Not only are you correct with the logical delineation of this argument destruction... I do feel as though you left out that his assertion of an astral mind could not exist in ths true nothingness either. The pure properties of nothingness doesn't allow for a god either.
You do a great disservice to Austro-libertarianism with a post like this attacking Christian (or any religious) apologist that are not offensive or approve, in some form, of violence. In all frankness, nothing is an incredibly easy concept to understand.
Nothing has no properties or laws. It doesn't even have being. It lacks the property of non-being... ITS NOTHING.
A fairly sound example of how playing with apparently solid logic in such 'philosophical' area can be utterly meaningless. If philosophers had any power whatsoever in determining the truth about the universe, they'd logically deduce the true nature of quantum mechanics. In reality, their logic counts for nothing on such matters- which is why the number of philosophers who comment on the natural world has happily declined over the centuries. Soon there will be none.
Well science is only a philosophy in the sense that almost anything is! It's hugely different than philosophy in that science is based on empiricism, philosophy is based on intuitive rationality. Very very few philosophers of science are involved on the frontiers of science- it becomes so complicated, and often very mathematical, that you need to be a scientist to participate. Not a philosopher. Neil Tyson summed this up well in a talk with Dawkins, watch that.
@chebob2009 Yet scientists like Dawkins tend to suck at general philosophy.
Talk to ANY graduate of philosophy and they'll explain to you that you don't NEED to know about science beyonf a layman's understanding in order to be a great philosophical mind.
Well yes scientists like Dawkins do suck at it because they all tend to think that philosophy is too limited when studying the natural world. Philosophy relies on logic. And there's no reason at all that the natural world should be logical in its most extreme conditions. Once again, 'great philosophical minds' haven't contributed to the forefront of science for centuries now. It's always great scientific minds instead.
So, in other words, you don't think philosophers help us determine political ideas, you don't think they help us to learn how to be better people, you don't think they teach us how to determine what is rational and what is not.
I agree scientists do a lot to furthur the human race technologically, but philosophers have their own use as well. You're only viewing use through one particular venue. Are you seriously saying Daniel Dennett is useless?
Well yeah they're helpful in those other areas. I was talking about science though. The only reason daniel dennett is useful in science is that he's also training as a biologist.
@chebob2009 So, in essence, you acknowledge that philosophers have plenty of use, you just prefer the work scientists do. I'd like you to retract your statement of "which is why the number of philosophers who comment on the natural world has happily declined over the centuries. Soon there will be none." Obviously when we have philosophers helping us define our morals, when we have philosophers helping us decide what we should do in government, they're commenting on the 'natural world'.
Well you're using a pedantic definition of natural. I was using the common partition of the 'natural sciences' and the 'social sciences'. Politics, economics, etc are all social sciences not natural sciences. They're also the sciences we're worst at!
@chebob2009 And all sciences are philosophies. Look, it all comes back to the fact that it's all philosophy. One can argue that our development of morals IS a natural science, since it can be directly tied to Evolutionary biology. And Morals are a huge, integal part of all the things we comment on and do. We are guided by our morals, all of our actions, and all of our policies, come down to morals, which is an evolutionary bilogical process, and which philosophers are experts at.
Well you seem to want to define philosophy as just everthing now. That's fine if it pleases you but most people don't. And no, philosophers are not experts at evolutionary biological processes, evolutionary biologists are. Read through the journal 'Nature' and see how many of the articles are submitted by people going by the name of 'philosopher'. Saying 'all sciences are philosophies' seems to be a completely empty statement. What does it mean?
@chebob2009 Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language, And all schools of science fall under this domain. I didn't say philosophers are experts at evolutionary biological processes. POay attention, they're better at defining morals, and helping others define morals and policies, which is an evolutionary biological process.
Ok, yeah I'll agree with all of that then. I think you just need to be careful with your use of language. I mean, by a similar reasoning- physics is the only 'natural science' because chemistry is a subset of physics and biology is a subset of chemistry (which is completely true). In practice however, this is irrelevant and a physicist who shows up at a biology conference is an amateur. The same goes for when most philosophers try and handle the sciences.
@chebob2009 *rubs eyebrows* Ok here's the point I was trying to make that you're not seeing. Philosphers will ALWAYS have a role in society. They're not going to go away. The reason for that is because we don't know everything, nor will we ever know anything, and that's not just 'science' that's about everything at all. We stil can't define morals in any real concrete way, and that seems basic to most.
How do you know? Their influence has diminished a lot since empirical science has taken the place of merely asserting what the world should look like. I wouldn't be surprised if within a century philosophy is nothing but a mere footnote in history books. Even then, the likelihood of Craig being mentioned is not very high. At most, his arguments will serve to showcase the ridiculousness of apologetics.
How do you know? Their influence has diminished a lot since empirical science has taken the place of merely asserting what the world should look like. I wouldn't be surprised if within a century philosophy is nothing but a mere footnote in history books. Even then, the likelihood of Craig being mentioned is not very high. At most, his arguments will serve to showcase the ridiculousness of 21st century apologetics.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Hmm. Are you not aware that everyone uses philosophy and will likely not stop using it? Science just reflects the facts. People reason out the implications of these facts and there are many interpretations people come to. Science will never be able to answer questions like what is the purpose of life? Why is there something rather than nothing?Whats morally right? Is there a God? These are all meta-physical in nature and it is simply beyond the capacity for science to answer.
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Only if you skip the part where I say it's innate to human beings.''
The definition of moral relativism is that where human beings play an imperative part. The subjectivism of this morality is that it includes the human being as empathetic and is contingent on this very characteristic. Thus also his subjective perspective.
''Yes, I am.''
No, you can't you don't have justifiable grounds.
"it includes the human being as empathetic and is contingent on this very characteristic"
Yes, it is subjective in that regard. Morality always is, since it hinges on minds. But the basis for morality is the same for ALL human beings. The relative part would apply if we'd have to deal with the morality of sentient aliens, for instance.
"you don't have justifiable grounds"
Tell me: are you justified in not believing in unicorns?
"This is what moral relativists advocate, your emphasizing my point."
No, you're simply not understanding what I am saying. Pay attention. Without minds there can't be empathy or sympathy. Every human mind, unless it's a sociopathic one, has these emotions, which are deeply seated in your brains. So there is no relativism when it comes to the CAUSE of morality.
You obviously have no idea what moral relativism is, do you? Moral relativism/subjectivism is a morality contingent on a individual, as you say, dependent on their minds and sense of empathy. A morality relative to the individual. Emotions are a SUBJECTIVE characteristic of the person and the morality depends upon it. So, therefore, we have moral relativism/subjectivism.
"You obviously have no idea what moral relativism is, do you?"
Obviously YOU don't.
"Emotions are a SUBJECTIVE characteristic of the person"
No, they aren't. Human beings share the same set of emotions as a direct result of their evolution. It's a part of us we don't have any conscious control over.
I have absolutely no clue what the use of this debate is anyway. Are you one of those philosophizers that just wants to give everything labels?
Sentient aliens likely have a totally different base for their morality than we do. So yes, it's then when moral relativism comes into play. But we might not even have to go wait until we meet any. What about the differences between human beings and dolphins, for instance?
"unicorns have already been debunked "
No, they haven't. Actually, there is more reason to believe that unicorns exist than gods, since at least we know SIMILAR animals exist.
Of course not. But it's easily conceivable. And as I said, you don't even have to go that far. On earth, different animals already work with different moral systems, so it's not hard to see why the system of aliens would be even more different.
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''On earth, different animals already work with different moral systems''
Only biologically imperative altruism. No morality. Animals do not have conceptions of good and evil. Just pain and pleasure.
''Obviously YOU don't.''
Moral relativism is the philosophical theory that morality is relative, that different moral truths hold for different people. Morality relative to the individual. Subjective.
And it is different from that in humans, because ... ?
"Moral relativism is the philosophical theory that morality is relative"
Which part of my definition is relative among human beings? Let me answer that for you: NONE of it is.
Your tendency of evading the actual argument and bringing up red herrings really starts to grate. Not all of us are swayed by sophistry by the likes of Craig. Make an actual point or admit you have none.
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''And it is different from that in humans, because ... ?''
Humans have concepts of good and evil, animals do not. What I meant by ' biologically imperative altruism' is that animals, such as herd animals or animals that travel in packs, or groups, look out for each other because of a relational stock they have with the other particular animal, or they have offspring that they need to protect in order to propagate their species and insure survival. What I'm trying to say is;
"herd animals or animals that travel in packs, or groups"
You mean, like human beings.
"relational stock they have with the other particular animal"
Which may then be expanded to other individuals of its species. You know, like with human beings.
Dolphins benefit from interacting socially with other dolphins, even if they're not from the same pack. The same rule applies to human beings. The devil is in the details, of course, but the basics are actually rather simple.
"Humans have concepts of good and evil, animals do not."
Empathy and sympathy are pervasive among all the great apes, including chimpanzees, bonobos and human beings. We even see signs of it among rather different species, like bottlenose dolphins. We human beings might have thrown a heap of other rules on top of those caused by comparatively big size of our brain, but the basics are the same.
@MomoTheBellyDancer There is a difference between good and evil and pain and pleasure. What you are presupposing is that our morality is based on the pain vs pleasure, but the implication of that is that there will be subjective differences of what is painful to what bring pleasure. A there will be different viewpoints on what brings pleasure to people on subjectivist morality. Thus, there, on that basis, no morality is wrong and there will be know difference of opinion between a..
"There is a difference between good and evil and pain and pleasure."
There is not much difference from a biological viewpoint. Our brains release unpleasant chemicals when we see another human being suffer. So, our own brains cause us pain in those circumstances, and our efforts to avoid this unpleasant sensation is the basis for empathy.
@MomoTheBellyDancer ...a murderer's morality and a saints morality, since it is ultimately based on the subjective basis of pain and pleasure to a person.
''You mean, like human beings.''
Sorry, I should have been more clear, lower animals.
''Which may then be expanded to other individuals of its species. You know, like with human beings.''
Supposing a morality is operated by pain and pleasure, or empathy.
"It is all subjectively dependent and cannot exist independent of us."
This is exactly my point. And now pay close attention: the basic mechanism is the same for ALL human beings. Hence, there is no moral relativism when it comes to the basics AMONG HUMANS.
If you don't understand it, reread it several times, slowly.
"debunked"
You don't seem to understand my point that you don't have to prove a negative. I don't have to debunk god, just as I don't have to debunk unicorns.
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Hence, there is no moral relativism when it comes to the basics AMONG HUMANS.''
Did you know that moral relativism is same as moral subjectivism by the way?
''You don't seem to understand my point that you don't have to prove a negative''
If I wanted to disprove the boogie man in my room, at night, all I would have to do is go into my room, turn on the light and voila no boogie man. That is how you prove a negative.
"But it is not good or evil since morality is subjective to the person."
The vast majority of people don't feel the need to kill other people. They *will* do so readily when properly brainwashed into thinking the ones they murder are not human. Why do you think this is?
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''So, our own brains cause us pain in those circumstances, and our efforts to avoid this unpleasant sensation is the basis for empathy.''
But that is obviously not the case today. What is true today, is that we don't live on a morality where everyone's differing viewpoint is correct. We live in a morality where there is one general viewpoint. None of your 'pain vs pleasure' morality is following from this fact.
Your problem (and Craig's) is that you apply a false dichotomy to the problem of morality. You seem to think that morality is either totally objective, or totally subjective, with nothing in-between. The truth is that morality is subjective in that it is linked to minds (i.e. a rock can't have morality), but that there is still a common set of rules for all human minds as a result of their evolution.
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Your problem (and Craig's) is that you apply a false dichotomy ''
It is not false dichotomy. What is it? Is morality subjective or objective? You choose.
''Empathy and sympathy are pervasive among all the great apes, including chimpanzees, bonobos and human beings.''
Correct, but animals do not have a morality. Concepts of good and evil are a running ethic for humans. Lower primates operate on an altruism motivated by propagation of species and humans on good and evil.
"Is morality subjective or objective? You choose."
It's subjective in that it is linked to minds, but that still doesn't mean that morality is merely a a matter of opinion, which is what Craig is arguing. Social species, like human beings, still adhere to a set of deeply ingrained common rules as a result of their evolution. So yes, it's a false dichotomy.
"Concepts of good and evil are a running ethic for humans"
Experiments have shown that chimpanzees are adverse to causing other chimpanzees pain. So you could say that they find this "evil".
"Lower primates operate on an altruism motivated by propagation of species"
And so do human beings.
"humans on good and evil"
Those are merely labels we give to instinctive reactions, with the difference that they have to perculate through the cognitive layer we are burdened with.
That is just equivocating. Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose. Therefore, anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't matter. The holocaust would inevitably be justified on those ends. Killing will be just that, killing. There would be no grounds for labeling that as immoral since morality is subjective.
"evolution teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose"
No, evolution teaches that allele frequencies change within a gene pool from one generation to the next. There's nothing there at all about meaning or purpose, be it positive or negative.
"Therefore, anything you do is OK"
Obviously not. There's a reason human beings inherited these deeply ingrained instincts: it helped them survive as a species.
@MomoTheBellyDancer '' There's nothing there at all about meaning or purpose, be it positive or negative.''
That is what I'am saying, that it would be all meaningless and random under this context. There would be nothing meaningful in morality if it is just a result of bio-interfaces.
''There's a reason human beings inherited these deeply ingrained instincts: it helped them survive as a species.''
That is different from what a subjective morality will give. Your not being consistent.
"it would be all meaningless and random under this context"
How would it be any more meaningful if we were some supernatural being's plaything? At least we know we can decide our own future.
"That is different from what a subjective morality will give. Your not being consistent."
I am. Our morality is subjective since it applies to our species, but for individuals it still means they have to follow the instincts that are the result of our evolution.
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Our morality is subjective since it applies to our species, but for individuals it still means they have to follow the instincts that are the result of our evolution.''
So, Nazi morality is okay? It is subjective/relative?
''Well, that's hardly news.''
A second ago,you were just objecting to your morality being relative. Your contradicting yourself.
''I am not going there with someone who has shown such a lack of scientific knowledge.''
To the Nazis it was since they didn't think of the Jews as people. To the rest of humanity, who DO seem them as human, it is reprehensible. Even many Nazis themselves were appalled of what they did when they learned the personal stories of their victims. That's how it goes.
"you were just objecting to your morality being relative."
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Even many Nazis themselves were appalled of what they did when they learned the personal stories of their victims''
No they weren't , some of them enjoyed fervently what they did. They were confirmed sadists.
''Yes, but that doesn't mean it's objective.''
I never said that. You contradicted yourself when you denied your morality being relative, and then you said that it was subjective, which is relative. Hello.
@07Aristotle There were many suicides in death camps by the SS soliders that participated in the executions. It actually was a very large problem. And it is likely that the majority were not actually sociopaths. Dehumanization can be a powerful thing.
@MomoTheBellyDancer In your view, there is no good or evil. Just the attainment of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Morality is pejorative and 'good n evil' become arbitrary to the person. That would mean anything goes and nothing would be good or evil, just painful and pleasurable. Every action would not have an objective basis for which to be judged and no one would have grounds to condemn anyone for an act. That is why I said, in my earlier posts, that it is just not evident today that...
@MomoTheBellyDancer...we live in such a society. This is because we do not live by a subjective morality and anyone who thinks we do is incorrect, insofar as someone claims it is just a result of biology that is.
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''subjective morality is considered illusory and untenable.''
Alas, it's the only morality we don't have because otherwise you would have to think the holocaust is justified, and you do not, at least I hope not. At least that is what moral relativism/subjectivism advocates; every differing viewpoint is correct under morality's decree thus.
We don't feel it's justified since we feel sympathy and empathy for the victims. It also didn't work out so well for the people who were brainwashed into suppress those feelings (a tactic which is, by the way, a key component of religions).
Speaking of meaning: What would be the meaning of god's existence? Why is it there? And what would be the meaning of being this god's creation?
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''We don't feel it's justified since we feel sympathy and empathy for the victims.''
But it will be justified under subjective morality. The nazi believed what they did was right, that it was morally right to rid themselves of impure races.
''Speaking of meaning: What would be the meaning of god's existence? Why is it there? And what would be the meaning of being this god's creation?''
This is rather ironic, coming from someone who says I should accept the claim a god exists at face value, since I cannot disprove it. Double standard much?
@MomoTheBellyDancer It has no explanatory power as an analogy or evidence/argument against anything. So your answer would be a define; no, I am not justified in believing in unicorns because the EVIDENCE AGAINST THEIR EXISTENCE.
"no, I am not justified in believing in unicorns because the EVIDENCE AGAINST THEIR EXISTENCE"
Alas, your response is invalid. There is no evidence against the existence of unicorns, just as much as there isn't any against the existence of gods. There is a total lack of evidence FOR the existence of unicorns, which is mirrored by the lack of evidence for gods. The analogy is valid.
''There is no evidence against the existence of unicorns, just as much as there isn't any against the existence of gods.''
Yes there is evidence against unicorns. This is such an elementary argument and worse analogy. In 16th century Germany they found horns that belonged to narwhal whales and attributed to them to the wild stallions they had roaming during those times. It was when they discovered the narwhal whale the myth was finally put to rest.
"In 16th century Germany they found horns that belonged to narwhal whales"
This, COMBINED with the fact that nobody has ever seen any unicorn, makes it highly likely those animals are just a myth. The same counts for any gods.
@MomoTheBellyDancer The myth has already been debunked because the horns, they attributed to unicorns, they found out they belonged to narwhal whales. This is called negative evidence, evidence to the contrary. This makes it a horrible analogy because there is the presence of negative evidence.
'' I should accept the claim a god exists at face value, since I cannot disprove it. ''
You advocate verificationist ideals and yet you believe in extraterrestrial morality? Something far-fetched.
"You advocate verificationist ideals and yet you believe in extraterrestrial morality?"
Yes, obviously you ARE this stupid, and I am obviously wasting my time trying to have a conversation with you, since all you do is twist my words and spew sophistic bullshit. Have fun with your pseudo-intellectual self-wanking. I'm outta here.
@MomoTheBellyDancer ...animals have 'selective pressure' to be in herds, i.e. brought about by natural selection, rather than a socio-cultural conscience to be together. As we know, animals do not have cultures or social structures in that sense.
'' and I am obviously wasting my time trying to have a conversation with you''
''Nope. I, and many other people with me, can do perfectly fine without an answer.''
Sure but that does not entail that you or do not have something to live for and thereby having a meaning. This would be existential by consequence my friend. Albeit, everyone has a reason to live and thus meaning to live.
"everyone has a reason to live and thus meaning to live"
Quite so. Also, positing a god doesn't automatically give anything meaning. What would be the meaning of this god's existence then? What's the meaning of us being created by it? I find the idea of being the plaything of some supernatural entity rather meaningless and, frankly, very depressing.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Saying morality is based on instincts is like saying there really is no morality. True we have an innate sense for it, but why do we so often seem to do what is wrong?On naturalism there is no should, no ought only what the electro-chemical reactions in our brain have determined us to do. In that case there is no freewill. What then justifies us to to say the serial killer is wrong? Can you trust your own beliefs? Nature has determined you to believe them and mine as well.
"Saying morality is based on instincts is like saying there really is no morality. "
Nonsense. Actually, this would apply more to claiming morality has a supernatural cause. A being so different from us could not possibly determine how we should behave. Any opinion it might have on the matter would be completely arbitrary and meaningless.
"On naturalism there is no should, no ought"
That whole "is/ought" debate is a bunch of hooey anyway.
"What then justifies us to to say the serial killer is wrong?"
This is a terribly stupid question. Did you even read my comments?
"Can you trust your own beliefs?"
Instincts are NOT a matter of "beliefs". And our instincts can be manipulated. Many people have killed others since they had been brainwashed into thinking those others were less than human.
Read my comments again, and this time try to read them for comprehension.
@FatalKnight The fact that our brains work by electro-chemical reactions is just a fact. You can derive an ought from evolutionary theory on the question of morality, just like healthy can be derived from objective medical knowledge. Sam Harris makes a great case about this.
How do you know? Their influence has diminished a lot since empirical science has taken the place of merely asserting what the world should look like. I wouldn't be surprised if within a century philosophy is nothing but a mere footnote in history books. Even then, the likelihood of Craig being mentioned is not very high. At most, his arguments will serve to showcase the ridiculousness of 21st century apologetics.
@Austrolibertarian Is this a correct summary of your counter argument if nothing=>nothing, then nothing=>nothing is a law, therefore nothing actually has a law. (which would no long allow it to be nothing by definition)
In such a scenario, your logic would require the counterfactual conclusion that it would be impossible for a particular large purple unicorn corresponding to the above facts to not actually exist, since the fact of the actual non-existence of large purple unicorns would impose a general condition prohibiting its existence, which fact itself would “exist” and thus not be “nothing”.
Where your argument really falls short is in conflating the ontological and epistemological dimensions of the concept “nothing”; in assuming that a fact about being (in this case its radical lack) itself represents a type of being. But a fact about being is not the same thing as an actual being.
Suppose I were to say, for instance, that I was acquainted with several facts about a large purple unicorn (such as its size, shape, and color) that appeared to me as a mental representation.
@djs259 - Non-being is a self-contradictory and “absurd” idea. > Craig's version yes. -Therefore there is no such thing as real “non-being” [per Craig’s requirement] > There's no such thing as a state of absolute nothing. -Therefore no thing cannot truly “not-be”. > No, therefore there's no such thing as a state of absolute nothing -Therefore all things exist. > No... see above -Therefore God cannot “not-be”. > ..see above Therefore, A Fortiori, God exists. > ....sigh
@Roper122 You've misinterpreted the argument. Moreover, a "law" ABOUT the action of a "being" can not in any intelligible way be said to constitute a "being" in an existential sense (i.e. the opposite of "absolute nothing") You are simply confounding the notion of a natural "law" in the scientistic sense (which itself admits of various interpretations (c.f. Kant) with that of a logical law, such as the law of non-contradiction, which can't meaningfully be predicated of a "thing".
@djs259 " a "law" ABOUT the action of a "being" can not in any intelligible way be said to constitute a "being"
- No it can't
And as for confounding different types of law... in this case, it would be interesting to see how you justified any logical law, given you are positing the existence of absolutely nothing. Since even a logical law comes about through observation of something.
This leads to Craig's bigger problem,ie: trying to draw conclusions about something he doesn't understand.
Let's see how well this type of logic holds up when applied rigorously and consistently, such as, for example, to the concept of "non-being". To "not-be" simply means to lack existence; and a lack of existence equates to nothingness. On your reasoning, "non-being" could never truly represent a lack of existence because this would entail some limiting condition pertaining to "non-being" which would, by definition, amount to the existence (being) of “something”, namely the condition prohibiting
@mypolicy9 Thanks for the clarification....I of course don't see things that way as there is absolutely no evidence that supports such an assertion. An unknowable ultimate force perhaps...but even that's merely guessing, no evidence for that either. I feel the whole origin of the universe question can be quite adequetly answered with a resounding "we don't know". Atleast we lack the tools right now to be able to actually "know" such a thing. Peace be with.
@MasterOhSo "no evidence that supports an assertion"
--Of course there is evidence; whether you find it compelling is another story altogether!
(1) The beginning of Time.
(2) The Fine-Tuning of the universes constants making a life-permitting universe exceedingly improbable on the hypotheses of chance, and highly likely on the hypothesis of design. Pr (L/G) >> Pr (L/~G)
(3) The Contingency of all things in the universe.
(4) The unexplained intelligibility of the cosmos as a whole.
@mypolicy9 1) We don't really know when the beginning f time began...I'm still unconvinced that this is the only time the universe has existed. 2) the fine tuning arguement has been debunked many times, easliy dismissed. 3) of course everything is contingent...it's all within the same physicl context...thats like saying waters wet. 4) because we look around and understand certain things is cool, not a sign of intellience.
@MasterOhSo "I'm still unconvinced that this is the only time the universe has existed'
--So? The evidence for the universe's age is still there. And almost every cosmologist from Hawking, to Paul Davies, to Roger Penrose, to Frank Tipler, to Borde, Guth, and Vilenking agree the universe had a beginning. Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin even proved in several papers from 1998-2003 the universe must have began at some finite time in the past, even under an oscillating model of the universe
@MasterOhSo "of course everything is contingent...it's all within the same physicl context...thats like saying waters wet"
--And why is water wet? It is wet for some reason. It's not a brute fact that water is wet. Same with everything in the universe. There is a reason why it is the way it is rather than otherwise. You can't go on appealing infinitely to other contingent things because you've explained nothing. There must be a Being that exist in virtue of the power of its own essence.
@MasterOhSo "because we look around and understand certain things is cool, not a sign of intellience."
--Of course it is. Are you just blind? Why is the universe intelligible at all, rather than just some mass of unintelligible goo with no order or reason why things are the way they are? No one can explain why there are any natural laws governing the order and intelligibiliity of the universe rather than none at all. It cries out to an intelligent creator.
@MasterOhSo " feel the whole origin of the universe question can be quite adequetly answered with a resounding "we don't know".
--Of course there will always be questions. But that doesn't mean there is no evidence, or the arguments offered back and forth aren't compelling to rational persons. I don't think giving up is the right attitude to have. We will always be learning.
@mypolicy9 I would ask that if you already know that a god created everything then why look for answers to his handy work? God did it sounds easy enough. I don't suggest giving up....I'm stating that we simply don't know how or why the universe came into being...I think the search should go on as the idea of a god created it is unsatisfactory and falls short of anything resembling science. Magic is not science.
@MasterOhSo "if you already know that a god created everything then why look for answers to his handy work?"
--To learn more about his handiwork. Why should believing in God stop my curiosity in learning as to how things work? In fact, most scientists and philosophers throughout history were religious. People like you push this stupid myth that science and religion are incompatible. They are not, unless you think like a Fundamentalist who takes Genesis as Literal truth, not Ancient Saga.
@MasterOhSo "idea of a god created it is unsatisfactory and falls short of anything resembling science."
--I agree. So stop pushing it as if it WERE science. Religion and philosophy are whole other enterprises which ask completely different sets of questions. God is not some other "thing" in the universe you can capture with your scientific instruments, and he is not a competing explanation among the natural sciences. This is your mistake to assume otherwise like a Biblical Fundamentalist
..[cont] But then the fluctuation-formed universes would inevitably collide with each other as they expand, which contradicts the findings of observational cosmology, since we do not see such "colliding worlds." So if there is a non-zero probability of this happening as these quantum models are leading us to believe, why are quantum fluctuations not now spawning universes in our midst? Why do vacuum fluctuations endure so fleetingly rather than grow into mini-universes inside ours?
@mypolicy9 Sorry I must have missed something here...I was asking what god are you refering to....the christian god or some fundamental unknowable force? I ask so I might better understand your position.
[cont] But then the fluctuation-formed universes would inevitably collide with each other as they expand, which contradicts the findings of observational cosmology, since we do not see such "colliding worlds." So if there is a non-zero probability of this happening as these quantum models are leading us to believe, why are quantum fluctuations not now spawning universes in our midst? Why do vacuum fluctuations endure so fleetingly rather than grow into mini-universes inside ours?
...[cont] Rather these vacuum fluctuation theories tend to predict a creation event at every time t. Or, more exactly, as quantum theories they predict a non-zero probability of a creation event within any finite time interval, with an infinite number of creation points distributed evenly throughout space. This leads at once to an infinite number of creation events within the wider spacetime....[cont]
...[cont] Rather these vacuum fluctuation theories tend to predict a creation event at every time t. Or, more exactly, as quantum theories they predict a non-zero probability of a creation event within any finite time interval, with an infinite number of creation points distributed evenly throughout space. This leads at once to an infinite number of creation events within the wider spacetime....[cont]
There is no way the math in these models can select one particular moment within the pre-existent, infinite, and homogeneous time at which a fluctuation should occur which will spawn a universe, and hence no way of specifying a certain point in space at which such a creation event should occur....[cont]
I disagree...what about Hawkins assertion that the only thing necessary for the universe to exist is the force of gravity? Is gravity then to be considered god? Why does this point of orgin have to be a god....why not just forces doing what they do? There is nothing that demands an intelligent cognative entity as a progenitor of this version of reality. If god exists then he must have begun to exist at some point, to say it's always existed is as meaningless as saying the same of the universe.
@MasterOhSo "the only thing necessary for the universe to exist is the force of gravity"
--Gravity may be necessary for the universe to exist, but it is not sufficient because the law of gravity alone doesn't get it "started." Also, the law of gravity could have been dfferent than it is by assuming any gravitational constant out of a potentially infinite number of possible values. So the law of gravity itself is contingent because it doesn't explain itself.
@MasterOhSo "There is nothing that demands an intelligent cognative entity as a progenitor of reality"
--Yes there is--Everything within the universe is contingent since it depends for its existence on something outside itself. You exist because of your parents. And your parents exist because of their parents, and so on. You can't appeal to an infinite regress of contingent explanations because you would be postponing an explanation for why existence at all rather than nothing.
@mypolicy9 Perhaps I need to understand you better...allow me to ask a few simple questions....You assert there is a god, fine. What is the nature of this god you speak of? Is this the god of the christian bible or some force that defys explaination or understanding because it is outside of this frame of reality? I would ask where this god thing comes from? To say it always existed is a fine assertion but where lies the evidence to support that statement? Ty for the feedback :)
@MasterOhSo I just gave you one argument for God's existence. There are plenty of others. I am involved with one right now on youtube as we speak. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to re-hash these arguments everytime one of you guys ask me. There are plenty of sources around for you to find them.
I recommend starting at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online. Each entry has an extensive bibliography to point you further highly sophisticated works on this subject.
@MasterOhSo Also, there is no way the math in these models can select one particular moment within the pre-existent, infinite, and homogenous time at which a fluctuation should occur which will spawn a universe, and hence no way of specifying a certain point in space at which such a creation event should occur............
@mypolicy9 Elemental forces I can understand....a thinking living intelligent god is completely without proof. What existed before this universe is an unknown...even taking the clock back to the first nanoseconds of the big bang is an unknown, I of course am refering to planctime, but nano will suffice for this conversation. To call what was before this universe god is a leap of faith and faith has nothing to do with evidence...true? Peace be with.
@MasterOhSo Most things are without "proof." Prove to me that you are not some zombie who thinks, talks, and acts like a person, but are completely devoid of consciousness. How do I know you're not a computer? How do I know I am not a Brain in a Vat like the Matrix?
The phenomenon of proof is only found in mathematics, set-theory, and first-order logic. Scientific theories themselves only enjoy more or less degrees of empirical support by the data--but they are never "proven."
@MasterOhSo Faith is not believing "in spite" of evidence. If any evidence convinced me with near certainty that God did not exist, I would stop believing.
Rather, Faith is the trust and confidence you maintain in some proposition AFTER your reason has convinced you that the proposition you believe is true, in spite of one's changing MOOD SWINGS. Anybody can doubt anything. But I want good arguments that God does not exist. Until then, I am perfectly justified in believing God exists.
@MasterOhSo Vacuum Fluctuation Models are very problematic. If the Planck universe really doesn't have a beginning, then how did anything get started? If this Planck 4-dimensional space existed "before" the temporal universe, then it is IN time. But if it is not in real time, then it is not really earlier than, later than, or simultaneous with the 4-dimensional spacetime manifold. So saying that this Planck universe is timeless, yet also existed before time began is a contradiction in terms.
@MasterOhSo Also, there is no way the math in these models can select one particular moment within the pre-existent, infinite, and homogeneous time at which a fluctuation should occur which will spawn a universe, and hence no way of specifying a certain point in space at which such a creation event should occur....[cont]
@Austrolibertarian - boy .. are you dumb or what ? do you realize that you just confirmed everything that WL Craig stands for ? listen carefully everything that you said in this video.
When I was in high school, my friends and I would sometimes discuss what nothing is. (We were a strange group.) You make a very interesting point. Too bad Dr. Craig is an apologist and therefore won't listen to your logical evidence against his livelihood.
I think you're missing the point. The point is that Craig's argument about "nothing" is self-contradictory and fails to prove that nothing cannot produce something.
@Austrolibertarian Craig agrees. The semantics you used to derive a contradiction just proves his point, because anything you say about "nothing" reduces to talking about something, even laws prohibiting the arising of something from nothing. The "law" governs something from something, not something from nothing. Nothing is nothing at all. The "Law" is that something can ONLY come from something else; hence, the contradiction.
Nothing = not anything.
31Uriel 1 month ago
Not only are you correct with the logical delineation of this argument destruction... I do feel as though you left out that his assertion of an astral mind could not exist in ths true nothingness either. The pure properties of nothingness doesn't allow for a god either.
arkmade 5 months ago
You do a great disservice to Austro-libertarianism with a post like this attacking Christian (or any religious) apologist that are not offensive or approve, in some form, of violence. In all frankness, nothing is an incredibly easy concept to understand.
Nothing has no properties or laws. It doesn't even have being. It lacks the property of non-being... ITS NOTHING.
hrobertb 6 months ago
A fairly sound example of how playing with apparently solid logic in such 'philosophical' area can be utterly meaningless. If philosophers had any power whatsoever in determining the truth about the universe, they'd logically deduce the true nature of quantum mechanics. In reality, their logic counts for nothing on such matters- which is why the number of philosophers who comment on the natural world has happily declined over the centuries. Soon there will be none.
chebob2009 9 months ago
@chebob2009 ...You ARE aware Science is a philosophy right? And that there are plenty of philosophers today, both theist and atheist.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi
Well science is only a philosophy in the sense that almost anything is! It's hugely different than philosophy in that science is based on empiricism, philosophy is based on intuitive rationality. Very very few philosophers of science are involved on the frontiers of science- it becomes so complicated, and often very mathematical, that you need to be a scientist to participate. Not a philosopher. Neil Tyson summed this up well in a talk with Dawkins, watch that.
chebob2009 7 months ago
@chebob2009 Yet scientists like Dawkins tend to suck at general philosophy.
Talk to ANY graduate of philosophy and they'll explain to you that you don't NEED to know about science beyonf a layman's understanding in order to be a great philosophical mind.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi
Well yes scientists like Dawkins do suck at it because they all tend to think that philosophy is too limited when studying the natural world. Philosophy relies on logic. And there's no reason at all that the natural world should be logical in its most extreme conditions. Once again, 'great philosophical minds' haven't contributed to the forefront of science for centuries now. It's always great scientific minds instead.
chebob2009 7 months ago
@chebob2009 Umm.
So, in other words, you don't think philosophers help us determine political ideas, you don't think they help us to learn how to be better people, you don't think they teach us how to determine what is rational and what is not.
I agree scientists do a lot to furthur the human race technologically, but philosophers have their own use as well. You're only viewing use through one particular venue. Are you seriously saying Daniel Dennett is useless?
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi
Well yeah they're helpful in those other areas. I was talking about science though. The only reason daniel dennett is useful in science is that he's also training as a biologist.
chebob2009 7 months ago
@chebob2009 So, in essence, you acknowledge that philosophers have plenty of use, you just prefer the work scientists do. I'd like you to retract your statement of "which is why the number of philosophers who comment on the natural world has happily declined over the centuries. Soon there will be none." Obviously when we have philosophers helping us define our morals, when we have philosophers helping us decide what we should do in government, they're commenting on the 'natural world'.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi
Well you're using a pedantic definition of natural. I was using the common partition of the 'natural sciences' and the 'social sciences'. Politics, economics, etc are all social sciences not natural sciences. They're also the sciences we're worst at!
chebob2009 7 months ago
@chebob2009 And all sciences are philosophies. Look, it all comes back to the fact that it's all philosophy. One can argue that our development of morals IS a natural science, since it can be directly tied to Evolutionary biology. And Morals are a huge, integal part of all the things we comment on and do. We are guided by our morals, all of our actions, and all of our policies, come down to morals, which is an evolutionary bilogical process, and which philosophers are experts at.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi
Well you seem to want to define philosophy as just everthing now. That's fine if it pleases you but most people don't. And no, philosophers are not experts at evolutionary biological processes, evolutionary biologists are. Read through the journal 'Nature' and see how many of the articles are submitted by people going by the name of 'philosopher'. Saying 'all sciences are philosophies' seems to be a completely empty statement. What does it mean?
chebob2009 7 months ago
@chebob2009 Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language, And all schools of science fall under this domain. I didn't say philosophers are experts at evolutionary biological processes. POay attention, they're better at defining morals, and helping others define morals and policies, which is an evolutionary biological process.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi
Ok, yeah I'll agree with all of that then. I think you just need to be careful with your use of language. I mean, by a similar reasoning- physics is the only 'natural science' because chemistry is a subset of physics and biology is a subset of chemistry (which is completely true). In practice however, this is irrelevant and a physicist who shows up at a biology conference is an amateur. The same goes for when most philosophers try and handle the sciences.
chebob2009 7 months ago
@chebob2009 *rubs eyebrows* Ok here's the point I was trying to make that you're not seeing. Philosphers will ALWAYS have a role in society. They're not going to go away. The reason for that is because we don't know everything, nor will we ever know anything, and that's not just 'science' that's about everything at all. We stil can't define morals in any real concrete way, and that seems basic to most.
BigLundi 7 months ago
@BigLundi
"Philosphers will ALWAYS have a role in society."
How do you know? Their influence has diminished a lot since empirical science has taken the place of merely asserting what the world should look like. I wouldn't be surprised if within a century philosophy is nothing but a mere footnote in history books. Even then, the likelihood of Craig being mentioned is not very high. At most, his arguments will serve to showcase the ridiculousness of apologetics.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@BigLundi
"Philosphers will ALWAYS have a role in society."
How do you know? Their influence has diminished a lot since empirical science has taken the place of merely asserting what the world should look like. I wouldn't be surprised if within a century philosophy is nothing but a mere footnote in history books. Even then, the likelihood of Craig being mentioned is not very high. At most, his arguments will serve to showcase the ridiculousness of 21st century apologetics.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Hmm. Are you not aware that everyone uses philosophy and will likely not stop using it? Science just reflects the facts. People reason out the implications of these facts and there are many interpretations people come to. Science will never be able to answer questions like what is the purpose of life? Why is there something rather than nothing?Whats morally right? Is there a God? These are all meta-physical in nature and it is simply beyond the capacity for science to answer.
FatalKnight 4 months ago
@FatalKnight
"Are you not aware that everyone uses philosophy"
How do you "use" philosophy? Can you drill holes with it?
"Science just reflects the facts"
No. Science provides an explanatory framework for those facts.
"what is the purpose of life?"
That's an unproductive question, the only likely answers being either "we don't know" or "nothing at all".
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Another unproductive "why" question philosophy is infamous for.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@FatalKnight
"Whats morally right?"
Morality is based on instincts like sympathy and empathy, which are as innate to human beings as breathing is.
"Is there a God?"
No evidence for one has ever been presented, the the most likely answer is: no.
"beyond the capacity for science to answer."
Nonsense. As long as questions are productive (and don't strand in silly "why" or "purpose" games), science can answer them.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Morality is based on instincts like sympathy and empathy, which are as innate to human beings as breathing is.''
Your only choice is moral relativism and it does not work in a flourishing society.
''No evidence for one has ever been presented, the the most likely answer is: no.''
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, sorry.
''That's an unproductive question, the only likely answers being either "we don't know" or "nothing at all".''
It is existential.
07Aristotle 4 months ago
@07Aristotle
"Your only choice is moral relativism and it does not work in a flourishing society."
How does anything I say amount to normal relativism? Rather on the contrary.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, sorry."
But as long as you don't provide evidence, I am under no obligation to believe you.
"It is existential."
Nope. I, and many other people with me, can do perfectly fine without an answer.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
''Morality is based on instincts like sympathy and empathy, which are as innate to human beings as breathing is.''
That is the cusp of moral subjectivism or relativism, look up the definition.
''But as long as you don't provide evidence, I am under no obligation to believe you.''
Do not worry, I never made a claim but your not in any position to refute the existence of god on those grounds, being no evidence.
07Aristotle 4 months ago
@07Aristotle
"That is the cusp of moral subjectivism or relativism, look up the definition"
Only if you skip the part where I say it's innate to human beings.
"your not in any position to refute the existence of god on those grounds"
Yes, I am. As long as you fail to provide evidence for any gods, I have every right to say they likely don't exist.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Only if you skip the part where I say it's innate to human beings.''
The definition of moral relativism is that where human beings play an imperative part. The subjectivism of this morality is that it includes the human being as empathetic and is contingent on this very characteristic. Thus also his subjective perspective.
''Yes, I am.''
No, you can't you don't have justifiable grounds.
07Aristotle 4 months ago
@07Aristotle
"it includes the human being as empathetic and is contingent on this very characteristic"
Yes, it is subjective in that regard. Morality always is, since it hinges on minds. But the basis for morality is the same for ALL human beings. The relative part would apply if we'd have to deal with the morality of sentient aliens, for instance.
"you don't have justifiable grounds"
Tell me: are you justified in not believing in unicorns?
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer '' Morality always is, since it hinges on minds''
This is what moral relativists advocate, your emphasizing my point. This is subjectivism at its core.
'' The relative part would apply if we'd have to deal with the morality of sentient aliens, for instance.''
?.....
''Tell me: are you justified in not believing in unicorns?''
Except that unicorns have already been debunked when they discovered that the horns they attributed to unicorns belonged to narwhal whales.
07Aristotle 4 months ago
@07Aristotle
"This is what moral relativists advocate, your emphasizing my point."
No, you're simply not understanding what I am saying. Pay attention. Without minds there can't be empathy or sympathy. Every human mind, unless it's a sociopathic one, has these emotions, which are deeply seated in your brains. So there is no relativism when it comes to the CAUSE of morality.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Without minds there can't be empathy or sympathy.''
You obviously have no idea what moral relativism is, do you? Moral relativism/subjectivism is a morality contingent on a individual, as you say, dependent on their minds and sense of empathy. A morality relative to the individual. Emotions are a SUBJECTIVE characteristic of the person and the morality depends upon it. So, therefore, we have moral relativism/subjectivism.
07Aristotle 4 months ago
@07Aristotle
"You obviously have no idea what moral relativism is, do you?"
Obviously YOU don't.
"Emotions are a SUBJECTIVE characteristic of the person"
No, they aren't. Human beings share the same set of emotions as a direct result of their evolution. It's a part of us we don't have any conscious control over.
I have absolutely no clue what the use of this debate is anyway. Are you one of those philosophizers that just wants to give everything labels?
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@07Aristotle
"?....."
Sentient aliens likely have a totally different base for their morality than we do. So yes, it's then when moral relativism comes into play. But we might not even have to go wait until we meet any. What about the differences between human beings and dolphins, for instance?
"unicorns have already been debunked "
No, they haven't. Actually, there is more reason to believe that unicorns exist than gods, since at least we know SIMILAR animals exist.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''entient aliens likely have a totally different base for their morality than we do. ''
WOW! lol! That's a claim! How do you know that? Do they contact you? Do you speak to them? Add a verificationism there buddy.
07Aristotle 4 months ago
@07Aristotle
"How do you know that? Do they contact you? "
Of course not. But it's easily conceivable. And as I said, you don't even have to go that far. On earth, different animals already work with different moral systems, so it's not hard to see why the system of aliens would be even more different.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''On earth, different animals already work with different moral systems''
Only biologically imperative altruism. No morality. Animals do not have conceptions of good and evil. Just pain and pleasure.
''Obviously YOU don't.''
Moral relativism is the philosophical theory that morality is relative, that different moral truths hold for different people. Morality relative to the individual. Subjective.
07Aristotle 4 months ago
@07Aristotle
"Only biologically imperative altruism."
And it is different from that in humans, because ... ?
"Moral relativism is the philosophical theory that morality is relative"
Which part of my definition is relative among human beings? Let me answer that for you: NONE of it is.
Your tendency of evading the actual argument and bringing up red herrings really starts to grate. Not all of us are swayed by sophistry by the likes of Craig. Make an actual point or admit you have none.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''And it is different from that in humans, because ... ?''
Humans have concepts of good and evil, animals do not. What I meant by ' biologically imperative altruism' is that animals, such as herd animals or animals that travel in packs, or groups, look out for each other because of a relational stock they have with the other particular animal, or they have offspring that they need to protect in order to propagate their species and insure survival. What I'm trying to say is;
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"herd animals or animals that travel in packs, or groups"
You mean, like human beings.
"relational stock they have with the other particular animal"
Which may then be expanded to other individuals of its species. You know, like with human beings.
Dolphins benefit from interacting socially with other dolphins, even if they're not from the same pack. The same rule applies to human beings. The devil is in the details, of course, but the basics are actually rather simple.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"Humans have concepts of good and evil, animals do not."
Empathy and sympathy are pervasive among all the great apes, including chimpanzees, bonobos and human beings. We even see signs of it among rather different species, like bottlenose dolphins. We human beings might have thrown a heap of other rules on top of those caused by comparatively big size of our brain, but the basics are the same.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer There is a difference between good and evil and pain and pleasure. What you are presupposing is that our morality is based on the pain vs pleasure, but the implication of that is that there will be subjective differences of what is painful to what bring pleasure. A there will be different viewpoints on what brings pleasure to people on subjectivist morality. Thus, there, on that basis, no morality is wrong and there will be know difference of opinion between a..
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"There is a difference between good and evil and pain and pleasure."
There is not much difference from a biological viewpoint. Our brains release unpleasant chemicals when we see another human being suffer. So, our own brains cause us pain in those circumstances, and our efforts to avoid this unpleasant sensation is the basis for empathy.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer ...a murderer's morality and a saints morality, since it is ultimately based on the subjective basis of pain and pleasure to a person.
''You mean, like human beings.''
Sorry, I should have been more clear, lower animals.
''Which may then be expanded to other individuals of its species. You know, like with human beings.''
Supposing a morality is operated by pain and pleasure, or empathy.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Which part of my definition is relative among human beings? ''
Uh, empathy, emotions? It is all subjectively dependent and cannot exist independent of us.
'' Not all of us are swayed by sophistry by the likes of Craig.''
People that don't understand what he says say that too. Calling people sophists is such a cop-out without proving what he says is wrong.
''Holy crap, are you really this stupid?''
No, the myth has already been debunked. Get over it.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"It is all subjectively dependent and cannot exist independent of us."
This is exactly my point. And now pay close attention: the basic mechanism is the same for ALL human beings. Hence, there is no moral relativism when it comes to the basics AMONG HUMANS.
If you don't understand it, reread it several times, slowly.
"debunked"
You don't seem to understand my point that you don't have to prove a negative. I don't have to debunk god, just as I don't have to debunk unicorns.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Hence, there is no moral relativism when it comes to the basics AMONG HUMANS.''
Did you know that moral relativism is same as moral subjectivism by the way?
''You don't seem to understand my point that you don't have to prove a negative''
If I wanted to disprove the boogie man in my room, at night, all I would have to do is go into my room, turn on the light and voila no boogie man. That is how you prove a negative.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Why would kids be afraid of something that they think they see when its invisible?
''Our brains release unpleasant chemicals when we see another human being suffer.''
What those 'unpleasant chemicals'? ''Our brains release unpleasant chemicals when we see another human being suffer. ''
Why would a murderer care under your viewpoint? If morality is subjective?
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"Why would kids be afraid of something that they think they see when its invisible?"
Kids have imagination and can misinterpret data (like shadows or lights). The same principle holds true for adults, and can make them believe in gods.
"What those 'unpleasant chemicals'"
Mainly adrenals.
"Why would a murderer care under your viewpoint?"
The release of those chemicals can, temporarily or permanently, get blocked by other circumstances.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Kids have imagination and can misinterpret data (like shadows or lights).''
But your saying its invisible?........
''We're all out to enhance our pleasure and diminish discomfort.''
So there is no difference from a murder's morality to a saint's morality? Considering morality subjective.
''How would it be any more meaningful if we were some supernatural being's plaything?''
Your distorting my position. Im not advocating divine command theory
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"But your saying its invisible?........"
Stop trying to derail the discussion with such obvious red herrings.
"So there is no difference from a murder's morality to a saint's morality?"
Aside from the fact that I don't believe Saints exists, murdering people will likely get you murdered yourself, or imprisoned.
"Your distorting my position. "
YOU are the one who suddenly begins about "meaning".
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Stop trying to derail the discussion with such obvious red herrings.''
You said it, not me.
''Aside from the fact that I don't believe Saints exists''
You know what I meant.
'', murdering people will likely get you murdered yourself, or imprisoned.''
But it is not good or evil since morality is subjective to the person.
''YOU are the one who suddenly begins about "meaning".''
?
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"You know what I meant"
Sorry, I still didn't get my Telepathy License.
"But it is not good or evil since morality is subjective to the person."
The vast majority of people don't feel the need to kill other people. They *will* do so readily when properly brainwashed into thinking the ones they murder are not human. Why do you think this is?
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Sorry, I still didn't get my Telepathy License.''
Okay, Um, the definition of a saint is someone who never commits evil, is that easy enough for you?
''They *will* do so readily when properly brainwashed into thinking the ones they murder are not human.''
But it would be wrong on no grounds considering morality subjective/relative, right?
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''So, our own brains cause us pain in those circumstances, and our efforts to avoid this unpleasant sensation is the basis for empathy.''
But that is obviously not the case today. What is true today, is that we don't live on a morality where everyone's differing viewpoint is correct. We live in a morality where there is one general viewpoint. None of your 'pain vs pleasure' morality is following from this fact.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"But that is obviously not the case today"
It obviously still is. We are governed by the chemicals in our brains.
"we don't live on a morality where everyone's differing viewpoint is correct."
Where did I claim it is?
"there is one general viewpoint."
Yes, among human beings, as a result of their evolution.
"None of your 'pain vs pleasure' morality is following from this fact."
Yes, it is. We're all out to enhance our pleasure and diminish discomfort.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''It obviously still is. We are governed by the chemicals in our brains''
So subjective morality is right?
''Where did I claim it is?''
Your implying a subjective morality.
''Mainly adrenals.''
You have no idea what adrenaline does.
''The release of those chemicals can, temporarily or permanently, get blocked by other circumstances.''
That is a presumption. How do you know they didn't just ignore objective morals?
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"So subjective morality is right?"
It is right for our species.
"Your implying a subjective morality."
Well, that's hardly news.
"You have no idea what adrenaline does."
I am not going there with someone who has shown such a lack of scientific knowledge.
"That is a presumption. "
"How do you know they didn't just ignore objective morals?"
They ignored (or made to ignore) their basic instincts, if that is what you mean.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer ..and combining scientific words to make it seem like you know what your talking about. Now that is called sophistry.
''They ignored (or made to ignore) their basic instincts''
Or duty to objective morals.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@07Aristotle
"Did you know that moral relativism is same as moral subjectivism by the way?"
Who gives a flying fuck? You can't solve questions by simply applying labels.
"turn on the light and voila no boogie man."
He could be invisible, or be able to teleport in and out of your room.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"Calling people sophists is such a cop-out"
Your problem (and Craig's) is that you apply a false dichotomy to the problem of morality. You seem to think that morality is either totally objective, or totally subjective, with nothing in-between. The truth is that morality is subjective in that it is linked to minds (i.e. a rock can't have morality), but that there is still a common set of rules for all human minds as a result of their evolution.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Your problem (and Craig's) is that you apply a false dichotomy ''
It is not false dichotomy. What is it? Is morality subjective or objective? You choose.
''Empathy and sympathy are pervasive among all the great apes, including chimpanzees, bonobos and human beings.''
Correct, but animals do not have a morality. Concepts of good and evil are a running ethic for humans. Lower primates operate on an altruism motivated by propagation of species and humans on good and evil.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"Is morality subjective or objective? You choose."
It's subjective in that it is linked to minds, but that still doesn't mean that morality is merely a a matter of opinion, which is what Craig is arguing. Social species, like human beings, still adhere to a set of deeply ingrained common rules as a result of their evolution. So yes, it's a false dichotomy.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"Concepts of good and evil are a running ethic for humans"
Experiments have shown that chimpanzees are adverse to causing other chimpanzees pain. So you could say that they find this "evil".
"Lower primates operate on an altruism motivated by propagation of species"
And so do human beings.
"humans on good and evil"
Those are merely labels we give to instinctive reactions, with the difference that they have to perculate through the cognitive layer we are burdened with.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''So you could say that they find this "evil".''
That is just equivocating. Evolution and moral relativism go hand-in-hand, for evolution teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose. Therefore, anything you do is OK, because it ultimately doesn't matter. The holocaust would inevitably be justified on those ends. Killing will be just that, killing. There would be no grounds for labeling that as immoral since morality is subjective.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"evolution teaches that life is accidental, without meaning or purpose"
No, evolution teaches that allele frequencies change within a gene pool from one generation to the next. There's nothing there at all about meaning or purpose, be it positive or negative.
"Therefore, anything you do is OK"
Obviously not. There's a reason human beings inherited these deeply ingrained instincts: it helped them survive as a species.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer '' There's nothing there at all about meaning or purpose, be it positive or negative.''
That is what I'am saying, that it would be all meaningless and random under this context. There would be nothing meaningful in morality if it is just a result of bio-interfaces.
''There's a reason human beings inherited these deeply ingrained instincts: it helped them survive as a species.''
That is different from what a subjective morality will give. Your not being consistent.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"it would be all meaningless and random under this context"
How would it be any more meaningful if we were some supernatural being's plaything? At least we know we can decide our own future.
"That is different from what a subjective morality will give. Your not being consistent."
I am. Our morality is subjective since it applies to our species, but for individuals it still means they have to follow the instincts that are the result of our evolution.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Our morality is subjective since it applies to our species, but for individuals it still means they have to follow the instincts that are the result of our evolution.''
So, Nazi morality is okay? It is subjective/relative?
''Well, that's hardly news.''
A second ago,you were just objecting to your morality being relative. Your contradicting yourself.
''I am not going there with someone who has shown such a lack of scientific knowledge.''
You have been throwing around
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"So, Nazi morality is okay?"
To the Nazis it was since they didn't think of the Jews as people. To the rest of humanity, who DO seem them as human, it is reprehensible. Even many Nazis themselves were appalled of what they did when they learned the personal stories of their victims. That's how it goes.
"you were just objecting to your morality being relative."
Yes, but that doesn't mean it's objective.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''To the Nazis it was since they didn't think of the Jews as people. ''
But considering the Nazis, this would be okay? considering subjective/relative morality.
''To the rest of humanity, who DO seem them as human, it is reprehensible''
But it would not matter, because, according to you, morality is subjective/relative. Every differing viewpoint is correct.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Even many Nazis themselves were appalled of what they did when they learned the personal stories of their victims''
No they weren't , some of them enjoyed fervently what they did. They were confirmed sadists.
''Yes, but that doesn't mean it's objective.''
I never said that. You contradicted yourself when you denied your morality being relative, and then you said that it was subjective, which is relative. Hello.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle There were many suicides in death camps by the SS soliders that participated in the executions. It actually was a very large problem. And it is likely that the majority were not actually sociopaths. Dehumanization can be a powerful thing.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer In your view, there is no good or evil. Just the attainment of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Morality is pejorative and 'good n evil' become arbitrary to the person. That would mean anything goes and nothing would be good or evil, just painful and pleasurable. Every action would not have an objective basis for which to be judged and no one would have grounds to condemn anyone for an act. That is why I said, in my earlier posts, that it is just not evident today that...
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer...we live in such a society. This is because we do not live by a subjective morality and anyone who thinks we do is incorrect, insofar as someone claims it is just a result of biology that is.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Thus subjective morality is considered illusory and untenable.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@07Aristotle
"subjective morality is considered illusory and untenable."
Alas, it's the only morality we know.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''subjective morality is considered illusory and untenable.''
Alas, it's the only morality we don't have because otherwise you would have to think the holocaust is justified, and you do not, at least I hope not. At least that is what moral relativism/subjectivism advocates; every differing viewpoint is correct under morality's decree thus.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"The holocaust would inevitably be justified"
We don't feel it's justified since we feel sympathy and empathy for the victims. It also didn't work out so well for the people who were brainwashed into suppress those feelings (a tactic which is, by the way, a key component of religions).
Speaking of meaning: What would be the meaning of god's existence? Why is it there? And what would be the meaning of being this god's creation?
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''We don't feel it's justified since we feel sympathy and empathy for the victims.''
But it will be justified under subjective morality. The nazi believed what they did was right, that it was morally right to rid themselves of impure races.
''Speaking of meaning: What would be the meaning of god's existence? Why is it there? And what would be the meaning of being this god's creation?''
Lets focus on the subject please.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer ''perculate through the cognitive layer we are burdened with''
I don't think you have an idea of what you just said here.....
''Who gives a flying fuck? You can't solve questions by simply applying labels to it''
You just said that your view was not relativistic, now your saying you don't care?
''He could be invisible, or be able to teleport in and out of your room.''
Your being like lewis wolpert. The Boogie man, as we know him, does not teleport or is invisible.
07Aristotle 3 months ago
@07Aristotle
"Add a verificationism there buddy."
This is rather ironic, coming from someone who says I should accept the claim a god exists at face value, since I cannot disprove it. Double standard much?
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer It has no explanatory power as an analogy or evidence/argument against anything. So your answer would be a define; no, I am not justified in believing in unicorns because the EVIDENCE AGAINST THEIR EXISTENCE.
07Aristotle 4 months ago
@07Aristotle
"no, I am not justified in believing in unicorns because the EVIDENCE AGAINST THEIR EXISTENCE"
Alas, your response is invalid. There is no evidence against the existence of unicorns, just as much as there isn't any against the existence of gods. There is a total lack of evidence FOR the existence of unicorns, which is mirrored by the lack of evidence for gods. The analogy is valid.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
''There is no evidence against the existence of unicorns, just as much as there isn't any against the existence of gods.''
Yes there is evidence against unicorns. This is such an elementary argument and worse analogy. In 16th century Germany they found horns that belonged to narwhal whales and attributed to them to the wild stallions they had roaming during those times. It was when they discovered the narwhal whale the myth was finally put to rest.
07Aristotle 4 months ago
@07Aristotle
"In 16th century Germany they found horns that belonged to narwhal whales"
This, COMBINED with the fact that nobody has ever seen any unicorn, makes it highly likely those animals are just a myth. The same counts for any gods.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer The myth has already been debunked because the horns, they attributed to unicorns, they found out they belonged to narwhal whales. This is called negative evidence, evidence to the contrary. This makes it a horrible analogy because there is the presence of negative evidence.
'' I should accept the claim a god exists at face value, since I cannot disprove it. ''
You advocate verificationist ideals and yet you believe in extraterrestrial morality? Something far-fetched.
07Aristotle 4 months ago
@07Aristotle
"The myth has already been debunked?"
Holy crap, are you really this stupid?
"You advocate verificationist ideals and yet you believe in extraterrestrial morality?"
Yes, obviously you ARE this stupid, and I am obviously wasting my time trying to have a conversation with you, since all you do is twist my words and spew sophistic bullshit. Have fun with your pseudo-intellectual self-wanking. I'm outta here.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer ...animals have 'selective pressure' to be in herds, i.e. brought about by natural selection, rather than a socio-cultural conscience to be together. As we know, animals do not have cultures or social structures in that sense.
'' and I am obviously wasting my time trying to have a conversation with you''
Cop-out anytime or what?
07Aristotle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer
'' I have every right to say they likely don't exist.''
Courts don't even work that way. Issuing a verdict on a person with no evidence for or against is hearsay as far as I'm concerned.
''Also, positing a god doesn't automatically give anything meaning''
That is irrelevant to existentialism. Only finding meaning be it anyone or thing.
07Aristotle 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
''Nope. I, and many other people with me, can do perfectly fine without an answer.''
Sure but that does not entail that you or do not have something to live for and thereby having a meaning. This would be existential by consequence my friend. Albeit, everyone has a reason to live and thus meaning to live.
07Aristotle 4 months ago
@07Aristotle
"everyone has a reason to live and thus meaning to live"
Quite so. Also, positing a god doesn't automatically give anything meaning. What would be the meaning of this god's existence then? What's the meaning of us being created by it? I find the idea of being the plaything of some supernatural entity rather meaningless and, frankly, very depressing.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Saying morality is based on instincts is like saying there really is no morality. True we have an innate sense for it, but why do we so often seem to do what is wrong?On naturalism there is no should, no ought only what the electro-chemical reactions in our brain have determined us to do. In that case there is no freewill. What then justifies us to to say the serial killer is wrong? Can you trust your own beliefs? Nature has determined you to believe them and mine as well.
FatalKnight 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FatalKnight
"Saying morality is based on instincts is like saying there really is no morality. "
Nonsense. Actually, this would apply more to claiming morality has a supernatural cause. A being so different from us could not possibly determine how we should behave. Any opinion it might have on the matter would be completely arbitrary and meaningless.
"On naturalism there is no should, no ought"
That whole "is/ought" debate is a bunch of hooey anyway.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FatalKnight
"What then justifies us to to say the serial killer is wrong?"
This is a terribly stupid question. Did you even read my comments?
"Can you trust your own beliefs?"
Instincts are NOT a matter of "beliefs". And our instincts can be manipulated. Many people have killed others since they had been brainwashed into thinking those others were less than human.
Read my comments again, and this time try to read them for comprehension.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@FatalKnight The fact that our brains work by electro-chemical reactions is just a fact. You can derive an ought from evolutionary theory on the question of morality, just like healthy can be derived from objective medical knowledge. Sam Harris makes a great case about this.
thesparitan 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BigLundi
"Philosphers will ALWAYS have a role in society."
How do you know? Their influence has diminished a lot since empirical science has taken the place of merely asserting what the world should look like. I wouldn't be surprised if within a century philosophy is nothing but a mere footnote in history books. Even then, the likelihood of Craig being mentioned is not very high. At most, his arguments will serve to showcase the ridiculousness of 21st century apologetics.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@Austrolibertarian Is this a correct summary of your counter argument if nothing=>nothing, then nothing=>nothing is a law, therefore nothing actually has a law. (which would no long allow it to be nothing by definition)
bksmartysrock 11 months ago
And that, my friend, much like your argument against Dr. Craig, would amount to a fallacy and a gross abuse of language!
djs259 1 year ago
In such a scenario, your logic would require the counterfactual conclusion that it would be impossible for a particular large purple unicorn corresponding to the above facts to not actually exist, since the fact of the actual non-existence of large purple unicorns would impose a general condition prohibiting its existence, which fact itself would “exist” and thus not be “nothing”.
djs259 1 year ago
Where your argument really falls short is in conflating the ontological and epistemological dimensions of the concept “nothing”; in assuming that a fact about being (in this case its radical lack) itself represents a type of being. But a fact about being is not the same thing as an actual being.
Suppose I were to say, for instance, that I was acquainted with several facts about a large purple unicorn (such as its size, shape, and color) that appeared to me as a mental representation.
djs259 1 year ago
a lack of existence.
So, based on this reasoning:
-Non-being is a self-contradictory and “absurd” idea.
-Therefore there is no such thing as real “non-being” [per Craig’s requirement relating to the “non-causal” naturalistic cosmology]
-Therefore no thing cannot truly “not-be”.
-Therefore all things exist.
-Therefore God cannot “not-be”.
Therefore, A Fortiori, God exists.
djs259 1 year ago
Roper122 11 months ago
@Roper122 You've misinterpreted the argument. Moreover, a "law" ABOUT the action of a "being" can not in any intelligible way be said to constitute a "being" in an existential sense (i.e. the opposite of "absolute nothing") You are simply confounding the notion of a natural "law" in the scientistic sense (which itself admits of various interpretations (c.f. Kant) with that of a logical law, such as the law of non-contradiction, which can't meaningfully be predicated of a "thing".
djs259 11 months ago
@djs259 " a "law" ABOUT the action of a "being" can not in any intelligible way be said to constitute a "being"
- No it can't
And as for confounding different types of law... in this case, it would be interesting to see how you justified any logical law, given you are positing the existence of absolutely nothing. Since even a logical law comes about through observation of something.
This leads to Craig's bigger problem,ie: trying to draw conclusions about something he doesn't understand.
Roper122 11 months ago
Let's see how well this type of logic holds up when applied rigorously and consistently, such as, for example, to the concept of "non-being". To "not-be" simply means to lack existence; and a lack of existence equates to nothingness. On your reasoning, "non-being" could never truly represent a lack of existence because this would entail some limiting condition pertaining to "non-being" which would, by definition, amount to the existence (being) of “something”, namely the condition prohibiting
djs259 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo A necessarily existing, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, spaceless, timeless, Being.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Thanks for the clarification....I of course don't see things that way as there is absolutely no evidence that supports such an assertion. An unknowable ultimate force perhaps...but even that's merely guessing, no evidence for that either. I feel the whole origin of the universe question can be quite adequetly answered with a resounding "we don't know". Atleast we lack the tools right now to be able to actually "know" such a thing. Peace be with.
MasterOhSo 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo "no evidence that supports an assertion"
--Of course there is evidence; whether you find it compelling is another story altogether!
(1) The beginning of Time.
(2) The Fine-Tuning of the universes constants making a life-permitting universe exceedingly improbable on the hypotheses of chance, and highly likely on the hypothesis of design. Pr (L/G) >> Pr (L/~G)
(3) The Contingency of all things in the universe.
(4) The unexplained intelligibility of the cosmos as a whole.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 1) We don't really know when the beginning f time began...I'm still unconvinced that this is the only time the universe has existed. 2) the fine tuning arguement has been debunked many times, easliy dismissed. 3) of course everything is contingent...it's all within the same physicl context...thats like saying waters wet. 4) because we look around and understand certain things is cool, not a sign of intellience.
MasterOhSo 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo "We don't really know when the beginning f time began'
--The estimate is 13.7 billion years ago.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo "I'm still unconvinced that this is the only time the universe has existed'
--So? The evidence for the universe's age is still there. And almost every cosmologist from Hawking, to Paul Davies, to Roger Penrose, to Frank Tipler, to Borde, Guth, and Vilenking agree the universe had a beginning. Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin even proved in several papers from 1998-2003 the universe must have began at some finite time in the past, even under an oscillating model of the universe
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo " the fine tuning arguement has been debunked many times, easliy dismissed"
--No it hasn't. Where? It remains alive and well, and even atheists agree. Your ignorance is no excuse. SEE
White, Roger. "Fine-tuning and Multiple Universes" (2000) Nous.
Monton, Brad. "God, Fine-Tuning, and the Problem of Old Evidence" (2006) British Journal of Philosophy.
In fact, ALL of the works of these top-ranking PhD Atheists arguing FOR design are published in Peer-Review Journals.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo "of course everything is contingent...it's all within the same physicl context...thats like saying waters wet"
--And why is water wet? It is wet for some reason. It's not a brute fact that water is wet. Same with everything in the universe. There is a reason why it is the way it is rather than otherwise. You can't go on appealing infinitely to other contingent things because you've explained nothing. There must be a Being that exist in virtue of the power of its own essence.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo "because we look around and understand certain things is cool, not a sign of intellience."
--Of course it is. Are you just blind? Why is the universe intelligible at all, rather than just some mass of unintelligible goo with no order or reason why things are the way they are? No one can explain why there are any natural laws governing the order and intelligibiliity of the universe rather than none at all. It cries out to an intelligent creator.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo " feel the whole origin of the universe question can be quite adequetly answered with a resounding "we don't know".
--Of course there will always be questions. But that doesn't mean there is no evidence, or the arguments offered back and forth aren't compelling to rational persons. I don't think giving up is the right attitude to have. We will always be learning.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 I would ask that if you already know that a god created everything then why look for answers to his handy work? God did it sounds easy enough. I don't suggest giving up....I'm stating that we simply don't know how or why the universe came into being...I think the search should go on as the idea of a god created it is unsatisfactory and falls short of anything resembling science. Magic is not science.
MasterOhSo 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo "if you already know that a god created everything then why look for answers to his handy work?"
--To learn more about his handiwork. Why should believing in God stop my curiosity in learning as to how things work? In fact, most scientists and philosophers throughout history were religious. People like you push this stupid myth that science and religion are incompatible. They are not, unless you think like a Fundamentalist who takes Genesis as Literal truth, not Ancient Saga.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo "idea of a god created it is unsatisfactory and falls short of anything resembling science."
--I agree. So stop pushing it as if it WERE science. Religion and philosophy are whole other enterprises which ask completely different sets of questions. God is not some other "thing" in the universe you can capture with your scientific instruments, and he is not a competing explanation among the natural sciences. This is your mistake to assume otherwise like a Biblical Fundamentalist
mypolicy9 1 year ago
..[cont] But then the fluctuation-formed universes would inevitably collide with each other as they expand, which contradicts the findings of observational cosmology, since we do not see such "colliding worlds." So if there is a non-zero probability of this happening as these quantum models are leading us to believe, why are quantum fluctuations not now spawning universes in our midst? Why do vacuum fluctuations endure so fleetingly rather than grow into mini-universes inside ours?
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Sorry I must have missed something here...I was asking what god are you refering to....the christian god or some fundamental unknowable force? I ask so I might better understand your position.
MasterOhSo 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
[cont] But then the fluctuation-formed universes would inevitably collide with each other as they expand, which contradicts the findings of observational cosmology, since we do not see such "colliding worlds." So if there is a non-zero probability of this happening as these quantum models are leading us to believe, why are quantum fluctuations not now spawning universes in our midst? Why do vacuum fluctuations endure so fleetingly rather than grow into mini-universes inside ours?
mypolicy9 1 year ago
...[cont] Rather these vacuum fluctuation theories tend to predict a creation event at every time t. Or, more exactly, as quantum theories they predict a non-zero probability of a creation event within any finite time interval, with an infinite number of creation points distributed evenly throughout space. This leads at once to an infinite number of creation events within the wider spacetime....[cont]
mypolicy9 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...[cont] Rather these vacuum fluctuation theories tend to predict a creation event at every time t. Or, more exactly, as quantum theories they predict a non-zero probability of a creation event within any finite time interval, with an infinite number of creation points distributed evenly throughout space. This leads at once to an infinite number of creation events within the wider spacetime....[cont]
mypolicy9 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
There is no way the math in these models can select one particular moment within the pre-existent, infinite, and homogeneous time at which a fluctuation should occur which will spawn a universe, and hence no way of specifying a certain point in space at which such a creation event should occur....[cont]
mypolicy9 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
I disagree...what about Hawkins assertion that the only thing necessary for the universe to exist is the force of gravity? Is gravity then to be considered god? Why does this point of orgin have to be a god....why not just forces doing what they do? There is nothing that demands an intelligent cognative entity as a progenitor of this version of reality. If god exists then he must have begun to exist at some point, to say it's always existed is as meaningless as saying the same of the universe.
MasterOhSo 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo "the only thing necessary for the universe to exist is the force of gravity"
--Gravity may be necessary for the universe to exist, but it is not sufficient because the law of gravity alone doesn't get it "started." Also, the law of gravity could have been dfferent than it is by assuming any gravitational constant out of a potentially infinite number of possible values. So the law of gravity itself is contingent because it doesn't explain itself.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo "There is nothing that demands an intelligent cognative entity as a progenitor of reality"
--Yes there is--Everything within the universe is contingent since it depends for its existence on something outside itself. You exist because of your parents. And your parents exist because of their parents, and so on. You can't appeal to an infinite regress of contingent explanations because you would be postponing an explanation for why existence at all rather than nothing.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Perhaps I need to understand you better...allow me to ask a few simple questions....You assert there is a god, fine. What is the nature of this god you speak of? Is this the god of the christian bible or some force that defys explaination or understanding because it is outside of this frame of reality? I would ask where this god thing comes from? To say it always existed is a fine assertion but where lies the evidence to support that statement? Ty for the feedback :)
MasterOhSo 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo I just gave you one argument for God's existence. There are plenty of others. I am involved with one right now on youtube as we speak. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to re-hash these arguments everytime one of you guys ask me. There are plenty of sources around for you to find them.
I recommend starting at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online. Each entry has an extensive bibliography to point you further highly sophisticated works on this subject.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MasterOhSo Also, there is no way the math in these models can select one particular moment within the pre-existent, infinite, and homogenous time at which a fluctuation should occur which will spawn a universe, and hence no way of specifying a certain point in space at which such a creation event should occur............
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo So you must finally come to that which exists in virtue of the power of its own essence and nothing else, i.e., God.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Elemental forces I can understand....a thinking living intelligent god is completely without proof. What existed before this universe is an unknown...even taking the clock back to the first nanoseconds of the big bang is an unknown, I of course am refering to planctime, but nano will suffice for this conversation. To call what was before this universe god is a leap of faith and faith has nothing to do with evidence...true? Peace be with.
MasterOhSo 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo Most things are without "proof." Prove to me that you are not some zombie who thinks, talks, and acts like a person, but are completely devoid of consciousness. How do I know you're not a computer? How do I know I am not a Brain in a Vat like the Matrix?
The phenomenon of proof is only found in mathematics, set-theory, and first-order logic. Scientific theories themselves only enjoy more or less degrees of empirical support by the data--but they are never "proven."
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo Faith is not believing "in spite" of evidence. If any evidence convinced me with near certainty that God did not exist, I would stop believing.
Rather, Faith is the trust and confidence you maintain in some proposition AFTER your reason has convinced you that the proposition you believe is true, in spite of one's changing MOOD SWINGS. Anybody can doubt anything. But I want good arguments that God does not exist. Until then, I am perfectly justified in believing God exists.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@MasterOhSo Vacuum Fluctuation Models are very problematic. If the Planck universe really doesn't have a beginning, then how did anything get started? If this Planck 4-dimensional space existed "before" the temporal universe, then it is IN time. But if it is not in real time, then it is not really earlier than, later than, or simultaneous with the 4-dimensional spacetime manifold. So saying that this Planck universe is timeless, yet also existed before time began is a contradiction in terms.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MasterOhSo Also, there is no way the math in these models can select one particular moment within the pre-existent, infinite, and homogeneous time at which a fluctuation should occur which will spawn a universe, and hence no way of specifying a certain point in space at which such a creation event should occur....[cont]
mypolicy9 1 year ago
where did Craig get his ph.d. in physics from? oh wait...
OrderoftheWhiteHand 1 year ago 2
Interesting point.
JuryDutySummons 1 year ago
I recommend that everyone reads "The Hole in the Universe" by K.C. Cole. It's a realy great book about "nothing".
ErebusGodOvDarkness 1 year ago
@Austrolibertarian - boy .. are you dumb or what ? do you realize that you just confirmed everything that WL Craig stands for ? listen carefully everything that you said in this video.
igoritza 1 year ago
When I was in high school, my friends and I would sometimes discuss what nothing is. (We were a strange group.) You make a very interesting point. Too bad Dr. Craig is an apologist and therefore won't listen to your logical evidence against his livelihood.
PluralOfEverything 1 year ago
You just proved Craig's point.
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago 3
@lifeandphilosophy
How is that? He says you can't get something from nothing. That very argument is self-contradictory.
Austrolibertarian 1 year ago
@Austrolibertarian
Because something can only come from something, this is premise 1. To say anything else is contradictory.
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
@lifeandphilosophy
I think you're missing the point. The point is that Craig's argument about "nothing" is self-contradictory and fails to prove that nothing cannot produce something.
Austrolibertarian 1 year ago
@Austrolibertarian Craig agrees. The semantics you used to derive a contradiction just proves his point, because anything you say about "nothing" reduces to talking about something, even laws prohibiting the arising of something from nothing. The "law" governs something from something, not something from nothing. Nothing is nothing at all. The "Law" is that something can ONLY come from something else; hence, the contradiction.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 infinite regress....whence comes god?
MasterOhSo 1 year ago