Jump to content
WalterP

The Failed Cosmology of William Lane Craig

Recommended Posts

On 2/13/2020 at 4:32 PM, WalterP said:

My Comments

 

Here Penrose goes further than just accepting a positive cosmological constant.  He declares that it appears to be a necessary ingredient of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, his own theory to explain our universe. 

 

More than that, his discarded singularity theory, which he and Stephen Hawking published in 1970 had a definite beginning of space and time - the initial singularity.  Penrose's CCC theory is the total opposite.  In CCC our universe is merely one iteration in an eternal and unending cycle of universes.  In CCC there is no beginning and no end.

 

This is where Craig seriously messed up in a nut shell. He latched on to a theoretical cosmological model prematurely, as if that particular cosmological model was the end all and not subject to change going forward.

 

He was treating it as if it were something like Genesis 1, set in stone like religious texts, and unchangeable thereafter. But obviously it was never set in stone because it's not a creation myth, it's a scientific theory, and therefore subject certainly to change over time. He puts all his eggs in one basket. And then pays the price because the theory was falsified and Penrose moved right along to CCC theory, which, is completely opposed to his older work with Hawking. It's not even applicable at this point for Craig to be trying to do what he's trying to do with it. 

 

Craig made rookie mistakes every step of the way. And has paid the obvious price for making the mistakes. Will he learn from any of this? 

 

On 2/13/2020 at 4:32 PM, WalterP said:

In 2016 William Lane Craig interviewed Roger Penrose and the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology was a topic of their conversation.  

 

As far as I know the subject of the positive cosmological constant was not discussed.

 

 

If it's not discussed, then Craig will not likely learn anything from it. But it's much deeper than just that. Even if it is discussed (which it should be), Craig has shown himself to be willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Walter, take a look at comparing what Craig has done here against the "Dunning-Kruger Effect": 

 

https://www.zmescience.com/science/the-dunning-kruger-effect-feature/?fbclid=IwAR2ul2eNQQVBZnXka34S5eJR43xnWzHPKT5L04zVLcY0km9gzmEfgfr-EWw

 

I do think that you should try to get this information through to Penrose if you can. Or at least someone else who can use all of this information in a debate with WLC. Because even though he's likely to dig in his heels (per the link above), the public deserves to see a detailed analysis of where exactly Craig is wrong and why. We can only reach so many people here. And this deserves mass exposure. 

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.