Atheist are clearly more moral and better members of society. They are able to see the world more accurately for what it really is and therefore can make better, more moral decisions. Atheists can't be forgiven one day for things they have done, they have to live with consequences forever. Don't believe me, look at us prision statistics. Atheists make up at least 15% of the population put only .209% portion of prisioners.
@SkoorbTak Almost as much as I loved seeing William Lane Craig taking Hitch apart. Or did you miss that debate? Quite a few atheists cant bear to watch it; poor Hitch got annihilated by common agreement
@relarerfhjk "...Hitch got annihilated by common agreement"
Common agreement within the ranks of those who believe that they actually have invisible superfriends who have magical powers, perhaps. This is reminiscent of The Moral Majority (as opposed to the REAL majority.)
@ndrthrdr1 No I meant common agreement among atheists including Hitch's friends,even the atheist blog CommonSenseAtheism admitted Hitchs "got spanked like a foolish child" (their words, not mine!)
I invite you to go through the transcripts if you dont believe me, every argument Hitchens tried to make got shredded to pieces by Craig! At one point, Hitch even said "I dont know any physicists who believe that" only for Craig to instantly quote about 30 top physicists supporting his point!
@relarerfhjk If you Google Steve Project you'll see what Craig's doing here. The more intelligent, educated, and informed people are, the less likely to be fooled by Craig and his backers. His list of a few represents by far the minority. It's just a red herring. Craig's target audience doesn't consist of the sharpest pencils in the box.
So by bringing up atheists who said that Craig clearly outperformed Hitchens one is merely issuing red herrings. Okay, what does your last remark then entials? Certainly doesn't seem very relevant to the topic.
"So by bringing up atheists who said that Craig clearly outperformed Hitchens one is merely issuing red herrings."
Even if Craig did win every debate he's been in (which is clearly not the case), it still would not mean much. It would not be evidence for the existence of any gods, or for any of the claims of Christianity. The only way Craig can prove his position is by showing his god exists. Not with arguments, not with syllogisms, but with actual, hard EVIDENCE.
Says you. Using personal preferences as to what one might consider a given argument as a valid one doesn't say anything. His arguments are valid, both logically and inductively, and they have stood scrutiny for more than 20 years since he started debating. If a logically valid syllogism doesn't satisfy YOU may reflect on your personal bias--not on the nature of the evidence.
"His arguments are valid, both logically and inductively, "
Nope. They are a mix of begging the question, special pleading and arguments from personal incredulity. Most of what Craig says boils down to the tired "god of the gaps" argument.
"they have stood scrutiny for more than 20 years "
They have been slagged immediately, but Craig knows that his intended Christian audience will simply believe everything he says, so he will never change his tune. It makes him good money.
A logically valid argument with valid premises IS evidence. The problem is that the terms for what you would consider "evidence" are arbitrary and restricted to the dictates of your personal taste. It would be like me saying" well, all of your valid arguments, syllogisms, demonstrations, etc. don't count as evidence." That's a convenient way of excluding all positive cases against your own. That's not right.
"A logically valid argument with valid premises IS evidence."
No, it isn't. Never has and never will. You will have to test it against the real world to see if it has merit. If observations don't support your idea, it's wrong.
"the terms for what you would consider "evidence" are arbitrary and restricted to the dictates of your personal taste."
I follow the scientific definition of evidence, which is not arbitrary in the least.
Always has, always will. If something isn't logically valid, it's not true. If it is, it reflects a truism, or an axiom.
Socrates is a man--all men are mortal--socrates is a man. A deductive argument such as this doesn't need to be scrutinized.
"If observations don't support your idea, it's wrong."
There are no observations supporting that there are aliens in the universe. Does a lack of observation in any way demonstrates anything? Well, no; it doesn't.
"Something is not automatically true just because it's logically valid."
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Explain to me how something can be invalid and still be true? How can something that is logically coherent be un-true? Especially if the premises are true.
"No, If you claim you have discovered aliens, you'd better present some evidence for it."
Now you're switching gears.Beforehand you said that something for which there is no tangible evidence (observation)cannot be true--your words.
But now you're saying that any positive argument requires substantiation. Well, I agree. You can't rest with the fact that since something cannot be disproven it therefore means it's true.
Luckily, there is evidence for God--the same one you've been trying to discard desperately in this post; albeit unsuccessfully.
"Explain to me how something can be invalid and still be true?"
That's not what I said. You got it backward. I said: "Something is not automatically true just because it's logically valid". Try to read for comprehension.
"How can something that is logically coherent be un-true?"
It is when it doesn't match with observation. Watch that lecture by Feynman to see why.
"Now you're switching gears"
Nope. Aliens logically CAN exist, but you can't say they DO without evidence.
Maybe you should take that advice yourself: " How can something that is logically coherent be un-true? Especially if the premises are true." is followking that sentence, which you clearly noticed.
"" How can something that is logically coherent be un-true? Especially if the premises are true.""
The premises aren't even true. But even if they were, they still wouldn't form any eviedence.
"Everything meshes with observations."
How so? Craig did not create a physical model which which we can predict the observations of a god. Even if we would grant him his premises, they would still only lead to the conclusion that this universe resulted from something else. That's it.
"Aliens logically CAN exist, but you can't say they DO without evidence."
You're saying that now. Before you said that without observations something cannot exist. You can try to avoid this now that I've exposed your error, but it won't help you.
Haha, okay so I'm right--you did say that a lack of observation is evidence in itself. Good.
I agree with you putting "discussion" in quotation marks since this was about as much a discussion as if I were to debate this topic with a 6 year old.And if there was any doubt on the matter,you just prove it in your next infantile and lewd comment: " after you've sucked Craig's dick."
How eloquent! A true credit to the atheistic spirit.Have a good one.
NOW I see what you didnt realise Hitchens got thumped.You have just proved you dont even get Craig's argument,you just made an embarassing blunder!
Craigs whole point is that infinites are ONLY used in mathematics as they can only exist on paper! It is the existence of an ACTUAL INFINITE that is impossible, since it leads to self contradictions (e.g what is infinity minus infinity)If you knew the arguments you would know that
Judging by the egregious errors you've made in the last post, I'd say that you're far from that. You're using arbitrary standards to define what you youtself consider to be evidence.
"They are a mix of begging the question, special pleading"
Example? I'm asking because I clearly see now that you have no idea what you're talking about in view of the "God of the gaps" accusation. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
"Judging by the egregious errors you've made in the last post"
What errors? Be precise.
"arbitrary standards"
So if I come up with compelling arguments for the existence of Santa Claus , that immediately proves he exist? How could that even possibly work? I'd advise you to inform yourself on what scientific evidence actually entails.
"Example?"
"The universe can't be eternal, so I posit this eternal being that made it. " Special pleading pur sang.
...people bring up when they're faced with the finite nature of space-time.
The universe can't be eternal in the physical sense. Meaning, there can be no inifinite regress of past ACTUAL events given that we have a present. That is undisputed. God is not a material beings, and therefore is not bound by these restrictions. No special pleading here--more like category error on your part.
Actually, given the finite nature of the universe, a creator is a necessary cause. Otherwise we're left..
...arguing that something can come out of nothing which is worse than magic.
If you'd follow his much maligned sylogism, you see that what is claimed is that "whatever *begins* to exist has a cause." Since the universe began toe xist it must have a cause, and since God didn't He doesn't require one. It's not at all special pleading--it's two different propositions to begin with.
"arguing that something can come out of nothing which is worse than magic."
If that is so, than the same applies to Craig's god. You can't have it both ways.
""whatever *begins* to exist has a cause.""
Yes, whatever begins to exist WITHIN THIS UNIVERSE has a cause. But those things are no more than concepts we give a label like "chair", "star", or "I", which are assemblies of pre-existing matter. We can't apply the same logic to the beginning of the whole universe.
"The universe can't be eternal in the physical sense"
Baseless assertion.
"there can be no inifinite regress of past ACTUAL events given that we have a present."
Baseless assertion.
"That is undisputed."
No, it's not. We actually don't know whether those things really exist or not. Craig's claim that we DO know is highly dishonest. And even if they didn't exist, it still wouldn't mean the universe had a beginning in the classical sense.
Yes, it is. Your attempt at denying axiomatic truths is amusing, but it doesn't help your position. If a present moment exists the universe ccannot be extended infinitely into the past. A logical contradiction. Try to grapple with the argument. You're failing.
No, YOU try. Give a good explanation why the universe couldn't be eternal, WITHOUT referring to mere intuition. Better yet: show me the math. I'm curious.
"Your attempt at denying axiomatic truths is amusing"
Axiomatic truths? They are far from self-evident. I also don't you see you or Craig using them to formulate a coherent model with which we can test against reality. They're just .... statements.
"Give a good explanation why the universe couldn't be eternal"
Intuition has nothing to do with it. It's of logical necessity--you know, the thing you seem to reject in favor of bending reality to fit your opinion?
The existance of actual infinity is impossible, both logically and mathematically. Since I'm limited in space, I'll reference Hilbert's Hotel (named after the mathematician) as a mathematical argument. As far as logic goes, if the present exists, there could not have been an...
...an infinite past exnding on the other end of it. Why? Because infinity cannot be traversed. If it could, by DEFINITION, it wouldn't be infinite. Your confusion of logical statements with intuition notwithstanding, the evidence points clearly to an finite past.
"an infinite past exnding on the other end of it. Why? Because infinity cannot be traversed."
Hogwash. If you admit that this universe stretches infinitely into the future, it could just as easily into the past. In other words: the current time period could simply be a region on a timeline that stretches infinitely in both directions. That is "could not be traversed" is so laughable, that I am baffled how Craig dares to even bring this up.
...again actual infinites and potential infinites. A universe extending infinitely into the future never actually reaches infinity. If it would, it wouldn't be infinite. Got that? I dunno how much more can this be simplified so that you finally manage to grasp it.
An infinite past is an actual infinite. If it "starts out" in infinity it cannot reach the present since at any given point in time it would need an infinite MORE distnace to reach it!
Mathematically, Hilbert puts this into application by showing that you can subtract equal quantities from an equal set of numbers, and get contradictory answers. Infinites in reality don't exist. Do some research-- for your own good.
Which appears to mean that it gives you butterflies in your stomach. That's cute, but merely asserting something that sort of sounds logical doesn't mean it IS logical, or a "necessity".
"The existance of actual infinity is impossible, both logically and mathematically. "
Nonsense. Infinites are constantly used in mathematics.
"Which appears to mean that it gives you butterflies in your stomach"
Not anymore than any other given truth.Whether it gives me butterfiles or not is irrelvant.More red herrings. I can feel your desperation almost.Knowing your position is slowly losing ground would be a troubling prospect to anyone.I say abandon it lest you make an even bigger ass of yourself ;-)
"merely asserting something that sort of sounds logical"
Well it is.Yours is demonstrably not. So,dunno what to tell ya'
"Nonsense. Infinites are constantly used in mathematics"
Oh, the hilarity. Yes, ON PAPER! They're used instrumentally to solve equations. No mathematician assumes the illogical position that actual infinites can exist in reality. I've already pointed this out to you in referencing Hilbert, one of the foremost mathematicians who ever lived.
"If you admit that this universe stretches infinitely into the future, it could just as easily into the past."
Another utterly baseless assertion. How do you or Craig know any of that anyway? How COULD you even know? Why couldn't this god have been a material being that died when it made the universe, for instance?
"given the finite nature of the universe"
We don't know whether it's finite or not.
"a creator is a necessary cause"
That simply does not follow. Even a finite universe could be the result of purely natural processes.
Logical necessity. The creator of space and time cannot be part of space and time. Not that hard to follow. "We don't know whether it's finite or not."
I can see philosophy is not your strong suit, but now you're also falling behind on the scientific evidence.
" Even a finite universe could be the result of purely natural processes."
Sure it can. Nature created itself. That makes sense (?!)
"Which seems to be a shortcut for "we pull it out of our asses"."
Trying to mask your obvious lack of any semblence of elementary knowledge of logics with such a childish remark won't save you.
"It could have created THIS space and time while being in another"
Well, apart from the fact that you're ignoring Occam's razor, it still doesn't stand. That other region of spacetime would also have to be created to begin with! It's a convoluted premise, whereas Craig's isn't.
"Craig's standard response when someone points out the flaws in his arguments"
Nah, more like the standard response issued when incompetent dupes cannot grasp even the most basic principles of logic. Pretty straight-forward. Sad indeed.
"Actually, it's "we don't know""
Nice try. You always know with certainty when a given scintific evidence points to a favorble ( preconceived) conclusion, but you turn oh-so modest when an opposin view seems to undemrine yours. Amusing.
Actually, it's "we don't know", which makes a lot more sense than "I'll invent some entity that created everything so I can justify my unfounded belief in the Christian god".
...we do know. We know from the cosmological evidence that the universe is finite, and we know this also logically to be the case. You can either face it, or remain intransigent in your utter ignorance of the facts.
When something is logically incoherent we don't just assume this cute agnostic position.Lets say we're faced with two boxes in which in each one a bue ball and a yellow ball are placed.No matter how much we choose to be skeptical, there cannot be another color ball in either one...
...of the boxes. You can be a little coward and say "we just don't know whether there are different colored balls or not," or you can assume that which logically valid.
What is wrong with, you know, LOOKING AT REALITY to verify your claims?
"Yes, if you had one. But there aren't."
There also aren't any for the existence of god(s).
"It's the same tired old fallacy.."
Yes, Craig uses the same fallacy of special pleading over and over, even though it gets pointed out to him so many times. It's stupid to say something can't apply to the universe, only to do a 180 degree turn when it comes to his god.
"What is wrong with, you know, LOOKING AT REALITY"
I've already explained to you in my previous post what's wrong with it and you ignored it. It's not reality to assume logical fallacies as valid argumentation. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that you can't see or observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We don't have any evidence for extraterrestrials, that doesn't in itself say anything. The fact that people not so long ago had no evidence of Quantum....
..thereofre the law doesn't apply to him. Two different categories.
"We can't apply the same logic to the beginning of the whole universe."
Now you're offering special pleading. Yes, certainly we can. The proposition says that a cause is needed for any entity to come into existance. If the unievrse did come into existence, it requires a cause. Otheriwse, you're arguing that although it's finite, it came into being from nothing, and without a cause--an incoherent statement in the extreme.
"Now you're offering special pleading. Yes, certainly we can."
No, we can't. You can't compare things existing as assemblies of pre-existing matter with the existence of EVERYTHING, including matter. The same rules do NOT apply, which is the main reason why scientists are scrambling to get to an answer.
Plus, you'll STILL have to explain where this god comes from then. Heck, you'll actually have to explain why it would have to be a god in the first place.
"You can't compare things existing as assemblies of pre-existing matter with the existence of EVERYTHING, including matter."
Red herring.The idea of creation,in this argument, focuses on things that bring about an effect. Whether that effect comes from a pre-existing matter or from nothing is irrelevant.Both require a cause.
And I agree--the same rules don't apply.In creation out of nothing you don't have pre-existing matter-the universe just sprouts out of nothing and without a cause.
"Whether that effect comes from a pre-existing matter or from nothing is irrelevant."
It's VERY relevant. By the way: you're not claiming it came from nothing either. You say: "There's this thing I call god, which did .. uh .. something, and then there was a universe". How? What did it do? How can you say anything about this god-thing when you skip the intermediary steps to get to it?
I'm glad to see you think that is. You haven't provided one iota of evidence, as it is obviously logically invalid, but whatever makes you happy. Truth is, though, it's not relevant. The issue of causation rests on an event that brings forth a cause in time--creation ex nihilo or from pre-existing matter are red herrings.
Again funny boy, not relevant. The validity of a theory doesn't rest on the conditional that it must be expalined fully in detail. You're grasping at strwas here.
""You can't compare things existing as assemblies of pre-existing matter with the existence of EVERYTHING, including matter."
Red herring.The idea of creation,in this argument, focuses on things that bring about an effect. Whether that effect comes from a pre-existing matter or from nothing is irrelevant.Both require a cause.
And I agree--the same rules don't apply.In creation out of nothing you don't have pre-existing matter-the universe just sprouts out of nothing and without a cause.
"you'll STILL have to explain where this god comes from then."
Nonsense. Giving a valid explanation doesn't require detailing every single thing about it. Logical leaps you're making here. The fact that a scientific theory about quantum theory explains a given phenomenon doesn't mean that it won't be valid until every single nuance is explained.
Plus, God doesn't come from anywhere.He's a necessary being--not one localized in spacetime.
..cause can bring forth the creation of matter.Again, not that hard to grasp.
"Which would also apply to this god of yours! "
*faceplam*
For the umpteenth time--no it wouldn't! God isn't material,therefore he's not subject to the same restrictions. If he were, you'd have a point.But now all you're doing is comparing apples to oranges.Stop with this nonsense.
"You might look into Occam's Razor while you're at it."
What does multplying causes beyond necessity have anything to do here?
For the zillionth time: yes it would. Doing otherwise is nothing but special pleading.
"God isn't material"
How do you now? No, really. HOW. DO. YOU. KNOW??????
First you tell me you can't give details about this god, and then you come up with THIS. And you give NO foundation for this WHATSOEVER. Well, other than that you like the idea of it.
"Giving a valid explanation doesn't require detailing every single thing about it."
So then you also can't say that this god would be immaterial, personal or eternal. It could just as well be material, impersonal and finite. It could be mindless god, that ceased to exist after it kick-started the universe. It could even in turn have been created by yet another creator.
Saying "something did something to start the universe" is a rather useless statement. We need more detail.
"It could just as well be material, impersonal and finite"
No, because that would be logically invalid. A being that created all of matter and time cannot be a a part of it. I've already said that but you seem to stick to your misguided misconceptions very dilligently.
"that ceased to exist after it kick-started the universe"
Could be. It would still undermine atheism.
"have been created by yet another creator."
Occam's razor does away with that.You really don't know what it is.
Again, applying personal tastes to the concesus is a rather dishonest manuever. It's not a standard that more details need to be expalined in order for an a explanation to withstand scrutiny. If that were true, no initial scientific theory would ever pass muster until ALL of the details concerning it would be laid out. What utter nonsense you're spewing.
"How do you now?"
It's a thing called...shhh...the rules of logic. I've been convienced thoroughly now that...
...it is hard to debate someone when that person doesn't even know the basic principles of logic.
To recap: God is immaterial by logical necessity. He cannot be--logically--anything but immaterial because if He were, He would not be able to create all of matter and time. If he's made of matter, he could not have preceded it. Simple logic, moron. Get on that, you're just embarassing yourself.
"quantum theory explains a given phenomenon doesn't mean that it won't be valid until every single nuance is explained."
But unlike you, quantum physicists don't just throw their hand sin the air going "bad luck"! They try to get to the bottom of things. Besides, physicists can at least model the behavior they don't fully understand yet. Where's the comprehensive model for the behavior of your god?
Bla bla bla, so you're not denying, I see, that you can't reject a hypothesis simply because it doesn't answer all questions. Good, at least we're getting somewhere.
"physicists can at least model the behavior"
Of course, they're dealing with scientific naturalism. You can't model a metaphysical truth--again, apples and oranges. You can test and repeat scientific phenomena. That doesn't mean that since God cannot be put into a test...
"The proposition says that a cause is needed for any entity to come into existance. "
Which would also apply to this god of yours! If your god doesn't need cause, then you could save a step and just as easily claim that the universe itself doesn't need one. You might look into Occam's Razor while you're at it.
"The fact that you can't see or observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "
But you also can't claim it DOES exist.
Craig claims he's sure his god is real. Fine. Then he should be able to show us the evidence. Alas, all he does is produce a row of baseless assertions in the form of syllogisms. That's extremely weak-sauce stuff.
"all he does is produce a row of baseless assertions"
All of his assertions are evidence-based. Read his books. He gives pages after pages worth of citations from scientific journals and scholarly works on cosmology. Again, all you're saying is that what will be considered as evidence to you will be based on what YOU find to be conviencing. You're arguing like a 6 year old; honestly now! It's like me saying" well, you have all of your fancy syllogisms,and facts,but that's not real evidence."
"that his intended Christian audience will simply believe everything he says"
Charges of bias are hardly relevant as new-atheist dogmatists do the same thing, if not MORE fervently. Dawkinites are the most brainwahsed and stubborn half-wites to ever grace the atheistic movement.
I'm sure Dawkins makes good money too. No more red herrings please.
"He's shamed every single opponent that debated him"
No, he usually tried to bury them under a pile of nonsensical statements. Craig loves to scattershot his arguments, giving his opponents no chance to address them in the time allotted to them.
Especially scientists have trouble with this, since they value fair and open debates, and tend to be overwhelmed by Craig's dishonesty. Opponents like Harris or Hitchens do a lot better by simply ignoring Craig's red herrings.
Welcome to the world of debates where an opponent can use as many arguments he can in his given time slot. What a concept. Maybe someone should send him the memo that only one or two arguments should be presented in an 18 minute opening presentation so that shallow and intellectually vacuous atheists can feel more confident.
Nice try in attem,pting to avoid the simple fact that no one has managed to even come close to addressing his arguments...
No, they tend to be overwhelmed by their own apparent lack of intelelctual depth. Every single time he debates them he puts them to shame. ALl they can do--and I have seen them all--is stumble, go off topic, and usually ignore all of the main points brought forth.
I wouldn't use Hitchens or Harris; both of them left those debates with their tails between their legs.
"No, they tend to be overwhelmed by their own apparent lack of intelelctual depth. "
Actually, it's often their intellectual depth that puts them at a disadvantage in a timed debate, which is why Craig loves that format. Craig's view very simplistic: "A magic man dunnit!" His opposition tends to be a lot more sophisticated, but that comes at a price: they need more time to explain their position. Craig knows this and abuses it completely.
A God has done it is the conclusion. Nice try mischaracterizing the argument. If his position is that simplistic, the atheist's position can equally( and validly, btw) be be charcaterized as " nothingness done it!" which is, as I said, worse than magic. Your failure at addressing the issue pushes you toward making appeals to ridicule and other logical fallalcies--it's the atheist's lifeline. That's what keeps Craig's opponenets going: thier ability to mock, and to garner the audience's sympathy.
"the atheist's position can equally( and validly, btw) be be charcaterized as " nothingness done it!""
Atheists simply lack belief in gods. That also means though that they can't find simplistic explanations like "a magic man dunnit". They will also often admit that they don't know something, which Craig immediately pounces on: "See? You don't know! So my god did it!" Craig LOVES the god of the gaps and clearly sees admitting not to know something as a sign of weakness.
And if logical fallacies weren't enough, now we're libeling. Can you tell me where Craig has said any such thing? He's, actually, the only one in his debates who uses scientific arguments, while atheists use rhetorical flourishes and fallacies in a attempt to debunk him. Just come to terms with it. Embrace it.
He never once uses GOTG. You're just making this up. Lying is a sure sign you're growing desperate, realizing you're losing the debate.
He never once argues from god of the Gaps; he explained this in the course of demolishing Hitchens, when Hitch pathetically responded to the Fine-Tuning Argument by saying "we dont even know what we dont know about the Universe" (speak for yourself, Hitch!)
Craig argues from what we DO KNOW e.g the fact the Universe had a begining (see Bord-guth-Villenkin theorem) ;then uses deductive logic to infer the best explanation of those facts
He never once argues from god of the Gaps; he explained this in the course of demolishing Hitchens, when Hitch pathetically responded to the Fine-Tuning Argument by saying "we dont even know what we dont know about the Universe" (speak for yourself, Hitch!)
Craig argues from what we DO KNOW e.g the fact the Universe had a begining (see Bord-guth-Villenkin theorem) ;then uses deductive logic to infer the best explanation of those facts
He never once argues from god of the Gaps; he explained this in the course of demolishing Hitchens, when Hitch pathetically responded to the Fine-Tuning Argument by saying "we dont even know what we dont know about the Universe" (speak for yourself, Hitch!)
Craig argues from what we DO KNOW e.g the fact the Universe had a begining (see Bord-guth-Villenkin theorem) hen uses deductive logic to infer the best explanation of those facts
@relarerfhjk Its still God of the Gaps, the ignorance of theists goes a step beyond as they are even ignorant of the fact that they are ignorant. They spout off the ultimate non answers ("magic did it") then feel as if they are the keepers of truth.
Craig wins in his own mind, he spins a web of words worthy of the facepalms he is rewarded with. Eg. Kalam argument = Everything begins - universe began - its magic. The problem with philosophers is that its all words, no substance...CONT
@mehico33 "the ultimate non-answers" Its not a "non-answer" if it is the most logical inference from the known facts and our observations.
"all words no subtance" Its perfectly subtantive, but you dont get it; the argument is that mathematics shows infinity couldnt exist, Big Bang cosmology shows nature began to exist, our observations show nothing begins to exist without cause,and nature cant have caused itself to begin to exist! Fine-tuning shows intelligent design for human life
We don't know that. Actual infinites may well be possible
"John Hilbert said inifinity is just a concept"
No. Hilbert merely pointed out that infinity has some peculiar mathematical properties.
"The Bord-Guth-villenkin theorem"
.. only shows that ALMOST all inflationary models of the universe will reach a boundary in the past. That doesn't mean they all do. The jury is still out there.
1),an actual infinite couldnt exist because it would be self-contradictory, which shows its imaginary (see mathematician John Hilberts famous Hilberts Infinite Hotel....Craig explains this well)
2) Big Bang cosmology shows any expanding Universe must be finite
"almost all" Wrong; BGV says any expanding Universe has a beginning... so atheists must believe it all comes from nothing with no cause! THAT takes faith
@MomoTheBellyDancer "your just making this up" it was Hilbert himself who wrote tha, in his view,t an actual infinite was impossible.You idiot! It would be self-contradictory because, as Hilbert explained in his example of letting endless rooms, you cant subtract infinity from infinity without getting contradictory answers
"the peculiar properties" No, the example shows an infinite hotel (or infinite anything) is a logically self-refuting concept, and therefore couldnt exist in actuality
Irrelevant. Hilbert showed that inifites have some very peculiar mathematical properties, and he then concluded off the record that they might be impossible because of those. The truth is that we don't know whether actual infinites exist or not.
You shouldn't use the personal opinions of scientists as facts. It's a very nasty habit Craig exhibits as well, likely since he is used to treating opinions as if they were factual.
He didnt conclude "off the record" he wrote it IN HIS BOOKS! It wasnt a "personal opinion" he showeed why infinity cannot exist in actualty its self-refuting
Just admit it, your all over the place in this discussion...earlier you thought Hilbert/Craig were arguing infinites cant exist IN MATHEMATICS...when nobody has argued that! what they argued was they cant exist in actuality
Your not seriously engaging in any discussion here, your just clowning around. You dont get how stupid what you have just said is? Inifinity MINUS infinity cannot be infinity you clown! Once again, read Hilbert's Hotel I dont believe you have listened to it or understood it....the hotel is a metaphor to show why infinites only exist in maths in our imaginations, not in actuality
@MomoTheBellyDancer Your delusions of rationality are quite sad. Pointing out that you haven't raised a substantive--much less lethal--objection to the coherence of Craig's worldview is not a cop-out. It is simply a fact. Craig argues against the possibility of a quantitatively infinite set of anything, especially an infinite number of events in time, actually existing. He does not state that God is infinite in any quantitative sense. Get with the program.
Craig doesn't even have the qualifications to approach the question in any meaningful manner, which is clear since he doesn't even grasp the basics.
"This doesn't even dignify a response..."
Craig simply lets his god be what he wants him to be, as long as it furthers his arguments. It's all wishful thinking, begging the question and special pleading.
How old are you, 4? Calling you ignorant is not the same as calling you delusional. Craig is one of the most eminent thinkers in the philosophy of time, and one doesn't need to be a Ph.D. mathematician to discuss mathematical philosophy or logic. You can call Craig's reasoning totally fallacious until the cows come home, but I suspect you have neither the intention nor the intellectual capacity to "back up" your knee-jerk accusations.
@MomoTheBellyDancer u R sooooo rite. criag is just a religous retard who doent kno N E THING!!!1!!1eleven
Stop pretending like YOU know enough to judge that WLC doesn't know anything about his own profession, and go look up the definitions to the myriad of fallacies you keep attributing to everyone else so you'll know how to use them in the future, mkay?
"Stop pretending like YOU know enough to judge that WLC doesn't know anything about his own profession"
Craig's profession is squeezing money out of the purses of the ignorant sheeple who buy his books and attend his sorry excuses for "debates". And I can certainly judge his output, and so can everybody else with a functioning brain, who decides to use it for other purposes than to grovel before the psychopathic, tyrannical and genocidal god of the Bible.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Oh, so you think he is NOT a professional philosopher? He just a scam artist because... he provides arguments for his beliefs with which you violently disagree? Ha. You're right about the debates, though. The outcome is so predictable most of them aren't even worth watching; his opponents consistently under-prepare, and it definitely shows in the poor quality of their arguments and responses.
Let me guess. Unless you're a vehemently anti-Christian atheist, you're a dumbass?
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Name one fallacy. ONE. I dare you. I already pointed out numerous made my Craig."
lol Seriously, this is just pitiful. Unlike you I don't memorize a bunch of fallacies I don't actually understand and then accuse everyone I disagree with of committing all of them. Do I know fallacies? Yes, I should hope so. I have a degree in the field. Am I going to sound them off to amuse a fractious, upstart twerp? Ha. No.
"Calling you ignorant is not the same as calling you delusional"
You said, and I quote: "Your delusions of rationality are quite sad."
"Craig is one of the most eminent thinkers in the philosophy of time"
He claims to be, but in reality he's just another apologist dipshit with delusions of grandeur. His sorry excuses for arguments get blown out of the water even by students of Philosophy 101.
Again: all we know is that the current observable universe was once very small, very dense and very hot and underwent a period of inflation. We don't know whether this observable part is really all there is, or if the Big Bang entails the beginning of the universe as a whole.
And Craig not only claims that a god created the universe, but that this god also happens to be the one HE believes in. THAT is faith.
"Name ONE! (and please dont make me explain the quantum-particles fallacy)"
Virtual particles and radioactive decay. And no, they are not fallacies, but real events we see occur in nature, however much you try to reason them away.
I was giving you a chance not to reveal your ignorance, by delving into quantum physics. You didnt know why its a fallacy that quantum particles come from nothing?
Because quantum vacuums are not "nothing";they contain a sea of energy, have physical structure and are governed by physical laws! Lawrence Krauss fell into this trap against Craig!!
Virtual particles/radioacive decay are NOT "uncaused" Victor Stenger himself admited physicists are completely divided on this!
And one of those laws is that virtual particles can arise out of nothing. Thanks for making my point for me.
In any case, you still didn't address my rebuttals of your claims that infinites are impossible in mathematics or that the Big Bang is actually the beginning of the universe.
I just explained they cant come from nothing...your not too thick to understand that "sea of energy" is not "nothing" whereas Big Bang cosmology shows literally nothing preceded the Big Bang since all space/time reality had a beginning!
"my rebuttal of your claim infinites are impossible in mathematics" for the 6oth time...I did not say they are impossible "in mathematics" but impossible IN ACTUALITY!
@MomoTheBellyDancer "any life is simply adapted to it" You have just embarassed yourself. Life could not "adapt" to the Universe because withou the constants being perfectly fine-tuned nothing heavier than helium could exist! No carbon, no matter, no oxygen, no nitrogen, no chemical complexity and no gravity to hold it all together.
You have proved you dont have a clue what your taling about. The life-permitting range of values is tiny and simply couldnt be an accident.
"Life could not "adapt" to the Universe because withou the constants being perfectly fine-tuned nothing heavier than helium could exist! "
That's not true. There's quite a bit of leeway in the range of a lot of those parameters. And some form could still arise in a universe totally alien to us.
"You have proved you dont have a clue what your taling about."
As Professor Weinberg says "life of any kind requires a cancellation between contributions to the vacuum energy accurate to 120 decimal places"
A berillium isotope,with a TINY half-life of just 0.000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nuclei in that EXACT split of time before decaying ;otherwise no nitrogen, no carbon,no life nothing heavier than helium! It achieves this because of an exquisitely precise energy match between the two nuclei"
"life of any kind requires a cancellation between contributions to the vacuum energy accurate to 120 decimal places"
He is talking about life as we know it. Life might still arise in other universes with other physical laws.
Jenkins and Perez created models with different values for the fundamental forces, and still came up with universes in which some form of life could be possible. The Weak Force could even be completely eradicated in a lot of cases.
No he is talking about ANY life....nothing heavier than HELIUM GAS could existt if it wasnt for that extraordinarily fine-tuned constant,
that means NO PLANETS,no gravity to hold everything together, no carbon, chemical complexity or oxygen NOTHING heavier than gas!
The weak-force is one of 30 fine-tuned constants, and its intelligent, complex life that couldnt exist without carbon, nitrogen, oxygen or chemical complexity
@relarerfhjk CONT... its like "The Why Question", according to Craig the "most meaningful" of questions, when in reality it is utterly meaningless, it perplexes you, creates the feeling of intimidation, of the deep journey, "what could it be? I am copelled" This is because it has no answer, language allows it to be asked but it has no application, no effect.
He creates a metaphysical real in which his ideas hide from scutiny, it sounds impressive to the credulous but...CONT
@mehico33 "its utterly meaningless" it is only meaningless if God does not exist and thats a false assumption but since you cant prove it (any more than you can prove "strings" in physics do not exist, although they havent been directly observed)
"it sounds impressive to the credulous" His ideas on relativity, philosophy of time and philosophy of science have been published in over 200 peer-reviewed journals of philosophy, they dont just "sound impressive to the credulous"
Logical fallacy! even if we were all blind and had no evidence light existed that wouldnt mean it didnt exist.
"nobody has ever presented evidence of his existence" There is strong evidence of His existence based on history, physics, formal logic and our own observations.
"NOT scientific journals"
Science is based on philosophy.
Craig repeats what the scientists say on these subjects.I can give you the quotes from the top physicists!
@MomoTheBellyDancer "be precise" I was very precise. the fallacy is the claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence (or non-existence).
The evidence for God is more compelling than the evidence for atheism, see Fine Tuning
"if we had no evidence you couldnt just expect everybody to believe you" thats not your definition of atheism...you assert God's non-existence, which is a belief not a lack of belief! The same as the blind man asserting light doesnt exist.
"the fallacy is the claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence (or non-existence)."
If you don't provide evidence for your claims, then why should I believe you?
"The evidence for God is more compelling than the evidence for atheism"
Atheism doesn't require evidence, since it's simply is the lack of belief in gods. The burden of proof rests squarely on the theists' shoulders. All they ever do though is come up with though is sophistry and word play.
"Craig repeats what the scientists say on these subjects"
Yes, Craig always treats scientists as if they were philosophers, presenting their personal opinions as facts. I am only interested though in what scientists present in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
"Science is based on philosophy."
With the big difference that scientists TEST their ideas, instead of merely asserting they are true because they sound fancy.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Craig doesnt repeat their personal opinions...the fine-tuning of over 30 constants for the existence of life, has been demonstrated in numerous journals (you need to get a clue on this subject!) its the inspiration for the nonsensical multiverse hypotheses, which was invented out of thin air to attempt to ressurect a chance-based explanation of fine-tuning!
"scientists test ideas" their criteria for "testing" anything,itself rests on unproveable philosophical assumptions!
"the fine-tuning of over 30 constants for the existence of life"
Yes, scientists know about the universal constants and study them, but that doesn't mean that there is any such thing as fine-tuning. Life adapted to this universe, not the other way around. And even then, we only find life in an extremely tiny corner.
Fine-tuning is proved beyond doubt, as the great mathematician Professor Roger Penrose wrote "the values are so precise you literally couldnt write them down"
I feel deeply sorry for atheists who hve to try and pretend this is due to chance, its far more ridiculously improbable a belief than that horses could pop into being from nowhere!
Reason supports theism, atheism is insanely improbable
@relarerfhjk Journals of philosophy... that says it all. Philosophy has had next to no pragmatic effect in the past century, word games.
By the same reasoning Gods existence is a false assertion since you cant prove it. There is no burden on me to disprove your assertions, I see no sign of god (like I see no sign of Goblins or Fairies) and as such should operate on the assumption there is no God. CONT
@relarerfhjk CONT... to the skeptic it is transparent. Immaterial = literally nothing.
His "Moral argument" is my favourite because it is easiest to refute, morality is not "objective" as we experience life subjectively, there have been human societies in which it was more acceptable to eat their elderly than their dogs (as dogs are capable of work), all morality is perfectly accountable in terms of biology and the concept of society yet Craig fans think it a strong argument.
He never once argues from god of the Gaps; he explained this in the course of demolishing Hitchens, when Hitch pathetically responded to the Fine-Tuning Argument by saying "we dont even know what we dont know about the Universe" (speak for yourself, Hitch!)
Craig argues from what we DO KNOW e.g the fact the Universe had a begining (see Bord-guth-Villenkin theorem) hen uses deductive logic to infer the best explanation of those facts
I find it interesting that every complaint Dinesh makes about "New" Atheists is true about Christians throughout history.
NaturalMiracleMan 1 month ago
This is about the last guy they need to be asking about non-christians in general, much less Atheists.
Mathenaut 2 months ago
Understanding the new atheism??
If there is one thing people like this DON'T want to do, its understand things, least of all atheism.
Hufflewaffle 3 months ago
Well, Dinesh, thank you for eloquently pointing out why Atheism is superior to religion (even if you didn't intend to do that).
tjb1982 5 months ago
D'souza unwittingly admits religion is wrong, unscientific, mistaken and irrational @2.08. Priceless!
1empathy 5 months ago
Atheist are clearly more moral and better members of society. They are able to see the world more accurately for what it really is and therefore can make better, more moral decisions. Atheists can't be forgiven one day for things they have done, they have to live with consequences forever. Don't believe me, look at us prision statistics. Atheists make up at least 15% of the population put only .209% portion of prisioners.
yodeboubtripin 7 months ago
"Christianity is incendiarism. Christianity is fire setting. A Christian is a person set on fire." Kierkegaard
MrTheRealist 7 months ago
Dumb and dumber. Loved seeing Hitch taking him down.
SkoorbTak 8 months ago
@SkoorbTak Dumb and dumber? You are the one trolling videos, not them.
AegeanKing 8 months ago
@SkoorbTak Almost as much as I loved seeing William Lane Craig taking Hitch apart. Or did you miss that debate? Quite a few atheists cant bear to watch it; poor Hitch got annihilated by common agreement
relarerfhjk 6 months ago
@relarerfhjk "...Hitch got annihilated by common agreement"
Common agreement within the ranks of those who believe that they actually have invisible superfriends who have magical powers, perhaps. This is reminiscent of The Moral Majority (as opposed to the REAL majority.)
ndrthrdr1 6 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 No I meant common agreement among atheists including Hitch's friends,even the atheist blog CommonSenseAtheism admitted Hitchs "got spanked like a foolish child" (their words, not mine!)
I invite you to go through the transcripts if you dont believe me, every argument Hitchens tried to make got shredded to pieces by Craig! At one point, Hitch even said "I dont know any physicists who believe that" only for Craig to instantly quote about 30 top physicists supporting his point!
relarerfhjk 5 months ago
@relarerfhjk If you Google Steve Project you'll see what Craig's doing here. The more intelligent, educated, and informed people are, the less likely to be fooled by Craig and his backers. His list of a few represents by far the minority. It's just a red herring. Craig's target audience doesn't consist of the sharpest pencils in the box.
I have a T-shirt that says:
god = square root of -1
Funny how I get one of two reactions:
1. "I like your shirt!"
2. "What does that mean?”
ndrthrdr1 5 months ago
@ndrthrdr1
So by bringing up atheists who said that Craig clearly outperformed Hitchens one is merely issuing red herrings. Okay, what does your last remark then entials? Certainly doesn't seem very relevant to the topic.
regelemihai 4 months ago
*Entail.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"So by bringing up atheists who said that Craig clearly outperformed Hitchens one is merely issuing red herrings."
Even if Craig did win every debate he's been in (which is clearly not the case), it still would not mean much. It would not be evidence for the existence of any gods, or for any of the claims of Christianity. The only way Craig can prove his position is by showing his god exists. Not with arguments, not with syllogisms, but with actual, hard EVIDENCE.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Says you. Using personal preferences as to what one might consider a given argument as a valid one doesn't say anything. His arguments are valid, both logically and inductively, and they have stood scrutiny for more than 20 years since he started debating. If a logically valid syllogism doesn't satisfy YOU may reflect on your personal bias--not on the nature of the evidence.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"His arguments are valid, both logically and inductively, "
Nope. They are a mix of begging the question, special pleading and arguments from personal incredulity. Most of what Craig says boils down to the tired "god of the gaps" argument.
"they have stood scrutiny for more than 20 years "
They have been slagged immediately, but Craig knows that his intended Christian audience will simply believe everything he says, so he will never change his tune. It makes him good money.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"If a logically valid syllogism doesn't satisfy YOU may reflect on your personal bias--not on the nature of the evidence. "
Why should I believe something without evidence?
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
A logically valid argument with valid premises IS evidence. The problem is that the terms for what you would consider "evidence" are arbitrary and restricted to the dictates of your personal taste. It would be like me saying" well, all of your valid arguments, syllogisms, demonstrations, etc. don't count as evidence." That's a convenient way of excluding all positive cases against your own. That's not right.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"A logically valid argument with valid premises IS evidence."
No, it isn't. Never has and never will. You will have to test it against the real world to see if it has merit. If observations don't support your idea, it's wrong.
"the terms for what you would consider "evidence" are arbitrary and restricted to the dictates of your personal taste."
I follow the scientific definition of evidence, which is not arbitrary in the least.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Never has and never will."
Always has, always will. If something isn't logically valid, it's not true. If it is, it reflects a truism, or an axiom.
Socrates is a man--all men are mortal--socrates is a man. A deductive argument such as this doesn't need to be scrutinized.
"If observations don't support your idea, it's wrong."
There are no observations supporting that there are aliens in the universe. Does a lack of observation in any way demonstrates anything? Well, no; it doesn't.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"If something isn't logically valid, it's not true. "
Yes, but that doesn't work the other way around. Something is not automatically true just because it's logically valid.
"Does a lack of observation in any way demonstrates anything?"
No, If you claim you have discovered aliens, you'd better present some evidence for it. The same holds true for god(s).
Dr. Feynman' explains very well how this principle works in science :
/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"Something is not automatically true just because it's logically valid."
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Explain to me how something can be invalid and still be true? How can something that is logically coherent be un-true? Especially if the premises are true.
"No, If you claim you have discovered aliens, you'd better present some evidence for it."
Now you're switching gears.Beforehand you said that something for which there is no tangible evidence (observation)cannot be true--your words.
regelemihai 4 months ago
But now you're saying that any positive argument requires substantiation. Well, I agree. You can't rest with the fact that since something cannot be disproven it therefore means it's true.
Luckily, there is evidence for God--the same one you've been trying to discard desperately in this post; albeit unsuccessfully.
regelemihai 4 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@regelemihai
"But now you're saying that any positive argument requires substantiation."
Yes!
"Well, I agree. "
Then you agree Craig presents no evidence.
"You can't rest with the fact that since something cannot be disproven it therefore means it's true."
Could it .. could it be ... you're finally getting it???
"Luckily, there is evidence for God--the same one you've been trying to discard desperately in this post"
Oh, for crying out loud! Getting me worked up all for nothing.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"Explain to me how something can be invalid and still be true?"
That's not what I said. You got it backward. I said: "Something is not automatically true just because it's logically valid". Try to read for comprehension.
"How can something that is logically coherent be un-true?"
It is when it doesn't match with observation. Watch that lecture by Feynman to see why.
"Now you're switching gears"
Nope. Aliens logically CAN exist, but you can't say they DO without evidence.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"Try to read for comprehension"
Maybe you should take that advice yourself: " How can something that is logically coherent be un-true? Especially if the premises are true." is followking that sentence, which you clearly noticed.
"It is when it doesn't match with observation"
Everything meshes with observations.
regelemihai 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@regelemihai
"" How can something that is logically coherent be un-true? Especially if the premises are true.""
The premises aren't even true. But even if they were, they still wouldn't form any eviedence.
"Everything meshes with observations."
How so? Craig did not create a physical model which which we can predict the observations of a god. Even if we would grant him his premises, they would still only lead to the conclusion that this universe resulted from something else. That's it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"Aliens logically CAN exist, but you can't say they DO without evidence."
You're saying that now. Before you said that without observations something cannot exist. You can try to avoid this now that I've exposed your error, but it won't help you.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"Before you said that without observations something cannot exist. "
That's not what I said at all. Again: try to read for comprehension.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"That's not what I said at all."
Ehem: "If observations don't support your idea, it's wrong."
Seems like with you it goes way beyond reading comprehension and into outright senility.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"Seems like with you it goes way beyond reading comprehension and into outright senility. "
And with this our "discussion" is over.
Please remember to wipe your chin after you've sucked Craig's dick. Manners are important!
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"And with this our "discussion" is over."
Haha, okay so I'm right--you did say that a lack of observation is evidence in itself. Good.
I agree with you putting "discussion" in quotation marks since this was about as much a discussion as if I were to debate this topic with a 6 year old.And if there was any doubt on the matter,you just prove it in your next infantile and lewd comment: " after you've sucked Craig's dick."
How eloquent! A true credit to the atheistic spirit.Have a good one.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "infinites are used all the time in mathematics"
NOW I see what you didnt realise Hitchens got thumped.You have just proved you dont even get Craig's argument,you just made an embarassing blunder!
Craigs whole point is that infinites are ONLY used in mathematics as they can only exist on paper! It is the existence of an ACTUAL INFINITE that is impossible, since it leads to self contradictions (e.g what is infinity minus infinity)If you knew the arguments you would know that
relarerfhjk 4 months ago
"I follow the scientific definition of evidence"
Judging by the egregious errors you've made in the last post, I'd say that you're far from that. You're using arbitrary standards to define what you youtself consider to be evidence.
"They are a mix of begging the question, special pleading"
Example? I'm asking because I clearly see now that you have no idea what you're talking about in view of the "God of the gaps" accusation. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"Judging by the egregious errors you've made in the last post"
What errors? Be precise.
"arbitrary standards"
So if I come up with compelling arguments for the existence of Santa Claus , that immediately proves he exist? How could that even possibly work? I'd advise you to inform yourself on what scientific evidence actually entails.
"Example?"
"The universe can't be eternal, so I posit this eternal being that made it. " Special pleading pur sang.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"What errors?"
The evidentalist approach you presented. The so called "village atheistm" that pervades the low end sttratus of scholarly atheism.
"So if I come up with compelling arguments for the existence of Santa Claus"
Yes, if you had one. But there aren't.
""The universe can't be eternal, so I posit this eternal being that made it. "
Lol, thought you'd use this one. Well you see, that just proves to me that you haven't really done your HW. It's the same tired old fallacy..
regelemihai 4 months ago
...people bring up when they're faced with the finite nature of space-time.
The universe can't be eternal in the physical sense. Meaning, there can be no inifinite regress of past ACTUAL events given that we have a present. That is undisputed. God is not a material beings, and therefore is not bound by these restrictions. No special pleading here--more like category error on your part.
Actually, given the finite nature of the universe, a creator is a necessary cause. Otherwise we're left..
regelemihai 4 months ago
...arguing that something can come out of nothing which is worse than magic.
If you'd follow his much maligned sylogism, you see that what is claimed is that "whatever *begins* to exist has a cause." Since the universe began toe xist it must have a cause, and since God didn't He doesn't require one. It's not at all special pleading--it's two different propositions to begin with.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"arguing that something can come out of nothing which is worse than magic."
If that is so, than the same applies to Craig's god. You can't have it both ways.
""whatever *begins* to exist has a cause.""
Yes, whatever begins to exist WITHIN THIS UNIVERSE has a cause. But those things are no more than concepts we give a label like "chair", "star", or "I", which are assemblies of pre-existing matter. We can't apply the same logic to the beginning of the whole universe.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"The universe can't be eternal in the physical sense"
Baseless assertion.
"there can be no inifinite regress of past ACTUAL events given that we have a present."
Baseless assertion.
"That is undisputed."
No, it's not. We actually don't know whether those things really exist or not. Craig's claim that we DO know is highly dishonest. And even if they didn't exist, it still wouldn't mean the universe had a beginning in the classical sense.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"Baseless assertion"
Try again.
"Baseless assertion"
Starting to fold under pressure I see.
"No, it's not."
Yes, it is. Your attempt at denying axiomatic truths is amusing, but it doesn't help your position. If a present moment exists the universe ccannot be extended infinitely into the past. A logical contradiction. Try to grapple with the argument. You're failing.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"Try again."
No, YOU try. Give a good explanation why the universe couldn't be eternal, WITHOUT referring to mere intuition. Better yet: show me the math. I'm curious.
"Your attempt at denying axiomatic truths is amusing"
Axiomatic truths? They are far from self-evident. I also don't you see you or Craig using them to formulate a coherent model with which we can test against reality. They're just .... statements.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"Give a good explanation why the universe couldn't be eternal"
Intuition has nothing to do with it. It's of logical necessity--you know, the thing you seem to reject in favor of bending reality to fit your opinion?
The existance of actual infinity is impossible, both logically and mathematically. Since I'm limited in space, I'll reference Hilbert's Hotel (named after the mathematician) as a mathematical argument. As far as logic goes, if the present exists, there could not have been an...
regelemihai 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...an infinite past exnding on the other end of it. Why? Because infinity cannot be traversed. If it could, by DEFINITION, it wouldn't be infinite. Your confusion of logical statements with intuition notwithstanding, the evidence points clearly to an finite past.
" They are far from self-evident"
...to you, yeah.
regelemihai 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@regelemihai
"an infinite past exnding on the other end of it. Why? Because infinity cannot be traversed."
Hogwash. If you admit that this universe stretches infinitely into the future, it could just as easily into the past. In other words: the current time period could simply be a region on a timeline that stretches infinitely in both directions. That is "could not be traversed" is so laughable, that I am baffled how Craig dares to even bring this up.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
...again actual infinites and potential infinites. A universe extending infinitely into the future never actually reaches infinity. If it would, it wouldn't be infinite. Got that? I dunno how much more can this be simplified so that you finally manage to grasp it.
An infinite past is an actual infinite. If it "starts out" in infinity it cannot reach the present since at any given point in time it would need an infinite MORE distnace to reach it!
What's laughable is your abject stupidity.
regelemihai 4 months ago
Mathematically, Hilbert puts this into application by showing that you can subtract equal quantities from an equal set of numbers, and get contradictory answers. Infinites in reality don't exist. Do some research-- for your own good.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"It's of logical necessity"
Which appears to mean that it gives you butterflies in your stomach. That's cute, but merely asserting something that sort of sounds logical doesn't mean it IS logical, or a "necessity".
"The existance of actual infinity is impossible, both logically and mathematically. "
Nonsense. Infinites are constantly used in mathematics.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"Which appears to mean that it gives you butterflies in your stomach"
Not anymore than any other given truth.Whether it gives me butterfiles or not is irrelvant.More red herrings. I can feel your desperation almost.Knowing your position is slowly losing ground would be a troubling prospect to anyone.I say abandon it lest you make an even bigger ass of yourself ;-)
"merely asserting something that sort of sounds logical"
Well it is.Yours is demonstrably not. So,dunno what to tell ya'
regelemihai 4 months ago
"Nonsense. Infinites are constantly used in mathematics"
Oh, the hilarity. Yes, ON PAPER! They're used instrumentally to solve equations. No mathematician assumes the illogical position that actual infinites can exist in reality. I've already pointed this out to you in referencing Hilbert, one of the foremost mathematicians who ever lived.
"If you admit that this universe stretches infinitely into the future, it could just as easily into the past."
Of course not. You're confusing...
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"God is not a material beings"
Another utterly baseless assertion. How do you or Craig know any of that anyway? How COULD you even know? Why couldn't this god have been a material being that died when it made the universe, for instance?
"given the finite nature of the universe"
We don't know whether it's finite or not.
"a creator is a necessary cause"
That simply does not follow. Even a finite universe could be the result of purely natural processes.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"How do you or Craig know any of that anyway?"
Logical necessity. The creator of space and time cannot be part of space and time. Not that hard to follow. "We don't know whether it's finite or not."
I can see philosophy is not your strong suit, but now you're also falling behind on the scientific evidence.
" Even a finite universe could be the result of purely natural processes."
Sure it can. Nature created itself. That makes sense (?!)
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"Logical necessity."
Which seems to be a shortcut for "we pull it out of our asses".
"The creator of space and time cannot be part of space and time. "
Why not? It could have created THIS space and time while being in another. See, it's very easy to attribute qualities to fictional entities.
"I can see philosophy is not your strong suit"
Ah, Craig's standard response when someone points out the flaws in his arguments. How very sad of you to repeat it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"Which seems to be a shortcut for "we pull it out of our asses"."
Trying to mask your obvious lack of any semblence of elementary knowledge of logics with such a childish remark won't save you.
"It could have created THIS space and time while being in another"
Well, apart from the fact that you're ignoring Occam's razor, it still doesn't stand. That other region of spacetime would also have to be created to begin with! It's a convoluted premise, whereas Craig's isn't.
regelemihai 4 months ago
"Craig's standard response when someone points out the flaws in his arguments"
Nah, more like the standard response issued when incompetent dupes cannot grasp even the most basic principles of logic. Pretty straight-forward. Sad indeed.
"Actually, it's "we don't know""
Nice try. You always know with certainty when a given scintific evidence points to a favorble ( preconceived) conclusion, but you turn oh-so modest when an opposin view seems to undemrine yours. Amusing.
Well,...
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"Nature created itself. That makes sense (?!)"
Actually, it's "we don't know", which makes a lot more sense than "I'll invent some entity that created everything so I can justify my unfounded belief in the Christian god".
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
...we do know. We know from the cosmological evidence that the universe is finite, and we know this also logically to be the case. You can either face it, or remain intransigent in your utter ignorance of the facts.
When something is logically incoherent we don't just assume this cute agnostic position.Lets say we're faced with two boxes in which in each one a bue ball and a yellow ball are placed.No matter how much we choose to be skeptical, there cannot be another color ball in either one...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...of the boxes. You can be a little coward and say "we just don't know whether there are different colored balls or not," or you can assume that which logically valid.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"The evidentalist approach you presented."
What is wrong with, you know, LOOKING AT REALITY to verify your claims?
"Yes, if you had one. But there aren't."
There also aren't any for the existence of god(s).
"It's the same tired old fallacy.."
Yes, Craig uses the same fallacy of special pleading over and over, even though it gets pointed out to him so many times. It's stupid to say something can't apply to the universe, only to do a 180 degree turn when it comes to his god.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"What is wrong with, you know, LOOKING AT REALITY"
I've already explained to you in my previous post what's wrong with it and you ignored it. It's not reality to assume logical fallacies as valid argumentation. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that you can't see or observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We don't have any evidence for extraterrestrials, that doesn't in itself say anything. The fact that people not so long ago had no evidence of Quantum....
regelemihai 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...events taking place, doesn't mean they didn't exist.
"There also aren't any for the existence of god"
There are plenty.
"It's stupid to say something can't apply to the universe"
I've already explained away your abject confusion. It's not special pleading. You're just committing a category error. That's all.
"If that is so, than the same applies to Craig's god"
Well, I'm glad you at least admit that your position is incoherent.As far as God goes,he's not material and...
regelemihai 4 months ago
..thereofre the law doesn't apply to him. Two different categories.
"We can't apply the same logic to the beginning of the whole universe."
Now you're offering special pleading. Yes, certainly we can. The proposition says that a cause is needed for any entity to come into existance. If the unievrse did come into existence, it requires a cause. Otheriwse, you're arguing that although it's finite, it came into being from nothing, and without a cause--an incoherent statement in the extreme.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"Now you're offering special pleading. Yes, certainly we can."
No, we can't. You can't compare things existing as assemblies of pre-existing matter with the existence of EVERYTHING, including matter. The same rules do NOT apply, which is the main reason why scientists are scrambling to get to an answer.
Plus, you'll STILL have to explain where this god comes from then. Heck, you'll actually have to explain why it would have to be a god in the first place.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"You can't compare things existing as assemblies of pre-existing matter with the existence of EVERYTHING, including matter."
Red herring.The idea of creation,in this argument, focuses on things that bring about an effect. Whether that effect comes from a pre-existing matter or from nothing is irrelevant.Both require a cause.
And I agree--the same rules don't apply.In creation out of nothing you don't have pre-existing matter-the universe just sprouts out of nothing and without a cause.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"Red herring."
Nope. It's the main problem in Craig's thinking.
"Whether that effect comes from a pre-existing matter or from nothing is irrelevant."
It's VERY relevant. By the way: you're not claiming it came from nothing either. You say: "There's this thing I call god, which did .. uh .. something, and then there was a universe". How? What did it do? How can you say anything about this god-thing when you skip the intermediary steps to get to it?
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"It's VERY relevant"
I'm glad to see you think that is. You haven't provided one iota of evidence, as it is obviously logically invalid, but whatever makes you happy. Truth is, though, it's not relevant. The issue of causation rests on an event that brings forth a cause in time--creation ex nihilo or from pre-existing matter are red herrings.
"you're not claiming it came from nothing either"
Of course not, I'm not a brain-dead atheist.
regelemihai 4 months ago
" How? What did it do?"
Again funny boy, not relevant. The validity of a theory doesn't rest on the conditional that it must be expalined fully in detail. You're grasping at strwas here.
regelemihai 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
""You can't compare things existing as assemblies of pre-existing matter with the existence of EVERYTHING, including matter."
Red herring.The idea of creation,in this argument, focuses on things that bring about an effect. Whether that effect comes from a pre-existing matter or from nothing is irrelevant.Both require a cause.
And I agree--the same rules don't apply.In creation out of nothing you don't have pre-existing matter-the universe just sprouts out of nothing and without a cause.
regelemihai 4 months ago
"you'll STILL have to explain where this god comes from then."
Nonsense. Giving a valid explanation doesn't require detailing every single thing about it. Logical leaps you're making here. The fact that a scientific theory about quantum theory explains a given phenomenon doesn't mean that it won't be valid until every single nuance is explained.
Plus, God doesn't come from anywhere.He's a necessary being--not one localized in spacetime.
It would have to be a God because no material...
regelemihai 4 months ago
..cause can bring forth the creation of matter.Again, not that hard to grasp.
"Which would also apply to this god of yours! "
*faceplam*
For the umpteenth time--no it wouldn't! God isn't material,therefore he's not subject to the same restrictions. If he were, you'd have a point.But now all you're doing is comparing apples to oranges.Stop with this nonsense.
"You might look into Occam's Razor while you're at it."
What does multplying causes beyond necessity have anything to do here?
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"For the umpteenth time--no it wouldn't! "
For the zillionth time: yes it would. Doing otherwise is nothing but special pleading.
"God isn't material"
How do you now? No, really. HOW. DO. YOU. KNOW??????
First you tell me you can't give details about this god, and then you come up with THIS. And you give NO foundation for this WHATSOEVER. Well, other than that you like the idea of it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"Giving a valid explanation doesn't require detailing every single thing about it."
So then you also can't say that this god would be immaterial, personal or eternal. It could just as well be material, impersonal and finite. It could be mindless god, that ceased to exist after it kick-started the universe. It could even in turn have been created by yet another creator.
Saying "something did something to start the universe" is a rather useless statement. We need more detail.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"It could just as well be material, impersonal and finite"
No, because that would be logically invalid. A being that created all of matter and time cannot be a a part of it. I've already said that but you seem to stick to your misguided misconceptions very dilligently.
"that ceased to exist after it kick-started the universe"
Could be. It would still undermine atheism.
"have been created by yet another creator."
Occam's razor does away with that.You really don't know what it is.
regelemihai 4 months ago
"We need more detail"
Again, applying personal tastes to the concesus is a rather dishonest manuever. It's not a standard that more details need to be expalined in order for an a explanation to withstand scrutiny. If that were true, no initial scientific theory would ever pass muster until ALL of the details concerning it would be laid out. What utter nonsense you're spewing.
"How do you now?"
It's a thing called...shhh...the rules of logic. I've been convienced thoroughly now that...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...it is hard to debate someone when that person doesn't even know the basic principles of logic.
To recap: God is immaterial by logical necessity. He cannot be--logically--anything but immaterial because if He were, He would not be able to create all of matter and time. If he's made of matter, he could not have preceded it. Simple logic, moron. Get on that, you're just embarassing yourself.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"quantum theory explains a given phenomenon doesn't mean that it won't be valid until every single nuance is explained."
But unlike you, quantum physicists don't just throw their hand sin the air going "bad luck"! They try to get to the bottom of things. Besides, physicists can at least model the behavior they don't fully understand yet. Where's the comprehensive model for the behavior of your god?
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
" quantum physicists don't just throw their hand"
Bla bla bla, so you're not denying, I see, that you can't reject a hypothesis simply because it doesn't answer all questions. Good, at least we're getting somewhere.
"physicists can at least model the behavior"
Of course, they're dealing with scientific naturalism. You can't model a metaphysical truth--again, apples and oranges. You can test and repeat scientific phenomena. That doesn't mean that since God cannot be put into a test...
regelemihai 4 months ago
..tube, He doesn't exist. The scientific arguments used POINT to aa God. Meaning, the conclusion flows from the evidence.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"The proposition says that a cause is needed for any entity to come into existance. "
Which would also apply to this god of yours! If your god doesn't need cause, then you could save a step and just as easily claim that the universe itself doesn't need one. You might look into Occam's Razor while you're at it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@regelemihai
"I've already explained to you in my previous post what's wrong with it and you ignored it."
Showing you wrong is not the same as ignoring it. Learn the difference.
"It's not reality to assume logical fallacies as valid argumentation."
Then why do you take Craig's arguments so seriously?
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Sure. I am also not saying that I am 100% sure gods don't exist. But I am 100% sure there is no evidence for any.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"The fact that you can't see or observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "
But you also can't claim it DOES exist.
Craig claims he's sure his god is real. Fine. Then he should be able to show us the evidence. Alas, all he does is produce a row of baseless assertions in the form of syllogisms. That's extremely weak-sauce stuff.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"all he does is produce a row of baseless assertions"
All of his assertions are evidence-based. Read his books. He gives pages after pages worth of citations from scientific journals and scholarly works on cosmology. Again, all you're saying is that what will be considered as evidence to you will be based on what YOU find to be conviencing. You're arguing like a 6 year old; honestly now! It's like me saying" well, you have all of your fancy syllogisms,and facts,but that's not real evidence."
regelemihai 4 months ago
"They have been slagged immediately"
He's shamed every single opponent that debated him, and they continue to try to refute him to no avail.
regelemihai 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"that his intended Christian audience will simply believe everything he says"
Charges of bias are hardly relevant as new-atheist dogmatists do the same thing, if not MORE fervently. Dawkinites are the most brainwahsed and stubborn half-wites to ever grace the atheistic movement.
I'm sure Dawkins makes good money too. No more red herrings please.
regelemihai 4 months ago
*half-wits
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"He's shamed every single opponent that debated him"
No, he usually tried to bury them under a pile of nonsensical statements. Craig loves to scattershot his arguments, giving his opponents no chance to address them in the time allotted to them.
Especially scientists have trouble with this, since they value fair and open debates, and tend to be overwhelmed by Craig's dishonesty. Opponents like Harris or Hitchens do a lot better by simply ignoring Craig's red herrings.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
"Craig loves to scattershot his arguments"
Welcome to the world of debates where an opponent can use as many arguments he can in his given time slot. What a concept. Maybe someone should send him the memo that only one or two arguments should be presented in an 18 minute opening presentation so that shallow and intellectually vacuous atheists can feel more confident.
Nice try in attem,pting to avoid the simple fact that no one has managed to even come close to addressing his arguments...
regelemihai 4 months ago
...much less refute them.
"tend to be overwhelmed by Craig's dishonesty"
No, they tend to be overwhelmed by their own apparent lack of intelelctual depth. Every single time he debates them he puts them to shame. ALl they can do--and I have seen them all--is stumble, go off topic, and usually ignore all of the main points brought forth.
I wouldn't use Hitchens or Harris; both of them left those debates with their tails between their legs.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"No, they tend to be overwhelmed by their own apparent lack of intelelctual depth. "
Actually, it's often their intellectual depth that puts them at a disadvantage in a timed debate, which is why Craig loves that format. Craig's view very simplistic: "A magic man dunnit!" His opposition tends to be a lot more sophisticated, but that comes at a price: they need more time to explain their position. Craig knows this and abuses it completely.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
A God has done it is the conclusion. Nice try mischaracterizing the argument. If his position is that simplistic, the atheist's position can equally( and validly, btw) be be charcaterized as " nothingness done it!" which is, as I said, worse than magic. Your failure at addressing the issue pushes you toward making appeals to ridicule and other logical fallalcies--it's the atheist's lifeline. That's what keeps Craig's opponenets going: thier ability to mock, and to garner the audience's sympathy.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@regelemihai
"the atheist's position can equally( and validly, btw) be be charcaterized as " nothingness done it!""
Atheists simply lack belief in gods. That also means though that they can't find simplistic explanations like "a magic man dunnit". They will also often admit that they don't know something, which Craig immediately pounces on: "See? You don't know! So my god did it!" Craig LOVES the god of the gaps and clearly sees admitting not to know something as a sign of weakness.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
" "See? You don't know! So my god did it!" "
And if logical fallacies weren't enough, now we're libeling. Can you tell me where Craig has said any such thing? He's, actually, the only one in his debates who uses scientific arguments, while atheists use rhetorical flourishes and fallacies in a attempt to debunk him. Just come to terms with it. Embrace it.
He never once uses GOTG. You're just making this up. Lying is a sure sign you're growing desperate, realizing you're losing the debate.
regelemihai 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Craig loves the God of the gaps"
He never once argues from god of the Gaps; he explained this in the course of demolishing Hitchens, when Hitch pathetically responded to the Fine-Tuning Argument by saying "we dont even know what we dont know about the Universe" (speak for yourself, Hitch!)
Craig argues from what we DO KNOW e.g the fact the Universe had a begining (see Bord-guth-Villenkin theorem) ;then uses deductive logic to infer the best explanation of those facts
relarerfhjk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Craig loves the God of the gaps"
He never once argues from god of the Gaps; he explained this in the course of demolishing Hitchens, when Hitch pathetically responded to the Fine-Tuning Argument by saying "we dont even know what we dont know about the Universe" (speak for yourself, Hitch!)
Craig argues from what we DO KNOW e.g the fact the Universe had a begining (see Bord-guth-Villenkin theorem) ;then uses deductive logic to infer the best explanation of those facts
relarerfhjk 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Craig loves the God of the gaps"
He never once argues from god of the Gaps; he explained this in the course of demolishing Hitchens, when Hitch pathetically responded to the Fine-Tuning Argument by saying "we dont even know what we dont know about the Universe" (speak for yourself, Hitch!)
Craig argues from what we DO KNOW e.g the fact the Universe had a begining (see Bord-guth-Villenkin theorem) hen uses deductive logic to infer the best explanation of those facts
relarerfhjk 4 months ago
@relarerfhjk Its still God of the Gaps, the ignorance of theists goes a step beyond as they are even ignorant of the fact that they are ignorant. They spout off the ultimate non answers ("magic did it") then feel as if they are the keepers of truth.
Craig wins in his own mind, he spins a web of words worthy of the facepalms he is rewarded with. Eg. Kalam argument = Everything begins - universe began - its magic. The problem with philosophers is that its all words, no substance...CONT
mehico33 3 months ago
@mehico33 "the ultimate non-answers" Its not a "non-answer" if it is the most logical inference from the known facts and our observations.
"all words no subtance" Its perfectly subtantive, but you dont get it; the argument is that mathematics shows infinity couldnt exist, Big Bang cosmology shows nature began to exist, our observations show nothing begins to exist without cause,and nature cant have caused itself to begin to exist! Fine-tuning shows intelligent design for human life
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"the argument is that mathematics shows infinity couldnt exist"
Which is wrong. Mathematicians have no problem with infinites.
"Big Bang cosmology shows nature began to exist"
No, it shows the current observable universe was once very small, dense and hot and then underwent a period of inflation. That's it.
"our observations show nothing begins to exist without cause"
Actually, there are indications events can be uncaused.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "mathematiciains have no problem with infinites"
Infinites ONLY exist in mathematics...the point is they cant exist IN ACTUALITY!!
Thats why the great mathematician John Hilbert said inifinity is just a concept because an "actual infinite" cant exist.
"underwent tinflation"
The Bord-Guth-villenkin theorem (2003) proves EVERYTHING in the Universe had a beginning!
"events can be uncaused"
Name ONE! (and please dont make me explain the quantum-particles fallacy)
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"Infinites (..) cant exist IN ACTUALITY!!"
We don't know that. Actual infinites may well be possible
"John Hilbert said inifinity is just a concept"
No. Hilbert merely pointed out that infinity has some peculiar mathematical properties.
"The Bord-Guth-villenkin theorem"
.. only shows that ALMOST all inflationary models of the universe will reach a boundary in the past. That doesn't mean they all do. The jury is still out there.
Is there something you DO know?
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "we dont know that" we do know it...for two reasons
1),an actual infinite couldnt exist because it would be self-contradictory, which shows its imaginary (see mathematician John Hilberts famous Hilberts Infinite Hotel....Craig explains this well)
2) Big Bang cosmology shows any expanding Universe must be finite
"almost all" Wrong; BGV says any expanding Universe has a beginning... so atheists must believe it all comes from nothing with no cause! THAT takes faith
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"an actual infinite couldnt exist because it would be self-contradictory"
No, it wouldn't. You're just making this up.
"John Hilberts famous Hilberts Infinite Hotel"
Hilbert only used that analogy to demonstrate the peculiar properties of infitines, not to show they are impossible.
"Craig explains this well"
No, Craig completely misses Hilbert's point. He has a way of misunderstanding what scientists say and often tries to make it fit his agenda.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "your just making this up" it was Hilbert himself who wrote tha, in his view,t an actual infinite was impossible.You idiot! It would be self-contradictory because, as Hilbert explained in his example of letting endless rooms, you cant subtract infinity from infinity without getting contradictory answers
"the peculiar properties" No, the example shows an infinite hotel (or infinite anything) is a logically self-refuting concept, and therefore couldnt exist in actuality
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"" it was Hilbert himself who wrote tha, "
Irrelevant. Hilbert showed that inifites have some very peculiar mathematical properties, and he then concluded off the record that they might be impossible because of those. The truth is that we don't know whether actual infinites exist or not.
You shouldn't use the personal opinions of scientists as facts. It's a very nasty habit Craig exhibits as well, likely since he is used to treating opinions as if they were factual.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "we dont know whether actual infinites exist"
He didnt conclude "off the record" he wrote it IN HIS BOOKS! It wasnt a "personal opinion" he showeed why infinity cannot exist in actualty its self-refuting
Just admit it, your all over the place in this discussion...earlier you thought Hilbert/Craig were arguing infinites cant exist IN MATHEMATICS...when nobody has argued that! what they argued was they cant exist in actuality
Just admit it, you dont even get the arguments
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"he wrote it IN HIS BOOKS!"
I don't care even if he had tattooed it on his forehead.
"he showeed why infinity cannot exist in actualty "
No, he doesn't. He simply asserts that he can't imagine that it can exist, so it can't. It's purely an argument from personal incredulity.
"when nobody has argued that!"
Craig wouldn't even know if it exists in mathematics, since he does not have the credentials to evaluate that statement.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"you cant subtract infinity from infinity without getting contradictory answers"
The result of subtracting infinity from infinity is simply infinity. There's nothing contradictory about that.
"the example shows an infinite hotel (or infinite anything) is a logically self-refuting concept"
So? The the universe is not a hotel.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "theres nothing contradictory about that"
Your not seriously engaging in any discussion here, your just clowning around. You dont get how stupid what you have just said is? Inifinity MINUS infinity cannot be infinity you clown! Once again, read Hilbert's Hotel I dont believe you have listened to it or understood it....the hotel is a metaphor to show why infinites only exist in maths in our imaginations, not in actuality
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"Inifinity MINUS infinity cannot be infinity you clown!"
Says who? What do yo base this on? Your gut feeling?
"the hotel is a metaphor to show why infinites only exist in maths in our imaginations, not in actuality"
The metaphor is amusing, but the universe is not a hotel.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"infinites only exist in maths in our imaginations, not in actuality"
By the way: if you really believe this, then it should also apply to any god. Claiming anything else is simply special pleading.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer You might want to check the difference between a quantitative infinity and a qualitative infinity.
ElasticGiraffe 2 months ago
@ElasticGiraffe
"check the difference between a quantitative infinity and a qualitative infinity."
Which doesn't at all matter for Craig's argument.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Actually it does. You obviously don't understand Craig's argument at all.
ElasticGiraffe 2 months ago
@ElasticGiraffe
"You obviously don't understand Craig's argument at all."
*yawn* The standard cop-out for people who defend Craig's lame apologetics. You'll have to do better, really.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Your delusions of rationality are quite sad. Pointing out that you haven't raised a substantive--much less lethal--objection to the coherence of Craig's worldview is not a cop-out. It is simply a fact. Craig argues against the possibility of a quantitatively infinite set of anything, especially an infinite number of events in time, actually existing. He does not state that God is infinite in any quantitative sense. Get with the program.
ElasticGiraffe 2 months ago
@ElasticGiraffe
"Your delusions of rationality are quite sad"
... says the one defending a delusional headcase.
"the coherence of Craig's worldview"
Craig's worldview is merely coherent with respect to its own utter insanity.
"Craig argues against the possibility of a quantitatively infinite set of anything"
Yes, based on his intuition, which doesn't mean diddly squat.
"He does not state that God is infinite in any quantitative sense"
So his fictional god has a fictional property.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"... says the one defending a delusional headcase."
When in doubt, call your detractors delusional. Dawkins has taught you well.
"Craig's worldview is merely coherent with respect to its own utter insanity."
You're so witty.
"Yes, based on his intuition, which doesn't mean diddly squat."
Based on mathematical reasoning, which is evidently WAY over your head.
"So his fictional god has a fictional property."
This doesn't even dignify a response...
ElasticGiraffe 2 months ago
@ElasticGiraffe
"When in doubt, call your detractors delusional."
Hey, YOU started it!
"Based on mathematical reasoning"
Craig doesn't even have the qualifications to approach the question in any meaningful manner, which is clear since he doesn't even grasp the basics.
"This doesn't even dignify a response..."
Craig simply lets his god be what he wants him to be, as long as it furthers his arguments. It's all wishful thinking, begging the question and special pleading.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Hey, YOU started it!"
How old are you, 4? Calling you ignorant is not the same as calling you delusional. Craig is one of the most eminent thinkers in the philosophy of time, and one doesn't need to be a Ph.D. mathematician to discuss mathematical philosophy or logic. You can call Craig's reasoning totally fallacious until the cows come home, but I suspect you have neither the intention nor the intellectual capacity to "back up" your knee-jerk accusations.
ElasticGiraffe 2 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
@ElasticGiraffe
"one doesn't need to be a Ph.D. mathematician to discuss mathematical philosophy or logic"
Craig doesn't know anything about either. His knowledge of mathematics is abysmal, and his logic is limited to "it's true because I want it to be".
"I suspect you have neither the intention nor the intellectual capacity to "back up""
Ah, ad hominem attacks. How quaint.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer u R sooooo rite. criag is just a religous retard who doent kno N E THING!!!1!!1eleven
Stop pretending like YOU know enough to judge that WLC doesn't know anything about his own profession, and go look up the definitions to the myriad of fallacies you keep attributing to everyone else so you'll know how to use them in the future, mkay?
ElasticGiraffe 2 months ago
@ElasticGiraffe
"Stop pretending like YOU know enough to judge that WLC doesn't know anything about his own profession"
Craig's profession is squeezing money out of the purses of the ignorant sheeple who buy his books and attend his sorry excuses for "debates". And I can certainly judge his output, and so can everybody else with a functioning brain, who decides to use it for other purposes than to grovel before the psychopathic, tyrannical and genocidal god of the Bible.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Oh, so you think he is NOT a professional philosopher? He just a scam artist because... he provides arguments for his beliefs with which you violently disagree? Ha. You're right about the debates, though. The outcome is so predictable most of them aren't even worth watching; his opponents consistently under-prepare, and it definitely shows in the poor quality of their arguments and responses.
Let me guess. Unless you're a vehemently anti-Christian atheist, you're a dumbass?
ElasticGiraffe 2 months ago
@ElasticGiraffe
"look up the definitions to the myriad of fallacies you keep attributing to everyone "
Name one fallacy. ONE. I dare you. I already pointed out numerous made my Craig.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Name one fallacy. ONE. I dare you. I already pointed out numerous made my Craig."
lol Seriously, this is just pitiful. Unlike you I don't memorize a bunch of fallacies I don't actually understand and then accuse everyone I disagree with of committing all of them. Do I know fallacies? Yes, I should hope so. I have a degree in the field. Am I going to sound them off to amuse a fractious, upstart twerp? Ha. No.
ElasticGiraffe 2 months ago
@ElasticGiraffe
"lol Seriously, this is just pitiful. "
Yes, so far your arguments have been. But don't feel bad. Theists don't have anything to back up their claims anyway.
"Am I going to sound them off to amuse a fractious, upstart twerp a. No."
In short: you can't mention one fallacy I committed. Thanks for pointing that one out.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ElasticGiraffe
"Calling you ignorant is not the same as calling you delusional"
You said, and I quote: "Your delusions of rationality are quite sad."
"Craig is one of the most eminent thinkers in the philosophy of time"
He claims to be, but in reality he's just another apologist dipshit with delusions of grandeur. His sorry excuses for arguments get blown out of the water even by students of Philosophy 101.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"BGV says any expanding Universe has a beginning"
Again: all we know is that the current observable universe was once very small, very dense and very hot and underwent a period of inflation. We don't know whether this observable part is really all there is, or if the Big Bang entails the beginning of the universe as a whole.
And Craig not only claims that a god created the universe, but that this god also happens to be the one HE believes in. THAT is faith.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"Name ONE! (and please dont make me explain the quantum-particles fallacy)"
Virtual particles and radioactive decay. And no, they are not fallacies, but real events we see occur in nature, however much you try to reason them away.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I was giving you a chance not to reveal your ignorance, by delving into quantum physics. You didnt know why its a fallacy that quantum particles come from nothing?
Because quantum vacuums are not "nothing";they contain a sea of energy, have physical structure and are governed by physical laws! Lawrence Krauss fell into this trap against Craig!!
Virtual particles/radioacive decay are NOT "uncaused" Victor Stenger himself admited physicists are completely divided on this!
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"are governed by physical laws"
And one of those laws is that virtual particles can arise out of nothing. Thanks for making my point for me.
In any case, you still didn't address my rebuttals of your claims that infinites are impossible in mathematics or that the Big Bang is actually the beginning of the universe.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "quantum particles can come from nothing"
I just explained they cant come from nothing...your not too thick to understand that "sea of energy" is not "nothing" whereas Big Bang cosmology shows literally nothing preceded the Big Bang since all space/time reality had a beginning!
"my rebuttal of your claim infinites are impossible in mathematics" for the 6oth time...I did not say they are impossible "in mathematics" but impossible IN ACTUALITY!
Are you utterly thick?
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"Fine-tuning shows intelligent design for human life"
Human life only occurs on one tiny rock orbiting an insignificant star, so the universe is hardly fine-tuned for it.
Fine-tuning is nonsensical anyway. The universe is at it is, and any life in it simply adapted to it, not the other way around.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "any life is simply adapted to it" You have just embarassed yourself. Life could not "adapt" to the Universe because withou the constants being perfectly fine-tuned nothing heavier than helium could exist! No carbon, no matter, no oxygen, no nitrogen, no chemical complexity and no gravity to hold it all together.
You have proved you dont have a clue what your taling about. The life-permitting range of values is tiny and simply couldnt be an accident.
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"Life could not "adapt" to the Universe because withou the constants being perfectly fine-tuned nothing heavier than helium could exist! "
That's not true. There's quite a bit of leeway in the range of a lot of those parameters. And some form could still arise in a universe totally alien to us.
"You have proved you dont have a clue what your taling about."
Projecting is a really nasty habit. Stop it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "a bit of leeway"
Haha!
As Professor Weinberg says "life of any kind requires a cancellation between contributions to the vacuum energy accurate to 120 decimal places"
A berillium isotope,with a TINY half-life of just 0.000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nuclei in that EXACT split of time before decaying ;otherwise no nitrogen, no carbon,no life nothing heavier than helium! It achieves this because of an exquisitely precise energy match between the two nuclei"
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"life of any kind requires a cancellation between contributions to the vacuum energy accurate to 120 decimal places"
He is talking about life as we know it. Life might still arise in other universes with other physical laws.
Jenkins and Perez created models with different values for the fundamental forces, and still came up with universes in which some form of life could be possible. The Weak Force could even be completely eradicated in a lot of cases.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "he is talking about life as we know it"
No he is talking about ANY life....nothing heavier than HELIUM GAS could existt if it wasnt for that extraordinarily fine-tuned constant,
that means NO PLANETS,no gravity to hold everything together, no carbon, chemical complexity or oxygen NOTHING heavier than gas!
The weak-force is one of 30 fine-tuned constants, and its intelligent, complex life that couldnt exist without carbon, nitrogen, oxygen or chemical complexity
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"No he is talking about ANY life...."
He didn't talk about life in other universes where different constants apply.
"nothing heavier than HELIUM GAS could existt? if it wasnt for that extraordinarily fine-tuned constant"
This is just a different way of saying: "if things would be different, then they would be different". Duh! That's not an argument, that's a truism.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk CONT... its like "The Why Question", according to Craig the "most meaningful" of questions, when in reality it is utterly meaningless, it perplexes you, creates the feeling of intimidation, of the deep journey, "what could it be? I am copelled" This is because it has no answer, language allows it to be asked but it has no application, no effect.
He creates a metaphysical real in which his ideas hide from scutiny, it sounds impressive to the credulous but...CONT
mehico33 3 months ago
@mehico33 "its utterly meaningless" it is only meaningless if God does not exist and thats a false assumption but since you cant prove it (any more than you can prove "strings" in physics do not exist, although they havent been directly observed)
"it sounds impressive to the credulous" His ideas on relativity, philosophy of time and philosophy of science have been published in over 200 peer-reviewed journals of philosophy, they dont just "sound impressive to the credulous"
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"it is only meaningless if God does not exist"
And that's a reasonable assumption, seeing how nobody has ever presented any evidence of its existence.
"His ideas on relativity, philosophy of time and philosophy of science have been published in over 200 peer-reviewed journals of philosophy"
Indeed, and NOT scientific journals, since Craig lacks the credentials to say anything sensible about those subjects on a scientific level.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "thats a reasonable assumption"
Logical fallacy! even if we were all blind and had no evidence light existed that wouldnt mean it didnt exist.
"nobody has ever presented evidence of his existence" There is strong evidence of His existence based on history, physics, formal logic and our own observations.
"NOT scientific journals"
Science is based on philosophy.
Craig repeats what the scientists say on these subjects.I can give you the quotes from the top physicists!
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"Logical fallacy!"
Which one? Be precies.
"no evidence light existed (..) wouldnt mean it didnt exist."
If we had no evidence for light, you couldn't just expect everybody to believe you. You'd have to come up with a way to come up with the evidence.
"There is strong evidence of His existence"
All this so-called evidence always turns to be nothing but wishful thinking, begging the question and special pleading.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "be precise" I was very precise. the fallacy is the claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence (or non-existence).
The evidence for God is more compelling than the evidence for atheism, see Fine Tuning
"if we had no evidence you couldnt just expect everybody to believe you" thats not your definition of atheism...you assert God's non-existence, which is a belief not a lack of belief! The same as the blind man asserting light doesnt exist.
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"the fallacy is the claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence (or non-existence)."
If you don't provide evidence for your claims, then why should I believe you?
"The evidence for God is more compelling than the evidence for atheism"
Atheism doesn't require evidence, since it's simply is the lack of belief in gods. The burden of proof rests squarely on the theists' shoulders. All they ever do though is come up with though is sophistry and word play.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"Craig repeats what the scientists say on these subjects"
Yes, Craig always treats scientists as if they were philosophers, presenting their personal opinions as facts. I am only interested though in what scientists present in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
"Science is based on philosophy."
With the big difference that scientists TEST their ideas, instead of merely asserting they are true because they sound fancy.
Try this video by Feynman: /watch?v=b240PGCMwV0
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Craig doesnt repeat their personal opinions...the fine-tuning of over 30 constants for the existence of life, has been demonstrated in numerous journals (you need to get a clue on this subject!) its the inspiration for the nonsensical multiverse hypotheses, which was invented out of thin air to attempt to ressurect a chance-based explanation of fine-tuning!
"scientists test ideas" their criteria for "testing" anything,itself rests on unproveable philosophical assumptions!
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"the fine-tuning of over 30 constants for the existence of life"
Yes, scientists know about the universal constants and study them, but that doesn't mean that there is any such thing as fine-tuning. Life adapted to this universe, not the other way around. And even then, we only find life in an extremely tiny corner.
"nonsensical multiverse hypotheses"
What is nonsensical about them?
"unproveable philosophical assumptions!"
You mean, like the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "there is any such thing as fine-tuning"
Fine-tuning is proved beyond doubt, as the great mathematician Professor Roger Penrose wrote "the values are so precise you literally couldnt write them down"
I feel deeply sorry for atheists who hve to try and pretend this is due to chance, its far more ridiculously improbable a belief than that horses could pop into being from nowhere!
Reason supports theism, atheism is insanely improbable
relarerfhjk 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk
"Fine-tuning is proved beyond doubt"
Only in your feverish imagination.
"the values are so precise you literally couldnt write them down"
So what? We're looking at the universe we developed in, so of course to us it feels like it was made for us. But it's actually the other way around.
"ridiculously improbable a belief than that horses could pop into being from nowhere!"
Nobody is claiming they did, so you're battling a straw man
MomoTheBellyDancer 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk Journals of philosophy... that says it all. Philosophy has had next to no pragmatic effect in the past century, word games.
By the same reasoning Gods existence is a false assertion since you cant prove it. There is no burden on me to disprove your assertions, I see no sign of god (like I see no sign of Goblins or Fairies) and as such should operate on the assumption there is no God. CONT
mehico33 3 months ago
@relarerfhjk CONT... to the skeptic it is transparent. Immaterial = literally nothing.
His "Moral argument" is my favourite because it is easiest to refute, morality is not "objective" as we experience life subjectively, there have been human societies in which it was more acceptable to eat their elderly than their dogs (as dogs are capable of work), all morality is perfectly accountable in terms of biology and the concept of society yet Craig fans think it a strong argument.
mehico33 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Craig loves the God of the gaps"
He never once argues from god of the Gaps; he explained this in the course of demolishing Hitchens, when Hitch pathetically responded to the Fine-Tuning Argument by saying "we dont even know what we dont know about the Universe" (speak for yourself, Hitch!)
Craig argues from what we DO KNOW e.g the fact the Universe had a begining (see Bord-guth-Villenkin theorem) hen uses deductive logic to infer the best explanation of those facts
relarerfhjk 4 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago