You say you want to examine his arguments for any truth in them. That's what counter-apologetics is.
Uhh, what did anything that followed the "not true" have to do with what counter-apologetics is?
Also, as I said a long time ago, I don't care about this argument of William Lane Craig's. It has nothing to do with the major flaws in the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
You seem to be fishing for something
I'm fishing for connections to truth in what WLC says, trying to explore it. And the rest of what you say is simply pejoratives that substitute for thinking.
The entropy issue is one that no apologist seems to comprehend, too. As the universe expands, there's more room for entropy. The actual expansion provides the system with energy, in a way ... or at least moves it around a bit more.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't depend on the expansion of the universe, as you probably realize. Even if the universe were to start contracting, entropy would keep increasing.
It doesn't depend upon the expansion of the universe, no. But we have an expanding universe, and entropy, as we see it, works within that context.
If we had an oscillating universe, for example, when the universe hit it's largest size and began to contract, somewhere on the way back down to a singularity we would hit the point of maximum entropy, long before reaching the actual singularity.
somewhere on the way back down to a singularity we would hit the point of maximum entropy, long before reaching the actual singularity.
What's your evidence for that claim?
Roger Penrose says that if the universe recollapsed, the "singularity" at the end would be extremely high in entropy, unlike the Big Bang.
Black holes are a collapse of spacetime into a "singularity". But they actually have extremely high entropy.
I put quotes around "singularity", because in a theory of quantum gravity, it's thought that the singularity would disappear.
And the second law of thermodynamics in a theory of quantum gravity, such as loop quantum gravity, likely becomes inapplicable also.
As I mentioned earlier, in loop quantum gravity time loses its directionality near the Big Bang. If time no longer has an arrow, there's probably no second law of thermodynamics at that time.
What's your evidence for that claim?
Reading books by cosmologists like Victor Stenger. What do you mean by evidence? I'm supposed to go out in the back yard and spin up my personal particle accelerator?
Whatever Victor Stenger said may be very outdated.
What you seem to be saying in any case, is that the maximum entropy of the universe increases as it expands.
You (or possibly Victor Stenger) seem to infer from this, that a contracting universe would have decreasing maximum entropy.
However, a contracting universe would form a lot of black holes. Black holes have enormous entropy, so that changes things.
From Ask an Astrophysicist:
The gravitational field wants matter to be clumped and therefore, as you have guessed, as the Universe progresses (whether it recontracts or not) it should become increasingly inhomogeneous (which is of course observed). In the recontracting phase these inhomogeneities get greatly amplified and would push the entire matter of the Universe into a large number of black holes, i.e. the collapse will be very inhomogeneous. This inhomogeneity provides a great increase in gravitational entropy, much more than that one gets by the (possible) decrease due to the compression of the gas. So the second law remains valid.
They also say though,
The issue of entropy in gravitating systems is indeed one issue which has not yet been resolved satisfactorily.
So there seems to be some uncertainty about all this. Including what happens to entropy in the quantum gravity conditions of a "singularity".
So, your own source states that there's far from a consensus about this sort of thing, within the field of cosmology, which makes it even more stupid that William Lane Craig uses anything of the sort in an argument for his god. Add in the fact that his understanding of physics is laughable, and I don't understand why I should care about anything he has to say on the subject.
William Lane Craig only understands authoritarian dogma. That's why he grabs bits from physics, which he thinks support his religion, then proclaims that cosmologists say it authoritatively.
Here's some stuff from an actual physics professor about him:
He knows a hell of a lot more about physics than I do. If you want to know something about cosmology, you should go to a cosmologist, not a rather poor Christian apologist who fills his books with logical fallacies, while claiming to be a professional philosopher.
So, your own source states that there's far from a consensus about this sort of thing, within the field of cosmology, which makes it even more stupid that William Lane Craig uses anything of the sort in an argument for his god.
I don't have patience to watch anti-apologetic videos, but Sean Carroll writes about his debate with WLC on his blog (which looks like a really good blog). From what he says, WLC was very out of his depth in trying to be a theological cosmologist.
... which is what I've been saying all along, and why I don't think it's worth the effort to dissect his amateur philosophy.