INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

The fact that Vilenkin has has explicitly addressed and repudiated the sort of interpretation being put forward of his theorem on this thread. Given that you're trying to misrepresent a scientific theorem to lend credibility to your religious views (which are quite unrelated), your (and CotW's) attempts at obfuscation here are understandable, even though they aren't really excusable.

What in the heck are you talking about?

What attempted obfuscation is there in providing a far simpler, more concise, and more emphatic quotes than you have. If your quotes use words like except, subtleties, and various other ambiguous terms and mine have none you can't accuse anyone else of obfuscation. Especially since the quote I gave was given at the end of a long lecture by Velankin where he one by one systematically contended and rejected the major subtleties (science fictions theories) that he at least allowed to be included in the quotes you provided. The quote I gave came at the end of a steady procession of his destroying any possibility of those subtleties being true. In order to clear up exactly what you think he said at the end of that talk: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning”.

That is as simple and emphatic a statement as is possible to make. Why are you complicating the obvious? I actually know why and was being rhetorical. The same reason those cosmic dreamers invented those subtleties (fantasy disguised as science), the theological implications of the beginning that most feel certain occurred are just too abhorrent to your side of things.

This is vacuous, and could be said of any claim whatsoever, i.e. that if we discount all the competing alternatives, the claim is "certain".

My Lord. So you are saying that nothing can be said to be true until every fantasy or fictional story invented simply to have something, anything, to provide an alternative theory to the one disliked are all absent from discourse. Then I guess the world's shape is still a mystery because a few people still think it is flat. Maybe we have no idea why built the pyramids because some think aliens did it. Maybe the species of our Government is still unknown because a few believe they are lizards. Is there any fact that does not have an alternative theory? That is absurd logic and not how science operates.

He himself went through the major "alternative theories" and rejected them all. Cosmic egg, oscillating verse, etc.... I can give you a link if you want.

You may not know this but that theory is so well accepted because it was designed specifically to be robust and be true (as much as possible) no matter what vagaries cosmologists cough up. It is a simple, robust, and elegant theory.

I expect you to obfuscate, trivialize the momentous, and complicate the obvious but even I could not predict you would do so and accuse me of obfuscation in the same post. I never get use to what your side can do.

 

[metis]

The concept that our universe "had a beginning" is not the issue, but what is the issue is what exactly caused our highly-condensed, minute universe, plus what caused it to expand. As what has already been shown, the theory in question simply does not translate out to there being evidence for a theistic cause-- period.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Layman as conceited as Craig? Sure they do.

Craig puts the fear of God (no pun intended) in his opponents hearts. In the UK, people were backing out of debates with him because of the impending doom

Indeed- it's curious that he hasn't figured out this whole validity thing by now...

But you sure as heck did, huh?

Apparently you have difficulty reading. Vilenkin was responding to the question of whether his theorem implies that the universe must have a finite past or a beginning, in other words, whether Craig's application of it is accurate, to which his answer was a clear and unequivocal "no"- the theorem implies that expansion must be finite, not the age of the universe.

Here we go with the semantics. Newsflash for you, buddy; to be finite is to have a beginning, ok?? If you can't understand something as simple as that, then there is no point in discussing anything else. If the expansion is finite, then the universe must be finite, because if you go back in time and space gets smaller, then you have no universe.

Couldn't get much more "straight to the point" than that. And, given Craig's propensity to misrepresent (or simply misunderstand) physics to try to prop up his arguments, this latest misrepresentation comes as no surprise.

Hmm, so when he was standing in front of an audience full of physicists giving a lecture on the scientific evidence supporting a finite universe, which was followed by a Q/A sessions, I am surprised that none of the physicists raised their hand and said "you are misrepresenting or simply misunderstanding physics". None of said that. I wonder why?

Ah, this antiquated article of faith again, eh? Talk about being selective; you enthusiastically embrace any part of physics (or any other science) which appears to support your pet beliefs, but reject those that do not.

I go where the science takes me man It just so happens that science now confirms what theologians have been saying for thousands of years, that the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I thought finite meant having a limit, or boundary not necessarily a beginning...finite implies that something will come to an end, and then you have to just go with the assumption that something that has an end has a begining.

 

[1robin]

The concept that our universe "had a beginning" is not the issue, but what is the issue is what exactly caused our highly-condensed, minute universe, plus what caused it to expand. As what has already been shown, the theory in question simply does not translate out to there being evidence for a theistic cause-- period.

What caused a beginning that is claimed to have never occurred is not relevant until the atheists stop insisting the universe had no beginning. IMO Atheists (God love them) have a weird habit of never being able to concede the slightest point no matter how obvious. It is as if one ray of light gets in and the whole house of cards is feared to possibly implode. So much time is spent just trying to get the foundations laid for any type of argument. However what caused our universe once it is conceded it probably had a cause is interesting. Philosophy lays out many logic characteristics for whatever the cause of what we have must be. I will not list them all again for the 50th time but they match exactly with what ignorant men 5000 years ago said concerning God's characteristics. I could agree that certainly is not proof (possibly not even good evidence) but it sure is consistent with the God proposition and exactly what you would expect to find of a true revelation.

 

[1robin]

I thought finite meant having a limit, or boundary not necessarily a beginning...finite implies that something will come to an end, and then you have to just go with the assumption that something that has an end has a begining.

If the quantity is time then it's start is called a beginning. Time, matter, and space among other things came into existence a finite time in the past according to the most accepted cosmological models.

 

[Cephus]

Craig puts the fear of God (no pun intended) in his opponents hearts. In the UK, people were backing out of debates with him because of the impending doom

LOL! Craig does no such thing, Craig is an idiot. The only thing Craig has going for him is that he knows how to play to his audience and engage in dishonest debate tactics. Taking apart his arguments isn't difficult at all, getting him to admit to it, that's another thing.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

What in the heck are you talking about?

What attempted obfuscation is there in providing a far simpler, more concise, and more emphatic quotes than you have. If your quotes use words like except, subtleties, and various other ambiguous terms and mine have none you can't accuse anyone else of obfuscation. Especially since the quote I gave was given at the end of a long lecture by Velankin where he one by one systematically contended and rejected the major subtleties (science fictions theories) that he at least allowed to be included in the quotes you provided. The quote I gave came at the end of a steady procession of his destroying any possibility of those subtleties being true. In order to clear up exactly what you think he said at the end of that talk: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning”.

That is as simple and emphatic a statement as is possible to make. Why are you complicating the obvious? I actually know why and was being rhetorical. The same reason those cosmic dreamers invented those subtleties (fantasy disguised as science), the theological implications of the beginning that most feel certain occurred are just too abhorrent to your side of things.

You can claim that the quotes you've provided are more "emphatic", but you can't really explain away the fact that the author of the theorem has explicitly repudiated the interpretation of it you are trying to advance. As he himself said, the quotes you've offered are basically the simple answer- not the whole answer, which is, as he said, that there are models to which his theorem does not apply. Such as eternal cyclical models, which hold great intuitive appeal.

And, at the end of the day, the point is moot since a universe with a finite age still doesn't entail any religious conclusions.

My Lord. So you are saying that nothing can be said to be true until every fantasy or fictional story invented simply to have something, anything, to provide an alternative theory to the one disliked are all absent from discourse.

That you construe viable scientific hypotheses, which you aren't in a position to disparage, as "fantasy" and "fictional stories" just shows the level of dishonesty you're willing to sink to, and that you're here purely picking cherries. And no, that was not what I'm saying- your statement was vacuous, as it was tantamount to saying "If we discount ~P, then P is certain"- well duh!

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Craig puts the fear of God (no pun intended) in his opponents hearts. In the UK, people were backing out of debates with him because of the impending doom

Indeed- from everything I've heard, his conduct is highly questionable in debates, intended more to impress his fans than be compelling or persuasive to anyone with half a brain. He's playing to the lowest-common denominator, which is he why he quote-mines shamelessly, moves the goaltposts, relies on implied intuition-pumps, etc.

It's totally understandable why people wouldn't want to debate such a person, aside from the fact that debates aren't really a primary venue for serious academics in the first place.

But you sure as heck did, huh?

It isn't rocket science, after all, but try telling that to Craig.

Here we go with the semantics. Newsflash for you, buddy; to be finite is to have a beginning, ok?? If you can't understand something as simple as that, then there is no point in discussing anything else.

If the expansion is finite, then the universe must be finite, because if you go back in time and space gets smaller, then you have no universe.

No, this is completely non-sequitur. If the expansion is finite, that means that at one point, the universe was not expanding. Derp!

Hmm, so when he was standing in front of an audience full of physicists giving a lecture on the scientific evidence supporting a finite universe, which was followed by a Q/A sessions, I am surprised that none of the physicists raised their hand and said "you are misrepresenting or simply misunderstanding physics". None of said that. I wonder why?

They probably did. But this objection has been raised countless times, regardless of whether it was raised at one particular Q&A.

I go where the science takes me man

No, you try to take science where you want to go (i.e. where your religion is).

It just so happens that science now confirms what theologians have been saying for thousands of years, that the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past.

Yeah, only not really, like at all-

... And, I'll also mention one last time that even if we granted that the universe has had a finite duration and an absolute beginning (if only to be nice about it, since this is not well established at all), no religious conclusions would follow, and all the same objections to God-of-the-gaps reasoning would still apply. As in the zero-energy universe and other cosmological models which include a beginning of the universe as the result of quantum activity, no occult entities are postulated (such as God or gods).

 

[metis]

What caused a beginning that is claimed to have never occurred is not relevant until the atheists stop insisting the universe had no beginning. IMO Atheists (God love them) have a weird habit of never being able to concede the slightest point no matter how obvious. It is as if one ray of light gets in and the whole house of cards is feared to possibly implode. So much time is spent just trying to get the foundations laid for any type of argument. However what caused our universe once it is conceded it probably had a cause is interesting. Philosophy lays out many logic characteristics for whatever the cause of what we have must be. I will not list them all again for the 50th time but they match exactly with what ignorant men 5000 years ago said concerning God's characteristics. I could agree that certainly is not proof (possibly not even good evidence) but it sure is consistent with the God proposition and exactly what you would expect to find of a true revelation.

Actually, I haven't seen or heard atheists say that, but then maybe your experiences and mine are different here. Most of what I have run across with them is that most think it's likely there were preconditions to the BB, and sub-atomic particles and/or strings possibly going back into infinity may be one of them.

Anyone who claims to know for certainty exactly what happened is working on just sheer imagination, imo.

 

[1robin]

You can claim that the quotes you've provided are more "emphatic", but you can't really explain away the fact that the author of the theorem has explicitly repudiated the interpretation of it you are trying to advance. As he himself said, the quotes you've offered are basically the simple answer- not the whole answer, which is, as he said, that there are models to which his theorem does not apply. Such as eternal cyclical models, which hold great intuitive appeal.

That statement was designed to contend with your obfuscation comment not designed to illustrate what Velankin has said. I did that in other places. I had assumed you meant he repudiated it in the quotes you gave but it is not there. If you have other quotes in mind, provide them and I will consider them. Everything I have looked up has him either stating point blank everything we know points to a finite single universe or his refutation of other arguments. I am curious primarily to see why you think that is not the case. Short of saying no other theory can ever be considered he made the most direct statements to that effect possible.

And, at the end of the day, the point is moot since a universe with a finite age still doesn't entail any religious conclusions.

So men ignorant of both philosophy and cosmology suggest the universe is finite, then many centuries of scientists get that simple likely fact wrong over and over, until finally they can't help but agree that in all likely hood it is finite and you see no relevance at all. I see no proof but everywhere I look I see consistency. That may mean nothing to you in this one issue alone for some reason but most of us disagree.

That you construe viable scientific hypotheses, which you aren't in a position to disparage, as "fantasy" and "fictional stories" just shows the level of dishonesty you're willing to sink to, and that you're here purely picking cherries. And no, that was not what I'm saying- your statement was vacuous, as it was tantamount to saying "If we discount ~P, then P is certain"- well duh!

I most certainly am in a position to call them that. I went to one of the finest engineering schools in the southeast (the one that corroborated with NASAS greatest achievements). I have a degree in mathematics, a life long interest in space, thousands of hours of listening to the best minds in cosmology, and many hours spent in lectures at the same university with some great minds as well. Lack of evidence constitutes the label of fiction or fantasy. Almost al theories of multiverses, oscillating verses, and the rest meet that standard as even Velankin went to great lengths to explain, but Sandage or many others could have been used for that purpose. I am detecting a pattern in your comments. You contently claim who or what is the most prestigious among scholars or theories but when investigated I find your more or less inaccurate in general.

BTW my statement would be equivalent to saying. We know X to a high degree of reliability and should claim X is true because y and z have so little merit as too almost be below the status of even a contention as again Velankin has said. He actually said impossible but I will say highly unlikely.

What I said is true but is not even relevant anyway. My primary claims had only the fact that his theorem is the most accepted and likely model known. The rest was just incidental but no less true.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It does have a beginning, it just doesn’t have a beginning at a singularity point, but a beginning is a beginning, regardless of whether it is a “beginning point” or otherwise. Time began to exist in the no boundary model just like it does in the standard model. It has a beginning but no end..but that is not an “actual” infinity. That is a “potential” infinity, and it is important to distinguish the two. Of course the future is potentially infinite, but the past has a beginning. Second, Hawking had to appeal to the concept of imaginary time to postulate this model, and even he said himself “Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities…When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities” (Hawking, Brief History of Time 138-39). Mathematically, once you convert back to real numbers, the singularities reappears, and so does an absolute beginning, and even without the singularity it STLL has a beginning. So the no- boundary model is not a realistic way of looking at the universe.

I’m not sure you should be chastising anyone for citing quotes out of context while at the same time presenting the butchered quotation above, like you did.

It doesn’t appear anywhere on pages 138 or 139. The first sentence (“Only if we could picture … ) appears on page 143. Then there is a paragraph, and then we find the second sentence of your quotation (“When one goes back …) in the middle of page 144. All of that is preceded by several pages of explanations and descriptions of the reality of imaginary time in mathematics. I know this because I’m holding the book in my hands, reading the pages you cited trying to find your quotation. I practically had to read the whole chapter to find the two sentences you quoted above.

Without citing the entire chapter (because I don’t feel like typing that much), I’ll start just before and end just after your quotation:

“The history of the universe in real time, however, would look very different. At about ten or twenty thousand million years ago, it would have a minimum size, which was equal to the maximum radius of the history in imaginary time. At later real times, the universe would expand like the chaotic inflationary model proposed by Linde (but one would not now have to assume that the universe was created somehow in the right sort of state). The universe would expand to a very large size (Fig. 8.1) and eventually it would collapse again into what looks like a singularity in real time. Thus, in a sense, we are still all doomed, even if we keep away from black holes. Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities.

If the universe really is in such a quantum state, there would be no singularities in the history of the universe in imaginary time. It might seem therefore that my more recent work has completely undone the results of my earlier work on singularities. But, as indicated above, the real importance of the singularity theorems was that they showed that the gravitational field must become so strong that quantum gravitational effects could not be ignored. This in turn led to the idea that the universe could be finite in imaginary time but without boundaries or singularities. When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities. The poor astronaut who falls into a black hole will still come to a sticky end; only if he lived in imaginary time would he encounter no singularities.

This might suggest that the so-called imaginary time is really the real time, and that what we call real time is just a figment of our imaginations. In real time, the universe had a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down. But in imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries. So maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic, and what we call real is just an idea that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like. But according to the approach I described in Chapter 1, a scientific theory is just a mathematical model we make to describe our observations: it exists only in our minds. So it is meaningless to ask: which is real, “real” or “imaginary” time? It is simply a matter of which is the more useful description.”
-Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pp. 143-44



It’s not really as clear-cut as you want it to be.

Well, if they “do include a beginning”, then the question is HOW AND WHY. You can’t just stop there. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, either by the necessity of its own nature or by an external cause. There is no way around this. So all you are doing is pushing the question of origins back one step further. And then you still have the infinity problem. So your job is not done. Not only is it not done, but it isn’t based on facts anyway.

How does inserting your god into the equation take care of the infinity problem? William Lane Craig’s semantic tricks don’t help.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Craig puts the fear of God (no pun intended) in his opponents hearts. In the UK, people were backing out of debates with him because of the impending doom

What a joke! Why would any serious scientist waste their time debating anything with him?

Hmm, so when he was standing in front of an audience full of physicists giving a lecture on the scientific evidence supporting a finite universe, which was followed by a Q/A sessions, I am surprised that none of the physicists raised their hand and said "you are misrepresenting or simply misunderstanding physics". None of said that. I wonder why?

I’ve seen physicists and other scientists call him out on his crap. I guess you missed it somehow.

I go where the science takes me man

Great, so you accept evolution? Fantastic!

It just so happens that science now confirms what theologians have been saying for thousands of years, that the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past.

Wow, that's amazing! Maybe one day we'll be able to prove once and for all Thor is actually responsible for lightning, just like the ancients used to believe!

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I’m not sure you should be chastising anyone for citing quotes out of context while at the same time presenting the butchered quotation above, like you did.

Really? Lets see whatcha got...

It doesn’t appear anywhere on pages 138 or 139. The first sentence (“Only if we could picture … ) appears on page 143. Then there is a paragraph, and then we find the second sentence of your quotation (“When one goes back &#8230 in the middle of page 144. All of that is preceded by several pages of explanations and descriptions of the reality of imaginary time in mathematics. I know this because I’m holding the book in my hands, reading the pages you cited trying to find your quotation. I practically had to read the whole chapter to find the two sentences you quoted above.

First off, the quote I gave was from the book titled Reasonable Faith authored by WLC, in which Bill Craig is critiquing the model in question, and he gave the quote, and it is quoted in the Reasonable Faith book the exact way I presented it on here, references included. That quote is from Reasonable Faith, page 136, and I am also reading from the book right now. So it isn't as if I am talking out of my behind.

Second, if for arguments sake Bill Craig made a mistake on the "exact" page number, the context of the quote was not a mistake. Even in quote I gave, there are ellipses in the quote to let you know that it wasn't a direct quote in its entirety, but pieces of the main idea to drive home the point that imaginary time is not a description of real time. So once again, it isn't as if we are quoting anyone out of context, that is what ellipses are used for, but I guess you weren't aware of that since you tried so hard to cook up this "I gotcha" moment. What if there were different versions of the book, for example, some books paper back and others hard covers, which would obviously change location of words? Ever thought of that?

Third, like I just mentioned, even as you read what Hawking said, the context is clear, imaginary time is not a description of real time, and Hawking use of it in this sense has been critiqued even by Alexander Vilenkin.

:beach:

Without citing the entire chapter (because I don’t feel like typing that much), I’ll start just before and end just after your quotation:

“The history of the universe in real time, however, would look very different. At about ten or twenty thousand million years ago, it would have a minimum size, which was equal to the maximum radius of the history in imaginary time. At later real times, the universe would expand like the chaotic inflationary model proposed by Linde (but one would not now have to assume that the universe was created somehow in the right sort of state). The universe would expand to a very large size (Fig. 8.1) and eventually it would collapse again into what looks like a singularity in real time. Thus, in a sense, we are still all doomed, even if we keep away from black holes. Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities.

If the universe really is in such a quantum state, there would be no singularities in the history of the universe in imaginary time. It might seem therefore that my more recent work has completely undone the results of my earlier work on singularities. But, as indicated above, the real importance of the singularity theorems was that they showed that the gravitational field must become so strong that quantum gravitational effects could not be ignored. This in turn led to the idea that the universe could be finite in imaginary time but without boundaries or singularities. When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities. The poor astronaut who falls into a black hole will still come to a sticky end; only if he lived in imaginary time would he encounter no singularities.

This might suggest that the so-called imaginary time is really the real time, and that what we call real time is just a figment of our imaginations. In real time, the universe had a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down. But in imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries. So maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic, and what we call real is just an idea that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like. But according to the approach I described in Chapter 1, a scientific theory is just a mathematical model we make to describe our observations: it exists only in our minds. So it is meaningless to ask: which is real, “real” or “imaginary” time? It is simply a matter of which is the more useful description.”
-Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pp. 143-44

Once again, as I said before, Dr. Craig addressed this Hawking model in front of scientists and he was asked a question regarding imaginary time and was involved in a semi-debate with this young questioner, and he explains it so eloquently here if you would take 10 minutes out your busy schedule to watch this video.

[youtube]e-JSyXzxOMk[/youtube]
Beyond The Big Bang: William Lane Craig Templeton Foundation Lecture Q&A (HQ) 2/4 - YouTube

The fun starts around the 3:28 mark in the video. Hawking's use of imaginary numbers/time has also been critiqued by Vilenkin and a few others, as mentioned previously, so again, nothing you've said changes a thing.

How does inserting your god into the equation take care of the infinity problem? William Lane Craig’s semantic tricks don’t help.

The infinity problem doesn't apply to a timeless God, because God was not in time before the universe was created, but if the universe existed for eternity then it would exist IN TIME.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What a joke! Why would any serious scientist waste their time debating anything with him?

So Victor Stenger, Massimo Pigliuci, and Lawrence Krauss are not serious scientists. Gotcha.

I’ve seen physicists and other scientists call him out on his crap. I guess you missed it somehow.

Lawrence Krauss and Vic Stenger are two of the most prominent men in popular science today. I am quite positive that if one of these men you are speaking of wanted to debate him, it would happen. During his opening speech in their debate, Sam Harris even said the same thing, that people are scared to debate Dr. Craig.

Great, so you accept evolution? Fantastic!

Evolution isn't science. It is "scientific religion". A little bit of science, with a little bit of faith.

Wow, that's amazing! Maybe one day we'll be able to prove once and for all Thor is actually responsible for lightning, just like the ancients used to believe!

My religion comes from a long tradition of believing that the universe is finite with a supernatural creator behind it. So far, we got one out of two.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I thought finite meant having a limit, or boundary not necessarily a beginning...finite implies that something will come to an end, and then you have to just go with the assumption that something that has an end has a begining.

It can refer to a duration of time, as

Infinite | Define Infinite at Dictionary.com

When it is said that the universe is infinite, that means through everlasting time, therefore no beginning. So obviously finite would mean the opposite, limited in time, therefore, a beginning.

 

[1robin]

What a joke! Why would any serious scientist waste their time debating anything with him?

The fear of God comment is actually from respected atheist scientists. They said he is the only debater that can put the fear of God into an atheist. Christians did not say it nor invent that phrase. Everyone who faces him gets e-mails saying to not blow it and other such things. Dawkins and others will not even face him. Even Harris said what was stated about fear among many others. Craig may be right or wrong but he is peer reviewed, well respected, well published and more competent than most. Comments about any lack of skill say more about the ones making the comments than him. Throw in Aquinas, Lennox, and maybe Zacharias and they can't be matched.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Really? Lets see whatcha got...

First off, the quote I gave was from the book titled Reasonable Faith authored by WLC, in which Bill Craig is critiquing the model in question, and he gave the quote, and it is quoted in the Reasonable Faith book the exact way I presented it on here, references included. That quote is from Reasonable Faith, page 136, and I am also reading from the book right now. So it isn't as if I am talking out of my behind.

You’ve made it even more confusing now! There was no way anyone reading your post could possibly have known that. First of all, when you cite your quote as: (Hawking, Brief History of Time 138-39) that means you are citing “A Brief History of Time” by Hawking, where the quote appears on page 139.

The next confusing part that you’ve added here, is that now you’re saying it’s on page 136 of a totally different book when page 136 didn’t appear anywhere in your last post. The page numbers you cited were 138 and 139.

Where did you indicate anywhere in that post that you were citing WLC, citing Hawking? Nobody reading that post could have known that either.

It’s just one big confusing post containing very little accuracy.

Second, if for arguments sake Bill Craig made a mistake on the "exact" page number, the context of the quote was not a mistake. Even in quote I gave, there are ellipses in the quote to let you know that it wasn't a direct quote in its entirety, but pieces of the main idea to drive home the point that imaginary time is not a description of real time. So once again, it isn't as if we are quoting anyone out of context, that is what ellipses are used for, but I guess you weren't aware of that since you tried so hard to cook up this "I gotcha" moment. What if there were different versions of the book, for example, some books paper back and others hard covers, which would obviously change location of words? Ever thought of that?

Sorry, but the exact page number kind of matters in a book with 212 pages. The reason we reference and cite things is so that somebody reading our work can easily find what we are referencing. The page number WLC gave was wrong, and the book title you gave was wrong. How on earth do you think someone was supposed to find the quote? If I had referenced something that badly in a paper I had written in university, I would have failed all my classes.

There are no ellipses in the original quote you provided.

I’m not trying to “get you.” I’m trying to point out that I wasted a lot of time looking up the quote you provided in order to respond to it, because it was completely misquoted. Sorry but I find that a tad annoying and somewhat dishonest.

Third, like I just mentioned, even as you read what Hawking said, the context is clear, imaginary time is not a description of real time, and Hawking use of it in this sense has been critiqued even by Alexander Vilenkin.

Yes and no. You need to actually read the parts of Hawking’s book preceding the quote fragments you provided to get what he’s talking about. Notice how he pointed out that the differences between “real” and “imaginary” time could actually be meaningless?

Secondly, you quoted Hawking. That’s what we’re talking about. You didn’t quote Vilenkin quoting Hawking.

Once again, as I said before, Dr. Craig addressed this Hawking model in front of scientists and he was asked a question regarding imaginary time and was involved in a semi-debate with this young questioner, and he explains it so eloquently here if you would take 10 minutes out your busy schedule to watch this video.

[youtube]e-JSyXzxOMk[/youtube]
Beyond The Big Bang: William Lane Craig Templeton Foundation Lecture Q&A (HQ) 2/4 - YouTube

The fun starts around the 3:28 mark in the video. Hawking's use of imaginary numbers/time has also been critiqued by Vilenkin and a few others, as mentioned previously, so again, nothing you've said changes a thing.

While it appears to be edited, it’s obvious the guy in the audience is arguing with him and doesn’t agree with his assessment. Isn’t that what I said?

You said, “I am surprised that none of the physicists raised their hand and said "you are misrepresenting or simply misunderstanding physics". None of said that. I wonder why?”

You just showed that that actually happened. Thanks.

The infinity problem doesn't apply to a timeless God, because God was not in time before the universe was created, but if the universe existed for eternity then it would exist IN TIME.

Sure it does. You just don’t want it to, so you think referring to your god as the “uncaused cause” somehow gets you around the problem, when in actuality, it doesn’t.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The fear of God comment is actually from respected atheist scientists. They said he is the only debater that can put the fear of God into an atheist. Christians did not say it nor invent that phrase.

Who are "they?"

Everyone who faces him gets e-mails saying to not blow it and other such things. Dawkins and others will not even face him. Even Harris said what was stated about fear among many others. Craig may be right or wrong but he is peer reviewed, well respected, well published and more competent than most. Comments about any lack of skill say more about the ones making the comments than him. Throw in Aquinas, Lennox, and maybe Zacharias and they can't be matched.

Richard Dawkins refuses to debate him because he'd rather spend his time educating people on science than debating a slippery theist. He probably doesn't want to waste his time on someone who employs dishonest debate tactics like quote mining, preaching and moving the goalposts. I wouldn't. What's the point?

Craig is not peer reviewed in the scientific community.

 

[metis]

What I find rather "intriguing", is why all the hype on one or two people who have put forth a couple of hypotheses out of many? There are other informed cosmologists and quantum physicists out there, many of which have differing hypotheses. Why should anyone carte blanc accept So-and-So's hypothesis unless they knew with certainty that it was correct, and there simply is no way to tell this at this time.

IOW, what's so wrong about saying "I don't know" if there's insufficient evidence one way or another?