What I keep on saying is that I'm interested in what is true in WLC arguments.
That does not mean that I'm interested in them as arguments for the existence of God. I'm not so much interested in arguing against them, or watching WLC flubbing.
But rather, in whether those arguments prove something.
For example, as I said earlier, it's often looked to me like what theists are actually proving by these arguments is the existence of human consciousness. That could be the "sufficient reason" for the universe to exist. So humanity ends up being the "God" proved to exist!
And, WLC being very inadequate as a cosmologist doesn't affect that.
And I'm saying that if you wanted to go to a particular source and try to strain out truth, you could go to a source with a much higher truth-density, if you want to make it worth the effort. William Lane Craig seems to be a rather pointless attempt to demonstrate that you can find something true said by the most dishonest people.
From a good article Back to the beginning of quantum spacetime by Martin Bojowald, a loop quantum gravity theorist:
At near-Planckian densities, ... we have a quantum version of 4D space with no timelike direction. A dense universe runs out of time. ... collapse and expansion eras are not causally connected, and in particular, not all information can be transmitted between them. (How much can be conveyed is an active research question.) The transmutation from 4D space to spacetime, ... marks the beginning of our cosmic era: a meaningful moment, nonsingular and yet unprecedented.
So Craig's intuitive notion of an arrow of time loses its meaning near the Big Bang. Thus the notion of "forming a collection by successive addition" loses its meaning. There's indeed a beginning of sorts, when the "arrow of time" starts pointing, although I don't see that there has to be such a beginning, as Craig claims.
There are two things that are included in almost every theistic argument: conflation of terms and an Argument from Ignorance. What you're talking about is similar to a theist saying, "Well, God is Love. The only way you can say God doesn't exist is if you say that love doesn't exist."
The conflation of God with infinity isn't as bad as the love conflation that I've heard several Christians make. At least their definition of their god includes the Omnis. The problem is that even if you could prove infinity to be a thing (conceiving of it mathematically doesn't count), you haven't gotten any closer to connecting infinity with a god.
Asserting that the two are the same thing doesn't actually make it so, until you can demonstrate it. Then, you have to explain how infinity managed to die on a cross and why it cares what I do with my penis. Assigning wants and personality to infinity limits it, kind of by definition.
Yeah why would a Party of God say that Infinity told them to make a skeptic immediately finite for disagreeing with it? Seems to me Infinity would have endless better things to do.
Often I've thought listening to theists, that what they actually are proving when they try to prove the existence of God, is the existence of human consciousness.
I think that's exactly what I did.
If I'm guilty of anything, it's was to not stop following this discussion the third time the OP tell's someone they were wrong for not caring to discuss "part of" a position that was just as wrong in the 9th century as it is now.
I will do so at this point.
Exactly - if you don't care, simply ignore the discussion, rather than bashing on me for bringing up questions and ideas.
Peter Boghossian says in A Manual for Creating Atheists
To avoid doxastic closure it's also important to read the work of noted apologists. The only two I'd suggest are Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig, though I'd urge you not to buy their books; their projects don't need your support.
Doxastic closure is rigidity of belief systems. This is part of what I'm getting at. Peter Boghossian is an atheist philosopher who believes that having an open mind is important. He thinks the doxastic closure of religious believers is socially and personally toxic, and promotes "street epistemology", the opening of believers' minds by Socratic questioning, to counteract doxastic closure.
It's true that physicists don't generally consider actual infinities to be naturalistic, when they're local. A prediction of infinite density in a singularity, for example, suggests that general relativity has broken down. But our universe may be infinite. So we might have an actual infinity of spacetime.
Anything that is so large as to be beyond human comprehension is infinite. Our universe that emerged out of that so called singularity is infinite. But now the idea of singularity is more or less abandoned and it is proposed that our universe may be a part of a much larger parent universe or may be one of many universes. This means that the infinity that we conceived itself is likely to be much larger, much more infinite, if I can say so. But this infinity is real, very perceptible. It is evident while God is not. God is fictitious; it is meaningless to compare god with the infinity of the universe or any kind of infinity at all.