@lxAgnosticxl There is a difference between being amazed at the unlikelihood of something and attributing it to intervention by an intentional agent.
If I win the Euromilliions Lottery - 116,531,800 to 1 against - do I immediately leap to the conclusion that somebody I know tampered with the machine? No. I recognize that it was very unlikely to have happened, but it happened anyway, and I go and spend my money.
*SIGH* you really don't get probability if there are 116,532,800 tickets bought then no someone is going to win, F.Tipler a mathimaticain says any probability greater than 10^80 is not chance.
That is not the anthropic principle, The reason this ia an argument for theism is because on theism life is valuable on atheism it's not so theism better explains the fine tuning.
again there is a limit to chance F.tipler puts it at 10^80 and entropy is one out of dozens of constants.
you're missing the point , the point is the universe is very unlikely to exist infact in passes the limit givin by F.Tipler massively so what best explains it ,it can't be chance the odds are far to great much greater than the history of seconds or number of atoms in the universe. It can't be physical necessity they are independent of the laws of nature therefore it's best explained by design. Theism better explains it than Atheism.
The difference is you have specified an outcome which is valuable , you can't possibly tell me an out come is just as likely as a specified out come the difference is
@lxAgnosticxl OK, if you ask a computer for a number between 1 and 10^100, WITHOUT having a "goal" number in mind, WHATEVER number (78, for example) comes up had a 10^100 chance of doing so. You wouldn't bat an eyelid - something had to come up.
However, if you CHOOSE 78 (or a universe with life in it) as the goal, and it comes up, it's NOT chance? Why not? What's different about the second experiment other than the GOAL?
God is the eternal cause, timeless dimensionless, a paradoxical void. That is how many describe the infinite potential of QP also. And God created each mind with himself. And the Quantumobserver can effect the beginning of the universe, says Hawkings. The initial conditions of the universe, support everything the observer does. Do you realize what that means? The first frame of the universe is made in such a way that it must be made by an allknowing observer, knowing what all observers will do.
a) through physics, The vast majority of phycists like Hawking, Penrose, Ress ,Isham etc. agree , what they do is take the ratio that would allow a universe or life and the possible options of how the constants could be and you get the chance that would allow life.
b) the universe could have different physical constants if it did it would either expand to fast for star formation or would collapse or the universe would just be made of hydrogen.
@lxAgnosticxl "the universe could have different physical constants if it did it would either expand to fast for star formation or would collapse or the universe would just be made of hydrogen."
So what? We're here, aren't we? I could have miscarried before I was born, or my mother could have aborted me - should I therefore express amazement at my existence?
No because they can come about because she wanted you or by chance ,but mathematicians know that some odds are too great e.g. Frank tipler says thats around 10 ^80 (and thats being generous but(Con.)
string theory allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature but with different values of the physical constants.
Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. The odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, on the other hand, about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). Penrose calls it “chicken feed” by comparison!
@lxAgnosticxl I will accept those numbers as representative of the scientific consensus - again, so what? It HAS happened; the PROBABILITY of it HAPPENING is moot. These calculations would be relevent if we were discussing FUTURE universes.
The odds against a life-supporting universe could be literally ANYTHING - 10^(10^(10^123)), for all I care - we are HERE, so I am not in the least amazed.
@lxAgnosticxl You are made up of 50% of your father's genes and 50% of your mother's, but there are many possible combinations that could have come out - are you amazed that you're YOU, and not somebody else? Of course not, because if you WEREN'T you, WE wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
A man is to be executed he is put infront of 50 trained marksman , he's blindfolded then he hears the command .....Hault....Aim.....FIRE!!! , yet somehow he is still alive. Is he going to say it would only be relevent if it were in the future obviously not. He would want to know what happened. As for the gene example that is nothing like the fine tuning no matter what the out come the ressult will be the same that a baby is born with the benes of its parents. And entropy s just 1 example
@lxAgnosticxl Hurray! You used the missing marksmen analogy! It doesn't apply to the universe - with the marksmen I was aware of the probability BEFORE the event, and there was a GOAL in mind: my continuing to live. FTA cherry-picks life as the goal.
If I play the lottery and don't win, why am I not amazed? Every combination has a 1/13,983,816 chance of happening, so I should be amazed no matter WHICH one happens? No - the goal is to win, and any other result is discarded.
each universe is just as unlikely , on atheism you can't explain why something of value poped up against extreme odds on theism you can which makes it a better explanation.
@lxAgnosticxl According to FTA, without god each of the possible universes has an equal chance of existing. That means each is extremely UNlikely, but FTA treats life as the only "goal", and lumps everything else into the "non-win" category (even though they're all just as unlikely as this universe).
When do we see something popping into existence from nothing all? The supposition violates the 1st principle of all existence: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit. Nothing has no properties, conditions, or powers. Nothing is nothing. So IF oridnary objects cannot come to be from nothing now, why must we suppose a universe CAN spring into existence from nothing at all 13 billion years ago? The distinction is totally arbitrary. Earlier and later times isn't a relevant distinction! It's special pleading!
@DarkMatter2525 You need a little crash course in philosophy 101. You seem to think that "creation" means "reorganization" with your ridiculous chair example. It does not. I don't know any philosopher who thinks it does mean this. How could it? Either something begins to exist that wasn't there before, in which case, this is a genuine instance of creation ex nihilo; or, nothing began to exist that wasn't there before, in which case it is not an instance of "creation," but of reorganization.
There's a big point that is missed here. We're all just supposed to accept that it's even possible to "alter" the constants. Why must we accept that? Prove they even can be altered. You can't. The argument fails before it even begins.
@DarkMatter2525 But what grounds do you suppose the constants that we do have are necessarily the ones we must have? There is nothing apparently logically or physically necessary about them. And even if there WERE some other Law predicting exactly these contants, it would still be very surprising the numerical relationhsips dictated by the Theory just "happened" to have those values propitious for life. The very same fine-tuning problem just gets pushed up a level to this unknown "law" itself.
@grunderlyme, properly responding to the teleological argument requires more than a 500 character comment. So, I recently made a 7 minute video, which I think thoroughly debunks it. If you're interested it is on my DarkAntics channel and it's called Beating Astronomical Odds. Thanks. Link: watch?v=hKPrBV_PCKs
@DarkMatter2525 You didn't answer my question. And that video makes a big mistake conflating epistemic probability (which is conditional) with objective frequencies about nature (which are absolute). The fine-tuning argument is about the former--not the latter. It is still the case the prior likelihood that THIS universe is life-permitting is much less surprising given God wanted to create it than if it were the result of pure chance. Pr (L|G >> L|~G). So L still confirms G, and disconfirms ~G
@grunderlyme, the very fact that you used the word "likelihood" shows that you didn't understand my video. You are not in a position to claim any kind of likelihood unless you have knowledge that the rest of humanity currently seems to lack.
@DarkMatter2525 No, I can tell you don't understand what epistemic probability actually is. I don't have to know anything about the size of any "sample pot" of the universe to make the epistemic probability judgment that the pr L|G >> pr L|~G based on the evidence of a fine-tuned universe that we actually have. Nor do I have to "assume" anything about whether the constants of the universe "can" be altered. No such assumptions are being made.
@grunderlyme, you ARE making an assumption. You're plugging in an unfalsifiable god hypothesis, which is a hypothesis that has historically had a 100% failed track record when used to explain natural phenomenon before science was able to properly explain the true reason for the natural phenomenon. I'm not saying the god hypothesis is wrong, but its credibility is extremely poor. You don't know enough - nobody does - to justifiably assume god.
@DarkMatter2525 "You simply don't know, and you're jumping to conclusions. Reserve judgement."
--But I am not the one claiming to know life "can" exist under different conditions. You are. You cannot appeal to a merely specualtive possibility as reason for thinking the evidence we DO have that life requires carbon and a very delicate balance of initial conditions to get it started is "wrong" or some such thing. Your alleged "defeater" is totally ignorant.
@DarkMatter2525 Besides, we are not just talking about fine-tuning for life, but the fine-tuning required for our universe to exist at all! If the cosmological constant were much larger than it is, matter would disperse so rapidly that no planets, no stars could exist. W/o stars, however, there would exist no stable energy sources for complex material systems of ANY sort to evolve. It is not unreasonable to think the evolution of life comparable to ourselves requires some stable energy source
@DarkMatter2525 No, I can tell you don't understand what epistemic probability actually is. I don't have to know anything about the size of any "sample pot" of some assumed existence of a multiiverse to make the epistemic probability judgment that the pr L|G >> pr L|~G based on the evidence of a fine-tuned universe that we actually have. Nor do I have to "assume" anything about whether the constants of the universe "can" be altered. No such assumptions are being made.
@DarkMatter2525 Instead of strawmanning what you *think* the fine-tuning argument is, read the following recent peer-reviewed articles published in top philosophy journals by 2 atheists themselves, saying exactly what I said. They are FREE online. Here are 3: White Roger. "Fine-tuning and Multiple Universes" (2000) Nous.
Brad Monton's, "God, Fine-Tuning, and the Problem of Old Evidence" (2006) British Journal of Philosophy.
home (.) messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/FT.HTM
@grunderlyme, furthermore, I think "fine-tuned" is an exceedingly poor way to describe the constants. Life *as we know it* can only exist under those constants in extremely remote circumstances. Perhaps the constants could be tuned in such a way that would be far more hospitable to life. Perhaps they could be tuned to allow for a completely different kind of life. You simply don't know, and you're jumping to conclusions. Reserve judgement.
@DarkMatter2525 Could? That's a big "what if." Insofar as we know, all life requires carbon, & rests on a very delicate balance of initial conditions to get it started. That life requires the exact same conditions throughout our universe is a well-confirmed hypothesis (like the Law of Gravity) until you give me good reason to think otherwise. I am sure most evolutionary biologists would agree w/ me. To conjecture life "might exist" under different conditions is purely speculative on your part
@grunderlyme, I never claimed to know something. In fact, I said the opposite: that I didn't know, and that you didn't know either. 100% failed track record. Yes. Rainbows, lightning, evolution, earthquakes, etc...all once attributed to gods (obvious, widely-agreed-upon attributions), but now attributed to known natural phenomena. Name ONE instance of God conclusively discovered. The fact that you're misinterpreting my posts this badly shows that this will be an utterly fruitless discussion.
@DarkMatter2525 "Rainbows, lightning...once attributed to gods"
--Maybe for pagans who believed Poseidon regularly controlled the weather! But in Judeo-Christian cosmology God has NEVER been hypothesized to be the explanation for the regularities of these phenomena. In fact, it was precisely because Christian Thomism (Aristotleanism) held that the universe operated according to its own Laws and Natural principles independent of Gods jurisdiction that made science possible in the 1st place!
@grunderlyme, I'm sorry but I can't properly respond to a Christian who disregards the bible. It doesn't stop with phenomena. What about God's location? Top of a mountain, the sky, the sun, space, beyond space, etc. Every time we explore a new area, we don't find God, even though He was once thought to be there. Like I said, bad credibility. He's been relegated to a "place" that is the very definition of nonexistence: spaceless and timeless. How do you link Yahweh to the teleological argument?
@DarkMatter2525 Just because they believed miracles happen, doesn't mean Christians thought God himself controlled natural phenomena. Only pagans attributed lighting to Poseidon's constant activity. Their gods were part of the natural world. But Christians ALWAYS held that the Natural world was governed by its own set of Laws and Natural principles. God created these Laws and principles, he wasn't the explanation for phenomena these principles themselves were meant to describe.
@DarkMatter2525 "Rainbows, for example, were clearly attributed to Yahweh in Genesis"
--God told Noah to look for a sign in the form of a rainbow. This is a far cry from saying "God is the explanation for all rainbow-like phenomena." Nice try.
@DarkMatter2525 I am not "misinterpreting your posts." You suddenly started talking about pagan gods as "failed hypotheses" for some reason. Stick to the topic. You can make fallacious red-herrings all you want, it doesn't change the validity or soundness of the fine-tuning argument I offered: Let Pr=probability, "|"=given, L=this life-permitting universe, G=God exists and wanted to create this universe, and ~G=God doesn't exist and this universe is a result of pure chance
@grunderlyme, pagan? Again, misinterpreting. Your reasoning is meaningless because it's based on a completely unfounded assumption. Example: The Cazzarian Army exists wanted to develop a stable energy source to supply their war machine in order to defeat the Luxicons, so they created the universe. Therefore, Pr (L|G >> L|~G). What I just wrote is every bit as valid and unfalsifiable as what you just wrote.
@grunderlyme, no, you could never truly comprehend Cazzarians. They're extra-dimensional beings, far beyond the comprehension of mere humans. See, the god hypothesis has no discipline. You can't sample God, so you can make up whatever characteristics you want to describe Him, just as I did with the Cazzarians, thereby making it an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
@DarkMatter2525 "You can't sample God, so you can make up whatever characteristics you want to describe Him,"
--No you can't. These characteristics have to be logically consistent with the very conditions necessary to create a fine-tuned universe ex nihilo. The first cause has to at least be (1) powerful enough to create a universe ex nihilo, (2) beyond space and time, (3) non-organic (4) So intelligent to be able to fine-tune the myriad of 30-50 constants. The rest is semantics
@grunderlyme, it's all made up. Ex nihilo creation requires how much power exactly? Care to demonstrate? Beyond space and time is the definition of nonexistence. All intelligences we've ever seen are finite and material-based (and by definition require time and space). Furthermore, Yahweh interacts, thereby subjecting him to time and space (and we're supposed to be in His image). There's another video refuting Kalam on my darkantics channel if you're interested.
@DarkMatter2525 " Ex nihilo creation requires how much power exactly?"
--A being for whose power implies necessary existence since merely contingent beings always have an explanation (cause) for their existence in something else. Since you cannot go on indefinitely appealing to other contingent beings since nothing gets explained, there must be that which exists in virtue of the power of its own essence.
@grunderlyme, sure, just like how you can't get to India by going west, right? Again, you're claiming knowledge that currently isn't known. We can't dismiss infinity just because you said so. And Hawking postulates ex nihilo origin without a causal agent. But, hell, even nothingness in and of itself has never been truly observed. All these absolutes you use like "must" and "never" and "always" are clues that you're making mistakes.
@DarkMatter2525 False. We just gave evidence for it in Fine-tuning argument. That's exactly what it concludes, that there is strong overwhelming evidence for the existence of a non-natural intelligent cause using Bayesian Confirmation Theory. I hate to break it to, this "Idiots Veto" Fallacy of yours doesn't work. The conclusion follows logically and necessarily from true premises whether you like it or not. And not once have you given me a reason for thinking any of the premises are false.
@DarkMatter2525 "We can't dismiss infinity just because you said so."
--I don't "just say so." The evidence from Hubble, the Red shift, and the Microwave Background radation all show the universe began to exist some finite time ago. It's amazing you just deny it, when physicists overwhelmingly agree the universe began to exist, including Hawking, Penrose, Davies, Tippler, Barrow, Borde, Guth, Vilenkin. It was even PROVEN back in 1998 and 2003 in the BVG Theorem by Borde, Guth, Vilenkin.
@grunderlyme, you continue to misconstrue my comments. I knew this would be fruitless. I'm not denying the big bang. Are you even aware that the big bang says nothing about the creation of matter or energy, but merely describes what happened to the matter and energy which was already in existence? Because our universe has undergone changes, it does not mean that infinities are impossible. Your appeals to authority are entirely unnecessary. I've even already name-dropped Hawking. Pay attention.
@DarkMatter2525 ". Are you even aware that the big bang says nothing about the creation of matter or energy"
--I know. But are you aware that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin proved (mulitiple times between 1998--2003) that even under all osciallating models of the universe, that the universe must have an origin at some time in the finite past so long as the average Hubble expansion of the universe in the model is >0? Here is quote from Vilenkin himself:
@DarkMatter2525 Vilenkin in his 2006 book "Many Worlds in One" Vilenkin asserts, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (pg. 176)
@grunderlyme, all this, and I never even claimed that the universe is infinite. This is the trouble we fall into when you misunderstand my posts. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough.
@DarkMatter2525 Look, I don't have a problem with the concept of an actual infinity itself (Craig does, I don't.) But what is logically repugnant is an infinite regress of contingent beings without a sufficient explanation (cause) for all contingent existence. What you have is the logical absurdity of an infinite regress of contingent existence suspended in nothing at all. 1x0=0. I don't care how many times you multiply it. There must exist an unconditoned ground of all conditioned beings.
@grunderlyme, well, infinities can be mathematically proven. For instance, you'd never cross a street if each step was half the length of the previous step, even if you took steps forever. I don't see the need for a "being" to always exist. We basically came from a chemical reaction. All causation as we know it is a result of the interactions of preexisting material, whether it be sentient or not.
@DarkMatter2525 " All causation as we know it is a result of the interactions of preexisting material"
--No, causation is not even empirically observable. David Hume demostrated this 300 yrs ago. All we perceive are repeatable regularities of B following A, but never do we see the "causal power" of A to effect B. Causal agency is purely, through and through, a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. I'll prove it: give me ONE scientific theory which utilizes the notion of "cause."
@DarkMatter2525 And furthermore, if everything that begins to exist has a cause, since this is "observed" as you say, then why does Hawking make an exception to the beginning of the universe? This is special pleading. There is no reason to suppose causality holds for everything within our experience, but then suddenly "stop" at the beginning saying, "there is no cause." The universe comes from nothing at all, for no reason whatsoever! --That's what I find ridiculous....[next]
@DarkMatter2525 ....[cont] If you seriously think something can come from nothing, then you should believe it is possible things like bottles of rootbeer, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, and random horses from nowhere springing into existence from nothing at all. This is worse than magic. You would have to think that rabbits can spring into existence from nothing even without the magician or the hat!...[next}
@DarkMatter2525 ....[cont] I doubt Hawking really believes this. What he actually thinks betrays what he says. When he says "nothing" he means a vacuum of fluctuating energy. So whatever a vacumm is, it is not "nothing." Even a vacuum is something. It is also a condition prior to the "bang." But even bangs have bangers. What caused the Bang? Where did this vacuum come from to suddenly emerge into the universe we know today? The very singularity implies the existence of a timeless creator.
@DarkMatter2525 ..Since Hawking doesn't like the evidence of a beginning, he applies a kind of mathematical metaphysics erasing the orign point implied by the very Big Bang model itself. What you get are these "bowls" with no definite beginning. But there was still a beginning, otherwise we wouldn't be here. So there is SOME temporal point in his 4-D spatio manifold regardless. He just converst his spatial coordinates back to temporal one's after Planck time. This is just a sleight of hand
@DarkMatter2525 "We basically came from a chemical reaction."
--Well, if we came from a chemical reaction, then we began to exist. So you side with Craig in stating that we began to exist! But you just criticized Craig for being "dishonest" toward those atheists who denied that anything begins to exist! What DO you believe??
@grunderlyme, seriously? Now you're strawmanning? You know damn well that what we mean is that the atoms that comprise us have always existed - not the unique arrangement of those atoms which we define as "us".
@DarkMatter2525 Then why do you call Craig "dishonest" if you agree with him that you and me began to exist?
Furthermore, atoms have not "always" existed anyway. The hydrogen atom didn't form until some time after Planck time, and the rest of the heavier elements didn't exist until hydrogen-burning stars began fusing hydrogen into heavier elements.
@grunderlyme, ffs. You KNOW what I mean. This was my point about strawmanning. We weren't making the point that we always existed, like he said we were, but rather it was the unique arrangement that was formed, and therefore couldn't really accurately be described as "beginning to exist", but more of a conversion from preexisting material which could have occurred naturally, as we've seen time and time again.
@DarkMatter2525 "We weren't making the point that we always existed, but rather it was the unique arrangement that was formed, and therefore couldn't really accurately be described as "beginning to exist"
--This is invalid. If I am not merely my matter, but ALSO a particularly functional arrangement of matter, that arrangement didn't "always" exist. That arrangement began to exist when my parents conceived me. Therefore, I began to exist when my parents conceived me. duh!
@DarkMatter2525 "You're redefining conversion to mean existence"
--NO! YOU are confusing material constitution with identity. Listen slowly....You agreed that (a) material constitution and (b) the funcitonal arrangements of that material are each necessary and together jointly sufficient conditions for me to exist. Therefore, if either (a) or (b) of my identity did not exist until some time t, then it logically follows that I did not exist until time t. I began to exist at time t. QED
@DarkMatter2525 " Have you ignored EVERYTHING I wrote about why a spaceless timeless being who acts and affects is entirely contradictory? "
--But I already addressed this. It is NOT contradictory because nothing about the concept of Causality presupposes spatio-temporality. You just ASSUME this. I even sent you link to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online showing that. If you want to discuss philosophy, it is about time you get on board with rest of us, both theist and atheist alike.
@DarkMatter2525 "Beyond space and time is the definition of nonexistence"
--No it isn't. You don't have a exclusive monoply over the meaning of the word "Existence" just because you think non-natural beings don't exist. You have to assume the very thing you are trying to prove, that nothing but the natural world exists. Talk about begging the question. I will just "prove" the contrary "by definition." God necessarily exists by definition. So God cannot not exist. Therefore, God exists. Lol.
@grunderlyme, "supernatural" is entirely made up. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. Its characteristics can be whatever you want. Its entirely unnecessary as far as biological functions. Its entirely unnecessary as far as physics. Its only use is so that you can believe in something that defies reality. If God does anything (like create), that's an act. An act requires time. If God affects something, that's physics, requiring space. Your definition of god is entirely contradictory.
@DarkMatter2525 No. God is not in time. "To create" neither implies temporality nor non-temporality. But "to be creating" DOES imply a duration in time. You just assume "to create" means the latter when applied to God. According to 2000 years of well-argued philosophical theology, God is Pure Act without limitation or potentiality. God neither performs arithematic--counting--which requires time, since His knowlege extends to all past, present, future states of affairs in one single "vision."
@DarkMatter2525 " If God affects something, that's physics, requiring space"
--No, "causality" is not a concept showing up ANWYHERE in physics. And causality in no way shape or form presuppose spatio-temporality. Philosophers unanimously agree there is nothing inconsistent about the notion of "simultaneous" causation, non-temporal causation, or even backward causation (see Stanford Encyclopedia of Phil on Causation, Counter-factuals of Causation, Backward Causation, Mental Causation, etc).
@DarkMatter2525 We cannot know something does or does not exist merely based on the defnition of that thing. This is exactly why Thomas Aquinas and almost everyone after him rejected Anselm's Ontological argument for God--because it supposes exactly that.
@DarkMatter2525 "Ah, gotta love special pleading at its finest."
--It isn't "special pleading." If follows logically and necessarily from the conclusions of the Kalam argument, the Contingeny argument, and the Fine-tuning argument. Lol. That an unconditioned necessarily existent non-spatio-temporal being such as God creates a spatio-temporal universe logically necessitates that the being of cause is non-spatio-temporal, and the effect (a natural universe) is spatio--temporal. Duh.
@grunderlyme, an unconditioned necessarily existent non-spatio-temporal being...Um...Wow. It's like I'm trying to convince someone that their Pokemon collection isn't real. This is surreal. Have you ignored EVERYTHING I wrote about why a spaceless timeless being who acts and affects is entirely contradictory? How could a timeless being act? How does a spaceless being affect? I consider all the arguments you mentioned to be bullshit con-artistry, so citing them here is useless. Use your own words
@DarkMatter2525 "I consider all the arguments you mentioned to be bullshit con-artistry"
--I don't fucking care what you think if you cannot back it up with a convincing demonstration all philosophers, theist and atheist alike, can at least recognize as cogent.. Just because you cannot put together a valid objection to save your life doesn't mean THESE argument of philosophy are "bullshit."Either offer convincing arguments otherwise, or take your unjustified "opinions" elsewhere.
@grunderlyme, you've gone nuts here. I've specifically linked you to videos that destroy the very arguments you continue to press (to avoid these pointless, endless threads you seem so keen on). You're not going to solve all these issues here. I tried to be reasonable, and nip this in the bud, but you wouldn't have it. You're obsessed. Look at all these posts! I'm not interested in answering hundreds of unfounded assertions, which is hardly because of an inadequate objection. Take care.
@DarkMatter2525 You didn't send any links to anything. You just bragged about these alleged refutations by amateurs who haven't the first idea about how to defeat a premise to a Craig's valid arguments. I already have a counter-response from Craig himself about these ridiculous arguments here:
@grunderlyme, that's bullshit. The only person I mentioned was myself. I have a video refuting Kalam. It is not properly addressed by Craig. "alleged refutations by amateurs who haven't the first idea..." Careful. Your bias is showing.
@DarkMatter2525 Then send me that link, numbnuts. So far, you're blowing hot air. Do you even know what a "refutation" is? "Refutation" is a strong word. It is technical term in logic/philosophy for meaning "a proof by contradiction." Are you telling one of Craig's premises entails a contradiction based on the defnition of HIS OWN TERMS of "beginning to exist" and "cause"? Which one? Strawmanning Craig won't do you any good. You have to stick with HIS definitions to prove a contradiction.
@grunderlyme, I don't respond well to insults (especially when you're hiding behind a computer). I have four videos on the darkantics channel I referred you to. See if you can use your overfuckingwhelming powers of cognition to determine which video it is (hint: it's called "Why Kalam Fails"). And you might want to watch the video regarding the teleological argument again, since you didn't understand it. In fact, watch all of them. They're all about Craig, and his bullshit tactics.
@DarkMatter2525 But I already told you your mistake. For the last time: You are conflating material constitution with identity. Every single philosopher, both atheist and theist alike, recognizes this distinction. But because you people cannot draw this distinction, you end up never even defeating any of Craig's premises because your assumptions are logical fallacies. You clearly don't how to actually challenge an argument! It's so funnny seeing amateurs make such blunders.
@grunderlyme, I say I don't respond well to insults, so as I predicted, you insult me in every subsequent post, no doubt hoping that I won't respond well. Why? Because you fear I'm right. You're inserting premises into Kalam that aren't there. You're committing logical fallacies left and right: argumentum ad populum and appeals to authority. And all the while calling me an amateur. It's so funny? You're not fooling anyone. If there's laughter to be heard from you, it's nervous laughter.
--No, YOU are. READ CRAIG. Your committing a logical fallacy. I've explained this over and over again. You can't get by with a logical fallacy, kid. What about that do you not understand?
@grunderlyme, you can't prove to me that you're not inserting premises into Kalam until you can show me where the word "identity" can be found in the Kalam argument.
@DarkMatter2525 "Identity" is not found in the Kalam. Listen closely...If material constituion is not identity--which is what you yourself agree with--then your alleged objection falls apart. What about that do you not understand? Do I need to prove this again to you?
@DarkMatter2525 "X begins to exist" for Craig just means "There was no time t-1 prior to t at which x exist, but x exists at time t and at least some subsequent times thereafter." Since everything that begins to exist has a cause (which is necessarily true), & the universe began to exist, then the unvierse has a cause.
It is logically valid and sound syllogism.
(1) For all x, if x begins to exist, then x has a cause.
@DarkMatter2525 I'm' not committing fallacies anywhere! I just proved your objection is MOOT because it is illogical. You yourself agreed material consitiution is not identity because you agreed that I begin to exist upon a the arising of a functional organization of material parts. You also agree that I begin to exist when my parents conceived (caused) me. Everything that begins to exist has a cause since nothing comes from nothing. The universe began to exist. So the universe has a cause.
@DarkMatter2525 Dude, if you think your cute untrained amateur illogical blunders actually refute Craig, a PhD in Philosophy, then go submit this proof for publication to the British Journal of Philosophy. They would be THRILLED to see such an alleged refutation. Again, a refuation is a "proof by contradiction" from a set premises CRAIG would accept. Slipping in your own premises w/o defense, defnition, or even consensus, does not refute Craig.
@grunderlyme, all night you make assertion after assertion without answering the ONE question I care about having answered: the one I repeated 3x, the only reason I'm here. It's a smokescreen. And in the end, it all amounts to "Nah Nah Nah, Craig has a PhD and YOU don't. Ha Ha!" And you, being a much more educated philosopher, find that as a valid rebuttal, do you? You don't see the problem with that, huh? See if you can answer this: why are we wasting our time here?
@DarkMatter2525 Stop blowing smoke. If you can refute a premise, then you need to show that refutation in a proof by contradiction from premises Craig himself agrees with. If you can't do this, then you're full of shit. Either do it now, or give it up.
@grunderlyme, I clearly refuted the first premise in my video. The only way for Craig to NOT agree with the position I attributed to him, and Christians in general, is if he didn't believe in creation ex nihilo, which he most certainly does. The first premise conflates ex materia with ex nihilo.
@DarkMatter2525 No you didn't refute it, punchy. All that talk about different meanings of the word "to create" is an irrelevant red-herring. Let me give you a hint on how you go about actually refuting a universally quantified conditional statement such as, "For all x, if x begins to exist, then x has a cause." This is formally written as "For all x, If Bx then Cx."
To refute this universally quantified conditional...[next]
@DarkMatter2525 ...[cont]...you need to give me at least ONE example of something that begins to exist UNcaused, that is, something that is both Px and ~Qx. Without doing so, the premise stands both undefeated and unchallenged. That there are diff meanings of "to create" doesn't matter. Even parents quite literally make children. Though they didn't bring any material into being, they still gave rise to something existing that did not exist before. New life IS an instance of creation ex nihilo.
@grunderlyme, new life is creation ex nihilo? That's bullshit. You need to prove that people are more than the material that composes them before you can begin to claim that. As soon as you can provide evidence for the soul, you let me know, sparky.
@DarkMatter2525 "prove people are more than material that composes them"
--Well, if people were nothing more than the material that composes them, then no one began to exist so long as their matter existed. So you existed before you were born. But is this true? It certainly doesn't seem so. After all, if you were present at the BB, then why don't you remember it?? Can you please explain this to me? Your assertion is so far contrary to sense AND reason. The burden of proof is clearly yours
@grunderlyme, no one began to exist as long as their matter existed, you say? That's complete bullshit. You've never heard of a chemical change? The characteristics of things change at a molecular level. This change is what you refer to as "beginning to exist", but that's not entirely accurate.
@DarkMatter2525 "no one began to exist as long as their matter existed? That's bullshit."
--Oh, so now you think other things exist other than "heaps of matter?" Like what? Forms? Consciousness? Living organisms? Atoms, molecules, stars, & galaxies? All of these things are instances of something beginning to exist that wasn't there before. And they all began to exist CAUSED by some state of affairs, thing, or event already existing. None are without cause. The 1st premise stands undefeated.
@DarkMatter2525 I cannot believe how dense you are. You sill confuse material constitution with identity, and resist all attempts to understanding this obvious logical distinction. Like I say, ad infinitum, If only matter exists, then living organisms do not exist since living orgamisms, by definition, in ADDITION TO their material parts, are also a certain structural organizations of those material parts having distinct properties like the capacity for reproduction, nourishment, etc.
@grunderlyme, If only matter exists, then living organisms DO exist because they are matter. LIVING ORGANISMS is the label we give to that specific arrangement of matter.
@DarkMatter2525 " If only matter exists, then living organisms DO exist because they are matter."
--You say only matter exists. But then you immediately contradict yourself....
"LIVING ORGANISMS is the label we give to that specific arrangement of matter."
--So living organisms are now "specific arrangements of matter"? Which is it? If arrangements are actual things that supervene on matter in addition to that mattter, then living organisms are not merely their matter. QED
@grunderlyme, wait...so you don't understand that ALL matter is specific arrangements of matter and that we just label those arrangements differently?
@DarkMatter2525 Furthermore, you're just flat out wrong. Living organisms have properties that are distinct from their merely material properties. Organisms also can reproduce, nourish themselves, grow, breathe, excrete, and die. Ordinary material objects like rocks and dirt cannot do these things. So living organisms are something more than the mere sum of their material parts and the spatio-temporal arrangement of those parts.
@DarkMatter2525 "things change at a molecular level. This change is what you refer to as "beginning to exist", but that's not entirely accurate."
--Of course it is not "entirely accurate." It's fucking stupid. X begins to exist at time t if and only if X exists exists at time t, and there is no time prior to t at which X exists. You are now talking about reorginization of pre-existing material, not the coming to be of something that wasn't there before. So stop conflating the two.
@DarkMatter2525 Futhermore, if I were nothing over and above my material parts, then it follows that my conscious thoughts, feelings, hopes, joys, and future plans don't exist. I short, I myself don't exist. But nothing is more obvious to me than that I exist. Even I doubt that I exist, I am still conscious of myself as the one who is doubting. So if you want to prove I am nothing more than my matter, then you need to prove I don't actually exist. We see where the burden lies. Good luck!
@DarkMatter2525 If mere matter can think, then why are rocks and dirt not consicous of themselves, much less sentient? Clearly that would follow from your position. If my consciousness of my-self as one who is conscious were nothing more than thinking dirt, then clearly dirt should be having self-conscious thoughts. But it is not. There exists an fundamental qualitative difference between mental & physical properties that you are ignoring which makes your view perfectly asinine.
@grunderlyme, If mere matter can think? WTF are you on about? I'm talking about a fucking brain - not a rock. A brain is composed of physical matter. We could conduct a simple experiment to demonstrate how your consciousness is entirely reliant on physical matter alone. You and I would be alone in a room, and I would show you how a physical act from me would literally remove consciousness from you. Care to try it?
@DarkMatter2525 " I'm talking about a fucking brain - not a rock."
--But brains don't exist accordiing to you, just matter, carbon, silicon, etc. But even carbon and silicon didn't always exist. They began to exist when fused in the earliest stars. So atoms don't exist either.
"A brain is composed of physical matter."
--Composed? So you admit composition is not identity? A brain might be something more than formless matter?
@grunderlyme, you're completely ignoring my points and reasserting the same crap. You're impossible to teach, because you think you already know. You're actually saying things like "brains don't exist according to you". Is that honestly what you take away from my posts? The brain's matter existed beforehand, but the specific arrangement of that matter didn't. Your new LABEL for that new arrangement does not describe ex nihilo creation. Identity is meaningless in this context.
@DarkMatter2525 "You just described ex materia creation. Thank you"
--No, you dummy. Lol! No new matter was "created." You yourself said this arrangement is nothing more than a label. An "arrangement" is a design, it is an abstract being, not a material heap.
@DarkMatter2525 "We could conduct a simple experiment to demonstrate how your consciousness is entirely reliant on physical matter alone. "
--I never said anything about "dependency" between two kinds of things. We are talking about the alleged identity of one thing with another. So how do you measure consciousness? Consciousness doesn't exist according to you because only matter exists. If consciousness were just dirt, matter, then dirt would be conscious. Is dirt conscious?
@DarkMatter2525 ...[cont] so if you want to actually refute Craig's premise, you need an example of something that DOES begin to exist ex nihilo UNcaused. I don't know of ONE instance of this happening anywhere, but when it comes to the arising and passing away of living organsims, things are coming into and going out of existence all the time. Again, like I said, MATERIAL CONSTITUTION IS NOT IDENTITY.
@DarkMatter2525 "first premise conflates ex materia w/ ex nihilo"
--No it doesn't: YOU are conflating. "Creation ex materia" is NOT actually "creation" at all. It is merely the rearrangement of pre-existing material, & is not a genuine "coming to be." But Craig means creation ex nihilo in ALL cases. Precisely BECAUSE we are something more than the constituion of our material parts, when new life comes into existence that wasn't there before, this is a genuine instance of creation ex nihilo.
@grunderlyme, "we are something more than the constitution of our material parts", that's an unfounded assertion. Ex nihilo creation by an agent has NEVER been observed. Hawking believes ex nihilo creation without an agent. I'm not sure how he arrives at that, as I haven't yet looked into it, so I'll reserve judgement because I respect his intellect. Craig's 1st premise fails for the same reason you do: it's a completely unsupported assertion. The soul has never been proven.
@DarkMatter2525 " Ex nihilo creation by agent NEVER been observed"
--Yes it has. Saying, "you never began to exist" is false. You didn't always exist; you began to exist when your parents conceived you. Is that so difficult to understand? For, if x exists at time t & subsequent times after that, but at no time prior to t did x exist, then necessarily, x began to exist at time t. You think this is wrong? Then you clearly have the wrong conception of what "begins to exist" MEANS.
@DarkMatter2525 "Hawking believes ex nihilo creation w/o an agent"
--No, Hawking obfuscates language like other physicists when talking of this. The quantum vacuum is not absolute non-being or "nothing." It is something. It is a logical contradiction to say the vacuum is "nothing." He believes in the reorganization of the primordial conditions of a quantum vacuum of which the subsequent universe is a later temporal part. Therefore, Hawking does not actually believe in creation ex nihilo.
@DarkMatter2525 "Craig's 1st premise fails: it's a completely unsupported assertion."
--No, you said it fails because it equivocates on "creation ex nihilo" & "reorganization ex materia." But we see this is your own fallacy because Craig means "creation ex nihilo" in ALL cases. That's exactly what "begins to exist" means, as Craig has defined it. In the meantime, not once have you given an example of something genuinely coming to be ex nihilo w/o cause. So the 1st premise stands undaunted
@grunderlyme, right, he MEANS creation ex nihilo in all cases, which we can't grant, because it's never been witnessed. It's totally unfounded and not necessary. So, why grant it? He's hoping we will grant it by conflating it with our experiences of observing ex materia creation.
@DarkMatter2525 "MEANS creation ex nihilo in all cases, which we can't grant, because it's never been witnessed."
--Yes it has. Living organisms have not always existed. They began to exist. And they began to exist due to some causal state of affaris. Everything so far observed to begin to exist has a cause. Not once have we seen anything begin to exist UNcaused. Where have we observed things beginning to exist without a cause? Nowhere. The first premise stands undefeated.
@DarkMatter2525 Again, there's no such thing as "ex materia creation." You're speaking of reorganization of pre-existing material--that's not creation. All creation is ex nihilo, because it is the "coming to be" of something that wasn't there before. Either living organisms begin to exist, in which case they are something more than their material parts. Or organisms are nothing but matter, in which case, they never begin to exist so long as matter is present. You can't have it both ways, genius!
@grunderlyme, organisms are nothing but matter. The matter has been rearranged, thereby requiring a new label from social organisms like us, purely for purposes of practicality and communication. Just because we describe the new arrangement with a different label, it doesn't mean that something new came into existence. It's no different than building a computer. It can do things that the material which composes it previously couldn't. So what? This doesn't justify ex nihilo creation.
--But you just said they are specific arrangements of matter, not merely matter. Which is it? Are they both perhaps?
Also, what happens if I remove your arm from your body? Are you no longer the same person because I removed a piece of your matter? On your view, a living organism is identical to its parts. So when we remove a part of your body, you cease to exist. Is that plausible? Doesn't seem so.
@grunderlyme, physically, I am no longer the same person. Just like I'm no longer the same person I was January 1st, when I weighed 30 more pounds. Practically, if my brain wasn't damaged, then how you identify me personally wasn't changed. Therefore, it would still be practical to refer to me the same way. If I was severely brain damaged in an accident, my name wouldn't change for practical purposes, but you'd surely have a different perception of the me before the accident and the me after.
@DarkMatter2525 Also, not all living organisms are conscious, much less can think rationally. Nor does a rock have the capacity to paint the Sistine Chapel or fall in love. We cannot solve the "hard problem" of consciousness. The qualitative aspect of what it's like to see yellow, e.g., is an irreducibly subjective experience that is impossible to convey w/ a physical description to a blind person who has never seen color before. Mental properties are logically irreducible to physical ones.
@DarkMatter2525 It has EVERYTHING to do with our conversation. For if living organisms and conscious rational beings such as ourselves are something more than the sum of their material parts, then we clearly have an instance of coming to be ex nihilo. I am not even talking about a "soul." I am simply talking about mental properties like "seeing-yellow, what its like to fall in love, and creative inspiration"--none of these properties are physical properties. They are mental properties.
@grunderlyme, No, they are LABELS for how we percieve physical things. You place far too much emphasis on labels. If someone doesn't have the equipment to percieve yellow (eyes), does that mean yellow doesn't exist?!
@grunderlyme, seeing yellow, falling in love, and creative inspiration are all things that can literally be observed with brain scan. We can see different physical areas of the brain light up when the person thinks different things, or is exposed to various stimuli. We know which areas of the brain are responsible for creativity, language, etc. We can even affect them to completely alter someone's personality. If consciousness was beyond physical, as you say, then this shouldn't be possible.
@JMUDoc
Whether you think of it before or after the event doesn't effect the probability, it is still just as unlikely and still just as amazing.
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
@lxAgnosticxl There is a difference between being amazed at the unlikelihood of something and attributing it to intervention by an intentional agent.
If I win the Euromilliions Lottery - 116,531,800 to 1 against - do I immediately leap to the conclusion that somebody I know tampered with the machine? No. I recognize that it was very unlikely to have happened, but it happened anyway, and I go and spend my money.
JMUDoc 1 week ago
*SIGH* you really don't get probability if there are 116,532,800 tickets bought then no someone is going to win, F.Tipler a mathimaticain says any probability greater than 10^80 is not chance.
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
@lxAgnosticxl And who says there aren't/weren't 10^80 lifeless universes other than ours? We have absolutely no way to know.
JMUDoc 1 week ago
Seriously look up probability.
The computer is going to pick a number and each number is equaly as improbable, they have no value over eachother.
A universe with life in it has life that is the difference , life is a value and against all odds has come up.
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
@lxAgnosticxl "life is a value and against all odds has come up."
And this is the anthropic principle summarized in one sentence. WHY is life a value?
"and against all odds has come up." Exactly. "Against all odds" doesn't necessarily mean "somebody had to make it happen".
JMUDoc 1 week ago
That is not the anthropic principle, The reason this ia an argument for theism is because on theism life is valuable on atheism it's not so theism better explains the fine tuning.
again there is a limit to chance F.tipler puts it at 10^80 and entropy is one out of dozens of constants.
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
@lxAgnosticxl "on theism life is valuable on atheism it's not". Correct - and it's this (unfounded) assertion that drives FTA.
Theism proceeds with "life is special, therefore...". I reject this assumption. Life is no more special to me than any other natural phenomenon:).
JMUDoc 1 week ago
(I'm sorry if I'm responding late)
you're missing the point , the point is the universe is very unlikely to exist infact in passes the limit givin by F.Tipler massively so what best explains it ,it can't be chance the odds are far to great much greater than the history of seconds or number of atoms in the universe. It can't be physical necessity they are independent of the laws of nature therefore it's best explained by design. Theism better explains it than Atheism.
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
The difference is you have specified an outcome which is valuable , you can't possibly tell me an out come is just as likely as a specified out come the difference is
1;10^100 to 10^100; 10^100
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
@lxAgnosticxl OK, if you ask a computer for a number between 1 and 10^100, WITHOUT having a "goal" number in mind, WHATEVER number (78, for example) comes up had a 10^100 chance of doing so. You wouldn't bat an eyelid - something had to come up.
However, if you CHOOSE 78 (or a universe with life in it) as the goal, and it comes up, it's NOT chance? Why not? What's different about the second experiment other than the GOAL?
JMUDoc 1 week ago
And that's generous but again the anthropic principle doesn't explain, why?
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God is the eternal cause, timeless dimensionless, a paradoxical void. That is how many describe the infinite potential of QP also. And God created each mind with himself. And the Quantumobserver can effect the beginning of the universe, says Hawkings. The initial conditions of the universe, support everything the observer does. Do you realize what that means? The first frame of the universe is made in such a way that it must be made by an allknowing observer, knowing what all observers will do.
ParadoxEternal 2 weeks ago
FTA is horseshit:
a) Chance is dismissed - why? Does he (or ANYBODY) know anything about the probabilities involved?
b) Life couldn't have arisen with different physical constants? Why not? There's an all-powerful god behind it all, isn't there?
"I can't set the parameters any other way because then I'd prevent myself from being able to put life in the universe..."
I'm glad WLC uses this idiotic thing - it shows how desperate the apologists are. Has anybody raised the above points with him?
JMUDoc 3 months ago
@JMUDoc
You clearly didn't listen did you?
a) through physics, The vast majority of phycists like Hawking, Penrose, Ress ,Isham etc. agree , what they do is take the ratio that would allow a universe or life and the possible options of how the constants could be and you get the chance that would allow life.
b) the universe could have different physical constants if it did it would either expand to fast for star formation or would collapse or the universe would just be made of hydrogen.
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
@lxAgnosticxl "the universe could have different physical constants if it did it would either expand to fast for star formation or would collapse or the universe would just be made of hydrogen."
So what? We're here, aren't we? I could have miscarried before I was born, or my mother could have aborted me - should I therefore express amazement at my existence?
JMUDoc 1 week ago
@JMUDoc
No because they can come about because she wanted you or by chance ,but mathematicians know that some odds are too great e.g. Frank tipler says thats around 10 ^80 (and thats being generous but(Con.)
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
@JMUDoc
string theory allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature but with different values of the physical constants.
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
@JMUDoc
Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. The odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, on the other hand, about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). Penrose calls it “chicken feed” by comparison!
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
@lxAgnosticxl
those numbers didn't come up right they are 1:10^10(123) & 1:10^10(60)
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
@lxAgnosticxl I will accept those numbers as representative of the scientific consensus - again, so what? It HAS happened; the PROBABILITY of it HAPPENING is moot. These calculations would be relevent if we were discussing FUTURE universes.
The odds against a life-supporting universe could be literally ANYTHING - 10^(10^(10^123)), for all I care - we are HERE, so I am not in the least amazed.
JMUDoc 1 week ago
@lxAgnosticxl You are made up of 50% of your father's genes and 50% of your mother's, but there are many possible combinations that could have come out - are you amazed that you're YOU, and not somebody else? Of course not, because if you WEREN'T you, WE wouldn't be having this discussion at all.
JMUDoc 1 week ago
A man is to be executed he is put infront of 50 trained marksman , he's blindfolded then he hears the command .....Hault....Aim.....FIRE!!! , yet somehow he is still alive. Is he going to say it would only be relevent if it were in the future obviously not. He would want to know what happened. As for the gene example that is nothing like the fine tuning no matter what the out come the ressult will be the same that a baby is born with the benes of its parents. And entropy s just 1 example
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
@lxAgnosticxl Hurray! You used the missing marksmen analogy! It doesn't apply to the universe - with the marksmen I was aware of the probability BEFORE the event, and there was a GOAL in mind: my continuing to live. FTA cherry-picks life as the goal.
If I play the lottery and don't win, why am I not amazed? Every combination has a 1/13,983,816 chance of happening, so I should be amazed no matter WHICH one happens? No - the goal is to win, and any other result is discarded.
JMUDoc 1 week ago
@JMUDoc
This anthorpic principle doesn't answer why is the universe fine tunned it just says we shouldn't care thats not much of an answer.
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
each universe is just as unlikely , on atheism you can't explain why something of value poped up against extreme odds on theism you can which makes it a better explanation.
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
Comment removed
JMUDoc 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lxAgnosticxl According to FTA, without god each of the possible universes has an equal chance of existing. That means each is extremely UNlikely, but FTA treats life as the only "goal", and lumps everything else into the "non-win" category (even though they're all just as unlikely as this universe).
JMUDoc 1 week ago
When do we see something popping into existence from nothing all? The supposition violates the 1st principle of all existence: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit. Nothing has no properties, conditions, or powers. Nothing is nothing. So IF oridnary objects cannot come to be from nothing now, why must we suppose a universe CAN spring into existence from nothing at all 13 billion years ago? The distinction is totally arbitrary. Earlier and later times isn't a relevant distinction! It's special pleading!
grunderlyme 6 months ago
I need to go now. Post your 15 replies and be off with you.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 You need a little crash course in philosophy 101. You seem to think that "creation" means "reorganization" with your ridiculous chair example. It does not. I don't know any philosopher who thinks it does mean this. How could it? Either something begins to exist that wasn't there before, in which case, this is a genuine instance of creation ex nihilo; or, nothing began to exist that wasn't there before, in which case it is not an instance of "creation," but of reorganization.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
There's a big point that is missed here. We're all just supposed to accept that it's even possible to "alter" the constants. Why must we accept that? Prove they even can be altered. You can't. The argument fails before it even begins.
DarkMatter2525 7 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 But what grounds do you suppose the constants that we do have are necessarily the ones we must have? There is nothing apparently logically or physically necessary about them. And even if there WERE some other Law predicting exactly these contants, it would still be very surprising the numerical relationhsips dictated by the Theory just "happened" to have those values propitious for life. The very same fine-tuning problem just gets pushed up a level to this unknown "law" itself.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, properly responding to the teleological argument requires more than a 500 character comment. So, I recently made a 7 minute video, which I think thoroughly debunks it. If you're interested it is on my DarkAntics channel and it's called Beating Astronomical Odds. Thanks. Link: watch?v=hKPrBV_PCKs
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 You didn't answer my question. And that video makes a big mistake conflating epistemic probability (which is conditional) with objective frequencies about nature (which are absolute). The fine-tuning argument is about the former--not the latter. It is still the case the prior likelihood that THIS universe is life-permitting is much less surprising given God wanted to create it than if it were the result of pure chance. Pr (L|G >> L|~G). So L still confirms G, and disconfirms ~G
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, the very fact that you used the word "likelihood" shows that you didn't understand my video. You are not in a position to claim any kind of likelihood unless you have knowledge that the rest of humanity currently seems to lack.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 No, I can tell you don't understand what epistemic probability actually is. I don't have to know anything about the size of any "sample pot" of the universe to make the epistemic probability judgment that the pr L|G >> pr L|~G based on the evidence of a fine-tuned universe that we actually have. Nor do I have to "assume" anything about whether the constants of the universe "can" be altered. No such assumptions are being made.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, you ARE making an assumption. You're plugging in an unfalsifiable god hypothesis, which is a hypothesis that has historically had a 100% failed track record when used to explain natural phenomenon before science was able to properly explain the true reason for the natural phenomenon. I'm not saying the god hypothesis is wrong, but its credibility is extremely poor. You don't know enough - nobody does - to justifiably assume god.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "You simply don't know, and you're jumping to conclusions. Reserve judgement."
--But I am not the one claiming to know life "can" exist under different conditions. You are. You cannot appeal to a merely specualtive possibility as reason for thinking the evidence we DO have that life requires carbon and a very delicate balance of initial conditions to get it started is "wrong" or some such thing. Your alleged "defeater" is totally ignorant.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkMatter2525 "You're plugging in an unfalsifiable god hypothesis"
--Uh, no. No one is "plugging in" anything. "which is a hypothesis that has historically had a 100% failed track record "
--100% huh? Wow!--This is a red-herring to our discussion. It is also false.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 Besides, we are not just talking about fine-tuning for life, but the fine-tuning required for our universe to exist at all! If the cosmological constant were much larger than it is, matter would disperse so rapidly that no planets, no stars could exist. W/o stars, however, there would exist no stable energy sources for complex material systems of ANY sort to evolve. It is not unreasonable to think the evolution of life comparable to ourselves requires some stable energy source
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 No, I can tell you don't understand what epistemic probability actually is. I don't have to know anything about the size of any "sample pot" of some assumed existence of a multiiverse to make the epistemic probability judgment that the pr L|G >> pr L|~G based on the evidence of a fine-tuned universe that we actually have. Nor do I have to "assume" anything about whether the constants of the universe "can" be altered. No such assumptions are being made.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 Instead of strawmanning what you *think* the fine-tuning argument is, read the following recent peer-reviewed articles published in top philosophy journals by 2 atheists themselves, saying exactly what I said. They are FREE online. Here are 3: White Roger. "Fine-tuning and Multiple Universes" (2000) Nous.
Brad Monton's, "God, Fine-Tuning, and the Problem of Old Evidence" (2006) British Journal of Philosophy.
home (.) messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/FT.HTM
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, furthermore, I think "fine-tuned" is an exceedingly poor way to describe the constants. Life *as we know it* can only exist under those constants in extremely remote circumstances. Perhaps the constants could be tuned in such a way that would be far more hospitable to life. Perhaps they could be tuned to allow for a completely different kind of life. You simply don't know, and you're jumping to conclusions. Reserve judgement.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 Could? That's a big "what if." Insofar as we know, all life requires carbon, & rests on a very delicate balance of initial conditions to get it started. That life requires the exact same conditions throughout our universe is a well-confirmed hypothesis (like the Law of Gravity) until you give me good reason to think otherwise. I am sure most evolutionary biologists would agree w/ me. To conjecture life "might exist" under different conditions is purely speculative on your part
grunderlyme 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, I never claimed to know something. In fact, I said the opposite: that I didn't know, and that you didn't know either. 100% failed track record. Yes. Rainbows, lightning, evolution, earthquakes, etc...all once attributed to gods (obvious, widely-agreed-upon attributions), but now attributed to known natural phenomena. Name ONE instance of God conclusively discovered. The fact that you're misinterpreting my posts this badly shows that this will be an utterly fruitless discussion.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "Rainbows, lightning...once attributed to gods"
--Maybe for pagans who believed Poseidon regularly controlled the weather! But in Judeo-Christian cosmology God has NEVER been hypothesized to be the explanation for the regularities of these phenomena. In fact, it was precisely because Christian Thomism (Aristotleanism) held that the universe operated according to its own Laws and Natural principles independent of Gods jurisdiction that made science possible in the 1st place!
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, I'm sorry but I can't properly respond to a Christian who disregards the bible. It doesn't stop with phenomena. What about God's location? Top of a mountain, the sky, the sun, space, beyond space, etc. Every time we explore a new area, we don't find God, even though He was once thought to be there. Like I said, bad credibility. He's been relegated to a "place" that is the very definition of nonexistence: spaceless and timeless. How do you link Yahweh to the teleological argument?
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 Just because they believed miracles happen, doesn't mean Christians thought God himself controlled natural phenomena. Only pagans attributed lighting to Poseidon's constant activity. Their gods were part of the natural world. But Christians ALWAYS held that the Natural world was governed by its own set of Laws and Natural principles. God created these Laws and principles, he wasn't the explanation for phenomena these principles themselves were meant to describe.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, lightning was attributed to Zeus. Rainbows, for example, were clearly attributed to Yahweh in Genesis.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkMatter2525 "Rainbows, for example, were clearly attributed to Yahweh in Genesis"
--God told Noah to look for a sign in the form of a rainbow. This is a far cry from saying "God is the explanation for all rainbow-like phenomena." Nice try.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 I am not "misinterpreting your posts." You suddenly started talking about pagan gods as "failed hypotheses" for some reason. Stick to the topic. You can make fallacious red-herrings all you want, it doesn't change the validity or soundness of the fine-tuning argument I offered: Let Pr=probability, "|"=given, L=this life-permitting universe, G=God exists and wanted to create this universe, and ~G=God doesn't exist and this universe is a result of pure chance
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, pagan? Again, misinterpreting. Your reasoning is meaningless because it's based on a completely unfounded assumption. Example: The Cazzarian Army exists wanted to develop a stable energy source to supply their war machine in order to defeat the Luxicons, so they created the universe. Therefore, Pr (L|G >> L|~G). What I just wrote is every bit as valid and unfalsifiable as what you just wrote.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, no, you could never truly comprehend Cazzarians. They're extra-dimensional beings, far beyond the comprehension of mere humans. See, the god hypothesis has no discipline. You can't sample God, so you can make up whatever characteristics you want to describe Him, just as I did with the Cazzarians, thereby making it an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "You can't sample God, so you can make up whatever characteristics you want to describe Him,"
--No you can't. These characteristics have to be logically consistent with the very conditions necessary to create a fine-tuned universe ex nihilo. The first cause has to at least be (1) powerful enough to create a universe ex nihilo, (2) beyond space and time, (3) non-organic (4) So intelligent to be able to fine-tune the myriad of 30-50 constants. The rest is semantics
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, it's all made up. Ex nihilo creation requires how much power exactly? Care to demonstrate? Beyond space and time is the definition of nonexistence. All intelligences we've ever seen are finite and material-based (and by definition require time and space). Furthermore, Yahweh interacts, thereby subjecting him to time and space (and we're supposed to be in His image). There's another video refuting Kalam on my darkantics channel if you're interested.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 " Ex nihilo creation requires how much power exactly?"
--A being for whose power implies necessary existence since merely contingent beings always have an explanation (cause) for their existence in something else. Since you cannot go on indefinitely appealing to other contingent beings since nothing gets explained, there must be that which exists in virtue of the power of its own essence.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, sure, just like how you can't get to India by going west, right? Again, you're claiming knowledge that currently isn't known. We can't dismiss infinity just because you said so. And Hawking postulates ex nihilo origin without a causal agent. But, hell, even nothingness in and of itself has never been truly observed. All these absolutes you use like "must" and "never" and "always" are clues that you're making mistakes.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 False. We just gave evidence for it in Fine-tuning argument. That's exactly what it concludes, that there is strong overwhelming evidence for the existence of a non-natural intelligent cause using Bayesian Confirmation Theory. I hate to break it to, this "Idiots Veto" Fallacy of yours doesn't work. The conclusion follows logically and necessarily from true premises whether you like it or not. And not once have you given me a reason for thinking any of the premises are false.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, I don't even see a need to attack the premises. All I want you to do is prove that G=YOUR G
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "We can't dismiss infinity just because you said so."
--I don't "just say so." The evidence from Hubble, the Red shift, and the Microwave Background radation all show the universe began to exist some finite time ago. It's amazing you just deny it, when physicists overwhelmingly agree the universe began to exist, including Hawking, Penrose, Davies, Tippler, Barrow, Borde, Guth, Vilenkin. It was even PROVEN back in 1998 and 2003 in the BVG Theorem by Borde, Guth, Vilenkin.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, you continue to misconstrue my comments. I knew this would be fruitless. I'm not denying the big bang. Are you even aware that the big bang says nothing about the creation of matter or energy, but merely describes what happened to the matter and energy which was already in existence? Because our universe has undergone changes, it does not mean that infinities are impossible. Your appeals to authority are entirely unnecessary. I've even already name-dropped Hawking. Pay attention.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 ". Are you even aware that the big bang says nothing about the creation of matter or energy"
--I know. But are you aware that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin proved (mulitiple times between 1998--2003) that even under all osciallating models of the universe, that the universe must have an origin at some time in the finite past so long as the average Hubble expansion of the universe in the model is >0? Here is quote from Vilenkin himself:
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 Vilenkin in his 2006 book "Many Worlds in One" Vilenkin asserts, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (pg. 176)
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, all this, and I never even claimed that the universe is infinite. This is the trouble we fall into when you misunderstand my posts. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 Look, I don't have a problem with the concept of an actual infinity itself (Craig does, I don't.) But what is logically repugnant is an infinite regress of contingent beings without a sufficient explanation (cause) for all contingent existence. What you have is the logical absurdity of an infinite regress of contingent existence suspended in nothing at all. 1x0=0. I don't care how many times you multiply it. There must exist an unconditoned ground of all conditioned beings.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, well, infinities can be mathematically proven. For instance, you'd never cross a street if each step was half the length of the previous step, even if you took steps forever. I don't see the need for a "being" to always exist. We basically came from a chemical reaction. All causation as we know it is a result of the interactions of preexisting material, whether it be sentient or not.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 " All causation as we know it is a result of the interactions of preexisting material"
--No, causation is not even empirically observable. David Hume demostrated this 300 yrs ago. All we perceive are repeatable regularities of B following A, but never do we see the "causal power" of A to effect B. Causal agency is purely, through and through, a philosophical concept, not a scientific one. I'll prove it: give me ONE scientific theory which utilizes the notion of "cause."
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 And furthermore, if everything that begins to exist has a cause, since this is "observed" as you say, then why does Hawking make an exception to the beginning of the universe? This is special pleading. There is no reason to suppose causality holds for everything within our experience, but then suddenly "stop" at the beginning saying, "there is no cause." The universe comes from nothing at all, for no reason whatsoever! --That's what I find ridiculous....[next]
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 ....[cont] If you seriously think something can come from nothing, then you should believe it is possible things like bottles of rootbeer, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, and random horses from nowhere springing into existence from nothing at all. This is worse than magic. You would have to think that rabbits can spring into existence from nothing even without the magician or the hat!...[next}
grunderlyme 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 ....[cont] I doubt Hawking really believes this. What he actually thinks betrays what he says. When he says "nothing" he means a vacuum of fluctuating energy. So whatever a vacumm is, it is not "nothing." Even a vacuum is something. It is also a condition prior to the "bang." But even bangs have bangers. What caused the Bang? Where did this vacuum come from to suddenly emerge into the universe we know today? The very singularity implies the existence of a timeless creator.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 ..Since Hawking doesn't like the evidence of a beginning, he applies a kind of mathematical metaphysics erasing the orign point implied by the very Big Bang model itself. What you get are these "bowls" with no definite beginning. But there was still a beginning, otherwise we wouldn't be here. So there is SOME temporal point in his 4-D spatio manifold regardless. He just converst his spatial coordinates back to temporal one's after Planck time. This is just a sleight of hand
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "We basically came from a chemical reaction."
--Well, if we came from a chemical reaction, then we began to exist. So you side with Craig in stating that we began to exist! But you just criticized Craig for being "dishonest" toward those atheists who denied that anything begins to exist! What DO you believe??
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, seriously? Now you're strawmanning? You know damn well that what we mean is that the atoms that comprise us have always existed - not the unique arrangement of those atoms which we define as "us".
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 Then why do you call Craig "dishonest" if you agree with him that you and me began to exist?
Furthermore, atoms have not "always" existed anyway. The hydrogen atom didn't form until some time after Planck time, and the rest of the heavier elements didn't exist until hydrogen-burning stars began fusing hydrogen into heavier elements.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, ffs. You KNOW what I mean. This was my point about strawmanning. We weren't making the point that we always existed, like he said we were, but rather it was the unique arrangement that was formed, and therefore couldn't really accurately be described as "beginning to exist", but more of a conversion from preexisting material which could have occurred naturally, as we've seen time and time again.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "We weren't making the point that we always existed, but rather it was the unique arrangement that was formed, and therefore couldn't really accurately be described as "beginning to exist"
--This is invalid. If I am not merely my matter, but ALSO a particularly functional arrangement of matter, that arrangement didn't "always" exist. That arrangement began to exist when my parents conceived me. Therefore, I began to exist when my parents conceived me. duh!
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, now you're redefining conversion to mean existence.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "You're redefining conversion to mean existence"
--NO! YOU are confusing material constitution with identity. Listen slowly....You agreed that (a) material constitution and (b) the funcitonal arrangements of that material are each necessary and together jointly sufficient conditions for me to exist. Therefore, if either (a) or (b) of my identity did not exist until some time t, then it logically follows that I did not exist until time t. I began to exist at time t. QED
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 " Have you ignored EVERYTHING I wrote about why a spaceless timeless being who acts and affects is entirely contradictory? "
--But I already addressed this. It is NOT contradictory because nothing about the concept of Causality presupposes spatio-temporality. You just ASSUME this. I even sent you link to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online showing that. If you want to discuss philosophy, it is about time you get on board with rest of us, both theist and atheist alike.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "Beyond space and time is the definition of nonexistence"
--No it isn't. You don't have a exclusive monoply over the meaning of the word "Existence" just because you think non-natural beings don't exist. You have to assume the very thing you are trying to prove, that nothing but the natural world exists. Talk about begging the question. I will just "prove" the contrary "by definition." God necessarily exists by definition. So God cannot not exist. Therefore, God exists. Lol.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, "supernatural" is entirely made up. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. Its characteristics can be whatever you want. Its entirely unnecessary as far as biological functions. Its entirely unnecessary as far as physics. Its only use is so that you can believe in something that defies reality. If God does anything (like create), that's an act. An act requires time. If God affects something, that's physics, requiring space. Your definition of god is entirely contradictory.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 No. God is not in time. "To create" neither implies temporality nor non-temporality. But "to be creating" DOES imply a duration in time. You just assume "to create" means the latter when applied to God. According to 2000 years of well-argued philosophical theology, God is Pure Act without limitation or potentiality. God neither performs arithematic--counting--which requires time, since His knowlege extends to all past, present, future states of affairs in one single "vision."
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 " If God affects something, that's physics, requiring space"
--No, "causality" is not a concept showing up ANWYHERE in physics. And causality in no way shape or form presuppose spatio-temporality. Philosophers unanimously agree there is nothing inconsistent about the notion of "simultaneous" causation, non-temporal causation, or even backward causation (see Stanford Encyclopedia of Phil on Causation, Counter-factuals of Causation, Backward Causation, Mental Causation, etc).
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 We cannot know something does or does not exist merely based on the defnition of that thing. This is exactly why Thomas Aquinas and almost everyone after him rejected Anselm's Ontological argument for God--because it supposes exactly that.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "Yahweh interacts, thereby subjecting him to time and space"
--No, God as cause exists outside space-time. Only his effects are spatio-temporal.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, God exists outside space-time, but his effects are spatio-temproal? Ah, gotta love special pleading at its finest.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "Ah, gotta love special pleading at its finest."
--It isn't "special pleading." If follows logically and necessarily from the conclusions of the Kalam argument, the Contingeny argument, and the Fine-tuning argument. Lol. That an unconditioned necessarily existent non-spatio-temporal being such as God creates a spatio-temporal universe logically necessitates that the being of cause is non-spatio-temporal, and the effect (a natural universe) is spatio--temporal. Duh.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, an unconditioned necessarily existent non-spatio-temporal being...Um...Wow. It's like I'm trying to convince someone that their Pokemon collection isn't real. This is surreal. Have you ignored EVERYTHING I wrote about why a spaceless timeless being who acts and affects is entirely contradictory? How could a timeless being act? How does a spaceless being affect? I consider all the arguments you mentioned to be bullshit con-artistry, so citing them here is useless. Use your own words
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "I consider all the arguments you mentioned to be bullshit con-artistry"
--I don't fucking care what you think if you cannot back it up with a convincing demonstration all philosophers, theist and atheist alike, can at least recognize as cogent.. Just because you cannot put together a valid objection to save your life doesn't mean THESE argument of philosophy are "bullshit."Either offer convincing arguments otherwise, or take your unjustified "opinions" elsewhere.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, you've gone nuts here. I've specifically linked you to videos that destroy the very arguments you continue to press (to avoid these pointless, endless threads you seem so keen on). You're not going to solve all these issues here. I tried to be reasonable, and nip this in the bud, but you wouldn't have it. You're obsessed. Look at all these posts! I'm not interested in answering hundreds of unfounded assertions, which is hardly because of an inadequate objection. Take care.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 You didn't send any links to anything. You just bragged about these alleged refutations by amateurs who haven't the first idea about how to defeat a premise to a Craig's valid arguments. I already have a counter-response from Craig himself about these ridiculous arguments here:
/watch?v=7J2msJb18V4&feature=fvwrel
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, that's bullshit. The only person I mentioned was myself. I have a video refuting Kalam. It is not properly addressed by Craig. "alleged refutations by amateurs who haven't the first idea..." Careful. Your bias is showing.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 Then send me that link, numbnuts. So far, you're blowing hot air. Do you even know what a "refutation" is? "Refutation" is a strong word. It is technical term in logic/philosophy for meaning "a proof by contradiction." Are you telling one of Craig's premises entails a contradiction based on the defnition of HIS OWN TERMS of "beginning to exist" and "cause"? Which one? Strawmanning Craig won't do you any good. You have to stick with HIS definitions to prove a contradiction.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, I don't respond well to insults (especially when you're hiding behind a computer). I have four videos on the darkantics channel I referred you to. See if you can use your overfuckingwhelming powers of cognition to determine which video it is (hint: it's called "Why Kalam Fails"). And you might want to watch the video regarding the teleological argument again, since you didn't understand it. In fact, watch all of them. They're all about Craig, and his bullshit tactics.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 But I already told you your mistake. For the last time: You are conflating material constitution with identity. Every single philosopher, both atheist and theist alike, recognizes this distinction. But because you people cannot draw this distinction, you end up never even defeating any of Craig's premises because your assumptions are logical fallacies. You clearly don't how to actually challenge an argument! It's so funnny seeing amateurs make such blunders.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, I say I don't respond well to insults, so as I predicted, you insult me in every subsequent post, no doubt hoping that I won't respond well. Why? Because you fear I'm right. You're inserting premises into Kalam that aren't there. You're committing logical fallacies left and right: argumentum ad populum and appeals to authority. And all the while calling me an amateur. It's so funny? You're not fooling anyone. If there's laughter to be heard from you, it's nervous laughter.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "You're inserting premises into Kalam."
--No, YOU are. READ CRAIG. Your committing a logical fallacy. I've explained this over and over again. You can't get by with a logical fallacy, kid. What about that do you not understand?
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, you can't prove to me that you're not inserting premises into Kalam until you can show me where the word "identity" can be found in the Kalam argument.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "Identity" is not found in the Kalam. Listen closely...If material constituion is not identity--which is what you yourself agree with--then your alleged objection falls apart. What about that do you not understand? Do I need to prove this again to you?
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "X begins to exist" for Craig just means "There was no time t-1 prior to t at which x exist, but x exists at time t and at least some subsequent times thereafter." Since everything that begins to exist has a cause (which is necessarily true), & the universe began to exist, then the unvierse has a cause.
It is logically valid and sound syllogism.
(1) For all x, if x begins to exist, then x has a cause.
(2) Bu
(3) So, Cu
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 I'm' not committing fallacies anywhere! I just proved your objection is MOOT because it is illogical. You yourself agreed material consitiution is not identity because you agreed that I begin to exist upon a the arising of a functional organization of material parts. You also agree that I begin to exist when my parents conceived (caused) me. Everything that begins to exist has a cause since nothing comes from nothing. The universe began to exist. So the universe has a cause.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, omg I didn't agree to any of that. Are you confusing this with an argument you're having with someone else, somewhere else?
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 Dude, if you think your cute untrained amateur illogical blunders actually refute Craig, a PhD in Philosophy, then go submit this proof for publication to the British Journal of Philosophy. They would be THRILLED to see such an alleged refutation. Again, a refuation is a "proof by contradiction" from a set premises CRAIG would accept. Slipping in your own premises w/o defense, defnition, or even consensus, does not refute Craig.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, all night you make assertion after assertion without answering the ONE question I care about having answered: the one I repeated 3x, the only reason I'm here. It's a smokescreen. And in the end, it all amounts to "Nah Nah Nah, Craig has a PhD and YOU don't. Ha Ha!" And you, being a much more educated philosopher, find that as a valid rebuttal, do you? You don't see the problem with that, huh? See if you can answer this: why are we wasting our time here?
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 Stop blowing smoke. If you can refute a premise, then you need to show that refutation in a proof by contradiction from premises Craig himself agrees with. If you can't do this, then you're full of shit. Either do it now, or give it up.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, I clearly refuted the first premise in my video. The only way for Craig to NOT agree with the position I attributed to him, and Christians in general, is if he didn't believe in creation ex nihilo, which he most certainly does. The first premise conflates ex materia with ex nihilo.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 No you didn't refute it, punchy. All that talk about different meanings of the word "to create" is an irrelevant red-herring. Let me give you a hint on how you go about actually refuting a universally quantified conditional statement such as, "For all x, if x begins to exist, then x has a cause." This is formally written as "For all x, If Bx then Cx."
To refute this universally quantified conditional...[next]
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 ...[cont]...you need to give me at least ONE example of something that begins to exist UNcaused, that is, something that is both Px and ~Qx. Without doing so, the premise stands both undefeated and unchallenged. That there are diff meanings of "to create" doesn't matter. Even parents quite literally make children. Though they didn't bring any material into being, they still gave rise to something existing that did not exist before. New life IS an instance of creation ex nihilo.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, new life is creation ex nihilo? That's bullshit. You need to prove that people are more than the material that composes them before you can begin to claim that. As soon as you can provide evidence for the soul, you let me know, sparky.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "prove people are more than material that composes them"
--Well, if people were nothing more than the material that composes them, then no one began to exist so long as their matter existed. So you existed before you were born. But is this true? It certainly doesn't seem so. After all, if you were present at the BB, then why don't you remember it?? Can you please explain this to me? Your assertion is so far contrary to sense AND reason. The burden of proof is clearly yours
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, no one began to exist as long as their matter existed, you say? That's complete bullshit. You've never heard of a chemical change? The characteristics of things change at a molecular level. This change is what you refer to as "beginning to exist", but that's not entirely accurate.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "no one began to exist as long as their matter existed? That's bullshit."
--Oh, so now you think other things exist other than "heaps of matter?" Like what? Forms? Consciousness? Living organisms? Atoms, molecules, stars, & galaxies? All of these things are instances of something beginning to exist that wasn't there before. And they all began to exist CAUSED by some state of affairs, thing, or event already existing. None are without cause. The 1st premise stands undefeated.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 I cannot believe how dense you are. You sill confuse material constitution with identity, and resist all attempts to understanding this obvious logical distinction. Like I say, ad infinitum, If only matter exists, then living organisms do not exist since living orgamisms, by definition, in ADDITION TO their material parts, are also a certain structural organizations of those material parts having distinct properties like the capacity for reproduction, nourishment, etc.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, If only matter exists, then living organisms DO exist because they are matter. LIVING ORGANISMS is the label we give to that specific arrangement of matter.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 " If only matter exists, then living organisms DO exist because they are matter."
--You say only matter exists. But then you immediately contradict yourself....
"LIVING ORGANISMS is the label we give to that specific arrangement of matter."
--So living organisms are now "specific arrangements of matter"? Which is it? If arrangements are actual things that supervene on matter in addition to that mattter, then living organisms are not merely their matter. QED
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, wait...so you don't understand that ALL matter is specific arrangements of matter and that we just label those arrangements differently?
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 Furthermore, you're just flat out wrong. Living organisms have properties that are distinct from their merely material properties. Organisms also can reproduce, nourish themselves, grow, breathe, excrete, and die. Ordinary material objects like rocks and dirt cannot do these things. So living organisms are something more than the mere sum of their material parts and the spatio-temporal arrangement of those parts.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, the ability to do unique things does not make something exempt from physical laws.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "things change at a molecular level. This change is what you refer to as "beginning to exist", but that's not entirely accurate."
--Of course it is not "entirely accurate." It's fucking stupid. X begins to exist at time t if and only if X exists exists at time t, and there is no time prior to t at which X exists. You are now talking about reorginization of pre-existing material, not the coming to be of something that wasn't there before. So stop conflating the two.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 Futhermore, if I were nothing over and above my material parts, then it follows that my conscious thoughts, feelings, hopes, joys, and future plans don't exist. I short, I myself don't exist. But nothing is more obvious to me than that I exist. Even I doubt that I exist, I am still conscious of myself as the one who is doubting. So if you want to prove I am nothing more than my matter, then you need to prove I don't actually exist. We see where the burden lies. Good luck!
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 If mere matter can think, then why are rocks and dirt not consicous of themselves, much less sentient? Clearly that would follow from your position. If my consciousness of my-self as one who is conscious were nothing more than thinking dirt, then clearly dirt should be having self-conscious thoughts. But it is not. There exists an fundamental qualitative difference between mental & physical properties that you are ignoring which makes your view perfectly asinine.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, If mere matter can think? WTF are you on about? I'm talking about a fucking brain - not a rock. A brain is composed of physical matter. We could conduct a simple experiment to demonstrate how your consciousness is entirely reliant on physical matter alone. You and I would be alone in a room, and I would show you how a physical act from me would literally remove consciousness from you. Care to try it?
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 " I'm talking about a fucking brain - not a rock."
--But brains don't exist accordiing to you, just matter, carbon, silicon, etc. But even carbon and silicon didn't always exist. They began to exist when fused in the earliest stars. So atoms don't exist either.
"A brain is composed of physical matter."
--Composed? So you admit composition is not identity? A brain might be something more than formless matter?
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, you're completely ignoring my points and reasserting the same crap. You're impossible to teach, because you think you already know. You're actually saying things like "brains don't exist according to you". Is that honestly what you take away from my posts? The brain's matter existed beforehand, but the specific arrangement of that matter didn't. Your new LABEL for that new arrangement does not describe ex nihilo creation. Identity is meaningless in this context.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 " Your new LABEL for that new arrangement does not describe ex nihilo creation."
--Yes it does, because a new arrangement now exists that didn't exist before.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, "...new arrangement now exists that didn't exist before." BAM. You just described ex materia creation. Thank you.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkMatter2525 "You just described ex materia creation. Thank you"
--No, you dummy. Lol! No new matter was "created." You yourself said this arrangement is nothing more than a label. An "arrangement" is a design, it is an abstract being, not a material heap.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "We could conduct a simple experiment to demonstrate how your consciousness is entirely reliant on physical matter alone. "
--I never said anything about "dependency" between two kinds of things. We are talking about the alleged identity of one thing with another. So how do you measure consciousness? Consciousness doesn't exist according to you because only matter exists. If consciousness were just dirt, matter, then dirt would be conscious. Is dirt conscious?
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 ...[cont] so if you want to actually refute Craig's premise, you need an example of something that DOES begin to exist ex nihilo UNcaused. I don't know of ONE instance of this happening anywhere, but when it comes to the arising and passing away of living organsims, things are coming into and going out of existence all the time. Again, like I said, MATERIAL CONSTITUTION IS NOT IDENTITY.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "first premise conflates ex materia w/ ex nihilo"
--No it doesn't: YOU are conflating. "Creation ex materia" is NOT actually "creation" at all. It is merely the rearrangement of pre-existing material, & is not a genuine "coming to be." But Craig means creation ex nihilo in ALL cases. Precisely BECAUSE we are something more than the constituion of our material parts, when new life comes into existence that wasn't there before, this is a genuine instance of creation ex nihilo.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, "we are something more than the constitution of our material parts", that's an unfounded assertion. Ex nihilo creation by an agent has NEVER been observed. Hawking believes ex nihilo creation without an agent. I'm not sure how he arrives at that, as I haven't yet looked into it, so I'll reserve judgement because I respect his intellect. Craig's 1st premise fails for the same reason you do: it's a completely unsupported assertion. The soul has never been proven.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 " Ex nihilo creation by agent NEVER been observed"
--Yes it has. Saying, "you never began to exist" is false. You didn't always exist; you began to exist when your parents conceived you. Is that so difficult to understand? For, if x exists at time t & subsequent times after that, but at no time prior to t did x exist, then necessarily, x began to exist at time t. You think this is wrong? Then you clearly have the wrong conception of what "begins to exist" MEANS.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "Hawking believes ex nihilo creation w/o an agent"
--No, Hawking obfuscates language like other physicists when talking of this. The quantum vacuum is not absolute non-being or "nothing." It is something. It is a logical contradiction to say the vacuum is "nothing." He believes in the reorganization of the primordial conditions of a quantum vacuum of which the subsequent universe is a later temporal part. Therefore, Hawking does not actually believe in creation ex nihilo.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "Craig's 1st premise fails: it's a completely unsupported assertion."
--No, you said it fails because it equivocates on "creation ex nihilo" & "reorganization ex materia." But we see this is your own fallacy because Craig means "creation ex nihilo" in ALL cases. That's exactly what "begins to exist" means, as Craig has defined it. In the meantime, not once have you given an example of something genuinely coming to be ex nihilo w/o cause. So the 1st premise stands undaunted
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, right, he MEANS creation ex nihilo in all cases, which we can't grant, because it's never been witnessed. It's totally unfounded and not necessary. So, why grant it? He's hoping we will grant it by conflating it with our experiences of observing ex materia creation.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "MEANS creation ex nihilo in all cases, which we can't grant, because it's never been witnessed."
--Yes it has. Living organisms have not always existed. They began to exist. And they began to exist due to some causal state of affaris. Everything so far observed to begin to exist has a cause. Not once have we seen anything begin to exist UNcaused. Where have we observed things beginning to exist without a cause? Nowhere. The first premise stands undefeated.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 Again, there's no such thing as "ex materia creation." You're speaking of reorganization of pre-existing material--that's not creation. All creation is ex nihilo, because it is the "coming to be" of something that wasn't there before. Either living organisms begin to exist, in which case they are something more than their material parts. Or organisms are nothing but matter, in which case, they never begin to exist so long as matter is present. You can't have it both ways, genius!
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, organisms are nothing but matter. The matter has been rearranged, thereby requiring a new label from social organisms like us, purely for purposes of practicality and communication. Just because we describe the new arrangement with a different label, it doesn't mean that something new came into existence. It's no different than building a computer. It can do things that the material which composes it previously couldn't. So what? This doesn't justify ex nihilo creation.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 "organisms are nothing but matter."
--But you just said they are specific arrangements of matter, not merely matter. Which is it? Are they both perhaps?
Also, what happens if I remove your arm from your body? Are you no longer the same person because I removed a piece of your matter? On your view, a living organism is identical to its parts. So when we remove a part of your body, you cease to exist. Is that plausible? Doesn't seem so.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, physically, I am no longer the same person. Just like I'm no longer the same person I was January 1st, when I weighed 30 more pounds. Practically, if my brain wasn't damaged, then how you identify me personally wasn't changed. Therefore, it would still be practical to refer to me the same way. If I was severely brain damaged in an accident, my name wouldn't change for practical purposes, but you'd surely have a different perception of the me before the accident and the me after.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 Also, not all living organisms are conscious, much less can think rationally. Nor does a rock have the capacity to paint the Sistine Chapel or fall in love. We cannot solve the "hard problem" of consciousness. The qualitative aspect of what it's like to see yellow, e.g., is an irreducibly subjective experience that is impossible to convey w/ a physical description to a blind person who has never seen color before. Mental properties are logically irreducible to physical ones.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, this has nothing to do with our conversation. It's completely irrelevant. Move on.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
@DarkMatter2525 It has EVERYTHING to do with our conversation. For if living organisms and conscious rational beings such as ourselves are something more than the sum of their material parts, then we clearly have an instance of coming to be ex nihilo. I am not even talking about a "soul." I am simply talking about mental properties like "seeing-yellow, what its like to fall in love, and creative inspiration"--none of these properties are physical properties. They are mental properties.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, No, they are LABELS for how we percieve physical things. You place far too much emphasis on labels. If someone doesn't have the equipment to percieve yellow (eyes), does that mean yellow doesn't exist?!
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DarkMatter2525 "No, they are LABELS for how we percieve physical things"
--So you are nothing more than a "label"? --a phonetic utterance or a string of words on a piece of paper? yeah, ok.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
@grunderlyme, seeing yellow, falling in love, and creative inspiration are all things that can literally be observed with brain scan. We can see different physical areas of the brain light up when the person thinks different things, or is exposed to various stimuli. We know which areas of the brain are responsible for creativity, language, etc. We can even affect them to completely alter someone's personality. If consciousness was beyond physical, as you say, then this shouldn't be possible.
DarkMatter2525 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago