead of me.  

It is unavoidable. If you need "new physics", a universe generator, or some other mechanism (a cause) to move across the boundary than you have a beginning of our universe. 

I don't know what you're talking about.  

I think of causes as preceding effects.  I'd call that a matter of definition.  If we agree on that, and if you think time began at the beginning of the big bang, then there can't be a cause of the the universe.  A cause would have to be before the universe, before time.  That would be a contradiction.  It is logically impossible.

Alternatively, we can posit that causes need not precede effects.  In that case, we don't need your magic-throwing god.  The universe can be caused by some future event, perhaps involving a particle accerator.  

Either way, we don't wind up with a creator god.  

-------

You are correct, science breaks down as you pass through the singularity (not a thing but a boundary) and models do not help us.  So, we cannot use science prior to that point. Now the only way to ponder that question is to use metaphysics.

We can use logic.  And logic tells us that if you invent a fantasy realm that contradictorily existed before time, then you don't get to make up the rules of the place.  You can't arbitrarily declare that nothing physical exists there, and that minds can exist without matter, and that all the other attributes of your god just happen to line up in that realm.  

Regarding the universe includes God: that would not be the definition of the universe. The universe is all space-time and physical matter that came into being 13 billion years ago. 

Thanks for clarifying.  

I'm not going to say you're wrong, because that's what you mean by the word, so for you it is true by definition.  You're not alone in preferring that definition.  As I've made clear, though, that's not the definition I like.  

We don't want to talk past each other.  I could try to use your definition, or you could try to use mine, but I'm afraid we would get tripped up.  

I propose to continue using "partaverse" to mean what you mean by "universe."  If I use the word "universe," your first guess should be that I meant the allaverse.

[/quote]

[wiploc]

If we're talking about the partaverse, not including, say, gods, then, yes your argument is valid.  But all you've proven is that some stuff had causes.  Big whoop.  

Or, if we're talking about the allaverse, and we haven't equivocated (that is, if we were also talking about the allaverse in P2) then the argument is valid, but it "proves" that your god had a cause.

And, if "universe" refers to a partaverse in P2 but refers to the allaverse in the conclusion, then the argument is not valid.  

-

If we're just talking about the partaverse, I don't know why we're talking at all.  The intent of the first cause argument, as I understand it, is to establish the ultimate cause of everything.  

If we're talking about the allaverse, then your god (if it exists) is also caused, and that entirely defeats your claim to have established an uncaused cause.  

P1 said "whatever begins to exist has a cause". If P1 and P2 are true, then the conclusion is true.

Sticking that "begins" in there is arbitrary and self-serving.  If you believed in a god of blueness, you could substitute the word "blue," and the argument would be exactly as strong.

But I can stipulate to P1 so long as we aren't equivocating on the meaning of the word "universe."  I mention the possibility of equivocation because I believe a lot of people fielding your argument do equivocate on that point.  

I do not say that you equivocate.  I have no reason to believe you are equivocating.  Of course, if I were going to treat you the way you treat me, I would just assert that you are equivocating without any grounds.  

Thanks for clarifying (in a previous post) which definition of "universe" you are using.

We inductively reason what could be the cause of the universe (or its predecessors).
[/quote]

You specifically hedged. You defined "uninverse as all the space-time and physical matter that came into being 13 billion years ago."  We can only have a cause of the partaverse if there was time before that.  And, if there was time before that, then, reasoning inductively, there must have been space and matter too.  Nothing comes from nothing, after all.  In which case, why do we need your creator god?  

eternal-uncaused-did not begin to exist (avoids the infinite causal chain problem)
[/quote]

And yet it doesn't avoid the problem of a first cause, which you cope with by invoking a magic-throwing god.  I don't see how that counts as progress.  

If your god began, then, according to your theory, he needs a cause.  If he didn't begin, then the rest of the universe didn't begin either.  Either way, your argument fails.  

In my experience, the only way theists can claim their god didn't begin and everything else did is by surreptitiously two-stepping between conflicting definitions of "begin."  



[quote]

timeless (existed before time)
[/quote]

[quote]

non-physical (exists before all of physical matter existed)
[/quote][/quote][/quote]

No, you specifically hedged.  You said the partaverse consists of all of the spacetime that started 13 billion years ago.  You left open the possibility of other spacetime before that.   And you talk about "before" the big bang, which estops you from making the contradictory claim that no spacetime existed before the big bang.  

Unless you're embracing contradiction.  But, in that case, I don't see why you keep talking about inductive logic, which is based on avoiding contradiction.  



[quote]

has intent (decided to create something rather than not create something)
[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

You made that up.  We don't know the circumstances of your fantasy realm.  We don't know whether intent would be required to cause creation, or to prevent creation, or anything else.  We don't even know whether intent is possible in this realm.  

WLC justifies intent by claiming his gods could have created the world sooner.  They made a choice to delay for eternity, and then they created.  That is, he embraces the infinite regress.  But you don't like infinite regress.  You say it is absurd.  So you have no need or justification for intent.  

But if you side with WLC, if you declare that infinite regress is possible in your fantasy realm after claiming that it is absurd in the real world, then what happens to your inductive reasoning?  Why can't we say that other things you think are absurd happen in your fantasy realm?  Why can't we say, for instance, that universes just pop into existence for no reason?  

If infinite regress is absurd, and if the absurdity of infinite regress happens in your realm, then why would other absurdities be logically excluded?  




[quote]

powerful enough to make something out of nothing
[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

According to you, that doesn't happen.  Power, then, doesn't come into it.  

And, according to you, if it did happen, we'd be seeing it happen now.  Since (according to you, even if not according to quantum physicists) we don't see this happening, it follows that it never happened.  


I don't know what's happening to this post. I can't keep up with the editing; the post is getting worse and worse as I try to correct the mistakes. I apologize for the confusion.

[wiploc]

P1 said "whatever begins to exist has a cause". If P1 and P2 are true, then the conclusion is true. We inductively reason what could be the cause of the universe (or its predecessors). That entity would be:

eternal-uncaused-did not begin to exist (avoids the infinite causal chain problem)
timeless (existed before time)
non-physical (exists before all of physical matter existed)
has intent (decided to create something rather than not create something)
powerful enough to make something out of nothing

This is all the conclusions we get from this particular question. Note I did not conclude the God of the Bible.

As i pointed out quite a bit earlier in this thread, since you only believe one thing did not begin to exist,

What one thing is that?  And how do you conclude that I believe it didn't begin to exist?  Your knowledge of my opinions that I didn't know I had fascinates me.

your argument is guilty of the fallacy affirming the consequent.

Aren't you the one claiming that only one thing didn't begin to exist?  Does that make you guilty of affirming the consequent?  

Unless you believe there was more then one thing that did not begin to exist.

Contrary to your fantasies about my mental state, I don't have an opinion on this topic.  [/quote]

[RoadRunner79]

53 min.WTH. ... Your going to have to present the reasons why you think they are suspect.

Because modern quantum field theory, as Professor Carroll notes, describes physical events that happen without any cause whatsoever.  Likewise, just because our Universe has a finite age does not preclude an infinite age for the multiverse, a beginning-less Cosmos.  Craig is simply wrong when he says that the BGV theorem applies to a multiverse; no cosmologist is making such a claim.  Besides, with Hawking's no boundary proposal, a sufficient answer exists for the origin of our Universe, one of finite age but also one without a beginning.  We can simply be satisfied with the fact that our Universe just is, which means that it is its own explanation, and its own cause.  We need not invoke anything further to explain it; it explains itself.

So you are telling me, that a scientist; who's job it is to find out what causes things.  Is telling you that nothing is the cause.   How did he come to that conclusion or why do you believe this?   Does "nothing" as a cause have requirements or is their limits to "nothing's" causal sufficiency?

As to other theories, you are going to need to pick one, and give me more than maybe's and possibly, or else, I'm going to go with the evidence.

You are certainly free to believe in "god" but "god" makes no empirical, testable predictions of anything, and whether "god" has any additional "explanatory power" is a subjective conclusion.  For many (such as Us), invoking "god" just describes one mystery with an even greater mystery, and it is silly to say that "god" is a "necessary being" without also conceding that the Universe and physical law are, perhaps, just "brute facts" which need no explanation beyond the fact that 2+2 = 4.

If I didn't believe the multiple lines of evidence which say that the universe is 14B years old, then I would agree;  I would have to concede that it may be "necessary" from a scientific point of view.  And also, just to be clear... I'm not making an argument for God as a predictable, testable scientific solution.  The scientific evidence doesn't point necessarily to God as the cause.  It can however tell us with some logical inductions certain things about the cause if the universe had a beginning.  The cause must transcend the universe (cannot be part of the effect).  Since the beginning of the universe in a hot big bang model is the beginning of space, time, and matter; we may reasonably conclude that the cause is immaterial and outside of space time.  It's also plausible that the cause is personal, given that space time and matter are not in effect yet.  This requires intention or choice (personal) in order to enact the cause/effect.

My knowledge of God, comes from the scriptures.   These are largely historical in nature (written down over many generations) millennia ago.  Again, I agree with you, that God is not scientifically testable, as he is outside of the scope of science.  You may say that this is convenient, but it is, the way it is (and would be a category error to demand scientific evidence.)   Many assumptions of science are also outside of it's view as well, and not testable by scientific means.  Which is why the view of scientism commits suicide rather quickly.  Not all truth is discoverable or verified by science.  Now we can take the relatively recent evidence and conclusions from modern science and compare them to historical descriptions revealed to man in the Bible.   I find that they are identical enough to conclude that they are both pointing to the same cause.

[Pat Mustard]

As i pointed out quite a bit earlier in this thread, since you only believe one thing did not begin to exist,

What one thing is that?  And how do you conclude that I believe it didn't begin to exist?  Your knowledge of my opinions that I didn't know I had fascinates me.

your argument is guilty of the fallacy affirming the consequent.

Aren't you the one claiming that only one thing didn't begin to exist?  Does that make you guilty of affirming the consequent?  

Unless you believe there was more then one thing that did not begin to exist.

Contrary to your fantasies about my mental state, I don't have an opinion on this topic.  

[/quote]

Wiploc, I'd say you've gotten mixed up replying to this post. Simon was replying to Steve.