Considerations:
1) Vilenkin doesn't believe there is any "the universe" that could have a beginning
You lost me here. Vilenkin believes there is one universe and that it has a beginning. he seems to consider impossible all rival theories but imagine he leaves the door open to possible future discoveries. However he does not posit anything beyond a single finite universe as knowable at this time.
2) You link to an atheist blog (commendable) for balance regarding Craig's use of Vilenkin. However, we don't need any source but Craig to castigate and criticize Vilenkin:
That link is the first one that pops up when looking for the theorem. I used it out of laziness not fair play. The point being the theorem stands whether attacked by an atheist or not so I had no reluctance to using an atheistic site.
3) When you can tell me which universe Vilenkin believes "had a beginning" in accordance with his research (e.g., Garriga, J., & Vilenkin, A. (2008). Prediction and explanation in the multiverse. Physical Review D, 77(4)), perhaps this might be more meaningful.
What? There are no other known universes. This universe is said by Vilenkin to have a beginning and only this universe exists in science to require an explanation. Not to mention having more universes is of no help to the beginning problem and actually makes God more necessary but fantasy is hardly worth discussing.
1) It isn't a proof. It involves proofs.
2) Can you provide the proofs that you refer? Obviously I wouldn't ask for anything prior to
Borde, A., Guth, A. H., & Vilenkin, A. (2003). Inflationary spacetimes are incomplete in past directions. Physical review letters, 90(15)
No, because that was not my statement. It was Vilenkin's. Between a cosmologist with his credentials and an informal debater I am going to have to give him credit for his statements unless I am given reasons not to. He said the proof exists. I didn't.
but it would be nice if you could demonstrate how boundaries work not in terms of "time' (which Vilenkin doesn't) but both spacetime and the origins of spacetime.
Vilenkin's claim is consistent with claims that go back 4000 years. That space, time, and matter began to exist. Space and time began to exist. It is also not necessary to define the limits of two dependent quantities. Space time ends when either space or time does. If time ends, space time by necessity would have to.
They can, however, determine that such a possibility isn't just impossible but is meaningless in multiple ways.
That appears to agree with me, of course that can't be so I am lost.
Which is a contradiction in terms.
Neither my nor that statement by Vilenkin contains accusations about contradictions in terminology (at least what you posted of them didn't).
Craig has a longer review of Vilenkin he writes for the non-specialist audience he can't lie to as easily in which he extensively criticizes Vilenkin and does so not for Vilenkin's actual research but for a popular science book simplified for the layperson. Craig uses Vilenkin when manipulating a poorly informed audience and abuses him when he attempts to address his peers.
If your attempting to avoid Craig's claims by insinuating he is intentionally lying to his audience this will severely damage your credibility with me. Whether right or wrong he seems to have an extremely sincere devotion to being honest. I think you trying to say:
Vilenkins verdict: All the evidence we have says that
the universe had a beginning.
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent
Actually means the universe did not have a beginning and Vilenkin twisted his own words or Craig stripped them of context (which by the way I have verified). This is simply not true. BTW notice he uses "the universe" above.
Alternatively, you could try actually reading physics literature rather than rely on quote-mined simplifications from interviews and similar methods in which scientists are asked questions and the simplest and most sensationalist of these are picked for inclusion in some popular science article. You may find a rather significant difference.
I studied calculus based physics in the same college Van Braun used to get us to the moon. However I use people who are at the cutting edge of cosmology because they have access to things which I do not and the capacity to properly evaluate them. I am sorry what they say is inconvenient but they are always the best source when correct or reliable answers must be obtained. If your talking to me what they say is not going away.
You do realize that neither Borde, Guth nor Vilenkin support the standard model, correct?
That is probably why I did not use them to do so. I only need them to arrive at a universe that has no known natural explanation. I am not making an argument about cosmology. I using cosmology to make a theological point.
"Inflationary models of cosmology yield a rather different picture of the full present Universe (as opposed to the part of it that we can directly observe) than that given by the standard big bang cosmology."
Borde, A., & Vilenkin, A. (1994). Eternal inflation and the initial singularity. Physical Review Letters, 72(21)
I do not care what they think occurred between the coming into existence and the present. I only care that they agree the universe began to exist.
How about using what Vilenkin wrote instead of quote-mined statements by Craig and similar dishonest sources (I have great respect for many an apologist, C. S. Lewis for reasons of fondness and an Einstein-like ability to render the simple into the meaningful, Kreeft for replacing him in some sense, Plantinga for his technical nuances, etc., but Craig is the Ehrman of apologists- saying one things to a mainstream audience while contradicting himself when writing to those he can't mislead).
You are really being counter productive in claiming Craig is dishonest. he can be wrong, I find him to have greater integrity than most. This is typical smear the source propaganda. You mentioned Ehrman as being dishonest as well. I am constantly challenged with what Ehrman claims by non-theists. If you look back I never have written him off as dishonest. I have mentioned he is biased in his debates and have (unlike you have here) shown exactly why I say that. However I accept his scholarship (I actually use his numbers), I accept and use Islamic scholars with Muslims, and use atheist scientists with atheists. I may show a claim wrong but never take the bogus claims of intentionally lying as a way to dismiss inconvenient claims. I think it is the case many times but I do not resort to it for the simple reason I have no access to their motivations. Neither do you.
This fact means the claims of lying are actually not knowable and lies themselves. You do not have access to Craig's motivations, and you know you don't. Yet you claim to be true only what can be known if you have the access which you do not. That makes the claim it's self a lie and hypocritical. I am saying none of this to protect Craig. I am saying it so large portions of valid debate material is not dismissed because it is inconvenient.
In summary:
1. Vilenkin's official claims are consistent with the bible.
2. Craig cannot be dismissed based on claims of dishonesty you have no capacity to know are true.
3. Craig however can be wrong and you may certainly show that to be the case. Which is what you should have done rather than make accusations.
4. In my experience the more unjustifiable a position, the faster claims to what the poster of it can't know, will be made. It is evidence of a failed argument, along with semantics, off ramps, using false claims of fallacy like a crutch, and eventually becoming offensive personally.
