Response to 7. Worst Objection to Kalam: Equivocating 'Begins to Exist'

WLC does not actually address the equivocation at all. He tires to tighten up the definition of begins to exist, but still leaves it open to meaning creation from existing material state an creation ex nihilo.

Original video by drcraigsvideos here - http://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos#p/a/u/0/-ywfvYaEUK4

Sorry for the poor qualify of the parts of the original video of Craig. Blame Wimdows Movie Maker. I might upload a better version.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Kalam
• Cosmological
• Argument
• Equivocating
• Equivocates
• Begins
• Exist
• Material
• Cause
• First
• God
• Existence
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Apologetics
• Christian
• Philosophy
• Religion
• Time
• Atheist
• Atheism
• drcraigvideos
• John
• Leonard

[emailpobox666]

Dr Craig admitted that the Cosmological Argument is incoherent. Can anyone tell me why he still uses it

[JCrownwell]

@Textra1

Given these concerns with the "no boundaries" model, you've yet to present a substantive argument against the validity of the Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem.

The only other point you've raised is a somewhat weak challenge to my appeal to scientific consensus. This is, of course, insufficient per se. Granted, the argument from consensus is only inductive, but at this stage, only those on the fringe attempt to "realistically" challenge the idea of a cosmic beginning

[JCrownwell]

@Textra1

When questioned about the notion of "imaginary time", Hawking refused to convert to real numbers for the Hartle-Hawking model, because doing so reestablishes the singularity. He didn't seem to be bothered by the fact that it renders the model essentially non-realistic.

In "The Nature of Space and Time" (2000), he states: "I take the positivist view point that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality."

[JCrownwell]

@Textra1

Note that the Hartle-Hawking model does not refute the earlier Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems. All it does is to give an alternative set of initial conditions with which to escape the theorem.

Moreover, Hawking was able to do so only by implementing numbers for the time variable that are a product of the square root of -1 ("imaginary numbers"). ie. It is dependent upon a mathematical artifice that is demonstrably of no real world validity.

[JCrownwell]

@Textra1

"no-boundary proposal"

I'm afraid I missed this point.

"Although a uniform probability distribution in this measure would solve the flatness problem, it gives an ambiguous probability for inflation, since both the set of inflationary solutions and the set of noninflationary solutions have infinite measure."

Hawking, S. W. (1988). "How probable is inflation?". Nucl. Phys. B298 (4): 789

The model also encounters problems in converting time into a fourth spacial dimension.