WLC is a scratched Vinyl , always repeating the same stupid arguments , and he dont even understands that the same arguments are used to destroy his own argumentation.
Whatever begins to exists has a Cause , God dont has a cause , therefore god does not exists.
Out of nothing , nothing comes , therefore God cant pop out from nothing and by nothing.
Funny, for them being destroyed arguments, his arguments never seem to get destroyed no matter who he debates.
You're not understanding anything are you?
The Supernatural (think about the word SUPER-NATURAL) is by it's very definition above or separate from nature.
Time exists in nature.
The universe is natural.
Therefore anything that exists in the supernatural does not have to have a cause, seeing as a cause can only apply to time, which only necessarily exists in nature.
@bbryant0620 You are assuming thing to support your arguments , and its the same Craigs does , assuming Things , if you cant prove any of these things , you dont have a point , and your arguments only works with cristians , because they already believe all this crap as a truth when is not a truth , all Craigs arguments are fallacious , because he must assume things that are not real .
You don't get how philosophy works do you? SCIENCE requires evidence, all Philosophy requires is REASON AND LOGIC. I don't have to prove anything, all I have to do is supply reason, which I have. Notice you haven't pointed out HOW I'm wrong?
All I'm saying is that I'm justified in my belief. I have supplied reasons for my beliefs.. You can keep calling me wrong and act like a 10 year old, or you can tell me where I am wrong specifically, so we can debate this like adults.
@bbryant0620 So, whatever we want to exist, but have no evidence, whatsoever, for, we can simply define as supernatural, and it becomes valid? Is that the best argument you have? You twist and shift things around until they fit your perspective. And I am speaking to YOU about YOU, based on the comments YOU have made. I am not addressing the entirety of theism, only YOU. Do not think so highly of yourself. It doesn't do much for your credibility.
Well, take the Kalam's Cosmological argument for example. Read up on it, if the 2 premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Now, the 2 premises may not be true, I admit that. Philosophy is not an exact science, it's essentially educated guesswork based on our rudimentary observations of the natural universe and the laws which govern it.
I'll say it one more time, philosophy does not require demonstrations or proof, only reason based on facts.
"if the 2 premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily"
But the premises can't shown to be true. "All elephants are pink. Tim is an elephant, therefore Tim is Pink" is a valid argument, but it's not sound, since all elephants are not pink.
"philosophy does not require demonstrations or proof"
Then why does Craig dare to make claims about the nature of the universe using philosophical reasoning?
I don't think so "highly of myself", that's yet another assumption of which you have no way of verifying. Oh wait, I get it. Only OUR assumptions require absolute physical evidence -- not yours, you're exempt!
Here's the kicked, if we think something based on logic and reason (some of us don't start from faith, some of us start down the road that is theism because we think it is the logical conclusion) we're somehow automatically building towards a preconceived conclusion?
I'll ask you one last time, and give you one last opportunity. Explain how the Kalam's Cosmological argument is incorrect.
You can keep attacking me personally, you can keep claiming I need absolute and demonstrable evidence, which is completely unreasonable in a philosophical debate. Or you can try to get to the truth of the matter. People who claim that other people are wrong without supplying reason, are just trying to reinforce their own beliefs -- not seek the truth.
@bbryant0620 Premise 1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause. Unknown, improvable and has little to no bearing on the concept of a God, but I'll give it to you.
Premise 2. The universe began to exist. Again, unknown, improvable and has little to no bearing on the concept of a God, but I will concede this as well.
Conclusion. The universe has a cause. See 1 and 2. Even given all that, so what? God is not the default cause. Hell, given your own description, anything could be.
Everything that we have observed in the natural universe points towards this being accurate. This does not mean it has a creator, just that it has a cause.
Premise 2:
Unknowable, maybe. But from our observations, we can determine that an actual infinite does cannot exist. Since an infinite temporal regress of events would be an actual infinite, we can conclude that it cannot exist.
@bbryant0620 "Everything that we have observed in the natural universe points towards this being accurate." And is human observation so advanced as to make a credible assertion about such an event? We have "educated" guesses, nothing more. If your conclusion hinders upon a "perhaps" then it is very weak, at best. As far as my comment on your building the premises around a conclusion, that is easily apparent from you clinging to an argument that is obviously just that.
@bbryant0620 The Kalam Cosmological Argument tries to impose a god from the start and works toward that end by twisting what little we have learned of the universe and its probable origins until their god fits into the equation, then they act like it is so very obvious that you would have to be an idiot to not accept it. That is why I call it a ploy. It is a last ditch effort to make the concept of God more than what it is, a faith-based belief with no actual support.
The only conclusion we come to absolutely from this argument is that a being of certain qualities exists that resembles our God quite a bit. We're not claiming it must be the Christian God, but something similar.
This being, must be outside of time or not be restricted by it, as it created time. It must be immaterial, same because it created material. It must be immensely powerful, as it created the entire universe...
@bbryant0620 And why would a being be, at all, the absolute conclusion to the universe being caused? In a universe so driven by forces and energy, why isn't the cause being no different from them plausible? Again, more proof of building the premises on your preconceived notions. A foot in the door. If you can get someone to accept that the cause is A being, then it is all too easy to hop to that being is YOUR god.
The only conclusion we come to absolutely from this argument is that a being of certain qualities exists that resembles our God quite a bit. We're not claiming it must be the Christian God, but something similar.
This being, must be outside of time or not be restricted by it, as it created time. It must be immaterial, same because it created material. It must be immensely powerful, as it created the entire universe...
"The only conclusion we come to? absolutely from this argument is that a being of certain qualities exists that resembles our God quite a bit."
No, that's by far not the only conclusion. You're presenting a false dichotomy ("either it's a natural cause, or it's a personal god") combined with the God of the Gaps ("we have no explanation for the natural cause , so ...."). Anybody with a bit of imagination can come up with many more possible explanations.
... It must be personal, as it chose to create this universe. It has a consciousness, or it could not have personally chose to create us. He created space, therefore he cannot be restricted by it. So we can conclude that this being must be:
Timeless, immaterial, spaceless, immensely powerful, personal, and it must have a consciousness. This does not mean it must be God, but it is a really good description of him, would you not agree? The argument is purely deductive logic.
@bbryant0620 No, I do not agree, at all. You have simply made a list of characteristics your god possesses and applied them to your conclusion. All of which are pure assertion with no relevance beyond your personal faith in a god. It is not deductive logic, it is reverse engineering a concept into something you hope resembles a valid argument. There is absolutely no reason to accept that a timeless, immaterial, non-spacial, all powerful being is even possible, much less probable.
@bbryant0620 The largest flaw I find in the Kalam Cosmological Argument is that it is no more than a ploy. A way to slip a foot in the door. Which is why it is so easily and handily dismissed, apart from the fact that the premises are base and "unsophisticated". It is a smoke screen to try to give the concept of a god some sort of validity at a time when it needs it the most. The tide is turning and pressing the issue to the point where they'll use whatever they can to survive.
Lack of sophistication in no way describes the level of truth in a theory. The more complex a theory is, the less preferable it is. I don't believe you've demonstrated how it is a ploy. You can attack this as a ploy, but you must show how it is. To discard a theory, you must show how it is likely wrong.
Let us both be completely honest with ourselves. There's nothing in this universe that proves God. There is no evidence that even shows God to be an unreasonable concept.
@bbryant0620 My comment regarding "unsophistication" was a reference to WLC's constant belittling of Dawkins' works as being weak and feeble. I will agree that a god is neither provable or improvable, but God is an unreasonable concept, given what we understand of the universe and nature. Which is why gods are continually referred to as supernatural. As in, beyond what is natural. And there is no reason to accept anything that is beyond nature as existing with any validity.
Saying "whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause" is mere syntactic trickery, so Craig can scoff at anyone who asks about the cause of god.
The whole issue of causation can be avoided by phrasing the problem as: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Craig claims a god did it. Fine, but why then is there a GOD rather than nothing?
Positing a god doesn't answer the problem, but merely puts it back a level; we'd still have to answer why this immaterial mind would exist in the first place.
In order to realize an explanation is the best, you do not need an explanation for the explanation. That would necessitate an infinite regress of explanations.
If I were to say to you, "That water faucet is on, someone must have turned it on." my explanation is not rendered invalid because I cannot explain who created the guy who turned it on. According to you, I would also have to explain who created the thing that created the guy that turned on the faucet ad infinitum.
"you do not need an explanation for the explanation"
That's hogwash. If you can't explain the explanation, you haven't explained anything at all. A partial explanation would already go a long way, for instance by stating HOW this "mind" went about creating anything. Right now we have a claim for a mind floating around, a huge GAP labeled "MIRACLE", and then there's a universe. Poof.
Craig's contention is extremely lacking in any explanatory power whatsoever.
""That water faucet is on, someone must have turned it on.""
You would at least have to explain HOW that water faucet functions. Saying that some being merely WILLED a faucet to be there to dispense water is completely unsatisfactory.
If the argument of the the CREATION of the water faucet, yes, you will have to address how it was created and WHY, or else it's still just a thing spouting water with no discernible mechanism or reason for its existence.
1. Actually he DOES demonstrate the universe "begins to exist". Name one thing in existence that is an ACTUAL INFINITE, I dare you. It is commonly accepted that an actual infinite does not exist (in logic). 1. An actual infinite cannotexist (the only arguable point). 2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore: An infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2. He doesn't have to begin to exist, do I have to explain that too?
1. Actually he DOES demonstrate the universe "begins to exist". Name one thing in existence that is an ACTUAL INFINITE, I dare you. It is commonly accepted that an actual infinite does not exist (in logic). 1. An actual infinite cannotexist (the only arguable point). 2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore: An infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2. He doesn't have to begin to exist, do I have to explain that too?
That is a logically valid arguement. If all three of those premises are correct then the conclusion follows, but you would need to prove premise 1? Are you able to demonstrate that things can only exist within the universe and that non-temporal and non-spatial existence beyond the universe is impossible?
@ukchristian28 Easily, as being within this universe is an inherent aspect of a thing that exists. Hence why creationists have recently been forced to embrace the premise of their god being beyond existence. The fallacy of that position is, if it is "beyond existence" then it does not exist. Either a thing exists or it does not. And, to be clear, I was not stating my opinion on the matter with the argument I gave, only show how easy it is to turn such nonsense in on itself.
Unlike you, propponents on the KCA try to demonstrate that the premises in their argument are correct. When you are asked to defend yours you just beg the question. How do you know being within the universe is an inherent aspect of all things which exist? Your "reasoning" is ridiculous.
@ukchristian28 I used a little something called deductive reasoning and logic. I have, throughout my life, come into contact with countless things in this universe that do exist. How many things, throughout the entire human history, have been found to exist apart from our universe? Give me a single example to support your claim that is not built on pure assumption. If a thing can be said to exist with any certainty, then it does so within this universe.
You can't demonstrate that something that exists outside of nature -- because it exists in the supernatural (which means above, or separate from nature). We instead, try to demonstrate, that something MUST exist outside of nature. You may disagree with our points, but you're asking all of the wrong questions.
@bbryant0620 "You can't demonstrate that something that exists outside of nature -- because it exists in the supernatural (which means above, or separate from nature). "
How many things do you know existing outside nature??
You are Wrong , you MUST assume that , how you can even name that Logic?
That is not Logic , is imagination my friend , if you start assuming supernatural things , or supernatural events , when there is no proof of that , your conclussion will be wrong.
@ukchristian28 The premises are assumptions , and is a trickery , we can pop out whatever creature we want with that poor argument , is the same Ontological argument in disguise , If God exists needs a cause too , because eternal regression according to him is impossible , but God create the universe , therefore he made a decission , the decision to make the universe , rather than nothing , so making a decision and dont making a decision implies a time lapse OUTSIDE THE TIME AND SPACE .
No... we can not. Use logic. This being MUST be timeless (he MUST necessarily exist outside of time). He MUST be enormously powerful (to have created the whole universe). He MUST be personal, because he did create us with intention, so he did so WILLINGLY. He must have a conscious of some form, because he CHOSE to create us. He must be spaceless because he does not exist in space (space is in nature, if he's in the supernatural).
He does not need a cause too, that is completely false. The SUPERNATURAL, and the NATURAL are completely different. The supernatural is timeless, there is no time there. How can there be a cause in a place where there is no time? That is a complete contradiction.
You need to learn to understand time. Time is restricted to nature. Our human minds cannot comprehend what it means to be truly timeless -- it's impossible.
@ukchristian28 he assumes various things , whitout evidence for it , The universe has a Beggining as we Know it , that does not mean that the universe came out of nothing , matter cant be created or destroyed , it only change forms . And in the End , he assumes that the cause is GOD , Bullshit , how do he Know?? we dont even porove that God exists in the first place , its a Blatant assumption , and can be descarted without much examination.
You don't discard things in philosophy just because of a lack of evidence -- a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lacking per se. The conclusion is that it is God, but that is based on the description of this being.
He must exist outside of time. He must exist as spaceless or completely separate from the natural universe. He must be personal, because he created us, that shows a willing creation (how many computers are accidentally built?). He must be powerful, to have...
... created the universe. He must be conscious to have CHOSEN to create us (unless he creates out of necessity, but that is another debate entirely). This fits only 3 definitions of God, the God of Judaism (of the old testament), the God of Islam, or the God of Christianity. Defining further which God it is, is another debate, which I'm more than happy to get into. I can show the flaws in Islam easily, though Judaism is a bigger beast to tackle.
@ukchristian28 And , he must have to prove that inmaterial beigns exists ,that a councessness can exists without a brain , he must prove timeless beigns can exists outside time , spaceless beings can exists whitout space , etc etc etc......
You just cant assume that kind of things so easily ,and pretends to take him seriously.
he msut define existence aswell , what is an existing being , how can we define God out of existence??
No, he does not have to prove any of those things, they're logical conclusions. Additionally, the idea of a supernatural is that it is different from nature -- it is above nature. It is not restricted by ANY natural restrictions (time, space etc.).
So in the supernatural, it is a FACT that a being can exist as immaterial, timeless, spaceless, with consciousness, outside of time, without taking up space, and with a personality. The supernatural can be ANYTHING.
Being beyond the natural universe =/= beyond existence. It means it's beyond OUR existence, which is to say, that we exist in the natural universe, and that he exists in the supernatural, which is by it's very definition beyond our universe.
@bbryant0620 It is more than simply being beyond "our" existence, but beyond demonstrable existence. There is absolutely no evidence to show that anything in any form exists beyond "our" universe, only baseless assertion built upon preconceived notions. You form the premises around a conclusion and try to pass it off as a valid argument. The only reason something "must" exist apart from nature is because that is the only way you can intellectually validate your presumption, no more.
They're one in the same, you're merely twisting words. It being beyond our natural existence IS it being beyond demonstrable existence. They're one in the same.
You're also wrong, you're forming a conclusion based on an unverifiable assumption. You're sitting here, accusing me of basing my premises around a conclusion, when that IN AND OF ITSELF is basing your assumption around your picture run-of-the-mill theist. You do not know me, you do not know my mind or my thoughts.
@bbryant0620 My "unverifiable assumption" is that you are making a claim that is completely unsupported with anything demonstrable. If it is unverifiable, it is only because you will not address it, you just keep flipping around the issue to try to come off like a victim. I am not basing my accusations on a generalization, but on all the silliness you have spewed, much like the silliness WLC spews. I have never claimed to know you, but I do know how you have presented yourself.
No, your "unverifiable assumption" is that AND I QUOTE, "You form the premises around a conclusion and try to pass it off as a valid argument". So, instead of dodging, and trying to change the subject, own up to your hypocrisy and your mistake. All humans are guilty of these things from time to time.
This is philosophy, this is not science. Philosophy does not require physical evidence, it requires reason and logic.
@bbryant0620 And exactly what conclusion have I built around? You keep trying to turn it back on me, but I am not the one presenting an argument, you are. If it will progress the debate, then fine, I will focus on the Kalam argument, but don't again accuse me of making generalizing attacks when I was obviously talking only about you specifically, then whine when I make that fact more apparent. You claim I am dodging, but have yet to actually contest any points I have made.
You conclude that I am forming an argument to build towards my preferred conclusion, you have stated this yourself. You obviously were making a generalization, unless you have a quote of me saying "I build arguments to fit my own personal beliefs" then you are in fact making a baseless accusation. Your words are "You form the premises around a conclusion and try to pass it off as a valid argument". So, either give a quote of me saying that, or stop making generalizations.
@bbryant0620 You admit that your premises cannot be proven apart from some half-assed mental gymnastics, and yet accuse me of being the one making "unverifiable assumptions"? How quaint. So you want to draw a line between coming to a valid conclusion and the requirement of evidence. Fine. Then you open the door to any premises, and the conclusion being reached from those premises, as valid. Good luck with that. Believe everything you are told, go right ahead.
Now, instead of trying to attack me and every theist without based on YOUR preconceived notion that all theists build arguments around conclusions, act like a reasonable adult and instead attack the argument itself. Do more than just claim I'm wrong, show me how I am.
If our arguments our trash, state your refutations for them. I read it everywhere "all dem theists are dum" so instead of jumping on the bandwagon, tell me how I'm wrong without your baseless personal attacks.
WLC chooses his premises as though each is a self-evident fact when, in fact, it is his so-called premises that are the subject for debate!
He assume premises that imply the truth of that for which he is arguing and then magically arrives at the 'truth' for which he has stacked the deck thinking he's actually said something!
and 99% of physicists do not believe in god, dr craig get their maths and books and theories, read and understood them all and come to the conclusion that it proves god, but why is he there alone?
and 'according to Stephen Hawking' is so upsetting, quoting guy that many, many times publicly said that go does not exist and physics proves it
unbelievable - dr Craig is on the level of travelling bible seller, not very smart and awful liar
An unembodied mind? Does he even say how such a thing could exist? Of course not. Just skips right over it because it's based on the fallacious arguments of Cartesian Dualism.
Craig just pulls unsubstantiated premises out of his arse and flings them at the audience like a manic monkey in a cage. He must truly believe that most people are idiots!
carl sagan was a nice guy, who said some cool things about the stars with ethereal music playing in the background but to co-opt him in a philosophical debate is a desperate move by the utube atheist dufus possey
Time to put down the WLC apologetics and do some actual science. WLC has been corrected several times (most recently by physicist Victor Stenger) about his dubious understanding of cosmology. He's essentially quote mining a calculation done by Hawking and Penrose in the 70's which was wrong because it fails to incorporate quantum mechanics. Plus we don't know anything about the universe when we get down to plank times. Hawking has stated publicly that it was wrong in a Brief History of Time.
A strange symbol is drawn on the white board of my class room. My students ask me what it is, what it means, and how it got there. I answer their inquiries by placing an equals sign to the right of the strange symbol and write a different strange symbol to the right of the equals sign. Oddly this didn't answer any of their questions.
Craig is ass and as dishonest as they come. ANY attribute you ascribe to a creator can be ascribed to a natural initial state of the universe (excluding the irrelevant ones like presonality traits or minds). The argument is as valid today as it was when Sagan expressed it. Craig's utter horseshit doesn't change it in the least. Craig is in the business of making up any old premise and then logically deducing whatever he wants to believe from those bullshit premises.
it's because philosophy like this sucks. What Sagan is trying to say is that we have to begin with something that is causeless. Some disembodied mind that is a person with character and creates and lives space timelessly has not not clarified any mystery...but added to it. this is what happens when humans apply logic derived through our experience in the world to some realm outside the universe... particularly when it is coloured by religion.
@empreme Coming from a creatard i take it as a compliment. I like it when dumbasses buy into anything like your idiot hero WLC does it to you when he conveniently slides over the elephant in the room after his second premise and concludes that therefore the ONLY logical conclusion is god , ignoring trillions upon trillions of possibilities , like a magical yellow rubber duckie caused it ,a magical porkchop ,a magical blue /as in sad/ frog etc.
@frank3976 cont. If i wanted to sink down to your level i d say until you prove that the above mentioned and not yet mentioned magical creatures do not exist im right..
@frank3976 It’s too bad you’re not bright enough to realize that he doesn’t use the Kalam to argue for God. He uses it to argue for a first cause of the universe. Not sure how you messed that observation up. Then, he uses a variety of arguments (both philosophical and scientific) to show what attributes this cause must have. It’s really not that difficult to grasp. It’s funny that even atheistic astronomers like Hoyle and Rees recognized that a transcendent Agency is likely.
@empreme And you dare to call yourself smart you little dipshit moron. WLC does not argue for the specific god of the booble? Nice deflection idiot. And you still havent addressed my point.I forgive you cause your only 25 and an american so i really do not have high hopes concerning your intelligence.
@frank3976 Man you're inept. The KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT does not argue for God as such. It argues for a FIRST CAUSE. Not sure why I'm even arguing with you. You can't even read. Nice ad hominem there at the end. You sure showed me didn't you?
@frank3976 (cont) I love watching you guys squirm, though. Like Barrow and Tipler: “Man will evolve and reach back in time to create the universe for ourselves”. Rofl that’s worse than “The universe just popped into existence uncaused out of nothing”.
@empreme Get the fuck off of the first cause shit. You know that its bullshit.And your buttbudy WLC is using it to end up with the christian god So prove that EVERYTHING had a cause.And if it has prove that the cause was supernatural cause otherwise you just making shit up like craig.
Where did you get the stupid idea that Carl Segan "believed" in space aliens?
Carl sagan said that considering the number of solar systems in the universe, it is highly UNLIKELY that life only ever evolved on one planet. That is not a belief. And you display an extreeme level of interlectual dishonesty by surgesting it.
Oh and most atheists understand the Kalam Cosmological argument perfectly fine. We just reject the premises.
@empreme No it is not. The Kalam cosmological argument makes sence IF the default possition is that there is a god, but nothing in the Kalam cosmological argument establishes that. Nor does the argument establish why god is exempt from the first premise.
The Kalam cosmological argument pre supposes the very thing it is trying to prove, that makes it circular, and therefore invalid.
@Fangs1978 Well your reply really didn't have anything to do with what I commented on. Am I the right person? Either way, your reply is incorrect. It's not circular at all and I really can't make sense of your argument. Maybe I'm just not getting it? Help me understand how "1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3 Therefore the universe has a cause" is in any way circular. It is ironclad and valid. You have to attack the premise so why not do that?
@empreme Well... 1. your comment was a blind assertion. So that was not worth commenting on. 2. I did attack the premises. I am attacking the hidden primise that god exists at all. In order for him to create the universe he must exist. In order for that to work god must first be proven in some other way because his existance is not an observable fact.
Before you can establish god as the creator of the universe you must first establish god.
@Fangs1978 And at any rate, that doesn't have anything to do with the Kalam. The Kalam is ironclad logically. Therefore you have to attack the premises.
@Fangs1978 You must be blind. He uses philosophical arguments to decide what attributes this cause must have, but nowhere does the Kalam assume God. That comes later. Oh and I see you've dropped your other points? I don't usually engage with the uninitiated. If you don't understand the basic moves of logic and reasoning you will never understand why you're wrong.
@empreme I "droped off" my other points because I was going to take them one by one from here.
And i know perfectly well what an assertion is there are several meanings, but here i use it as it is used in retoric. it means you are stone walling and not adressing the arguments properly.
I'll be back to adress your point on saturday, I won't have time for your condesending ass untill then.
Now if the argument was only meant to establish that the universe had an unknown cause.. Then yes, based on what we know now it works. But thats not the coclution WLC puts out there is it.. Besides what we known now about the origin of the universe is so little that nothing about that origin can be said to be ironclad. Logic can't answer the unknown. It can only make guesses, science is what either confirms or rejects those guesses.
@metalmike: Maybe you should read up on the arguements. You are leaving yourself WIDE open philosophically, and if you want to continue in this line of questioning, you really should have a grasp of the basics.
Lastly, why not believe Gandalf the Wizard or some other fictitious character from a book created everything? Why does it have to be YHVH. If there is some sort of transcendent creator out there, it's unlikely that some insane desert god who enjoys the smell of burning goats and demands child sacrifices is responsible. The mind capable of creating our universe would be far beyond that of the mind depicted in the bible.
@metalmike83 who says it has to be. but once you admit the possibility of God, then you move into that direction. it doesn't mean all bets are off, necessarily. why is an infinite regress of universes more logical than saying Gandalf the Wizard created the universe? we've never observed and infinite regress of anything. and you just admitted God wouldn't "have" to be anything, right?
@XSC3 But an infinite regression of universes is more plausable simply because we know that universes actually do exist. We know that ours exits and therefore we know it's possible others might exist. Still, you would never draw conclusions based on this. The best thing to do in this situation is to say you don't know. I admit the possibility of a God, but I find it highly unlikely and unreasonable that someone who has tamper tantrums like YHVH would be the one.
There is no reason to think that god must be eternal - he could have - for instance been created by another god. And another god after that. There could be an infinite regression of gods. Secondly, according to the big bang theory, the MATTER that was condensed into an area a billionth of a billionth of that of an atom already existed. The universe may not have already existed but the matter that comprised it DID already exist and has perhaps always existed.
@metalmike83 well if you have an infinite regression of gods, why would you say that's illogical but an infinite regression of universes is the truer theory? why not an infinite regress of magic jelly doughnuts? if that matter existed for eternity, then the universe should have formed an infinite time ago before it did, hence you create another paradox. or else we've been tricked and the universe looks like it had a beginning but it happened last Wednesday
@XSC3 Again, the law of parsimony comes in here. Infinite regression of universes or a non-stop expanding/collapsing universe is more reasonable since it assumes less information. Moreover, it assumes NO supernatural information. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural so any invoking of a god as an explanation for the origin of anything at all is unscientific. Stll, like I pointed out, you don't draw conclusions based on pure logic or what seems "reasonable". You go by evidence.
There are so many fallacies in WLC's arguments. First, does he impose so many restrictions on the supposed creator of the universe? Why must the creator transend time and space? Why must the creator be personal and eternal? Certainly, the finite can create the finite and the inpersonal can cause a universe to exist. He thinks that minds and abstract objects are the only eternal things? How are minds eternal and immaterial? They aren't. Finally, believing in aliens is far more logical than god.
@metalmike83 not necessarily. aliens could theoretically exist, but have not been observed to exist by any testable means. the same is true of a God, for the sake of argument. so what's the difference? each is possible.
@XSC3 Again the law of parsimony comes in here coupled with mathematical probability. First, we know that life can evolve on planets because it has done so here. Second, the probability of life existing somewhere in the universe givin the 400 billion galaxies is so astronomically high that it is unreasonable to believe that Earth is the only planet with life on it. Travelling many lightyears then might be possible for a technological civilization that is say at least 1000 yeras old.
if there's no way to prove a theory and no evidence, isn't such a theory (like the multiverse theory) just as good as a "God" theory? How is an infinite God less credible than an infinite multiverse, for example? We know of nothing else in our experience that is present in infinity, yet we're literally saying everything is infinite, by adopting that theory, right? You could say that maybe one day we'll prove the multiverse, and maybe one day we'll prove God.
@XSC3 "isn't such a theory (like the multiverse theory) just as good as a "God" theory?"
Well, science is mostly a process of figuring out how things work; of why things are they way they are. Because "god" theories more often than not place "god" outside any legitimate mechanism of testing/observation, there's no way to observe "how" any proposed "god" works (i.e., "what are the physics of god's existence?" cannot be answered). So science cannot connect the universe to "god" in any real way.
@basmithtx there's no way to verify an infinite regress of universes either, is there? so how is it different than an eternal God behind the universe? how would you "test" the multiverse theory?
@XSC3 Keep in mind that I'm not trying to "refute" something vaguely called "god". You generally can't refute vagaries, or prove negatives. Less about refutation, more about counter-arguments. I just think that every explanation that bears concrete aspects, so far, is bunk; usually not much more than circumlocution and tautology. The idea of "god" will always be just beyond the expanding boundaries of science.
sorry, maybe I'm being a dumbass here, but exactly how are minds timeless? and why does wcl limit himself to things that are known when he is talking about something with properties that are completely unknown?
We can perhaps agree to conclude that ultimately, humans are highly unlikely to know absolutely everything about everything...or even to agree that they truly know, what they think they know . :-)
As to online games, I used to play WoW, but I haven't in a long time. I'm looking forward to the new Star Wars game.
@TheDyingApologist You seem to be mixing things. Quantum fluctuation is an expression of the uncertainty principle. This is observable, mostly indirectly, like a black hole isn't directly observed. Bohm says the uncertainty principle is an expression of nonlocal variables. This isn't observable in any way, but it's possible.
"we shall tie up the loose ends"
Misconstrual. There will most likely always be loose ends. I reckon that human causal inquiry will always be in constant regress.
@basmithtx I believe I was asking you if "nothing" in physics meant "zero potential" because that's what I thought it meant. It sounded as if you were saying "nothing" is actually an eternal substance (meaning this "eternal substance" was around before the Big Bang, and created everything, which would make it like God-stuff, I suppose), different from matter and energy. I'm not a Quantum Physicist, so I apologize if I'm not getting what you're saying.
@XSC3 Well, "nothing" as defined in terms the universe, is empty space, with zero observable content; the uncertainty principle says something is/can be going on there. Bohm posits that this is actually the expression of an underlying system...but science has no way to observe that, at the moment. If you mean "nothing" to be the philosophical absolute non-existence of anything, no systems, no functions, no mass, no energy, no causality... well, that's a tough to talk about as a mere human. :-)
@TheDyingApologist My understanding of what Bohm proposes, is that which we perceive as the uncertainty principle, is really a causal result of nonlocal variables. Seeing as we don't really have any way, for the moment, to achieve knowledge of nonlocal variables, we can't actually do much with what Bohm's proposing.
That's not what the scientific process is about. I didn't say "disregard" deterministic theory. It just doesn't fit within the system as well (hence "not as accepted").
"to the problem which cant prove or disprove god"
Sure. Thus discussing god produces no knowledge of god, "god" is ultimately a meaningless term, given arbitrary characteristics.
@TheDyingApologist "some deterministic theory's where created by Atheist"
I'm saying that to prefer something over the other, you must have a solid reason for it. Until then, preferring "deterministic theories" seems shrug-worthy; it's not commonly accepted from what I've seen.
"If any natural property such a gravity where to change by even a fraction life would not exist"
Not exactly; *we*, as we know ourselves, might not. But then, many things would be different if you change parameters.
@TheDyingApologist I'm nontheist. Every argument for gods are circumlocutive, special pleading, inductively errant and use "tricky" logic (like modal logic). The only semi-solid argument I've seen when looking at causality and contemplating the idea of "first cause".
@TheDyingApologist I didn't say a virtual particle wasn't a virtual particle. Anyways, there exists a possible explanation, and you asked for a possible explanation.
Either way, science continues to progress. We've gone from the earth being the center of an static universe to walking on the moon. Persecuted all the way.
@TheDyingApologist That's not what it means exactly. There can be nothing, zero energy, zero particles, zero zero zero. You seem to be pulling energy conservation into this which is "trumped", so to speak, by quantum mechanics/qf.
@TheDyingApologist I don't see the "first" post anywhere... But can you elucidate as to why QF isn't an example of "ex nihilo"? If there was nothing and then something, this would seem to qualify...
@TheDyingApologist who cares about the Intelligent Design movement? I'm talking about Theistic Evolution. It's different, just as it's different from "Creationism."
@TheDyingApologist I'm guessing you're trying to imply that the what came from the quantum fluctuation isn't "ex nihilo". If so, why not? If you mean something else, please explain "Quantum Fluctuation does not present an Ex Nihilo Creation".
The question is unclear, or a false premise. Are you referring to energy produced by quantum fluctuation, or are you trying to call a quantum fluctuation itself "energy"?
"no way to say this is One-Hundred percent correct"
It doesn't have to be 100%, undeniably, absolutely, without question, the undeniable fact of all things. That isn't even the point, strictly speaking.
@TheDyingApologist "No Quantum Mechanical Interpretation says something comes from nothing."
Huh. That seems like a very peculiar thing to say. What's a quantum fluctuation then?
You should watch this: /watch?v=HVm5uO6D6jg
Krauss spends a modest amount of time speaking in relatively easy to understand terms (mostly anyways), providing an explanation of how a universe can come from nothing.
@TheDyingApologist I was submitting that infinite regression isn't intrinsically a problem, so asserting that we "must avoid" it is an uncertain proposition.
"But how can something that doesn't exist create itself?"
I think we briefly mentioned quantum mechanics already. :-)
That said your question seems to be formed fallaciously. "How does ex-nihilo causation happen" is better.
(And in infinite regress, there isn't "ex-nihilo" to start with.)
In one way, the "infinite" causality could perhaps be used in analogy, by correlating with the surface of a sphere being "infinite", in that there's no real first-point (aka first-cause), and that the idea of asking for one in that context is nonsense.
Of course, as you say, it's difficult to use that as an "answer for everything", because it's too abstract for us. I submit that a tautology is the same, however.
@TheDyingApologist As to your question of how a theist could accept god as being plausibly created... Good question; perhaps we should instead ask, could he plausibly be causally-dependent. I say this because the word "created" has a lot of baggage. Causality doesn't strictly require time in order to "function", because causal-dependency can be coincident ("simultaneous" in temporal terms), and even bidirectional (heat causing pressure, pressure causing heat).
@basmithtx If causal-dependency is supposed, then we of course encounter the well known idea of infinite regression. The issue, is that it's said to be a "problem", but I don't think this is necessarily very well justified, outside of saying it's difficult to conceive. Further, being a "problem" doesn't strictly mean "incorrect".
@TheDyingApologist You seem to be diverging a bit..."yummy" being subjective isn't important. Everyone knows pie is yummy anyways! :-)
Let's try: X is Y, because if it wasn't Y, it wouldn't be X. It's a tautology; related in some ways to... circular reasoning (clever reference to your example ftw).
@TheDyingApologist Consider that what you're illustrating of is a two-way street. If we can't be "absolutely" certain, then stating "ex nihilo" absolutely did occur, or didn't occur, can't be "absolutely" asserted either way.
"Looking past" quantum mechanics is like cutting an unknown variable out of an equation. You're not really going to solve the problem any more.
That said, the big bang points to a state. The singularity had to exist in order for the big bang to occur - causal dependency.
@TheDyingApologist The problem here is that you're saying god is eternal because we define him to be eternal. This is a tautology. You can't "prove" the definition something with the definition of something. It's like saying pie is delicious because pie is delicious.
Hawking doesn't quite use terms like "beginning" in the same way Craig asserts (see the 2007 Oppenheimer talk). In addition, the gravitational collapse of black holes bears marked similarity to the big bang singularity.
lol the premises again that is only craigs stupid weapon
C0br4Br0s 8 hours ago
gibberish. Where is your evidence for this convoluted description?
robcallowfof 1 week ago
WLC is a scratched Vinyl , always repeating the same stupid arguments , and he dont even understands that the same arguments are used to destroy his own argumentation.
Whatever begins to exists has a Cause , God dont has a cause , therefore god does not exists.
Out of nothing , nothing comes , therefore God cant pop out from nothing and by nothing.
EdyMar77 1 month ago
@EdyMar77
Funny, for them being destroyed arguments, his arguments never seem to get destroyed no matter who he debates.
You're not understanding anything are you?
The Supernatural (think about the word SUPER-NATURAL) is by it's very definition above or separate from nature.
Time exists in nature.
The universe is natural.
Therefore anything that exists in the supernatural does not have to have a cause, seeing as a cause can only apply to time, which only necessarily exists in nature.
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
@bbryant0620 You are assuming thing to support your arguments , and its the same Craigs does , assuming Things , if you cant prove any of these things , you dont have a point , and your arguments only works with cristians , because they already believe all this crap as a truth when is not a truth , all Craigs arguments are fallacious , because he must assume things that are not real .
EdyMar77 2 weeks ago
@EdyMar77
You don't get how philosophy works do you? SCIENCE requires evidence, all Philosophy requires is REASON AND LOGIC. I don't have to prove anything, all I have to do is supply reason, which I have. Notice you haven't pointed out HOW I'm wrong?
All I'm saying is that I'm justified in my belief. I have supplied reasons for my beliefs.. You can keep calling me wrong and act like a 10 year old, or you can tell me where I am wrong specifically, so we can debate this like adults.
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
@bbryant0620 So, whatever we want to exist, but have no evidence, whatsoever, for, we can simply define as supernatural, and it becomes valid? Is that the best argument you have? You twist and shift things around until they fit your perspective. And I am speaking to YOU about YOU, based on the comments YOU have made. I am not addressing the entirety of theism, only YOU. Do not think so highly of yourself. It doesn't do much for your credibility.
CrimsonDragonStar 2 weeks ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
Well, take the Kalam's Cosmological argument for example. Read up on it, if the 2 premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Now, the 2 premises may not be true, I admit that. Philosophy is not an exact science, it's essentially educated guesswork based on our rudimentary observations of the natural universe and the laws which govern it.
I'll say it one more time, philosophy does not require demonstrations or proof, only reason based on facts.
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 week ago
@bbryant0620
"if the 2 premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily"
But the premises can't shown to be true. "All elephants are pink. Tim is an elephant, therefore Tim is Pink" is a valid argument, but it's not sound, since all elephants are not pink.
"philosophy does not require demonstrations or proof"
Then why does Craig dare to make claims about the nature of the universe using philosophical reasoning?
"reason based on facts."
Craig doesn't use facts.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 week ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
I don't think so "highly of myself", that's yet another assumption of which you have no way of verifying. Oh wait, I get it. Only OUR assumptions require absolute physical evidence -- not yours, you're exempt!
Here's the kicked, if we think something based on logic and reason (some of us don't start from faith, some of us start down the road that is theism because we think it is the logical conclusion) we're somehow automatically building towards a preconceived conclusion?
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
I'll ask you one last time, and give you one last opportunity. Explain how the Kalam's Cosmological argument is incorrect.
You can keep attacking me personally, you can keep claiming I need absolute and demonstrable evidence, which is completely unreasonable in a philosophical debate. Or you can try to get to the truth of the matter. People who claim that other people are wrong without supplying reason, are just trying to reinforce their own beliefs -- not seek the truth.
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
@bbryant0620 Premise 1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause. Unknown, improvable and has little to no bearing on the concept of a God, but I'll give it to you.
Premise 2. The universe began to exist. Again, unknown, improvable and has little to no bearing on the concept of a God, but I will concede this as well.
Conclusion. The universe has a cause. See 1 and 2. Even given all that, so what? God is not the default cause. Hell, given your own description, anything could be.
CrimsonDragonStar 1 week ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
Premise 1:
Everything that we have observed in the natural universe points towards this being accurate. This does not mean it has a creator, just that it has a cause.
Premise 2:
Unknowable, maybe. But from our observations, we can determine that an actual infinite does cannot exist. Since an infinite temporal regress of events would be an actual infinite, we can conclude that it cannot exist.
bbryant0620 1 week ago
@bbryant0620 "Everything that we have observed in the natural universe points towards this being accurate." And is human observation so advanced as to make a credible assertion about such an event? We have "educated" guesses, nothing more. If your conclusion hinders upon a "perhaps" then it is very weak, at best. As far as my comment on your building the premises around a conclusion, that is easily apparent from you clinging to an argument that is obviously just that.
CrimsonDragonStar 1 week ago
@bbryant0620 The Kalam Cosmological Argument tries to impose a god from the start and works toward that end by twisting what little we have learned of the universe and its probable origins until their god fits into the equation, then they act like it is so very obvious that you would have to be an idiot to not accept it. That is why I call it a ploy. It is a last ditch effort to make the concept of God more than what it is, a faith-based belief with no actual support.
CrimsonDragonStar 1 week ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
Conclusion:
The only conclusion we come to absolutely from this argument is that a being of certain qualities exists that resembles our God quite a bit. We're not claiming it must be the Christian God, but something similar.
This being, must be outside of time or not be restricted by it, as it created time. It must be immaterial, same because it created material. It must be immensely powerful, as it created the entire universe...
bbryant0620 1 week ago
@bbryant0620 And why would a being be, at all, the absolute conclusion to the universe being caused? In a universe so driven by forces and energy, why isn't the cause being no different from them plausible? Again, more proof of building the premises on your preconceived notions. A foot in the door. If you can get someone to accept that the cause is A being, then it is all too easy to hop to that being is YOUR god.
CrimsonDragonStar 1 week ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
Conclusion:
The only conclusion we come to absolutely from this argument is that a being of certain qualities exists that resembles our God quite a bit. We're not claiming it must be the Christian God, but something similar.
This being, must be outside of time or not be restricted by it, as it created time. It must be immaterial, same because it created material. It must be immensely powerful, as it created the entire universe...
bbryant0620 1 week ago
@bbryant0620
"The only conclusion we come to? absolutely from this argument is that a being of certain qualities exists that resembles our God quite a bit."
No, that's by far not the only conclusion. You're presenting a false dichotomy ("either it's a natural cause, or it's a personal god") combined with the God of the Gaps ("we have no explanation for the natural cause , so ...."). Anybody with a bit of imagination can come up with many more possible explanations.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 week ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
... It must be personal, as it chose to create this universe. It has a consciousness, or it could not have personally chose to create us. He created space, therefore he cannot be restricted by it. So we can conclude that this being must be:
Timeless, immaterial, spaceless, immensely powerful, personal, and it must have a consciousness. This does not mean it must be God, but it is a really good description of him, would you not agree? The argument is purely deductive logic.
bbryant0620 1 week ago
@bbryant0620
"It must be personal, as it chose to create this universe."
You're begging the question, since you haven't shown that a universe needs to be "willed" into existence.
"Timeless, immaterial, spaceless, immensely powerful, personal, and it must have a consciousness."
These are all baseless assertions, and mostly a result of theistic wishful thinking.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 week ago
@bbryant0620 No, I do not agree, at all. You have simply made a list of characteristics your god possesses and applied them to your conclusion. All of which are pure assertion with no relevance beyond your personal faith in a god. It is not deductive logic, it is reverse engineering a concept into something you hope resembles a valid argument. There is absolutely no reason to accept that a timeless, immaterial, non-spacial, all powerful being is even possible, much less probable.
CrimsonDragonStar 1 week ago
@bbryant0620 The largest flaw I find in the Kalam Cosmological Argument is that it is no more than a ploy. A way to slip a foot in the door. Which is why it is so easily and handily dismissed, apart from the fact that the premises are base and "unsophisticated". It is a smoke screen to try to give the concept of a god some sort of validity at a time when it needs it the most. The tide is turning and pressing the issue to the point where they'll use whatever they can to survive.
CrimsonDragonStar 1 week ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
Lack of sophistication in no way describes the level of truth in a theory. The more complex a theory is, the less preferable it is. I don't believe you've demonstrated how it is a ploy. You can attack this as a ploy, but you must show how it is. To discard a theory, you must show how it is likely wrong.
Let us both be completely honest with ourselves. There's nothing in this universe that proves God. There is no evidence that even shows God to be an unreasonable concept.
bbryant0620 1 week ago
@bbryant0620 My comment regarding "unsophistication" was a reference to WLC's constant belittling of Dawkins' works as being weak and feeble. I will agree that a god is neither provable or improvable, but God is an unreasonable concept, given what we understand of the universe and nature. Which is why gods are continually referred to as supernatural. As in, beyond what is natural. And there is no reason to accept anything that is beyond nature as existing with any validity.
CrimsonDragonStar 1 week ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
I also think it would be best, if we took this conversation into private chat. As we're simply cluttering up the responses.
bbryant0620 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrimsonDragonStar
I also think it would be best, if we took this conversation into private chat. As we're simply cluttering up the responses.
bbryant0620 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrimsonDragonStar
I also think it would be best, if we took this conversation into private chat. As we're simply cluttering up the responses.
bbryant0620 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrimsonDragonStar
I also think it would be best, if we took this conversation into private chat. As we're simply cluttering up the responses.
bbryant0620 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrimsonDragonStar
I also think it would be best, if we took this conversation into private chat. As we're simply cluttering up the responses.
bbryant0620 1 week ago
Saying "whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause" is mere syntactic trickery, so Craig can scoff at anyone who asks about the cause of god.
The whole issue of causation can be avoided by phrasing the problem as: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Craig claims a god did it. Fine, but why then is there a GOD rather than nothing?
Positing a god doesn't answer the problem, but merely puts it back a level; we'd still have to answer why this immaterial mind would exist in the first place.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 month ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
In order to realize an explanation is the best, you do not need an explanation for the explanation. That would necessitate an infinite regress of explanations.
If I were to say to you, "That water faucet is on, someone must have turned it on." my explanation is not rendered invalid because I cannot explain who created the guy who turned it on. According to you, I would also have to explain who created the thing that created the guy that turned on the faucet ad infinitum.
bbryant0620 1 week ago
@bbryant0620
"you do not need an explanation for the explanation"
That's hogwash. If you can't explain the explanation, you haven't explained anything at all. A partial explanation would already go a long way, for instance by stating HOW this "mind" went about creating anything. Right now we have a claim for a mind floating around, a huge GAP labeled "MIRACLE", and then there's a universe. Poof.
Craig's contention is extremely lacking in any explanatory power whatsoever.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 week ago
@bbryant0620
""That water faucet is on, someone must have turned it on.""
You would at least have to explain HOW that water faucet functions. Saying that some being merely WILLED a faucet to be there to dispense water is completely unsatisfactory.
If the argument of the the CREATION of the water faucet, yes, you will have to address how it was created and WHY, or else it's still just a thing spouting water with no discernible mechanism or reason for its existence.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 week ago
Same old William "sir special pleading" Lane Craig. He still doesn't manage to demonstrate that:
1. The universe "begins" to exist
2. His personal god is necessarily the creator of that universe he hasn't managed to demonstrate "begins" to exist.
All he can try is toss random ad hominem attacks such as:
Unsophisticated
Layman
Unqualified
Laugh like an idiot, and proceed to hope the crowd stands in awe of his monumentally flawed arguments.
Prof. Sagan >>> WLC, by far.
hellhammerz666 1 month ago
@hellhammerz666
1. Actually he DOES demonstrate the universe "begins to exist". Name one thing in existence that is an ACTUAL INFINITE, I dare you. It is commonly accepted that an actual infinite does not exist (in logic). 1. An actual infinite cannotexist (the only arguable point). 2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore: An infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2. He doesn't have to begin to exist, do I have to explain that too?
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hellhammerz666
1. Actually he DOES demonstrate the universe "begins to exist". Name one thing in existence that is an ACTUAL INFINITE, I dare you. It is commonly accepted that an actual infinite does not exist (in logic). 1. An actual infinite cannotexist (the only arguable point). 2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore: An infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2. He doesn't have to begin to exist, do I have to explain that too?
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
Premise 1. The Universe is the area in which all things that do or have or will exist, exists.
Premise 2. All things that exist within the Universe are subject to its laws, including, but not limited to, time and space.
Premise 3. God is non-temporal and non-spatial.
Conclusion: God does not exist.
CrimsonDragonStar 1 month ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
That is a logically valid arguement. If all three of those premises are correct then the conclusion follows, but you would need to prove premise 1? Are you able to demonstrate that things can only exist within the universe and that non-temporal and non-spatial existence beyond the universe is impossible?
ukchristian28 1 month ago
@ukchristian28 Easily, as being within this universe is an inherent aspect of a thing that exists. Hence why creationists have recently been forced to embrace the premise of their god being beyond existence. The fallacy of that position is, if it is "beyond existence" then it does not exist. Either a thing exists or it does not. And, to be clear, I was not stating my opinion on the matter with the argument I gave, only show how easy it is to turn such nonsense in on itself.
CrimsonDragonStar 1 month ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
Unlike you, propponents on the KCA try to demonstrate that the premises in their argument are correct. When you are asked to defend yours you just beg the question. How do you know being within the universe is an inherent aspect of all things which exist? Your "reasoning" is ridiculous.
ukchristian28 1 month ago
@ukchristian28 I used a little something called deductive reasoning and logic. I have, throughout my life, come into contact with countless things in this universe that do exist. How many things, throughout the entire human history, have been found to exist apart from our universe? Give me a single example to support your claim that is not built on pure assumption. If a thing can be said to exist with any certainty, then it does so within this universe.
CrimsonDragonStar 1 month ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
You can't demonstrate that something that exists outside of nature -- because it exists in the supernatural (which means above, or separate from nature). We instead, try to demonstrate, that something MUST exist outside of nature. You may disagree with our points, but you're asking all of the wrong questions.
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bbryant0620 "You can't demonstrate that something that exists outside of nature -- because it exists in the supernatural (which means above, or separate from nature). "
How many things do you know existing outside nature??
You are Wrong , you MUST assume that , how you can even name that Logic?
That is not Logic , is imagination my friend , if you start assuming supernatural things , or supernatural events , when there is no proof of that , your conclussion will be wrong.
EdyMar77 2 weeks ago
@ukchristian28 The premises are assumptions , and is a trickery , we can pop out whatever creature we want with that poor argument , is the same Ontological argument in disguise , If God exists needs a cause too , because eternal regression according to him is impossible , but God create the universe , therefore he made a decission , the decision to make the universe , rather than nothing , so making a decision and dont making a decision implies a time lapse OUTSIDE THE TIME AND SPACE .
EdyMar77 1 month ago
@EdyMar77
No... we can not. Use logic. This being MUST be timeless (he MUST necessarily exist outside of time). He MUST be enormously powerful (to have created the whole universe). He MUST be personal, because he did create us with intention, so he did so WILLINGLY. He must have a conscious of some form, because he CHOSE to create us. He must be spaceless because he does not exist in space (space is in nature, if he's in the supernatural).
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
@EdyMar77
He does not need a cause too, that is completely false. The SUPERNATURAL, and the NATURAL are completely different. The supernatural is timeless, there is no time there. How can there be a cause in a place where there is no time? That is a complete contradiction.
You need to learn to understand time. Time is restricted to nature. Our human minds cannot comprehend what it means to be truly timeless -- it's impossible.
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
@ukchristian28 he assumes various things , whitout evidence for it , The universe has a Beggining as we Know it , that does not mean that the universe came out of nothing , matter cant be created or destroyed , it only change forms . And in the End , he assumes that the cause is GOD , Bullshit , how do he Know?? we dont even porove that God exists in the first place , its a Blatant assumption , and can be descarted without much examination.
EdyMar77 1 month ago
@EdyMar77
You don't discard things in philosophy just because of a lack of evidence -- a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lacking per se. The conclusion is that it is God, but that is based on the description of this being.
He must exist outside of time. He must exist as spaceless or completely separate from the natural universe. He must be personal, because he created us, that shows a willing creation (how many computers are accidentally built?). He must be powerful, to have...
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
@EdyMar77
... created the universe. He must be conscious to have CHOSEN to create us (unless he creates out of necessity, but that is another debate entirely). This fits only 3 definitions of God, the God of Judaism (of the old testament), the God of Islam, or the God of Christianity. Defining further which God it is, is another debate, which I'm more than happy to get into. I can show the flaws in Islam easily, though Judaism is a bigger beast to tackle.
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
@ukchristian28 And , he must have to prove that inmaterial beigns exists ,that a councessness can exists without a brain , he must prove timeless beigns can exists outside time , spaceless beings can exists whitout space , etc etc etc......
You just cant assume that kind of things so easily ,and pretends to take him seriously.
he msut define existence aswell , what is an existing being , how can we define God out of existence??
EdyMar77 1 month ago
@EdyMar77
No, he does not have to prove any of those things, they're logical conclusions. Additionally, the idea of a supernatural is that it is different from nature -- it is above nature. It is not restricted by ANY natural restrictions (time, space etc.).
So in the supernatural, it is a FACT that a being can exist as immaterial, timeless, spaceless, with consciousness, outside of time, without taking up space, and with a personality. The supernatural can be ANYTHING.
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
Being beyond the natural universe =/= beyond existence. It means it's beyond OUR existence, which is to say, that we exist in the natural universe, and that he exists in the supernatural, which is by it's very definition beyond our universe.
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
@bbryant0620 It is more than simply being beyond "our" existence, but beyond demonstrable existence. There is absolutely no evidence to show that anything in any form exists beyond "our" universe, only baseless assertion built upon preconceived notions. You form the premises around a conclusion and try to pass it off as a valid argument. The only reason something "must" exist apart from nature is because that is the only way you can intellectually validate your presumption, no more.
CrimsonDragonStar 2 weeks ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
They're one in the same, you're merely twisting words. It being beyond our natural existence IS it being beyond demonstrable existence. They're one in the same.
You're also wrong, you're forming a conclusion based on an unverifiable assumption. You're sitting here, accusing me of basing my premises around a conclusion, when that IN AND OF ITSELF is basing your assumption around your picture run-of-the-mill theist. You do not know me, you do not know my mind or my thoughts.
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
@bbryant0620 My "unverifiable assumption" is that you are making a claim that is completely unsupported with anything demonstrable. If it is unverifiable, it is only because you will not address it, you just keep flipping around the issue to try to come off like a victim. I am not basing my accusations on a generalization, but on all the silliness you have spewed, much like the silliness WLC spews. I have never claimed to know you, but I do know how you have presented yourself.
CrimsonDragonStar 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
CrimsonDragonStar 2 weeks ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
No, your "unverifiable assumption" is that AND I QUOTE, "You form the premises around a conclusion and try to pass it off as a valid argument". So, instead of dodging, and trying to change the subject, own up to your hypocrisy and your mistake. All humans are guilty of these things from time to time.
This is philosophy, this is not science. Philosophy does not require physical evidence, it requires reason and logic.
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
@bbryant0620 And exactly what conclusion have I built around? You keep trying to turn it back on me, but I am not the one presenting an argument, you are. If it will progress the debate, then fine, I will focus on the Kalam argument, but don't again accuse me of making generalizing attacks when I was obviously talking only about you specifically, then whine when I make that fact more apparent. You claim I am dodging, but have yet to actually contest any points I have made.
CrimsonDragonStar 1 week ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
You conclude that I am forming an argument to build towards my preferred conclusion, you have stated this yourself. You obviously were making a generalization, unless you have a quote of me saying "I build arguments to fit my own personal beliefs" then you are in fact making a baseless accusation. Your words are "You form the premises around a conclusion and try to pass it off as a valid argument". So, either give a quote of me saying that, or stop making generalizations.
bbryant0620 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bbryant0620 You admit that your premises cannot be proven apart from some half-assed mental gymnastics, and yet accuse me of being the one making "unverifiable assumptions"? How quaint. So you want to draw a line between coming to a valid conclusion and the requirement of evidence. Fine. Then you open the door to any premises, and the conclusion being reached from those premises, as valid. Good luck with that. Believe everything you are told, go right ahead.
CrimsonDragonStar 2 weeks ago
@CrimsonDragonStar
Now, instead of trying to attack me and every theist without based on YOUR preconceived notion that all theists build arguments around conclusions, act like a reasonable adult and instead attack the argument itself. Do more than just claim I'm wrong, show me how I am.
If our arguments our trash, state your refutations for them. I read it everywhere "all dem theists are dum" so instead of jumping on the bandwagon, tell me how I'm wrong without your baseless personal attacks.
bbryant0620 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
CrimsonDragonStar 2 weeks ago
The message at the beginning suggests Bananaman kicked TF's ass in a debate. [HOWLS OF LAUGHTER]
"If you see a well made banana..."
The gift that keeps on giving!
TheAikenHead 1 month ago
William Lane Craig always manages to give me a fucking migrane.....
stonewickison 1 month ago
"Things do not come into being from nothing."
Now how did WLC find that out?
WLC chooses his premises as though each is a self-evident fact when, in fact, it is his so-called premises that are the subject for debate!
He assume premises that imply the truth of that for which he is arguing and then magically arrives at the 'truth' for which he has stacked the deck thinking he's actually said something!
ROFL
lduych 1 month ago
You made a spelling error in your description.
CheekyVimto08 1 month ago
Willy Craig's first cause is the same as his last, MONEY!
123backinyerface 1 month ago
WLC = Wretched Lunatic Cunt.
RaynorGo 1 month ago
and 99% of physicists do not believe in god, dr craig get their maths and books and theories, read and understood them all and come to the conclusion that it proves god, but why is he there alone?
and 'according to Stephen Hawking' is so upsetting, quoting guy that many, many times publicly said that go does not exist and physics proves it
unbelievable - dr Craig is on the level of travelling bible seller, not very smart and awful liar
soth3d 2 months ago
7:19 this is just silly, the cause of big bang must be matter, more matter as is MUCH more probable than immaterial god or other faery
so u simply saying, know to us universe had a cause therefore god exist, hahahahaha
soth3d 2 months ago
An unembodied mind? Does he even say how such a thing could exist? Of course not. Just skips right over it because it's based on the fallacious arguments of Cartesian Dualism.
ApatheticOmniscience 2 months ago
Craig just pulls unsubstantiated premises out of his arse and flings them at the audience like a manic monkey in a cage. He must truly believe that most people are idiots!
dingodavid 2 months ago
carl sagan was a nice guy, who said some cool things about the stars with ethereal music playing in the background but to co-opt him in a philosophical debate is a desperate move by the utube atheist dufus possey
agnostaxian 2 months ago
Time to put down the WLC apologetics and do some actual science. WLC has been corrected several times (most recently by physicist Victor Stenger) about his dubious understanding of cosmology. He's essentially quote mining a calculation done by Hawking and Penrose in the 70's which was wrong because it fails to incorporate quantum mechanics. Plus we don't know anything about the universe when we get down to plank times. Hawking has stated publicly that it was wrong in a Brief History of Time.
firstatheist 2 months ago
A strange symbol is drawn on the white board of my class room. My students ask me what it is, what it means, and how it got there. I answer their inquiries by placing an equals sign to the right of the strange symbol and write a different strange symbol to the right of the equals sign. Oddly this didn't answer any of their questions.
firstatheist 2 months ago
logic??
ptango666 2 months ago
Craig is ass and as dishonest as they come. ANY attribute you ascribe to a creator can be ascribed to a natural initial state of the universe (excluding the irrelevant ones like presonality traits or minds). The argument is as valid today as it was when Sagan expressed it. Craig's utter horseshit doesn't change it in the least. Craig is in the business of making up any old premise and then logically deducing whatever he wants to believe from those bullshit premises.
TheCelticChimp 2 months ago
it's because philosophy like this sucks. What Sagan is trying to say is that we have to begin with something that is causeless. Some disembodied mind that is a person with character and creates and lives space timelessly has not not clarified any mystery...but added to it. this is what happens when humans apply logic derived through our experience in the world to some realm outside the universe... particularly when it is coloured by religion.
adstanra 2 months ago 9
WLC is as pathetic as always.
frank3976 2 months ago
@frank3976 Are you going to add something to the discussion? Guess not.
empreme 2 months ago
@empreme What should i add ? A fact is a fact.
frank3976 2 months ago
@frank3976 Sigh.. you people are idiots.
empreme 2 months ago
@empreme Coming from a creatard i take it as a compliment. I like it when dumbasses buy into anything like your idiot hero WLC does it to you when he conveniently slides over the elephant in the room after his second premise and concludes that therefore the ONLY logical conclusion is god , ignoring trillions upon trillions of possibilities , like a magical yellow rubber duckie caused it ,a magical porkchop ,a magical blue /as in sad/ frog etc.
frank3976 2 months ago
@frank3976 cont. If i wanted to sink down to your level i d say until you prove that the above mentioned and not yet mentioned magical creatures do not exist im right..
frank3976 2 months ago
@frank3976 It’s too bad you’re not bright enough to realize that he doesn’t use the Kalam to argue for God. He uses it to argue for a first cause of the universe. Not sure how you messed that observation up. Then, he uses a variety of arguments (both philosophical and scientific) to show what attributes this cause must have. It’s really not that difficult to grasp. It’s funny that even atheistic astronomers like Hoyle and Rees recognized that a transcendent Agency is likely.
empreme 2 months ago
@empreme And you dare to call yourself smart you little dipshit moron. WLC does not argue for the specific god of the booble? Nice deflection idiot. And you still havent addressed my point.I forgive you cause your only 25 and an american so i really do not have high hopes concerning your intelligence.
frank3976 2 months ago
@frank3976 Man you're inept. The KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT does not argue for God as such. It argues for a FIRST CAUSE. Not sure why I'm even arguing with you. You can't even read. Nice ad hominem there at the end. You sure showed me didn't you?
Learn to read or get lost.
empreme 2 months ago
@frank3976 (cont) I love watching you guys squirm, though. Like Barrow and Tipler: “Man will evolve and reach back in time to create the universe for ourselves”. Rofl that’s worse than “The universe just popped into existence uncaused out of nothing”.
empreme 2 months ago
@empreme Get the fuck off of the first cause shit. You know that its bullshit.And your buttbudy WLC is using it to end up with the christian god So prove that EVERYTHING had a cause.And if it has prove that the cause was supernatural cause otherwise you just making shit up like craig.
frank3976 2 months ago
Where did you get the stupid idea that Carl Segan "believed" in space aliens?
Carl sagan said that considering the number of solar systems in the universe, it is highly UNLIKELY that life only ever evolved on one planet. That is not a belief. And you display an extreeme level of interlectual dishonesty by surgesting it.
Oh and most atheists understand the Kalam Cosmological argument perfectly fine. We just reject the premises.
Fangs1978 2 months ago 19
@Fangs1978 "Oh and most atheists understand the Kalam Cosmological argument perfectly fine. We just reject the premises."
- That is demonstrably false. Especially on youtube.
empreme 2 months ago
@empreme No it is not. The Kalam cosmological argument makes sence IF the default possition is that there is a god, but nothing in the Kalam cosmological argument establishes that. Nor does the argument establish why god is exempt from the first premise.
The Kalam cosmological argument pre supposes the very thing it is trying to prove, that makes it circular, and therefore invalid.
Fangs1978 2 months ago
@Fangs1978 Well your reply really didn't have anything to do with what I commented on. Am I the right person? Either way, your reply is incorrect. It's not circular at all and I really can't make sense of your argument. Maybe I'm just not getting it? Help me understand how "1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3 Therefore the universe has a cause" is in any way circular. It is ironclad and valid. You have to attack the premise so why not do that?
empreme 2 months ago
@empreme Well... 1. your comment was a blind assertion. So that was not worth commenting on. 2. I did attack the premises. I am attacking the hidden primise that god exists at all. In order for him to create the universe he must exist. In order for that to work god must first be proven in some other way because his existance is not an observable fact.
Before you can establish god as the creator of the universe you must first establish god.
Fangs1978 2 months ago
One last thing..
Try this oldie but goodie.
Premise 1: All dogs have four legs
Premise 2: My cat has forr legs
Conclution: My cat is a dog
Try disproving that while only attacing the premises
Fangs1978 2 months ago
@Fangs1978 Fallacy of association.
empreme 2 months ago
@Fangs1978
YOU CAN'T Possibly be SERIOUS
all men have facial hair
my dog has facial hair
my dog is a man....no one is this stupid!!??!!
bkeay100 2 months ago
@bkeay100 No I'm not serious. I was making a point.
Fangs1978 2 months ago
@Fangs1978 And at any rate, that doesn't have anything to do with the Kalam. The Kalam is ironclad logically. Therefore you have to attack the premises.
empreme 2 months ago
@Fangs1978 That's not a hidden premise. You're fooling yourself.
empreme 2 months ago
@empreme Please elaborate. You seem to love making blind assertions. No wonder you think WLC makes sense.
How do you go from "the universe has a cause" to "god is the cause of the universe" without including god in the premises.
Fangs1978 2 months ago
@Fangs1978 You must be blind. He uses philosophical arguments to decide what attributes this cause must have, but nowhere does the Kalam assume God. That comes later. Oh and I see you've dropped your other points? I don't usually engage with the uninitiated. If you don't understand the basic moves of logic and reasoning you will never understand why you're wrong.
empreme 2 months ago
@empreme I "droped off" my other points because I was going to take them one by one from here.
And i know perfectly well what an assertion is there are several meanings, but here i use it as it is used in retoric. it means you are stone walling and not adressing the arguments properly.
I'll be back to adress your point on saturday, I won't have time for your condesending ass untill then.
Fangs1978 2 months ago
@Fangs1978 Oh and I don't think you know what an assertion is. Hahaha
empreme 2 months ago
@empreme
Now if the argument was only meant to establish that the universe had an unknown cause.. Then yes, based on what we know now it works. But thats not the coclution WLC puts out there is it.. Besides what we known now about the origin of the universe is so little that nothing about that origin can be said to be ironclad. Logic can't answer the unknown. It can only make guesses, science is what either confirms or rejects those guesses.
Fangs1978 2 months ago
Comment removed
Fangs1978 2 months ago
@metalmike: Maybe you should read up on the arguements. You are leaving yourself WIDE open philosophically, and if you want to continue in this line of questioning, you really should have a grasp of the basics.
FaithAloneGraceAlone 2 months ago
Lastly, why not believe Gandalf the Wizard or some other fictitious character from a book created everything? Why does it have to be YHVH. If there is some sort of transcendent creator out there, it's unlikely that some insane desert god who enjoys the smell of burning goats and demands child sacrifices is responsible. The mind capable of creating our universe would be far beyond that of the mind depicted in the bible.
metalmike83 2 months ago
@metalmike83 who says it has to be. but once you admit the possibility of God, then you move into that direction. it doesn't mean all bets are off, necessarily. why is an infinite regress of universes more logical than saying Gandalf the Wizard created the universe? we've never observed and infinite regress of anything. and you just admitted God wouldn't "have" to be anything, right?
XSC3 2 months ago
@XSC3 But an infinite regression of universes is more plausable simply because we know that universes actually do exist. We know that ours exits and therefore we know it's possible others might exist. Still, you would never draw conclusions based on this. The best thing to do in this situation is to say you don't know. I admit the possibility of a God, but I find it highly unlikely and unreasonable that someone who has tamper tantrums like YHVH would be the one.
metalmike83 2 months ago
There is no reason to think that god must be eternal - he could have - for instance been created by another god. And another god after that. There could be an infinite regression of gods. Secondly, according to the big bang theory, the MATTER that was condensed into an area a billionth of a billionth of that of an atom already existed. The universe may not have already existed but the matter that comprised it DID already exist and has perhaps always existed.
metalmike83 2 months ago
@metalmike83 well if you have an infinite regression of gods, why would you say that's illogical but an infinite regression of universes is the truer theory? why not an infinite regress of magic jelly doughnuts? if that matter existed for eternity, then the universe should have formed an infinite time ago before it did, hence you create another paradox. or else we've been tricked and the universe looks like it had a beginning but it happened last Wednesday
XSC3 2 months ago
@XSC3 Again, the law of parsimony comes in here. Infinite regression of universes or a non-stop expanding/collapsing universe is more reasonable since it assumes less information. Moreover, it assumes NO supernatural information. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural so any invoking of a god as an explanation for the origin of anything at all is unscientific. Stll, like I pointed out, you don't draw conclusions based on pure logic or what seems "reasonable". You go by evidence.
metalmike83 2 months ago
There are so many fallacies in WLC's arguments. First, does he impose so many restrictions on the supposed creator of the universe? Why must the creator transend time and space? Why must the creator be personal and eternal? Certainly, the finite can create the finite and the inpersonal can cause a universe to exist. He thinks that minds and abstract objects are the only eternal things? How are minds eternal and immaterial? They aren't. Finally, believing in aliens is far more logical than god.
metalmike83 2 months ago
@metalmike83 not necessarily. aliens could theoretically exist, but have not been observed to exist by any testable means. the same is true of a God, for the sake of argument. so what's the difference? each is possible.
XSC3 2 months ago
Comment removed
metalmike83 2 months ago
Comment removed
metalmike83 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XSC3 Again the law of parsimony comes in here coupled with mathematical probability. First, we know that life can evolve on planets because it has done so here. Second, the probability of life existing somewhere in the universe givin the 400 billion galaxies is so astronomically high that it is unreasonable to believe that Earth is the only planet with life on it. Travelling many lightyears then might be possible for a technological civilization that is say at least 1000 yeras old.
metalmike83 2 months ago
if there's no way to prove a theory and no evidence, isn't such a theory (like the multiverse theory) just as good as a "God" theory? How is an infinite God less credible than an infinite multiverse, for example? We know of nothing else in our experience that is present in infinity, yet we're literally saying everything is infinite, by adopting that theory, right? You could say that maybe one day we'll prove the multiverse, and maybe one day we'll prove God.
XSC3 2 months ago
@XSC3 "isn't such a theory (like the multiverse theory) just as good as a "God" theory?"
Well, science is mostly a process of figuring out how things work; of why things are they way they are. Because "god" theories more often than not place "god" outside any legitimate mechanism of testing/observation, there's no way to observe "how" any proposed "god" works (i.e., "what are the physics of god's existence?" cannot be answered). So science cannot connect the universe to "god" in any real way.
basmithtx 2 months ago
@basmithtx there's no way to verify an infinite regress of universes either, is there? so how is it different than an eternal God behind the universe? how would you "test" the multiverse theory?
XSC3 2 months ago
@XSC3 Keep in mind that I'm not trying to "refute" something vaguely called "god". You generally can't refute vagaries, or prove negatives. Less about refutation, more about counter-arguments. I just think that every explanation that bears concrete aspects, so far, is bunk; usually not much more than circumlocution and tautology. The idea of "god" will always be just beyond the expanding boundaries of science.
basmithtx 2 months ago
sorry, maybe I'm being a dumbass here, but exactly how are minds timeless? and why does wcl limit himself to things that are known when he is talking about something with properties that are completely unknown?
ColostomyCake 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist Oh, yes. I'm actually pretty excited about that one. :-)
basmithtx 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist "Where does that leave our debate"
We can perhaps agree to conclude that ultimately, humans are highly unlikely to know absolutely everything about everything...or even to agree that they truly know, what they think they know . :-)
As to online games, I used to play WoW, but I haven't in a long time. I'm looking forward to the new Star Wars game.
basmithtx 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist You seem to be mixing things. Quantum fluctuation is an expression of the uncertainty principle. This is observable, mostly indirectly, like a black hole isn't directly observed. Bohm says the uncertainty principle is an expression of nonlocal variables. This isn't observable in any way, but it's possible.
"we shall tie up the loose ends"
Misconstrual. There will most likely always be loose ends. I reckon that human causal inquiry will always be in constant regress.
basmithtx 2 months ago
@basmithtx I believe I was asking you if "nothing" in physics meant "zero potential" because that's what I thought it meant. It sounded as if you were saying "nothing" is actually an eternal substance (meaning this "eternal substance" was around before the Big Bang, and created everything, which would make it like God-stuff, I suppose), different from matter and energy. I'm not a Quantum Physicist, so I apologize if I'm not getting what you're saying.
XSC3 2 months ago
@XSC3 Well, "nothing" as defined in terms the universe, is empty space, with zero observable content; the uncertainty principle says something is/can be going on there. Bohm posits that this is actually the expression of an underlying system...but science has no way to observe that, at the moment. If you mean "nothing" to be the philosophical absolute non-existence of anything, no systems, no functions, no mass, no energy, no causality... well, that's a tough to talk about as a mere human. :-)
basmithtx 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist My understanding of what Bohm proposes, is that which we perceive as the uncertainty principle, is really a causal result of nonlocal variables. Seeing as we don't really have any way, for the moment, to achieve knowledge of nonlocal variables, we can't actually do much with what Bohm's proposing.
basmithtx 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist "that would mean you would also have to disregard"
That's not what the scientific process is about. I didn't say "disregard" deterministic theory. It just doesn't fit within the system as well (hence "not as accepted").
"to the problem which cant prove or disprove god"
Sure. Thus discussing god produces no knowledge of god, "god" is ultimately a meaningless term, given arbitrary characteristics.
"it could lead to the non-existence of life"
Yep, it *could*.
basmithtx 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist "some deterministic theory's where created by Atheist"
I'm saying that to prefer something over the other, you must have a solid reason for it. Until then, preferring "deterministic theories" seems shrug-worthy; it's not commonly accepted from what I've seen.
"If any natural property such a gravity where to change by even a fraction life would not exist"
Not exactly; *we*, as we know ourselves, might not. But then, many things would be different if you change parameters.
basmithtx 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist "more importantly the one's that are deterministic"
Special pleading, observational bias, confirmation bias. You're fitting evidence to a predetermined conclusion.
Everything I've seen of ID/fine-tuning seems to be special pleading, argument from ignorance, and bias.
KCA's P1 is shaky, but even going with it, it's following premises are poor.
"If you think the universe came from Absolute Nothing"
On the contrary, I think science doesn't have an "ultimate answer" so far.
basmithtx 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist I'm nontheist. Every argument for gods are circumlocutive, special pleading, inductively errant and use "tricky" logic (like modal logic). The only semi-solid argument I've seen when looking at causality and contemplating the idea of "first cause".
basmithtx 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist I didn't say a virtual particle wasn't a virtual particle. Anyways, there exists a possible explanation, and you asked for a possible explanation.
basmithtx 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist You said "not been proven", the line "observable physical phenomena" in the link seems to disagree somewhat with that premise.
basmithtx 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist "assumed or predicted to exist"
en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Virtual_particles#Manifestations
Either way, science continues to progress. We've gone from the earth being the center of an static universe to walking on the moon. Persecuted all the way.
basmithtx 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist That's not what it means exactly. There can be nothing, zero energy, zero particles, zero zero zero. You seem to be pulling energy conservation into this which is "trumped", so to speak, by quantum mechanics/qf.
basmithtx 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist ...yes. Amount can be zero.
basmithtx 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist "Because QF requires energy"
Huh? Since when? Why would it "require" energy?
basmithtx 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist I don't see the "first" post anywhere... But can you elucidate as to why QF isn't an example of "ex nihilo"? If there was nothing and then something, this would seem to qualify...
basmithtx 2 months ago
@TheDyingApologist who cares about the Intelligent Design movement? I'm talking about Theistic Evolution. It's different, just as it's different from "Creationism."
XSC3 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDyingApologist I'm guessing you're trying to imply that the what came from the quantum fluctuation isn't "ex nihilo". If so, why not? If you mean something else, please explain "Quantum Fluctuation does not present an Ex Nihilo Creation".
basmithtx 3 months ago
@TheDyingApologist The fluctuation isn't itself energy, it is probability. You're seem to be redefining quantum mechanics at your leisure.
basmithtx 3 months ago
@TheDyingApologist "Then why posit one interpretation of the quantum theory?"
You asked for how "ex nihilo" might happen, that's one way it might. ;-)
basmithtx 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDyingApologist "Isn't that just restating what I just said?"
I was trying help you understand that what you said was fallacy, a tautology, but apparently not very successfully.
basmithtx 3 months ago
@TheDyingApologist "energy coming from the Vacuum of space is nothing?"
The question is unclear, or a false premise. Are you referring to energy produced by quantum fluctuation, or are you trying to call a quantum fluctuation itself "energy"?
"no way to say this is One-Hundred percent correct"
It doesn't have to be 100%, undeniably, absolutely, without question, the undeniable fact of all things. That isn't even the point, strictly speaking.
And I encourage you to watch that video. :-)
basmithtx 3 months ago
@TheDyingApologist "No Quantum Mechanical Interpretation says something comes from nothing."
Huh. That seems like a very peculiar thing to say. What's a quantum fluctuation then?
You should watch this: /watch?v=HVm5uO6D6jg
Krauss spends a modest amount of time speaking in relatively easy to understand terms (mostly anyways), providing an explanation of how a universe can come from nothing.
basmithtx 3 months ago
@TheDyingApologist I was submitting that infinite regression isn't intrinsically a problem, so asserting that we "must avoid" it is an uncertain proposition.
"But how can something that doesn't exist create itself?"
I think we briefly mentioned quantum mechanics already. :-)
That said your question seems to be formed fallaciously. "How does ex-nihilo causation happen" is better.
(And in infinite regress, there isn't "ex-nihilo" to start with.)
basmithtx 3 months ago
@TheDyingApologist "in order to stop a regress"
Is it really necessary?
In one way, the "infinite" causality could perhaps be used in analogy, by correlating with the surface of a sphere being "infinite", in that there's no real first-point (aka first-cause), and that the idea of asking for one in that context is nonsense.
Of course, as you say, it's difficult to use that as an "answer for everything", because it's too abstract for us. I submit that a tautology is the same, however.
basmithtx 3 months ago
@TheDyingApologist As to your question of how a theist could accept god as being plausibly created... Good question; perhaps we should instead ask, could he plausibly be causally-dependent. I say this because the word "created" has a lot of baggage. Causality doesn't strictly require time in order to "function", because causal-dependency can be coincident ("simultaneous" in temporal terms), and even bidirectional (heat causing pressure, pressure causing heat).
basmithtx 3 months ago
@basmithtx If causal-dependency is supposed, then we of course encounter the well known idea of infinite regression. The issue, is that it's said to be a "problem", but I don't think this is necessarily very well justified, outside of saying it's difficult to conceive. Further, being a "problem" doesn't strictly mean "incorrect".
basmithtx 3 months ago
@TheDyingApologist You seem to be diverging a bit..."yummy" being subjective isn't important. Everyone knows pie is yummy anyways! :-)
Let's try: X is Y, because if it wasn't Y, it wouldn't be X. It's a tautology; related in some ways to... circular reasoning (clever reference to your example ftw).
basmithtx 3 months ago
@TheDyingApologist Consider that what you're illustrating of is a two-way street. If we can't be "absolutely" certain, then stating "ex nihilo" absolutely did occur, or didn't occur, can't be "absolutely" asserted either way.
"Looking past" quantum mechanics is like cutting an unknown variable out of an equation. You're not really going to solve the problem any more.
That said, the big bang points to a state. The singularity had to exist in order for the big bang to occur - causal dependency.
basmithtx 3 months ago
@TheDyingApologist Again, tautology. "God is eternal because if he wasn't he wouldn't be god." Pie is yummy because if it wasn't it wouldn't be pie.
basmithtx 3 months ago
@TheDyingApologist The problem here is that you're saying god is eternal because we define him to be eternal. This is a tautology. You can't "prove" the definition something with the definition of something. It's like saying pie is delicious because pie is delicious.
Hawking doesn't quite use terms like "beginning" in the same way Craig asserts (see the 2007 Oppenheimer talk). In addition, the gravitational collapse of black holes bears marked similarity to the big bang singularity.
basmithtx 3 months ago
Nice vid.
Have some respect for Carl, though he wasn't actually responding to Craig, if you know what I mean.
keatris 3 months ago
@keatris
And he didn't know about the BVG either.
So what Carl would actually have said... remains a mystery ;)
keatris 3 months ago