Jump to content
WalterP

The Failed Cosmology of William Lane Craig

Recommended Posts

THE  FAILED  COSMOLOGY  OF  WILLIAM  LANE  CRAIG

 

 

Disclaimer

 

Please be aware that I do not necessarily endorse, support or promote the theories I am about discuss and explain.  Because I am focusing on the cosmology of the Christian apologist William Lane Craig it is therefore necessary for me to cover such topics as the Big Bang, Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, Inflationary theory and Singularity theory.  However, when it comes to these theories, I prefer to be strictly non-committal and have chosen to adopt a wait-and-see attitude.  Therefore, my discussion of these theories should not in any way be taken as any kind of support for them.  Thank you.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Preamble

 

In this thread I will demonstrate that the Christian apologist William Lane Craig has made a grave mistake in his understanding of the work of the scientists, Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose.  I plan to break this thread down into a series of steps.  The benefit of this approach is that because the subject matter is complex, unfamiliar and difficult to understand, it will probably be necessary to explain and clarify as I go along.  I will be happy to give help at any stage and hopefully we can all move along together.

   

After the introduction, the second step will use freely available information to show that Craig relies exclusively on just one theory for his main apologetic arguments.  In the third step I will show exactly where in the theory he made his mistake.  The fourth step will show that, to this day, he is unaware of his error and his position regarding the physical phenomenon causing this problem is inconsistent.  Assuming that all goes well, the fifth step will focus on the consequences of Craig’s mistake and what this means for his apologetic arguments.  Today I will only post steps 1 and 2 and then field any questions arising from them.  When everyone is happy to move on, then we will examine the details of the theory in question.

 

Finally, please don't react with horror and alarm when you see the theory itself.  Yes, it looks intimidating and confusing.  But there's no real need for us to dive into the intricacies of it.  Perhaps the best way to understand it is to treat it like a legal contract.  A contract will specify who can or can't legitimately do given thing.  When and how they can or can't do it.  With whom they can or can't do it and where they can or can't do it.  The theory in question has very precise specifications under which it can be applied.  We will see that these specifications (conditions) are not satisfied.  This is Craig's fatal mistake.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   

 

Introduction

 

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/

 

Since the middle of 2007 Craig has used his website, Reasonablefaith.org to promote his Christian apologetic arguments online, reaching a worldwide audience. 

 

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/a-tribute-to-stephen-hawking/

 

As can be seen from the above page, Craig was much younger when he realized that the Singularity theory of Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose could be used to ‘prove’ that science had validated the Biblical description of the creation of the universe from nothing.  The Hawking – Penrose theory (hereafter, the H – P) forms the foundation of Craig’s cosmology and is the starting point of a number of his apologetic arguments.  He uses this theory to claim that the universe had a definite beginning – that all of space and time sprang into existence from an initial singularity.

 

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/a-swift-and-simple-refutation-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/

 

On this page Craig treats the H-P as… scientific confirmation of the philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe.  (See section III. Scientific Confirmations)

 

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-ultimate-question-of-origins-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe/

 

Here Craig uses the H-P to argue against competing eternal-universe theories, claiming that… it is the best explanation of the evidence which we have and therefore merits our provisional acceptance.

 

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/science-theology/the-scientific-kalam-cosmological-argument/

 

This third example sees Craig employing singularity theory to legitimize his Kalam Cosmological Argument.  The KCA introduces the idea that anything that has a definite beginning must have a cause of that beginning.  Since the H-P appears to show that the universe had a definite beginning, it therefore logically follows that the universe must have been caused by something.  I will not debate the pros and cons of the KCA here, but will point out that it is the H-P that appears to give the KCA a seal of scientific approval. 

 

If you use the words ‘Singularity’, ‘Hawking’ and ‘Penrose’ in a Search of Reasonablefaith you will find many results.  A handy tip once you arrive at a particular page is to press Control F and enter the word you want to find.  This will tell you how many times that word appears on that page and a bar will appear on the right of your screen indicating where you should scroll down to see them.

To reiterate my earlier point, it is the H-P theory and no other that appears to give Craig what he needs most to build his Christian apologetic arguments upon.  Scientific ‘proof’ that the universe had a definite beginning.  Without the H-P he cannot make his main arguments.  It’s that simple.

 

One further point.  Craig often cites the work of the scientists Paul Davies, John Barrow and Frank Tipler when discussing singularity theory.  Please note that these scientists have written extensively about singularity theory, but only after Hawking and Penrose first worked upon and published it.  In my next post I will show that everything Craig relies upon from Hawking and Penrose originates in just one scientific paper, published in 1970.  The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology.

 

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



Step Two

 

In this step I show that Craig’s cosmology depends entirely on just one scientific paper by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose.  The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology.  I will have no trouble making this point because Hawking and Penrose will make it for me.  Here I will quote from their books, but should further evidence be needed, I can refer to their words, in the theory itself, which will confirm my point.  I have emphasized the key sentences for the sake of clarity.

 

 

 

A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking. 

 

https://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf

 

Chapter 3, The Expanding Universe. Page 8.

 

In 1965 I read about Penrose’s theorem that any body undergoing gravitational collapse must eventually form a singularity. I soon realized that if one reversed the direction of time in Penrose’s theorem, so that the collapse became an expansion, the conditions of his theorem would still hold, provided the universe were roughly like a Friedmann model on large scales at the present time. Penrose’s theorem had shown that any collapsing star must end in a singularity; the time-reversed argument showed that any Friedmann-like expanding universe must have begun with a singularity.

 

For technical reasons, Penrose’s theorem required that the universe be infinite in space. So, I could in fact, use it to prove that there should be a singularity only if the universe was expanding fast enough to avoid collapsing again (since only those Friedmann models were infinite in space). During the next few years I developed new mathematical techniques to remove this and other technical conditions from the theorems that proved that singularities must occur. The final result was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe.

 

 

 

 

Roger Penrose, Cycles of Time (An Extraordinary New View of the Universe)

 

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/129417/cycles-of-time-by-roger-penrose/9780307278463/

 

Notes, page 259.

 

Following my own work showing the inevitability of singularities arising in a local gravitational collapse, referred to in 2.4, Stephen Hawking produced a series of papers showing how such results could also be obtained which apply more globally in a cosmological context (in several papers in the Proceedings of the Royal Society (see S.W. Hawking, G.F.R. Ellis (1973), The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge University Press).

In 1970, we combined forces to provide a very comprehensive theorem covering all these types of situation: S.W. Hawking, R. Penrose (1970), ‘The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology’, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond.  A314 529 – 48.

 

 

 

So, my point is made.  The paper, The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology, is a very comprehensive treatment of all the kinds of singularity, including the one that is theorized to be the point of origin for all of time and space – the definite beginning of the universe.  This paper is presented in the form of a proof.   It is this paper and no other that gives Craig exactly what he needs as the foundation of his apologetic arguments.  Arguments that appear to show that science does indeed confirm and validate Biblical Christianity.

But, since he has misunderstood how and where singularity theory applies, he loses the firm foundation he thought it gave him.   Every argument he bases on that theory therefore loses its foundation and its validity. 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all.  :)

 

Having just posted Steps 1 and 2 I'll now pause and await any questions or challenges arising from them.  

 

Thanks again.

 

Walter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this @WalterP. I'll go through it and post a response with comments etc in the next few days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, disillusioned said:

Thanks for posting this @WalterP. I'll go through it and post a response with comments etc in the next few days.

 

I look forward to reading your comments, disillusioned.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again WalterP, I will be reading through the links. But I like the approach. Locate the foundation, knock the entire house of cards down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Thanks again WalterP, I will be reading through the links. But I like the approach. Locate the foundation, knock the entire house of cards down. 

 

Thanks Josh.

 

You're on the right track.  Locate the foundation.  Then, because it's a scientific one, test it.  Q. Does it stand up to the test?  A. No.  Then present the evidence why this is.  

 

If you Google 'scientific method' you'll find plenty of diagrams that illustrate the process.

 

(Btw.  I haven't quite figured out how to insert images into my posts yet. )

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Thanks Josh.

 

You're on the right track.  Locate the foundation.  Then, because it's a scientific one, test it.  Q. Does it stand up to the test?  A. No.  Then present the evidence why this is.  

 

If you Google 'scientific method' you'll find plenty of diagrams that illustrate the process.

 

(Btw.  I haven't quite figured out how to insert images into my posts yet. )

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

You should be able to copy and paste images. 

 

 

image.jpeg
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, WalterP said:

'prove’ that science had validated the Biblical description of the creation of the universe from nothing.

 

Can you prove that the Bible even suggests that the universe was created from nothing?  

 

22 hours ago, WalterP said:

The paper, The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology, is a very comprehensive treatment of all the kinds of singularity, including the one that is theorized to be the point of origin for all of time and space – the definite beginning of the universe.

 

The kinds of singularity, that's rich.    So are you saying that science believes that there was a point when this physical world we call the universe did not exist?  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

You should be able to copy and paste images. 

 

 

image.jpeg
 

 

Thanks Josh.  I'll figure it out asap.

 

Walter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Justus said:

 

Can you prove that the Bible even suggests that the universe was created from nothing?  

 

 

The kinds of singularity, that's rich.    So are you saying that science believes that there was a point when this physical world we call the universe did not exist?  

 

 

 

Read my Disclaimer, Justus.

 

I'm not even suggesting that the Bible says anything about cosmology.  William Lane Craig does that.  This thread is not about what I can prove but about what WLC says science can prove.  I made that quite clear in my disclaimer.

 

The theory published in 1970 by Hawking and Penrose implies that UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS it was proved that the physical universe had a definite point of origin, the initial singularity. 

 

But I'm not saying that either.  I'm saying that WLC has got their theory wrong and failed to realize that the conditions in question are not satisfied.  So their theory does not apply in our universe.

 

Please don't pick a fight with me over what I haven't said, Justus.

 

Walter.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No serious questions or quibbles from me for now. Everything posted so far seems to be in order.

 

I find it interesting that WLC relies exclusively on a paper that is now nearly 50 years old as his source on "modern" cosmology. Not that 50 years is all that long in scientific terms, but Hawking himself called the conclusions of this particular paper into question in his later years, if I recall correctly, and there have been quite a few other proposals in cosmology over the last 50 years.

 

I'm interested to see where this goes from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that anyone who has contact with people who have debated Craig and / or are subject to debate Craig ought to pass this along for consideration. It would be interesting if this could get through to Richard Carrier via his blog or some other way. And interesting to see what he thinks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I'd say that anyone who has contact with people who have debated Craig and / or are subject to debate Craig ought to pass this along for consideration. It would be interesting if this could get through to Richard Carrier via his blog or some other way. And interesting to see what he thinks. 

 

Hello Josh  and Disillusioned.  :)

 

If you watch the Craig vs Carroll debate you'll see that when Carroll responds to Craig's cosmological model, he doesn't mince his words.  "This is false."  I can't prove it, but that strongly suggests to me that the fault I'm going to point out in Craig's understanding is, actually, well known and well understood.  At least in scientific circles.  Btw, I can't claim any glory here.  All I've done is some research and then checked things out on a science forum.  So, I've been advised by scientists on that forum about singularity theory and general relativity.  No kudos to me for 'discovering' where Craig messes up.

 

To pick up on Disillusioned's comments about Hawking changing his mind, Hawking says this in his last book, The Grand Design.

 

https://www.pdfdrive.com/the-grand-design-e16574176.html  (You'll need to download a .pdf version of the book if you want to check my quote.)

 

THE GRAND DESIGN.

 

Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, 2010.

 

Page 202 /203.

 

“Measurements of helium abundance and the CMBR provided convincing evidence in favour of the big bang picture of the very early universe, but although one can think of the big bang picture as a valid description of early times, it is wrong to take the big bang literally, that is, to think of Einstein’s theory as providing a true picture of the origin of the universe.”

 

“That is because general relativity predicts there to be a point in time at which the temperature, density, and curvature of the universe are all infinite, a situation mathematicians call a singularity.  To a physicist this means that Einstein’s theory breaks down at that point and therefore cannot be used to predict how the universe began, only how it evolved afterward.”

“So, although we can employ the equations of general relativity and our observations of the heavens to learn about the universe at a very young age, it is not correct to carry the big bang picture all the way back to the beginning.

 

And extrapolating right back to the beginning is exactly what Hawking and Penrose did in their 1970 paper and exactly what Craig persists in doing...  even though Hawking has changed his mind and has gone on record to say that to carry on doing this is wrong.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would make a lot of sense for Craig's debate opponents to come right out and pull quotes like the above. Yes his claims are false, and here's why. Craig's source says, and I quote.....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2019 at 8:36 AM, WalterP said:

 

Thanks Josh.

 

You're on the right track.  Locate the foundation.  Then, because it's a scientific one, test it.  Q. Does it stand up to the test?  A. No.  Then present the evidence why this is.  

 

If you Google 'scientific method' you'll find plenty of diagrams that illustrate the process.

 

(Btw.  I haven't quite figured out how to insert images into my posts yet. )

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

Ok Josh, here's the graphic I meant to upload.

 

In the scientific method a theory or hypothesis must be tested by experiment and/or observation.  Obviously it's not possible for us to experimentally test the Hawking - Penrose singularity theory today, because the events it was formulated to describe happened 13.72 billion years ago, under extreme conditions of heat, density and the extreme warping of space-time.  So, we have to rely on what we can observe to tell us something about what we cannot observe.

2013-updated_scientific-method-steps.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josh.

 

Here's my expanded version of the same graphic, with a timeline of events that show how things have panned out.  As you will see, WLC made the mistake of utilizing a theory that was falsified by data gathered by two independent research groups.  They gathered the data from 1994 onward and published in 1998 and 1999.  What they found falsified the H - P theory by falling outside the necessary conditions set down Hawking and Penrose for their singularity theory to apply.

 

Hence the title of this thread, The Failed Cosmology of William Lane Craig.  His cosmological model of choice was already falsified by evidence before he began promoting it online in 2007.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

2013-updated_scientific-method-steps.png

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 9:27 AM, Justus said:

Can you prove that the Bible even suggests that the universe was created from nothing?  

 

Regardless of what the bible says, the common Christian interpretation of "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is that God created the universe from nothing. Creatio ex nihilo. Are you saying that you don't think this is a common Christian understanding? If so may I suggest you look up some doctrines and creeds?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Disillusioned and Joshpantera,

 

If it’s ok with you (please lmk otherwise) I’m going to move on to Step 3, where we’ll look at exactly where in Hawking and Penrose’s theory WLC comes unstuck.   If you follow the link and just skim quickly over the whole thing, you’ll see that it breaks down in this order.

 

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021

 

Title, Authors and Dates.

Abstract (A brief overview)

1. Introduction.

2. Definitions and Lemmas.

3. The Theorem.

Corollary.

Proof of the Theorem.

References.

Appendix.

 

Today we need to focus only on a part of the Abstract, specifically, the four physical assumptions that Hawking and Penrose made, which the theorem must satisfy if it applies to our universe.  Should it fail to satisfy all of them then the theory will not apply to our universe.  The first assumption is the one requiring our attention.

 

The theorem applies if the following four physical assumptions are made:

 

(i) Einstein’s equations hold (with zero or negative cosmological constant),

 

So, the $64,000 question that’s now screaming to be answered is this.  “Do we live in a universe with a cosmological constant of a negative value, of a zero value or of something else?”  The answer to this question will tell us if Hawking and Penrose’s theory applies to our universe or not.  I will let the following links supply the answer to the big question.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.07482

http://physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/lambda16.pdf

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Carroll2/Carroll2_2.html

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27194

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5256042/

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1711/1711.06890.pdf

https://cds.cern.ch/record/485959/files/0102033.pdf

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disillusioned and Josh,

 

Here are a few side questions that are relevant to our discussion.  I recommend that if you want a better and fuller understanding of this entire issue, you would do well to look at them.  As per usual, I'm happy to help explain and clarify, where I can.

 

1.  What is the Cosmological Constant?

2.  How is it measured?

3.  Why did Hawking and Penrose make these four assumptions in the first place?

 

And here's a handy tip for finding your way through the science papers I linked to.  Once you follow the link and arrive at the page in question, press Control F.  A Search box should open up for you.  Type in the word, 'positive' and start the search.  A scrolling bar should appear on the right of your screen, with orange lines indicating where the word positive occurs on that page.  This will save you laboriously reading through acres of dense text and complex equations.  You should also be given a count of how many times the word positive occurs on the page.

 

By looking only at where it's mentioned you should be able to get a broad overview of what cosmologists think about the value of our universe's cosmological constant.

 

Thanks again.

 

Walter.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff so far.

I'll have a look through those papers on the weekend and get back to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Singularities are hypothetical regions of space where the density of matter, and the proposed curvature of spacetime accordingly becomes infinite. In such locales, the standard concepts of space and time accordingly would cease to have meaning. Singularities, according to General Relativity,  are predicted to occur in all black holes and also in certain Big Bang models of the beginning Universe."

 

It was all the rage about 30 years ago for cosmologists and cosmogonists to talk about a singularity as being the beginning of the known universe. At that time they would often say 42 trillions of a second after the Big Bang beginning this or that happened, then 51 billions of a second after that this other thing happened. All these tiny numbers came from nuclear fission explosion theory. Today there is little talk of a Big Bang beginning entity other than a very hot dense cosmogony beginning, with no longer a reference to a Big Bang entity or singularity, or the exactness in time concerning what happened . 

 

This said, it is a joke to me, when referring to modern cosmology that proponents of religion would think that they could reconcile abstract BB theory with the simplistic, anachronistic words of the bible. There is only imagined evidence on the side of religion for such a contention, and also IMO the BB model itself will also be entirely replaced in the coming decades 😏

 

As long as the Big Bang model is still in favor some religious persons like Craig will try to justify religion through science. But when science theory is shown to be wrong and changes, Craig and others will quickly jump on the opposing band-wagon saying we knew this stuff was wrong based upon the words of the bible. Instead God did it all.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, disillusioned said:

Good stuff so far.

I'll have a look through those papers on the weekend and get back to you.

 

Thanks, Disillusioned.

 

Of those eight links, the Edge article by Raphael Bousso is, by far, the most accessible and easily digestible.  If I were to suggest a reading plan for you (and Josh), please don't delve too deeply into the equations, the calculations and the esoteric nomenclature.  If possible, it would help if we could look at a few of the symbols in the Hawking - Penrose paper.  But only to further our understanding of why their singularity theory doesn't apply in a universe with a positive cosmological constant.  That is, in our universe.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pantheory said:

"Singularities are hypothetical regions of space where the density of matter, and the proposed curvature of spacetime accordingly becomes infinite. In such locales, the standard concepts of space and time accordingly would cease to have meaning. Singularities, according to General Relativity,  are predicted to occur in all black holes and also in certain Big Bang models of the beginning Universe."

 

It was all the rage about 30 years ago for cosmologists and cosmogonists to talk about a singularity as being the beginning of the known universe. At that time they would often say 42 trillions of a second after the Big Bang beginning this or that happened, then 51 billions of a second after that this other thing happened. All these tiny numbers came from nuclear fission explosion theory. Today there is little talk of a Big Bang beginning entity other than a very hot dense cosmogony beginning, with no longer a reference to a Big Bang entity or singularity, or the exactness in time concerning what happened . 

 

This said, it is a joke to me, when referring to modern cosmology that proponents of religion would think that they could reconcile abstract BB theory with the simplistic, anachronistic words of the bible. There is only imagined evidence on the side of religion for such a contention, and also IMO the BB model itself will also be entirely replaced in the coming decades 😏

 

As long as the Big Bang model is still in favor some religious persons like Craig will try to justify religion through science. But when science theory is shown to be wrong and changes, Craig and others will quickly jump on the opposing band-wagon saying we knew this stuff was wrong based upon the words of the bible. Instead God did it all.  :)

 

Hello Pantheory.  :)

 

With all due respect, I think you've misjudged the faith-driven mindset of Christians like Craig.  Changing their minds by shifting to a different paradigm or a competing theory is simply something they will never, ever do.  If you watch this video...

 

...you'll see Craig being refuted, corrected and schooled by the theoretical physicist Sean Carroll.  But does he accept the refutations and corrections?  No.  When Carroll takes the stands for the second time he points out that Craig has simply repeated his earlier points, requiring Carroll to go back over the same ground again.  Craig's total refusal to accept that he is wrong and mistaken on many points is, I'm sorry to say, all too symptomatic of the unwavering strength of Craig's faith. He just KNOWS in his heart that the universe had a definite beginning and no amount of debate or evidence is ever going to shift him on this.  By the witness of the Holy Spirit in his heart he KNOWS that science agrees with and confirms scripture.

 

How do I know this?  Watch, listen and learn.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, so I've read or skimmed the papers linked to above. They do indeed provide support for a positive cosmological constant. My understanding prior to this discussion was that this is not really in serious dispute amongst most cosmologists these days, but I could be wrong about that. I haven't exactly been keeping up with these things recently.

 

In any event, it is certainly problematic for the Hawking/Penrose theorem if the cosmological constant is indeed positive, which it seems to be. I think Hawking recognized this, which is probably why he eventually rejected his own theorem. But this leaves the Craig argument without much of a leg to stand on. But, of course, he would not admit this.

 

Craig is not a cosmologist, he's an apologist. His motivation is to demonstrate his presupposition of ex-nihilo creation. It makes perfect sense for him to latch onto "traditional" big bang cosmology, because it does seem (at least from a naive perspective) to lend credence to this kind of view. I personally think that there are other problems with the Kalam argument, but we can leave those aside entirely if the the cosmology he bases the argument on is incorrect, which it seems to be. I don't know whether or not Craig knows of the obsolescence of his pet cosmology, but my suspicion is that he wouldn't admit it if he did. He is more concerned with reaching his conclusion than with being technically accurate.

 

I don't mean to suggest that Craig is not sincere in his belief. I think he is. I just think that he is either ignorant on this point, or he is arguing in bad faith. Neither would particularly surprise me.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.