1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by YoursTrue, Aug 18, 2022.

  1. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    25,268
    Ratings:
    +32,025
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Philosophical arguments are &pure* speculation.

    And, even from the viewpoint of philosophy, you did not come close to proving it beyond reasonable doubt. At best, you gave an argument based on the vague notion of traversing time. And you claimed, but did not prove, it to be impossible to traverse an infinite duration.


    or those claiming it to be impossible need to be schooled about some of the basics about infinity.


    No, you merely pointed out that quantum gravity is speculative. So what?


    Not really. It still means we need to figure out what nature can do, what the relevant physical laws are, and how to distinguish what nature can do from what requires a deity to do.

    So, not much changes.

    Only if one particular version of a creator deity is valid. Others would not be so immoral.

    Based on what? A rather vague argument about traversing time?

    And I pointed out where your specific argument fails.

    It fails because you adopt an A theory of time (traversal of time) as opposed to a B theory of time (time, including all past and future, simply exists). You then make the *assumption* that traversing an infinite duration is impossible (no argument given--merely pushing the burden of proof to another).

    And how is that relevant? Both give an infinite duration as existing.

    Really? OK, what was the mini-argument given in the paper prior to the main argument? What assumptions did it include that are not part of the main argument?

    And we know they *will* break down. At some point, quantum gravity will be a necessity.

    Do you doubt this?


    But the BGV theorem specifically addresses certain types of singularity: those leading to geodesic incompleteness.

    But it should lead to skepticism about purely philosophical arguments that are not based on observation.

    I have pointed out the assumptions in your argument that are likely to be invalid. You have not addressed them.

    I have addressed the argument. It is based on the faulty position that time is traversed. This is unrealistic after the discovery of relativity.

    It assumes that it is impossible to traverse an infinite interval without actually giving a reason why it is.

    I claim it *is* possible to have an infinite past. No traversal is required, only the infinite number of time slices.

    But they are very reliant on intuitive biases (traversal of time). Many such biases have been shown wrong.

    I have found that philosophical arguments are mostly useful to find our intuitive biases, not to actually say anything valid about reality.


    Using logic and deduction is NOT the same as philosophy. Philosophers like to claim that science depends on philosophy, but when you ask scientists (yes, even ones that are philosophically sophisticated), they tend not to think that to be the case.

    So, again, it is definitional.

    You said a circle, not a round shape.

    How is a circle defined? As the collection of points some fixed distance from a 'center' point.

    Now, imagine a geometry in the shape of the surface of a pyramid. Take the 'center' to be the vertex of that pyramid. The set of points some fixed distance from that center is always a square. So, in this geometry, circles centered at that point are all squares.

    Alternatively, an easier: let the distance be computed using the taxi-cab metric. Then the 'circles' are ALL squares.


    Yawn. Ridiculing those trying to educate you is seldom a good position.

    Nope, not even close. Reading and understanding the paper is *far* more detailed and authoritative than a video, even by the author of the paper.

    Nope. Until then, we work on quantum gravity, which we *know* is going to be necessary and we *know* BGV doesn't cover.
     
    #561 Polymath257, Sep 16, 2022
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2022
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Venni_Vetti_Vecci

    Venni_Vetti_Vecci The Sun Does Not Rise In Hell

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2022
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +16
    Religion:
    Christian
    Nonsense. The BGV is about the impossibility of a past-eternal universe under a specific circumstance.

    It says nothing about the potentiality of an infinite future...and neither does the philosophical arguments against an infinite PAST.

    Wow...I said ALL of that above without knowing that you are maintaining those same sentiments here.

    We are in agreement, so remind me of what your beef is, again?

    I agree.

    I do. God.

    Lol. Gotcha.

    I use science to support philosophical arguments for theism.

    It is testable...if you can prove how a universe can originate without an external cause and can also give itself its fine-tuned parameters...you would solve the mystery.

    It means; if you have X amount of explanations used to explain Y effect, and Z is one of many options provided to explain Y effect, and Z is found to be able explain Y effect better other options..

    Then Z can be said to have more explanatory power than the other options.

    How is that?
     
  3. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    25,268
    Ratings:
    +32,025
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    And we *know* it is incomplete since it doesn't deal with quantum gravity.

    No, I do not. I have to give a plausible model to which BGV does not apply.

    No, yuou gave an argument based on the problematic (especially in a relativistic scenario) of 'traversing' time.

    Please justify your use of the A theory of time as opposed to the B theory of time that is universal in physics.

    For example, a non-classical model or one in which expansion is not true on an average.

    No, it doesn't. It doesn't even take you that far.

    Why do you assume that the universe has to have an 'origin'?

    Hmmm...so if the universe was created by a multidimensional teenager as a high school art project, then Christians would be comfortable calling that teenager 'God'? I sort of doubt it.

    It just shows that Craig, like many scam artists, likes to play on the emotions of the audience as opposed to actually giving reasoned discussion. Take the debate to writing and see how well he does.

    Yes, the important difference is 'finite into the past' and 'began to exist'. The latter implies a process; the former does not.
    Nope, you simply dismissed it. It is a plausible model of the universe that is not classical and is not subject to the BGV argument.

    No, it showed that a classical description ultimately leads to singularities. It is known that a quantum description may not.

    Based on this, nothing can be said prior to nucleosynthesis: anything before that is speculation.

    No, you are going *beyond* what we know. You are going before the period of nucleosynthesis and *speculating* about what the conditions might have been before that.

    And why does the universe need to be explained while deities do not?

    Hmmm...which class of logic is that? Does it have a syllabus? Which university is it taught in?

    Yes, and this happens over time.

    But the universe did not come about through time. So the analogy is false.

    Why do you assume there is a 'condition' that 'allows' our universe to exist?

    Yes, there *would* be a universe if the existence of the universe is a 'raw fact', which seems very plausible, right?

    false analogy. You assume that the conditions for the formation of the universe existed for an infinite amount of time. That is not being assumed: only that time is infinite into the past.

    irrelevant.

    And it is clear to me that you will dismiss any model that doens't correspond to your views as speculative even though your own speculations are far more doubtful.
     
  4. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    25,268
    Ratings:
    +32,025
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Actually, the BGV argument would apply to a *contracting* universe to give geodesic incompleteness into the future.
     
  5. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    6,333
    Ratings:
    +833
    Religion:
    None
    The OT was symbolic

    Jerusalem - God's city
    Jews - God's people
    Promise Land - eternity
    High priest - Christ
    Warfare - the enemy you must deal with in yourself
    The tiny size of Israel - how few are acceptable to God
    King David - the rejected and the reigning King
    Slavery and Captivity - the price of sin
    Rebuilding the walls - recovery and re-establishing of boundaries
    Amalekites - the spiritual enemy, marauder who doesn't want to live in your space, but take what you have
    Egypt - the world
    Babylon - false religion
    The first born sons - our human nature
    The second born son - the nature of Christ
    The Ark - God's presence
    Wandering in the wilderness - the life long journey to the promised land
    Dying at the borders (Moses) - death
    Temple gates facing the east - that eternal morning
    The manna - trusting solely in God's provision
    The spotless male lamb, taken in and bonded to for three days - then killed, the blood daubed and then eaten whole - Christ

    and so on, there's many more of these
    So when the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles they would find the notion of a man dying for their sins confounding. But in knowing the story of the lamb whose blood saved God's people from the angel of death, they get a picture.
     
  6. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    60,015
    Ratings:
    +40,064
    Religion:
    Atheist
    And how do you justify that claim? Just because the OT is false if read literally is not a good enough excuse.
     
  7. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    25,268
    Ratings:
    +32,025
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    The BGV argument will also show that there is a 'stop' in the future for a contracting universe.

    Actually, you called him out for saying the universe might be infinite in extent even if it is finite into the past.

    No, you have that as a hypothesis. That is speculative, though.


    Why would it need a cause at all? Since all causes are inside of the universe, it seems that there *cannot* be a cause for the universe.

    Can you give *any* example of a cause that is NOT in the universe?

    But you neglected to say what it *means* to explain something.

    In particular, to be an explanation of a phenomenon Y, it needs to clearly show why (not Y) does not happen. At the very least, it needs to make Y more probable and (not Y) less probable.

    Furthermore, the more characteristics Z of Y that are logical consequences of the explanation *while (not Z) is demonstrably NOT a consequence* the more support.

    So, for example, general relativity predicts a Big Bang (or a Big Crunch). Together with thermodynamics, we also get detailed predictions about the nature of the CMBR, including its temperature variations. These have been verified to a very high degree of precision.

    On the other hand, a God hypothesis says *absolutely nothing* about the CMBR and its characteristics, no actual details about what the universe is like. It says nothing about universal expansion, nothing about how that expansion changes over time, etc. So, in reality, the God hypothesis has *no* explanatory value at all.

    If there is another theory that simultaneously makes the predictions of GR and also gives an understanding of the origin of the universe, that theory would be *much* more highly preferred than the God hypothesis for those reasons alone.
     
  8. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    6,333
    Ratings:
    +833
    Religion:
    None
    I do believe there was a real:
    Promised Land
    Jerusalem
    Ark of the Covenant
    Temple
    Horns of the altar
    Joshua
    Moses
    King David
    King Omri
    Queen Jezebel
    Isaiah
    Bethany
    Galilee
    Sea of Galilee
    Philistines
    Sacrificial lamb/ram - unblemished and male
    Edict of Cyrus
    Babylon
    Egypt
    etc
    etc
    etc

    Most of the above are accepted as proven now. So far there's no evidence for Moses and no proof yet for the Ark of the Covenant (but evidence)
     
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    60,015
    Ratings:
    +40,064
    Religion:
    Atheist
    No, there are claims of Moses and an Ark of the Covenant. There is no evidence for them.

    Nor is there evidence for Joshua. Queen Jezebel. And the rest are mostly just "So what?" claims.
     
  10. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    19,190
    Ratings:
    +6,459
    Religion:
    Pi π
    God?

    I’m assuming that your only justifications you have, is a LESS THAN 2700-year-old composition of Genesis about a couple of creation stories that somehow “God” magically created the world and life on Earth, just by speaking some words, like some witchcraft incantations, that things just magically popped into existence or impossible transformations?

    In another words, the old “God did it” adage?

    The whole things, your belief in Genesis stories, God’s powers & eternal/immortal life, are nothing more than superstitions, based on fear and ignorance.

    That’s all superstitions are - fear & ignorance.

    Not only that Iron Age Genesis creation (as well as the Great Flood) stories were written during the Late Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods, and more importantly, the Genesis Creation & Flood are based on much older creation/flood myths of Babylonia and Assyrian literature centuries earlier in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, meaning 2nd millennium BCE.

    Genesis Creation and Flood are adaptions of earlier stories during the 2nd millennium BCE that remained popular in the 1st millennium BCE (Iron Age), eg the Enūma Eliš, the Epic of Atrahasis and the very popular Epic of Gilgamesh, where pieces (fragments) of clay tablets were discovered east (eg Elam) and west (eg Amarna in Egypt, the Hittite city of Hattusa, the city of Ugarit in northwest Syria and in the Canaanite Megiddo.

    The Babylonian stories are based on even older stories, written in Sumerian cuneiform, during the late 3rd millennium BCE. Examples, the Eridu Genesis, the story of Enki and Ninlil, poems of Bilgames (a Sumerian name for Gilgamesh).

    The kingdoms of Israel and Judah were in contacts with both the Assyrian empire (7th century BCE) and Babylonian empire (late 7th century and early 6th century BCE), though wars and trades, as well as prominent hostages of Judah were living in Babylon for 2 generations, would have been well-aware of popular Akkadian stories.

    My points that Hebrew authors would have known the stories of Atrahasis/Utanapishtim and of Gilgamesh, because there are some similarities, such as humans being created from the Earth, Flood stories of Atrahasis and of Utanapishtim about releasing birds before finding land and the smell of sacrifices that drew attentions of the gods, which bear similarities to Noah.

    The points with creation stories of Babylonian and Hebrew have some commonalities that are based on superstitions.

    The Genesis 1 and 2 stories are just that, stories with loose descriptions of God creating. “God did it” isn’t scientific explanations of how the world really exist; “God did it” is merely unsubstantiated assumptions just like all superstitions are.

    If we were to believe in the chronology of the Old Testament, then the Earth itself and the life were no older than about 6000 years (about 4000 BCE), if we were to believe in literal 6-day creation.

    Of course, there other Christian creationists who believe that each creative day to be a thousand-year period or million-year period, depending on the individual creationists’ interpretations of Genesis 1, but that also defied logic and reality.

    The fact is, Genesis 1 & 2 are not scientific explanations and lack evidence to support these stories.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    19,190
    Ratings:
    +6,459
    Religion:
    Pi π
    There are no evidence for Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon, and there are no evidence for the invasion of Canaan and for the Ark of Covenant.

    There are also no evidence for empire of Solomon and his fabled wealth. If Solomon did marry all those princesses from foreign kingdoms, don’t you think at least one of the contemporary foreign kingdoms would have even mentioned Solomon by name?

    And just because it can name places, like Jerusalem, Babylon and Egypt, don’t mean the “stories” prior to formulation of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel are history.

    Homer named many cities and places that exist in his time, don’t mean Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Achilles, Agamemnon, Odysseus, Priam, Hector and Helen are all real people and don’t mean the Iliad and Odyssey are real history.

    Beside that, according to Genesis 10, places like Uruk (Erech in some translations of Genesis), Nineveh and Egypt didn’t exist until post-Flood, and yet the Old Kingdom pyramids predated Noah’s supposed Flood by centuries, and Nineveh and Uruk are even older by over a thousand years.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    6,333
    Ratings:
    +833
    Religion:
    None
    The "'so what' claims" are an admission these things are proven.
    I wasn't aware the Phoenician queeen Jezebel hasn't been found yet.
    We have evidence of Jezebel's parents and her husband Ahab, so yeah 'no evidence' but there's no reason she didn't exist - after all, there was an alliance between Israel and her home of Tyre, often established through marriages.

    The Ark was just a box supported by two poles. Similar to those of other nations. God works through existing cultures.
    There's this theory that the ark's resting place is still on the mount - evidenced by cuts in a floor which appear to accomodate the poles.
    Joshua is only known to skeptics through his Mt Ebal altar and the place of cursing, just found. So there's evidence for some of the claims about the life of Joshua. And when the Ark was taken from Shiloh by the Phillistines there was left behind the 'horns of the altar' which were found - and shown in the museum at Shiloh. Also there - the butchered sacrifices, cut as per the Mosaic law - evidence that law was in effect.
     
  13. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,151
    Ratings:
    +2,366
    Not exactly. Because I don't think showing you equations or other aspects of models will make any difference, and because I don't think quoting specialists instead will either, I'll take the hard path.
    I'll quote Vilenken himself in a later paper commenting on responses to the BGV theorem and offering counterpoints, arguments, etc.
    He starts off by noting that

    "The validity of the BGV theorem is not in question, but its interpretation has generated some controversy. Linde emphasized that the theorem still allows some geodesics (a set of measure zero) to be past eternal. A simple example is a “comoving” geodesic x=const in de Sitter space with flat spatial slicing,
    ds^2=dt^2−e^(2Ht)dx2.
    Observers evolving along such geodesics will see inflation continue from the infinite past."

    This simple example is not put forward as a serious counterargument, merely as an example Vilenken acknowledges to be an example of an a geodesic (an "observer") for which the past can be infinitely extended despite the BGV theorem.
    The paper largely consists of rather technical arguments against some of those points, objections, arguments, etc., since the paper with the BGV theorem was published that offer ways in which we can have a universe or spacetime extending infinitely into the past.
    For some of these arguments, Vilenkin attempts to show that the resulting counterexamples of infinite/eternal universes are implausible. In particular his concern focuses mainly on bidirectionality in a class of cosmologies for which he needs to invoke additional constraints to arrive at the conclusion given in the BGV paper (namely, that even inflation had a beginning as in all likelihood, he believes, any good cosmological model would).
    He concludes by noting that even in this paper and his "strengthened" position in which he addresses many counters to the BGV theorem and ways that have succeeded in showing that this theorem does not preclude cosmologies extended infinitely into the past, his conclusion that there must have been a single "beginning" (initial condition) is his opinion:

    "It should also be noted that our conclusions rely on the null convergence condition (NCC). NCC is known to be violated by quantum fluctuations, but such fluctuations do not appear to be essential for our discussion here. More importantly, violations of NCC may occur in the high curvature regime near classical singularities and may in fact lead to resolution of the singularities (see, e.g., A. Ashtekar and P. Singh, Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 213001 (2011).). This may significantly modify the global structure of spacetime and may open new possibilities for Carroll-Chen-type scenarios.
    Personally, however, I am skeptical about the concept of random (or generic) initial conditions. I do not think it is a good substitute for a theory of initial conditions, as might for example be given by quantum cosmology. " (emphasis added)
    Vilenkin, A. (2013). Arrows of time and the beginning of the universe. Physical Review D, 88(4), 043516.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    6,333
    Ratings:
    +833
    Religion:
    None
    We have the evidence for the 'House of David' which would include Solomon as he was the next king after David. Hard to see invasions of Canaan when Canaanites did it to each other all the time, and the time of Moses saw the vast movement of peoples all over the civilized world - the Bronze Age Collapse. We have the evidence for many of the Iron Age kings of Isreal. We might even now have the evidence for Sodom at Tel el Hammond.
     
  15. Venni_Vetti_Vecci

    Venni_Vetti_Vecci The Sun Does Not Rise In Hell

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2022
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +16
    Religion:
    Christian
    True.

    A true truth-seeker goes where the evidence takes him, even if where it takes him makes him feel uncomfortable.

    Sure he can. Do some science and prove him wrong.

    What model?

    ?

    Cool. Let me know what they find out...until then, BGV it is.
     
  16. Venni_Vetti_Vecci

    Venni_Vetti_Vecci The Sun Does Not Rise In Hell

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2022
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +16
    Religion:
    Christian
    Back to infinite regress..you cannot have a past-eternal quantum regime. I already provided one (of many I can provide) example of why that cant be the case, and I dont recall you addressing it...and it stands (whether you address it or not).

    As far as the science of the matter is concerned..

    I already know you read the wiki article on the BGV theorem and saw what Sean Carrol said about the theorem as it relates to quantum gravity...and you took what Carroll said about QG and now you are running wild with it.

    But lets talk about it...

    "it is very difficult to devise a system – especially a quantum one – that does nothing ‘forever,’ then evolves. A truly stationary or periodic quantum state, which would last forever, would never evolve, whereas one with any instability will not endure for an indefinite time."

    Anthony Aguirre and John Kehayias, “Quantum Instability of the Emergent Universe,”

    arXiv:1306.3232v2 (Page 5)

    And their point is simple, you cant have this quantum region existing for eternity and then suddenly evolving (or transitioning) into classical space-time only some 13.7 billion years ago.

    The same thing applies to the Standard big bang model, where our universe begins from a singularity point.

    You cant have this singularity just sitting around and doing NOTHING for eternity, and then for whatever illogical reason, begins to expand.

    Makes no sense.
     
  17. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    25,268
    Ratings:
    +32,025
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    The only argument I saw you give against infinite regress was the traversing argument. I responded to that.

    And, as @LegionOnomaMoi has pointed out, the BGV theorem does NOT prove that there was a beginning. There can be past eternal geoesics even in situations subject to BGV.

    And who said anything about a stationary quantum state or one that 'does nothing forever'? In an eternal situation, there would continually be universes nucleating.

    And who said that is what would be happening? Instead, you either have a previous contracting phase and a 'bounce' OR you have nucleation of different 'universes' out of a vacuum.

    But, again, we KNOW that the Standard Model is only a classical approximation. It would not be authoritative in these questions.

    And who said that is what happened? You are attacking a straw man.
     
  18. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    25,268
    Ratings:
    +32,025
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Precisely.

    As pointed out in another post, the BGV result isn't in question. The *interpretation* very much is. In particular, even in a classical setting, it does NOT prove the existence of a 'beginning': there may well be observers with an infinite past. Second, it is KNOWN not to apply when quantum mechanics is taken into account *and QM has to be taken into account*.

    Vilenkin has an *opinion* that the universe had a beginning, but that is NOT proved an others disagree. Guth, for example.

    LQG, String theory (yes, I know it has issues).


    What did you not understand. A cyclic universe need not satisfy the hypotheses of BGV. Vilenkin *speculates* that the end result still holds but does not prove it.

    BGV is one constraint on the development of certain theories in cosmology. But it doesn't say as much as you seem to think it does and there *are* models that avoid its conclusions.

    Are they speculative? Of course they are. ALL models of this sort are speculative. If you want to stick to non-speculative models, then you won't get anything prior to nucleosynthesis.
     
  19. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    16,360
    Ratings:
    +9,824
    Oh please do school the cosmologists. That ought to be hilarious. Please make sure to share it with all of us.
     
  20. LegionOnomaMoi

    LegionOnomaMoi Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,151
    Ratings:
    +2,366
    WL Craig, whose arguments and even key phrasing you seem to repeat (often nearly, if not exactly, verbatim), has already attempted to "school the cosmologists" (at least when it suits him; when he finds something he wants to use from cosmology, he has no problem doing so, nor with making inferences oft-times from his idiomatic interpretation that goes beyond what both cosmologists and the literature he uses actually warrants).
    So, for example, in his article Big Bang Cosmology, Craig takes a very select group of cosmologists and cherry-picked cosmology articles (mostly popular articles, too), and then proceeds to "school the cosmologists" wherever he feels they are wrong, mostly via appeals to simplified versions of older philosophical concepts, ad hominem, and straw-man arguments, etc., but no contact with actual cosmology (at least, not after he's covered the classical results he likes).
    Craig also "school[s ] the cosmologist" Vilenkin, whom he quotes quite plainly as saying that no deity is needed:

    "Vilenkin has a different proposal as to how the universe could come into being from literally nothing. He explains,
    Craig Responds:

    Now, again, when Craig "schools" cosmologists, he doesn't relies mainly on twisting around their attempts to simplify concepts, theories, and models he wouldn't otherwise understand, and applying his metaphysical prejudices and philosophical biases to what he is able to glean from the non-technical simplifications of actual literature in cosmology.
    And you're right, it is rather amusing, or at least it would be if people didn't seem to take it seriously. And to rely on it for their understanding of cosmology and (when relevant) related fields in physics.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...