William Lane Craig's Science of Cosmology

That’s the great thing about being an agnostic atheist - I really don’t care if God created the universe or not and certainly am not expecting any help from God on any of life’s problems. But I am happy to be around for this as I have been reading about inflation since Guth proposed it in 1980. Seemed like an interesting conjecture back then, never thought it would be proven true about the origin of the universe. Also I walked by the horn antenna today in my hometown. Still pigeon crap in it. (Note Penzias and Wilson thought the noise might be from reflections off the pigeon nesting in antenna so they cleaned antenna of pigeon nests and crap)

Does this need to be greatly updated because of Planck as many if not most of the models are now strongly disfavored and only slow roll single field inflation is strongly favored? I feel the whole philosophical debate is now moot by Planck. Why am I not correct in assuming the philosophical debate is now moot?

Patrick I think like Kruass

Patrick I think I will leave it here. I have no idea if you are serious, trolling or engaging in a campaign to recover some of the scientific legitimacy you have lost. The articles you have linked to say nothing about the origin of the universe, the BVG theorem, the Kalaam argument or more ‘exotic’ physics (M-theory, loop quantum gravity etc.). As I said I don’t know if this is misdirection or a real failure to under the physics in question. I am sadly inclined to think it is the former as the Segal article, although at a popular level, is clear and accurate and backs up none of your statements.

You have still not taken back the your claim that Craig “does not understand the physics” despite ample proof that this is not the case. But that is a flaw in your character not mine.

My understanding of the physics is just fine. I have kept up with the new findings and consider myself up to date on the subject. Regarding Craig and the Kalam argument, it is moot. Our understanding of how the universe began is nearly complete and represents a major triumph of modern science of the past 50 years.

Out Krausses Krauss. I really did not think it was possible. Congratulations.

Reading this thread, It is fairly clear that Craig did understand the physics, apparently much better than me. Also Krauss has not been honest. That was a very revealing exchange:

It normally doesn’t work to pin someone down for a retraction (does not work). It usually only makes sense in much higher stakes situations (like I currently am in :frowning:). In this case, just point out this thread the next time @Patrick or anyone else makes this claim again. Honestly, I think @Patrick got the point, and doesn’t plan on making that claim again.

I’ve known @Patrick for a couple months now. Just offer him an olive branch, be kind to him, and move on. Looks like you one handily.

This however is not helping things. Be a gracious winner.

Dear Dr. Swamidass. While dealing with the comments of Dr. Patrick Trischitta I have shown him nothing but the greatest courtesy. My links have been pertinent to the issues discussed; Carroll-Chen cosmology, BVG theorem, mathematical extensions of General Relativity and/or the standard model of particle physics. I also calmly, non-technically, explained what the issues are and why certain mathematical models fail. Although these issues are well-known among experts in these areas, I was also careful to quote both a leading physicist (Vilenkin) and a leading philosopher (Albert) to back up my claims. Carroll was very dishonest in the debate with Craig about the Carroll-Chen model and wider issues in cosmology. It pretty much was a slam dunk for Craig who (personal conversation) really enjoyed it and it remains one of his favourite debates. But sadly, as this is a highly technical area which most do not understand. People just take the word of whoever backs up their world-view; or take the word of the physicist (who was wrong) over that of the Christian philosopher (who was right). Similarly, as I (and D.Z. Albert) also pointed out Kruass’ book “A Universe from nothing” is a complete mess but this has not stopped it getting great reviews. Carroll and Krauss have faded away. The Kalaam is still going strong and later results have only validated Craig further.

Yes I was defending Craig. I do not know him personally but I have always been impressed with both the depth and reach of his knowledge. My educational background is in the philosophy of mathematics/set theory. Recently he wrote a monograph “God and Abstract Objects” which deals extensively with mathematics and its philosophy. I might disagree with some of his points, but he gets no technical/philosophical details wrong and shows nothing, other than complete mastery of the material. The same applies to his understanding of time, cosmology and relativity. I think Craig has over-emphasized some aspects of the neo-Lorentzian interpretation of Special Relativity but he gets nothing wrong. Dr. Trischitta joins the gang of voices (like Carroll and Kruass) who berate Craig for being a mere ‘apologist’, ‘philosopher’ or ‘theologian’ without saying what exactly he gets wrong. What is worse Dr. Trischitta also claims that he knows Craig’s work well, while oblivious to his published work in these areas. I am just sick of it.

Dr. Trischitta has also claimed on this series of postings that the recent Planck results have invalidated the Kalaam, explained the origin of the universe and blown mathematical physics away. He first produces a few paragraphs from a research paper which do not have anything to do with these issues. I politely pointed this out, thinking nothing of it other than a misreading. However he also produces a superb popular article by Ethan Siegel (thanks Patrick), which cannot be misread and he still claims it backs up his point. This is the Krauss comparison; Dr. Trischitta is either dishonest or is contradicting himself but can’t see it (empty space containing energy indeed).

1 Like

I’m not reprimanding you. You won. It was fun to watch and I’m. Impressed by your knowledge in this. What is your background again? Do you have training in physics?

Thank you. You are right. Let me go back and fix that. No annoyance on my end just trying to help you out :slight_smile:

I’m going to invite Sean over. and see if he has anything to add (i don’t see how you can say he has faded away with a straight face. I’m sorry) While i agree with much of what you say i think you are misrepresenting the debate a tad. I encourage everyone to watch if you havent. It’s also worth pointing out the KCA is a very controversial argument, even among Christian philosophers and cosmologists (same can be said of the BGV) Personally, i prefer contingency arguments. So I don’t think it’s safe to say it’s on solid ground. It’s intriguing but not yet convincing IMO. As far as Dr. Craig is concerned he knows his stuff. He always puts in the work and I’m glad to see he is now taking the time to learn the relevant biology. Something I’ve always felt he has struggled with. That’s the conclusion I came to after taking his classes any way. This is all I have time for at the moment. I’ll be back.

1 Like

Krauss may have faded away (temporary, I hope) for a very different reason. But Carroll is going strong after his book “the Big Picture”.

Dr. Craig and his Kalaam agrument is not relevant to physics nor cosmology but is confined to philosophy and theology. It is pretty much moot in the discussions of science which is neutral on such matters.

I like Krauses’ books “A Universe form Nothing” and his followup “The Greatest Story Ever Told - So far”

https://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Story-Ever-Told-So-Far/dp/1476777624/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=DZ6NN91P7Q3XH3E0MY9X

I also like Atheist Ethan Siegel who last five articles are superb.

I am willing to discuss science with you, but not theology nor philosophy as I find them both quite boring.

And I am not dishonest. Also I really don’t care what you think of me personally as I live my life not giving a hoot what “theman8469” thinks of me.

1 Like

I would like to add this. This is a blog by Christian Physicist Aron Wall. He covers a lot of the relevant material in this series.
http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-i-big-bang-cosmology/

1 Like

Won what? Certainly not the next Nobel Prize in Physics. To bow to your superior cognitive abilities, I offer you a free subscription to Atheist Ethan Siegel website:

1 Like

I never accused you of racism, I expressed concern that your model could be used for racism purposes. (I still have that concern if Adam is placed in a fixed place and late (<5000 years ago). Also note that I couldn’t offer any retraction because my account was suspended. Remember that?

Proclamation: Dr. Swamidass is no racist. He is a kind and compassionate physician, a highly respected practicing scientist, and a tenured Professor at a fine secular university.

1 Like

Struggled with

Runyon. “learn the relevant biology. Something I’ve always felt he has struggled with”. A TE/EC Biologos advocate among us I see engaging in passive-aggressive tactics. Well at least you are not going down the same route as Ted Davis, Dennis Venema, Christy and Applegate who have called/dismissed Craig a “Creationist” in the pejorative sense. Dennis and Christy were even getting their material from anti-Craig web sites. I notice this about Biologos their targets are always religious theologians or Philosophers never atheist scientist who they worship with a deep passion. On Biology/philosophy of biology Craig had very little ‘struggle’ exposing “The renaissance man of evolutionally biology”, philosopher and theologian, Ayala as a vacuous and dishonest twit back in 2009. The same Ayala who was paid by Biologos (Darrell Falk) to review Stephen Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell”. Ayala reviewed something called “Signature of the Cell”, an illiterate rant completely unconnected to Meyer’s book. Falk even refused to allow Meyer to respond because
1, Meyer’s response was not significantly respectful of a senior scientist. What rubbish.
2, Meyer’s response was to be only philosophical and theological. Doubtful as Meyer has always said that ID is a scientific issues. But Falk could have made a mistake here.
3, Falk claimed that Ayala was not asked to write a review. Falk is a liar.

This is the same Falk who positively reviewed Meyer’s “Darwin’s Doubt” before being told off by Nick Matzke, a man half his age, and recanting. The same Falk gave a positive review of Denton’s “Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis” on amazon but removed the review after being told to by representatives of NCSE.

I am glad you enjoyed Krauss “A Universe from Nothing” I doubt you are capable of anything more difficult. Adios.

@theman8469, you are misfiring. We are not TE/EC here. Just search for “BioLogos” on this forum, and you will see we are not them. @T.j_Runyon is informing you of about Craig. Check it out:

He is one of our friends. We are working with him as he takes a closer look at the historical Adam.

Krauss’ “greatest Story Ever Told” is better.

You have called people dishonest and now a twit. This is your first and last warning. I was in no way being disrespectful. And I admire Craig. His work on the resurrection is one reason I came back to Christianity. You seem like a very knowledge person and your presence here could be of great benefit. But you will not continue to act this way.

1 Like

Protecting Ayala. Are you sure that you are not Biologos or NCSE you seem exactly like them?

Sadly the article claims that Craig is an advocate of ID which is not the case. Ayala claimed that “he hadn’t understood he would be debating and didn’t believe a debate was the proper way to resolve the dispute anyway” Campus Crusade for Christ at Indiana University still had their communication with Ayala which told a different story. The event flyer was "Is Intelligent Design Viable? William Lane Craig and Francisco Ayala debate. Ayala’s slides were clearly organized as a debate and not a lecture. The whole thing is here Is Intelligent Design Viable? The Craig-Ayala Debate | Reasonable Faith. The taped debate is not clear, the web page has all the slides.

Let us start with who you are. We are using are real names. I’ve asked you to explain more about yourself several times. Don’t abuse anonymity. What is Abuse of Anonymity?. That is something we take very seriously.

Many of us (including @T.j_Runyon) are at secular institutions, and use our real names. Respect that we are putting our professional livelihood and reputations on the line to talk to you. You do not have a license to turn to ad hominems, especially on a student. f this was directed at @Patrick he is banned from BioLogos, and does not work with NSCE. He works with Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).