Dante Alighieri

That's the thing: we don't know. We don't even know if there was a singularity, period. This is, for instance, one of the fundamental disagreements of quantum cosmology and relativistic cosmology.

In any case, for excellent articles on Craig's causal premise:

Morriston, Wesley. "A Critical Examination of the Kalam Cosmological Argument", in God Matters, ed. by Ray Martin and Christopher Bernard (Longman: 2002). This article basically looks at the KCA in general.

Morriston, Wesley. "Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?" Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2000), 149-169. (Old html link available. An earlier draft of this was also available. This was also available at the university in question.) This article addresses the causal principle, time, and whether or not the cause is personal.

Morriston, Wesley. "Causes and Beginnings in the Kalam Argument: Reply to Craig", Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 19, No. 2 (April 2002),233-244. This is Morriston's reply to Craig and he continues to critically analyze the causal principle and time.

Hedshaker

I see no reason to think that they did. I don't do beliefs on such matters, it's all hypothetical, but I'm of the school of thought that subscribes to the notion that time space and energy have always existed in some form.

That's just a stance that makes sense to me but I'm happy to admit that I don't know. But then, neither does anyone else :huh:

figuer

I see no difference between this and the allegation that God is the prime mover without being movedIs it mistaken?? Seems to me you are simply stating the samething using variant language (and constructing a square=circle in the process).

Biff the unclean

Yes.
The BB isn't stuff expanding into empty space. It is space itself which is expanding. The motion involved is what causes time. So the term "before" loses any meaning we might normally give it as conditions were so vastly different than we have ever experienced.

Dante Alighieri

I know; there is no real difference (except that God is personal). Either there is an infinite regress of events or there is a terminating event. There is no logical impossibility in either

No. To say that x came from nothing is to say that there were prior, causal antecedents (after all x came into being) and there were not prior, causal antecedents (since x came from nothing). That is incoherent. Saying that an initial event is uncaused is to say that there were no causal antecedents whatsoever, and so it never came at all. The crucial notion is whether or not something came from nothing, and an initial event does not come; it just is. There is no prior time, and hence, it never came into being, since to come into being is to say there was some prior time in which x did not exist and that x was caused to exist; but there are no prior times if x is initial.

Moreover, refer to the Morriston articles. Universal causation is nowhere near as being as clear as a picture as Craig wants us to believe (especially if Craig believes in libertarian free will or in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum phenomena). The causal principle does not even apply to these things, since these things don't have causal antecedents to begin with.

And it's pretty clear that an initial event can't have any antecedents.

Baalazel

What most theists are quite content to do is the point, is it not.

Baal

Headache

Ahem...

Maybe a quick read of A cyclic universe by Paul Steinhardt would be a good idea?

forty2oz

If I'm not mistaken, cosmologists (the relativistic ones) seem to infer the big bang is indeed the beginning of time-space as far as they can tell. This is what Einstein's theory predicts. But then along comes quantum mechanics and says that when you get close to the singularity, you're dealing with particles so small and so hot that relativistic theory breaks down. Unfortunately, we can't say much about how said particles behaved or if the singularity was in fact the first state of affairs in the universe.

Bottom line is we just don't know yet. Although, even if we set the specific properties of the big bang aside, I must say trying to reconcile bible stories with modern cosmology is a bit of stretch, in my opinion.

Ellis

What is under the center of the Earth?

Dante Alighieri

What's north of the North Pole?