So many dislikes... I really wish Atheism wasn't popularized by guys like Dawkins, a man of incoherent logic and philosophy, who encourages people to ridicule anyone who believes in God. Sure, there are some Theists who use only faith to believe in God, but Craig uses a lot of respectable, sound reasoning to arrive at his convictions. He should be taken seriously. Not disliked at all. You can't deny the fact that a transcendental figure is needed to secure objective meaning and morality in life.
A secular humanist arguing against the existence of God isn't going to be convinced by any logical argument. There basic assumption in regards to our existence is the premise that 0+0=1
String theory= seven more dimensions we don't interact with.
Dark matter/energy= 95% of the universe we don't interact with.
How can we not accept that we know very very little about reality.
My problem with this argument is the notion of a, "greatest conceivable being." This seems to be a slippery slope into believing that certain beings are somehow greater than others; e.g. humans >antelopes, antelopes > squids, squids > volcanoes, etc. What is the criteria by which we measure the, "greatness," of any being?
The truth is, people who believe in a gradation of, "greatness," in beings can only compare it to their own subjective values as human beings.
@LucCole88 The implication of your statement seems to be that if I believe in a being greater than myself, I must also believe that I am greater than some other being. I would say that is true based on this assumption. However, I would not go so far as to say that there is any more value in assuming greatness within similar beings. There may be more noteworthy individuals, but is Einstein greater than, for illustration sake, Forest Gump? I don't think so, all mankind is created equal.
The ontological argument fails because you can't define something into existence. If you can, an existent unicorn exists, along with an existent unicorn extinction.
The contingency argument fails to make god logically necessary because one could simply substitute the word "cosmos" for the word "god" and the statement works just as well.
I disagree that there is any such thing as a "moral truth", "theres no possible world where its morally acceptable to torture children...", how could you possibly know that? Its possible that there have been societies on earth that found it morally acceptable, not to mention other creatures on plannets, other universes
@mehico33 Why would morality be grounded in god? Morality only exists in those who accept it, it does not exist in the animal/insect kingdoms, only our own (to the best of our knowledge). Unless your concept of morality is simple empathy.
I often wonder that as his "cosmological argument" has been refuted a thousand times but he still sticks to it. People say that he's one of the best apologists around too...
Philosophy has no place in Science, when someone is religious. The problem is how the hell can you study and generate arguments when your biased towards there being a god. It's just daft, the principle to deny that god can exists only as a human delusion makes his arguments seem childlike. Anything that happened thousands of years ago can now be explained by science. In that time things may have seemed GodLike. Craig has no technical ability to debate physics, Maths or Science.
Everything William Lame Craig says in this video assumes the truth of the conclusion that his particular god exists… This one big example of begging the question.
i still dont see why a necessary god necessitates worship. or at least the kind of the worship as defined and illustrated by prayer and praise. worship could be defined otherise
He says it's immoral to torture babies, but makes sure to add "for fun." since god commands torturous death to babies repeatedly he's got to make it clear that it's for a purpose and not just for fun. Glad he cleared that up.
I honestly don't know where to start on this one...
You cannot deny that william is a very clever man, I've never seen such a unique combination of subtle false assertions, logical fallacies and semmantics.
You can imagine how easily this would convince someone who wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.
Agreed, though weirdly it's probably the most compelling 'creationist' argument I've heard. Reminds me of the videos where people proove 2+2=5. Only has to have 1 illogical assertion, or step, and the whole argument becomes meaningless. And for me, that false assertion lies within 'god exists within a necessity of his own nature' which gives the reasonable (yet illogical to anyone who rejects the assertion) assumption that 'god exists necessarily'.
@notransitory1 That's how Craig rolls, though. Listen to any of his debates. He asserts things he can't possibly be sure of, he claims to know what he can't know, and he sets win/lose conditions in debates which are obvious traps for his opponents to try to walk into, and then claims victory when they don't fall for the bait.
Craig can't prove the existence of god or even the likelihood of god, so he does what the religious do best: He tries to trick you and make you buy into his fantasy.
@badpanda84 Whatever the Catholic church has done -- and by the way, I'm sure Craig has some of the same objections to Roman Catholicism that I have -- it doesn't mean they are justified in doing so. The question isn't whether an individual or a group *thinks* something is morally permissible, the question is, is it actually, objectively morally wrong, independent of what any particular individual thinks.
@ebeatworldthe question is, is it actually, objectively morally wrong,"
You can never prove that . Sure you could simply say that rape for instance is objectively morally wrong but that would merely be your subjective opinion
Its like having the objective truth -- everyone claims to have the objective truth but how can you tell..
@ebeatworldthe question is, is it actually, objectively morally wrong,"
You can never prove that . Sure you could simply say that rape for instance is objectively morally wrong but that would merely be your subjective opinion
Its like having the objective truth -- everyone claims to have the objective truth but how can you tell..
@ebeatworld Because morals is something you can never physically prove ( unlike gravity for instance) all you have is people's subjective opinions.. There is no such thing as objective morals.
@badpanda84 Okay. That's fine. But you seemed to have an issue with the Catholic church "torturing small children." My point was, the Catholics may or may not justify this subjectively, but that doesn't mean they are right.
Are you proposing that it's only people's subjective opinions that determines right and wrong? What if a society thought it was okay to torture small children, would they be morally justified? After all, it's just their subjective opinions.
@badpanda84 Okay. Just so we have that cleared up. So if a society said it was okay to throw babies into a burning pit of trash, as many pagan cultures did in the 1st century B.C., they would be morally justified because it's a social and cultural norm?
I'm just trying to find out where you stand. Because if you do agree with that, you and I have a very, very different worldview.
@ebeatworld Because morals is something you can never physically prove ( unlike gravity for instance) all you have is people's subjective opinions.. There is no such thing as objective morals.
A Craige-hater who feels the need to make a snide remark about Craig's expertise as a PhD in philosophy based on a two-minute video is trying to make up for his own failure to apply himself to the real philosophical topics at hand.
"Craig's expertise as a PhD in philosophy based on a two-minute video "
Based on this video, one wonders whether Craig got his Ph.D. with a box of cereal. The whole argument that a god must "necessarily exist" is nothing but empty rhetoric. It has no meaning to anybody who doesn't already buy into his god-belief.
@mypolicy9 Don't get me wrong, I maintain the utmost respect for anyone who can demonstrate erudition and has a PhD to back it up. But you fail to realize that somewhere along the line, Craig bumped his head and has spent the last 30 yrs under the gross misconception that his PhD is an all access pass granting him insight into the supernatural. The man even uses calculus to justify claims of human interaction with the supernatural. Sorry, but he deserves all the derision that comes his way.
@mypolicy9 Philosophy is hard! Oh no, wait, sorry, I was thinking of physics. Philosophy is the one that tries to rationalize the world with fancy sounding rhetoric and without objective basis and physics is the one that rationalizes the world using objective data, advanced mathematical disciplines, and giant BAMFing particle super colliders. A better name for his degree would be, "PhD in Pretendology."
@AletheianAeon Philosophy is not about rhetoric, although rhetoric is a subsection of philosophy, and fancy sounding words. Philosophy gave birth to all subjects in academia; physics, biology, botany, quantum mechanics, psychology, medicine, theology, etc. It all started in the asia minor located ionia with the milesian school. Natural philosophy in those times used the 4 elements of fire, water, wind, earth to deductively establish a basis for creation. It is the aetiology of all disciplines.
@07Aristotle I wasn't specifically using the word "rhetoric" in the same sense a student of philosophy would use it; much like the difference between the colloquial use of "theory" versus the scientific definition. Philosophy did predate all academic subjects; but arguably religion predated philosophy. It doesn't, to me, lend much credibility beyond historical consideration. My comment was meant pejoratively; that our understanding of the world has gone beyond just philosophy.
@07Aristotle In essence, what I meant was that at his best William Lane Craig is only a philosopher and that our understanding of the world has gone far beyond anything he can merely conjecture or poorly rationalize. Philosophy has its place, certainly, but it's nothing compared to the trails other more difficult, more applicable, more relevant disciplines are blazing today.
For a well spoken man Mr.Lane is a one confused puppy. He makes some very serious claims based on some very "un-serious" basis. If he at least gave us some examples or sources of his argument (other than the obvious literary source such as a Bible) perhaps he would not look like tool in a nice suit. He can use his Jedi-philosophical mind tricks all he wants but at the end of the day all we hear is a lot of guesses.
@immortalis1001 I didn't hear him invoke the Bible once in this segment. Perhaps you did.
I don't think he is being tricky with his philosophy at all. He is proposing his ideas in the form of logical arguments. Some logical arguments don't necessarily require sources. If you form a proper logical argument and the premises are true, the conclusion follows logically.
Why a BEING?? Change god by universe and everything he says applies equally... He slightly distorts funny tautologies and thinks he is making a revolutionary argument. This guy is extremely malicious and arrogant...
This is some cirular logic. God cannot have an explanation or cause for his existence or else he wouldn't be God, that means that God exists by a necessity of his own nature and therefore God exists necessarily. Is there any actual real logic in there? I think not.
@SeeYourDoctor It's not circular logic. It's a contest of definition. By logical definition God is that being which possesses maximal possible perfection. One of those properties is necessary existence. But if God is not a necessary being because he depends for his existence on something outside himself, then he lacks the perfection of necessary existence. Hence, God is not God. Contradiction.
""Define what it's like to see yellow to the blind"
that's proof that consciousness is not a function of the brain?""
--No, it's proof that it is logically possible a mind can exist without a brain, even if it is physically impossible. U can't reduce what it's like to see yellow to facts about sense perception since the mind is, in principle, not reducible to physical descriptions.There's an explanatory, logical, gap. Reduction is impossible because mental states are irreducibly subjective
@AgeOfReasonXXI "fine-tuning explains all other forms of complexity like life"
--No it doesn't, dipshit. Evolution explains the complexity of life. The design argument explains the astronomical improbablity of Fine-Tuning. Are you fucking dense??
God, indeed, is first cause of this life-permitting universe. That doesn't entail Design explains complexity on a microcosmic level. Evolution does that. Simply asserting "God can't be the explanation of this unvierse" is not an objection!!
@mypolicy9 you're so fucking stupid, you know that? how retarded a faith-head has to be not to get it that postulating a complex creator as an ultimate explanation of complexity is hopeless? even philosophers on your side like Plantinga say that, yet you're clueless. your moronic anwers, and desparate and pathetic attemps to prove your imaginery friend exists (using Bayes T!) only reveals how badly religion can rot one's brain. go waste somebody else's time
@AgeOfReasonXXI "you're so fucking stupid, you know that? how retarded a faith-head has to be not to get it that postulating a complex creator as an ultimate explanation of complexity is hopeless? "
--Why? That's not an argument. LOL!
"even philosophers on your side like Plantinga say that, yet you're clueless."
--Plantinga defends the Argument from Fine-Tuning in that VERY SAME ARTICLE, dumbass. You are so lost it's pathetic. Get an education, illiterate fuck.
@mypolicy9 "postulating a complex creator is an ultimate explanation of complexity "
--No, it's not, moron. There are plenty of complex phenomena that are not best explained by God. Like I said right from the start, design is not the best explanation for those instances in which randomness is a perfectly likely to have produced a complex phenomenon--such as a snowflake, mitosis, or patterns in the sand on a beach, or the rise and fall of the stock market!
"Let F = the statement, "our universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent, physical life," T = the hypothesis that God exists, N = the hypothesis that naturalism is true, and M = the hypothesis that multiple physical universes exist. Fine-tuning arguments for God's existence can be interpreted as containing a premise that states, Pr(F/T) >> Pr(F/N)."
@AgeOfReasonXXI "Since, again, T is compatible with M and N is compatible with ~M, how could M be relevant to the fine-tuning argument? Since we don't know M to be true, we can't simply equate Pr(F/N) with Pr(F/N&M), or Pr(F/T) with Pr(F/T&M). In effect, consistent with Bayes's Theorem and the Rule of Total Evidence, we have to use a weighted average formula that takes into account both Pr(F/N&M) and Pr(F/T&M), as well as Pr(F/N&~M) and Pr(F/T&~M)."
@AgeOfReasonXXI "I tried to explain to you why we need an explanation in the case of the complex designer: bc you use him as an explanation for organized complexity (since fine-tuning explains why all other forms of complexity, like life)"
--Well Dawkins uses the very low improbabilities of "random chance" to explain how the complexity of life is possible. So I guess Dawkins needs an explanation for why genetic mutations are random in the first place--and so on, ad infinitum
@AgeOfReasonXXI "yet, you see no problem in explaining this with a COMPLEX God, whose "ridiculously high level of complexity..."
--You're just dead wrong. God is not complex. And even if he were, this doesn't invalidate the inference to design as the best and simplest explanation as has been explained ad infinitum by Plantinga, Swinburne, and every other philosopher of science. No one endorses this view even among atheists except Dawkins and a very small minority of materialists.
@AgeOfReasonXXI Random mutation means nothing more than "Chance did it." But you need to explain why mutations are random in order for random chance to be a good explanation.Then u need to explain that explanation in turn, & so off to infinity--otherwise you don't explain anything. But then nothing gets explained if we are always required to explain the explanation, and Dawkins has just therefore killed all scientific explanations, since ALL of them stop somwhere on some brute unexplained fact.
@mypolicy9 " Why did it mutate? "It just happened" is not an explanation because no one can explain why it happened. Therefore, random mutation is not a good explanation."
apparently you're ignorant of evolutionary biology. there are various causes for the mutations, but mainly copying error. radiation due to cosmic rays can also cause mutations. this also explains why certain cells mutate and become cancer cells. so it is you who have to get an education. in science
@AgeOfReasonXXI There are some causes of mutation. But most of them are entirely random due to complete spontaneous molecular decay of the base pairs on the DNA strands during replication. The half-life of subatomic particle decay is entirely random, too. Why are these things random? You haven't explained anything. "Chance did it" is not an explanation.
@AgeOfReasonXXI "fine-tuning which would be "absent-mined" since it leaves unexplained the uncreated mind"
--No. Repeatedly asserting this falsity doesn't make it any more true. I don't need to explain the existence of God for the hypothesis of Design to best explain the Fine-Tuning of the universe's constants, just as I don't need to explain the lost tribe, where they came from, & how long they lived in order for design to best explain the existence of broken pottery shards & arrowheads
@AgeOfReasonXXI "... eventhough he created our Universe, there are other Universes which he didn't create and therefore he's not the unlimate explanation of organized complexity"
--No one is postulating that God is the ultimate explanation for organized complexity, so your argument is a strawman, dipshit.
Furthermore, design is a perfectly warranted simple explanation for complex phenomena, especially as a simple explanation for the Fine-Tuning of the univers's constants. End of story.
@mypolicy9 "design is a perfectly warranted simple explanation for complex phenomena, especially as a simple explanation for the Fine-Tuning of the univers's constants"
not if your designer is complex, bc you're postulating more complexity to account for complexity, so you're shooting yourself in the foot.
@AgeOfReasonXXI "not if your designer is complex, bc you're postulating more complexity to account for complexity, so you're shooting yourself in the foot. " --It doesn't matter. Once again, my little squirrel, God is simple. But even if he were complex, the hypothesis of Design is a simple explanation of complexity that could not have arisen by chance alone. GOD'S NATURE DOESN'T AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE INFERENCE. Get an education.
@AgeOfReasonXXI "ULTIMATE cexplanation of organized complexity in general, would be unwarranted"
--It all depends on each specific case, sure!!!! I've already said earlier that in some evolutionary cases, for instance, complexity can be explained without design. NO ONE is defending the proposition that,
"Design is ALWAYS the best explanation for complexity," MORON!
@mypolicy9 " I've already said earlier that in some evolutionary cases, for instance, complexity can be explained without design"
and I'm not talking about "some evolutionary cases" when I say a complex designer can't be used to explain complexity, you idiot! I'm talking about postulating this designer as an ultimate explanation of the organized complexity in general. and since you seem to be hopelessly lost, I see no point in continuing the discussion. for the second and last time
@AgeOfReasonXXI Plantinga is right. What's your malfunction? Furthermore, how can it possibly be the case that Plantinga who is arguing against Dawkins be also supporting Dawkins argument?
Moreover, I agreed Plantinga when I explicitly said earlier that, "I am willing to allow that in some cases chance is a perfectly likely and good explanation for complexity. I don't deny this."
But Fine-Tuning of the universe's constants is a whole other ball game. Plantinga even supports Design here
@mypolicy9 Plantinga is arguing Design (in the case the designer is complex) would be a proper inferrence UNLESS it's used as an ULTIMATE explanation. and I agree! in fact even Dawkins agrees that it might be possible to detect design: in the case life was seeded by aliens, say (directed panspermia). but for a 100th time, that's not giving ultimate explanation of eorganized complexity in general. that's why it's warranted. and that's what Plantinga also says. read it again
by explanation of complexity "in general", I don't mean "always", dumbass. but about the unwarranted move of providing a final, ultimate acount of organized complexity (that would be the complex and delicate ballancing of nature's constants that in turn give rise to even more complext structures, like life) by postulating more complexity (the designer).
"Design is ALWAYS the best explanation for complexity" LOL.
But in specific cases, it is. So whether or not design is a good inference will always depend on the particular case at hand, and the weighing of competing hypotheses an explanations.
@mypolicy9 you can also postulate a complex god, but if that's the same god who also designed the whole Universe, and therefore he is actually the ultimate explanation of organized complexity, then you can't infer him, bc he's not explainable by some process that starts from simplicity which is the case with the aliens. do you get it now?
@AgeOfReasonXXI "therefore he is actually the ultimate explanation of organized complexity, then you can't infer him, bc he's not explainable by some process that starts from simplicity"
--According your rule, then, postulating the complexity of evolution to explain complex phenomena is unwarranted since evolution doesn't start from simplicity, but is ultimately complex--we would thus need an explanation of the explanation, and so on into infinity. So evolution doesn't explain anything.
@mypolicy9 "evolution doesn't start from simplicity"
you don't understand the first thing about evolution. the power of the theory of Darwinian evolution is preciesly that it starts with simplicity, you ignorant fool, like the first self-repicating molecule, and builds up from there. but even IF it was complex, it would still be warranted bc that's not ultimate explanation pf organized complexity.
"No one is postulating that God is the ultimate explanation for organized complexit" HAHA moron!
@AgeOfReasonXXI Yes! Plantinga just refuted everything you're saying!! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! LOL! Read it again. He is saying the EXACT same thing Craig, me, and everyone else is who doesn't have a wedge in their brain.
@mypolicy9 are you a complete retard?? look at both Plantinga's statement and mine, and if you can't see that they are saying the same thing, you're nuts!!
@AgeOfReasonXXI You're fucking lost dude. Plantina is arguing FOR the cogency of Design-type inferences, not against them. You truly are stupid. Read what you posted again.
@mypolicy9 Plantinga" "And (unless you are trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity)...."
so he agrees that if the designer is complex, you are justified in using him as an explanation of life on earth, but not as an ultimate expl.
of course, Plantinga goes on to argue that in fact God is simple, and hense you can use him to explain fine-tunning. and I agree: IF god is simple, the design hypothesis is justified. but 'god is simpl'e seem to be nonsense
@AgeOfReasonXXI "ULTIMATE(that's the key point, fool) explanation for complexity by postulating even more complexity"
--Design doesn't "postulate more complexity" idiot. The hypothesis is a simple explanation for an irreducible complex phenomenon. So "ultimate" explanation or not, the inference is still a perfectly warranted inference, fool.
" is shooting itself in the foot."
--No it isn't. You haven't the first clue what you're talking about.
@mypolicy9 Plantinga" The point is we aren't trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity, and we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general; we are only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it (those tractors). And (unless you are trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity) it is perfectly proper to explain one manifestation of organized complexity in terms of another."
"And (unless you are trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity) it is perfectly proper to explain one manifestation of organized complexity in terms of another."
that's not the same with what I said: that postulating a complext designer as an explanation of life on earth ( would be warranted, but postulating it as an ULTIMATE cexplanation of organized complexity in general, would be unwarranted
@mypolicy9 (cont) Plantinga: " Similarly, in invoking God as the original creator of life, we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general, but only a particular kind of it, i.e., terrestrial life. So even if (contrary to fact, as I see it) God himself displays organized complexity, we would be perfectly sensible in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of divine activity."
so, it is you who doesn't know what he's talking about, moron
@mypolicy9 Even Plantinga recognizes the momumental difference of whether you're postulating a complext designer as an explanation of life on earth (which would be warranted), and postulating it as an ULTIMATE cexplanation of organized complexity in general. So I wasn't straw-manning him.
@AgeOfReasonXXI Plantinga just refuted everything you're saying!! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! LOL! Read it again. He is saying the EXACT same thing Craig, me, and everyone else is who doesn't have a wedge in their brain.
@mypolicy9 "Great. I agree. So what, exactly, is your case again"
one more time. im principle you can infer a complex desinger as an explanation of watches, comp., or even life (if it's appripriate, by showing there is such thing as irreducible compl., say). for exapmle you may be justified infer aliens designed the first cell, but thise aliens are not the ultimate explanation of complexity of the Universe, and they themselves would be explainable by some Darwinian process
@AgeOfReasonXXI "According to Dawkins definition (in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts. A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex"
@mypolicy9 the only way around this is either if you assume that the designer is simple, or if you assume that, eventhough he created our Universe, there are other Universes which he didn't create and therefore he's not the unlimate explanation of organized complexity. in this case of course you're still left without ultimate explanation bc there are those other Universes that are not being accounted for. anyway, read my previous pots, I'm tired of writting the same thing over and over again
"In invoking God as the original creator of life, we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general, but only a particular kind of it, i.e., terrestrial life. So even if (CONTRARY TO FACT, as I see it) God himself displays organized complexity, we would be PERFECTLY SENSIBLE in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of DIVINE activity."
@mypolicy9 "So even if God himself displays organized complexity, we would be PERFECTLY SENSIBLE in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of DIVINE activity" sure. but if it's the same God who created the Universe, then "we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general" would be false. you ARE. then, Plantinga assumes that if naturalism leaves elementary particles (simplicity) unexplained, that's the same as leaving mind unexplained (assuming it's complex). that's BS
@AgeOfReasonXXI ""So even if God himself displays organized complexity, we would be PERFECTLY SENSIBLE in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of DIVINE activity" sure.
"but if it's the same God who created the Universe, then "we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general" would be false."
--NOPE. This is logically invalid.
--No one is trying to explain "orgainized complexity in general," except YOU. Your argument is a strawman. Get an education.
@mypolicy9 "No one is trying to explain "orgainized complexity in general"
to say God explains the complex balance of the constants of Nature IS trying to give an ultimate explanation of complexity, you deluded brain-dead faith-junkie. again, go back to church, that's where you belong. and pray it's later rather than sooner that as Sam Harris put it: believeing in God would be just too embarrassing. rest assure, it wil happen
@AgeOfReasonXXI "to say God explains the complex balance of the constants of Nature IS trying to give an ultimate explanation of complexity,"
--No, it is not. It's giving an explanation for a terrestrial life-permitting universe, not just ANY universe. The probability of a life permitting universe given that it is a result of random chance is astronomically low. For each constant, if we change 1 part in a billiion billion billion, we don't get a life-permitting universe at all.
@AgeOfReasonXXI Your kind has been predicting the death of religion for over 400 years now, and it STILL hasn't happened. Religion throughout the world is alive and well.
You blockhead Pop-culture atheists are a minority. My sophisticated atheist friends and colleagues in academia can give very good arguments for their views. But you, Harris, and Dawkins are despicably sophomoric thinkers. NO professor prescribes their silly works in college! They're posers!
"It is perfectly proper to explain one manifestation of organized complexity in terms of another. Similarly, in invoking God as the original creator of life, we AREN'T trying to explain organized complexity IN GENERAL, but only a particular kind of it,--TERRESTRIAL LIFE. So even if (contrary to fact) God himself displays organized complexity, we would be PERFECTLY SENSIBLE in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of divine activity.
@AgeOfReasonXXI Here is Plantinga on Fine-Tuning in that VERY SAME ARTICLE, dipshit. Learn how to read.
"It still seems striking that these constants should have just the values they do have; it is still monumentally improbable, GIVEN CHANCE, that they should have just those values; and it is still MUCH LESS improbable that they should have those values, if there is a God who wanted a life-friendly universe." So
let G=God, L=life=permitting universe, P=probability
@AgeOfReasonXXI "minds are the end product of an evolutionary process took > 3 billliotn yrs to reach such a level of complexity"
--Sounds like a VERY complex Darwinian process to me. U need an explanation for the explanation (evolution), otherwise evolution is not a good explanation. LOL
But this is wrong. Why? Because simplicity is intrinsic to the HYPOTHESIS (random mutation & natural selection), NOT to its empirical consequences!! Similarly, DESIGN is simple; the WORLD is complex.
@mypolicy9 "Because simplicity is intrinsic to the HYPOTHESIS (random mutation & natural selection), NOT to its empirical consequences!!"
of course. no one is claiming otherwise. but if God is complex, then the "deisign hypothesis" is complex. period. I agree with the qote from Plantinga only in the sense it's not ultimate explanation of complexity (as long as you don't argue it's the same God who created the Universe, but only the first cell)
@AgeOfReasonXXI Even if God were complex (which is FALSE), it doesn't make the design hypothesis for Fine-Tuning any less probable or simple--just as the complexity of material human beings doesn't make the design hypothesis for watches any less probable or simple. The hypothesis of design is still the best explanation since these hypotheses explain a ridiculously high level of complexity which is so unlikely that it couldn't have arisen by random chance processes alone.
@mypolicy9 hah you're hoplessly stupid: " these hypotheses explain a ridiculously high level of complexity which is so unlikely..." yet, you see no problem in explaining this with a COMPLEX God, whose "ridiculously high level of complexity..."
and I'm telling you for a 100th time, you brain-dead faith-head, the watch analogy is irrelevant bc postulating a complex being like a human as an explanation is NOT to give an ultimate explanation of complexity, but Yahweh IS!
@AgeOfReasonXXI "the watch analogy is irrelevant bc postulating a complex being like a human as an explanation is NOT to give an ultimate explanation of complexity"
--Wrong. Design as an explanation for Fine-Tuning is not an "ultimate explanation" of complexity, but only an explanation for the astronomically improbable Fine-Tuning of THIS universe Constants and Terrestrial Life--and nothing else. Even Plantinga agrees
@mypolicy9 "an explanation for Fine-Tuning is not an "ultimate explanation" of complexity, but only an explanation for the astronomically improbable Fine-Tuning of THIS universe Constants and Terrestrial Life"
since theists argue our Universe is all the material reality there is and God explains it, it IS an ultimate explanation of complexity, you idiot. what's wrong with you??? are you so utterly stupid, or has the 'god virus" mercilessly eaten away your brain?? seek treatment
@AgeOfReasonXXI@AgeOfReasonXXI "since theists argue our Universe is all the material reality there is and God explains it, it IS an ultimate explanation of complexity"
--No it isn't. It only explains phenomena which are so complex that it is highly unlikely it could have arisen by chance alone like the existence of the Fine-Tuning of THIS unvierse Constants and a Terrestrial-Life-permitting universe. It doesn't explain the complexity of a snowflake, for instance.
@AgeOfReasonXXI The possibility for life is much more likely GIVEN that it were designed by an intelligent mind than chance. In fact, the possibility of life GIVEN chance is infinitesimally low. Probability 1/infinity=0. If some of the constants had values outside some very narrow range then life could not even exist. So,
P (L/G) > P (L/~G).
Consequetly, by Bayes Theorem,
P (G/L) > P (~G/L)
Therefore, God is much more likely to exist, than not exist. Q.E.D.
@AgeOfReasonXXI "God explains the complex balance of the constants of Nature IS trying to give an ultimate explanation of complexity"
--No it's not! It's giving an explanation for a terrestrial life-permitting universe, not just ANY universe or ANY complexity. The probability of a life permitting universe given that it is a result of random chance is astronomically low. For each constant, if we change 1 part in a billiion billion billion, we don't get a life-permitting universe at all.
@mypolicy9 "No it's not! It's giving an explanation for a terrestrial life-permitting universe"
if you postulate a complex designer as a scientific hypothesis needed to explain the complex (hense, statistically improbable) balance of the initial conditions , you ARE providing an ultimate explanation of complexity since all other instances of complexity within the Universe is the result of this complex balance. that's why it's unwarranted. even Plantinga recognizes this in this article: (cont)
@AgeOfReasonXXI " you ARE providing an ultimate explanation of complexity since all other instances of complexity within the Universe is the result of this complex bal"
--Wrong. Just because design best explains the Fine-Tuning of the universe Constants doesn't logically entail it explains everything within the universe. After all, it doesn't explain complex random evolutionary processes, & it is not meant to--since complexity arising as a result of random evolutionary mechanisms is likely.
@mypolicy9 (cont) from 1996 "Darwin, Mind and Meaning":
"Dawkins accuses theists of giving a circular explanation. They set out to explain organized complexity (e.g., mind); they then propose as an explanatory hypothesis that there is an uncreated Eternal Mind who created everything else; but they stupidly overlook the fact that this Eternal Mind would be (naturally enough) a mind, and would have to think thoughts complex enough to match the complexity of what it creates." (cont)
@mypolicy9 "So they set out to explain organized complexity, but absently-mindedly just assume or postulate it.
That would be pretty absent-mined, all right, but of course theists do no such thing. For first, they aren't here trying to explain the existence of organized complexity, but rather the existence of life on earth. And secondly, they don't postulate the existence of God, as if this were a scientific hypothesis of some kind" (cont)
@mypolicy9 "They don't believe in God because God's existence and activity is a good hypothesis , a good explanation of organized complexity in the world. "
" Dawkins and Dennett make a wholly unjustified, unargued, and implausible assumption about Christian teachings: that they are really proposed and held as a sort of science, an effort to explain such things, e.g., as that there is a great deal of organized complexity and variety and apparent design in the world. " (cont)
@mypolicy9 "Looked at as a scientific hypothesis designed to explain organized complexity, Christian doctrines are perhaps wanting-- "
shall I translate that for you? to postulate as a scienfitic hpothesis an uncreated and complex mind as an explanation of humans & human minds, which is the reslult of a process only possible due to fine-tuning is "absent-mined". that's why, btw, Plantinga is wrong when he says "For first, they aren't here trying to explain the existence of organized complexity"
@AgeOfReasonXXI "to postulate as a scienfitic hpothesis an uncreated and complex mind as an explanation of humans & human minds, which is the reslult of a process only possible due to fine-tuning is "absent-mined"."
--Calling it "absent-minded" doesn't MAKE it absent-minded. This is non-sequiter.
@mypolicy9 ".., but rather the existence of life on earth", bc as I already said it's the same God who fine-tuned the complex constants of the Universe, and therefore whether he created life on earth deirectly or indirectly(i.e. the very fine-tuning made it possible for the first cell to come about naturally, that in turn through Darwinian evolution would lead to humans) he IS used 'explain the existence of organized complexity".
@mypolicy9 but more importantly, Plantinga argues "they don't postulate the existence of God, as if this were a scientific hypothesis of some kind" since he recognizes this would be "absent-mined"! yet when you use God to explain fine-tuning you're doing exactly that! and in Plantinga's own words this would be "wanting", due to the fat it leaves this unreated mind unexplained. that's why he says belief in the existance of God is the result of experience, not bc he's a
@mypolicy9 good explanation of fine-tuning, etc. He says the same thing about evolution (in his debate with Dennett): that from an agnostic's position, indeed making the assumption that God guided evolution is a violation of Ockham's razor, since unguided evolution (i.e.natural selection acting upon mutations caused not by God, but by copying errors) is simpler. But Plantinga admits that the theist comes to evolution (or any other fact of nature, including fine-tuning) already believing
@AgeOfReasonXXI in God! So in the end, Plantinga's whole justification for belief in God is that ppl have subj. experience of God, not bc he's the best explanation of evolution (he admitted it's not!) or fine-tuning (which would be "absent-mined" since it leaves unexplained the uncreated mind!)
Unfortunatelly Plantinga forgets that many deluded theists (like you) DO use God as a scientific hypothesis, which is why Dawkins and Dennett make their "implausible" assumption.
@AgeOfReasonXXI So let's apply your stupid "You need to Explain the Explanation" Rule to evolution, shall we? Though one half of evolutionary explanations--Natural selection--can explain the predominance & frequency of a gene in a population, the other half--random Mutation--doesn't explain the origin of a particular gene in the 1st place. Why did it mutate? "It just happened" is not an explanation because no one can explain why it happened. Therefore, random mutation is not a good explanation.
@mypolicy9 "You need to Explain the Explanation" Rule"
This is not my rule, nor Dawkins's, moron. I tried very patiently to explain to you why we need an explanation in the case of the complex designer: bc you use him as an explanation for organized complexity (since fine-tuning explains why all other forms of complexity, like life, are even possible-- that's the whole idea of the fine-tuning arg, fool!). that's why Plantinga calls sort of argumentation "absent-minded"!!
@AgeOfReasonXXI "Plantinga assumes that if naturalism leaves elementary particles (simplicity) unexplained, that's the same as leaving mind unexplained (assuming it's complex). that's BS"
--Mind is not complex. Mind is simple. And this is the logical consequence of YOUR OWN RULE!!!!!! If you don't like it, then drop the rule, dumbass. This is exactly why your objection is so stupid.
so a mind, like Yahweh, that can create a Universe and is in fact all-powerful, so can do anything that is not logically impossible is simpler than a bacteria?? only an utter lunatic and an ignoramuses can say that. minds are the end product of an evolutionary process that took > 3 billliotn yrs to reach such a level of complexity in biological life as to make it possible. 'immaterial mind' is NONSENSE you fucking MORON.
"it is uncontroversial that God is a being who thinks and knows; so suppose we take Dawkins to be complaining that theism doesn't offer an explanation of mind. It is obvious that theists won't be able to give an ultimate explanation of
mind, because, naturally enough, there isn't any explanation of the existence of God. Still, how is that a point against theism?"............
@mypolicy9 "because, naturally enough there isn't any explanation of the existence of God."
hahaha. what was that about God being a necessary being, which explains why (or rather how) he exists?
theism is a joke. unfortunatelly it's not the harmless delusion most scientists and philosophers take it to be. but I guess it would take some time before it's generally considered totally disreputable to believe in theism, in the same way it is disreputable to believe in witchcraft. cheers
"Explanations come to an end; for theism they come to an end in God. The same goes for any other view; explanations come to an end. The physicalist, for example, doesn't have an explanation for the existence of elementary particles: they just are. So to claim that what we need is an ultimate explanation of mind is, once more, just to beg the question against theism; the theist neither wants nor needs an ultimate explanation of personhood, or thinking, or mind"
@mypolicy9 "So to claim that what we need is an ultimate explanation of mind is, once more, just to beg the question against theism; the theist neither wants nor needs an ultimate explanation of personhood, or thinking, or mind"
a perfect example of why theism is hopeless. then I can say to claim that what we need is an ultimate explanation of elementary particles, once more, just to beg the question against naturalism! :) so even though Plantinga can grasp Dawkins's arg, he's not very bright
@AgeOfReasonXXI "a perfect example of why theism is hopeless"
--If theism is hopeless, then so is evolution. Why are evolutionary mechanisms part of the natural order?
"so even though Plantinga can grasp Dawkins's arg, he's not very bright"
--Hahaha! You're comparing a PhD in philosophy with a Layman in philosophy. Dawkins book is not even worth a passing grade for sophomores, as Plantinga so aptly put it.
@mypolicy9 so there's a fundamental difference between making your starting point elementray particles and the forces of nature, or a complex mind. and even if those particles and forces need an explanation due to the complex relation between nature's constant, you can't postulate an even more complex mind, bc you're right back where you started: looking for an ultimate explanation of complexity. the inly warranted move is to postulate simplicity. period. again, watches, comp. are red-herring
@AgeOfReasonXXI "period. again, watches, comp. are red-herring"
--Watches aren't red-herrings. They're directly analogous to complexity observed anywhere. The question always is whether that complexity is unlikely to have arisen by chance. If it is unlikely to have arisen by chance, then we are warranted inferring design. Period. Design is a simple hypothesis. You don't have a case at all.
@AgeOfReasonXXI "if by 'simple hypothesis' you mean that God is simple,"
--The hypothesis of design is simple on the grounds that minds are the only things capable of creating a complexity that is so astronomically unlikely to have arisen by chance alone.
The cogency of the inference from the complexity of Fine-Tuning to the existence of some Mind is not invalidated by the further question as to the Nature of the Designer Itself. But you people can't understand this!!!
@mypolicy9 "that minds are the only things capable of creating a complexity that is so astronomically unlikely to have arisen by chance alone"
then, if this MIND is equally or more complex, you'll have to apply the same argument: "that minds are the only things capable of creating a complexity that is so astronomically unlikely to have arisen by chance alone", and so ad infinitum
@AgeOfReasonXXI "then, if this MIND is equally or more complex, you'll have to apply the same argument:"
--IF minds are complex, yes. But minds are not complex. But let's suppose you are right that they are. Just because you don't have an explanation for some mind doesn't invalidate the original inference of design!! What do you not understand about this? Just because I don't have an explanation for the explanation doesn't mean the explanation is not the best explanation. Dumbass.
@AgeOfReasonXXI "" complexity that is so astronomically unlikely to have arisen by chance alone", and so ad infinitum "
--Then I guess no scientist can explain anything because you'll need an explanation for the explanation before the explanation can explain anything. Applying the same rule to Dawkins, evolution is not an explanation for complex organisms because he needs an explanation for evolution before evolution can be a good explanation, & so on ad infinitum.
@mypolicy9 "Then I guess no scientist can explain anything because you'll need an explanation for the explanation before the explanation can explain anything."
you didn't understand a word of what I said, sis you. Dawkins never argues that, all he's saying is that a design argument that is trying to give an ULTIMATE(that's the key point, fool) explanation for complexity by postulating even more complexity is shooting itself in the foot. that's the fifth time I'm saying that
@AgeOfReasonXXI The cogency of the inference from the complexity of Fine-Tuning to the existence of some Mind is not invalidated by the further speculations as to the Nature of the Designer himself. Why is this so difficult to understand?
@AgeOfReasonXXI Evidence for Design in the Fine-Tuning of the universe's constants: The probabilty that the God exists given that the universe is life permitting is greater than the prior probability of his existence alone. So,
P (G/L) > P (G)
Why?
Because it is incredibly UNlikely the universe is life permittig given that God does NOT exist. So,
P (L/G) > P (L/~G).
Consequetly, by Bayes Theorem,
P (G/L) > P (~G/L)
Therefore, God is more likely to exist, than not exist.
@AgeOfReasonXXI "inferring a COMPLEX designer as an ULTIMATE explanation of COMPLEXITY is impermissible because this inference is left without an explanation for the designer"
--BUT THIS IS FALSE! It doesn't even MATTER what God is. Throw God out, for all I care. Just because I can't explain the explanation itself when I recognize something like a watch, a computer, or the Fine-Tuning of the constants is designed--doesn't change, invalidate, or falsify that DESIGN is the best explanation.
@mypolicy9 " Just because I can't explain the explanation itself when I recognize something like a watch, a computer,"
I don't know how to make it simpler so that your brain can get it. the watch and computer are red herring. of course you can postulate a complex designer based on the complexity of a watch or comp., but that's bc their designer is not ultimate explanation of complexity. so the inference is justified.
@AgeOfReasonXXI Design is not always the best explanation. The inference is only warranted in the relevant cases in which something is so complex that is is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone. Chance is ruled out as a viable hypothesis for that type of complexity which couldn't have arisen any other way than by design.
@AgeOfReasonXXI Design is a perfectly warranted inference. The existence of the Fine-Tuning of the universe's constants for a life-permitting universe is the best evidence there is. The number of ways the value of each constants could have been are astronomically large, thus making a life-permitting universe incredibly unlikely.
So many dislikes... I really wish Atheism wasn't popularized by guys like Dawkins, a man of incoherent logic and philosophy, who encourages people to ridicule anyone who believes in God. Sure, there are some Theists who use only faith to believe in God, but Craig uses a lot of respectable, sound reasoning to arrive at his convictions. He should be taken seriously. Not disliked at all. You can't deny the fact that a transcendental figure is needed to secure objective meaning and morality in life.
983215ljhlkadbspig6y 4 weeks ago
Craig does defend the ontological argument, which is stupid because it implies that anything we can think of MUST exist.
LegionarioCruel 4 months ago
A secular humanist arguing against the existence of God isn't going to be convinced by any logical argument. There basic assumption in regards to our existence is the premise that 0+0=1
String theory= seven more dimensions we don't interact with.
Dark matter/energy= 95% of the universe we don't interact with.
How can we not accept that we know very very little about reality.
servant714 5 months ago
My problem with this argument is the notion of a, "greatest conceivable being." This seems to be a slippery slope into believing that certain beings are somehow greater than others; e.g. humans >antelopes, antelopes > squids, squids > volcanoes, etc. What is the criteria by which we measure the, "greatness," of any being?
The truth is, people who believe in a gradation of, "greatness," in beings can only compare it to their own subjective values as human beings.
LucCole88 5 months ago
@LucCole88 The implication of your statement seems to be that if I believe in a being greater than myself, I must also believe that I am greater than some other being. I would say that is true based on this assumption. However, I would not go so far as to say that there is any more value in assuming greatness within similar beings. There may be more noteworthy individuals, but is Einstein greater than, for illustration sake, Forest Gump? I don't think so, all mankind is created equal.
MrItchyElbow 3 months ago
The ontological argument fails because you can't define something into existence. If you can, an existent unicorn exists, along with an existent unicorn extinction.
Naf43zitro 1 month ago
The contingency argument fails to make god logically necessary because one could simply substitute the word "cosmos" for the word "god" and the statement works just as well.
JesusSatanAllah 6 months ago 7
The question really is WICH GOD?
The biblical genocidal,infanticidal , unjust, jealous, vindictive,homophobic, misogynistic, pestilential(and many more "godly" attributes) God......OR
The Hypothetical God, the spark of the Big Bang(God, wich doesn't matter to our society).
mihaimoldo 6 months ago
I disagree that there is any such thing as a "moral truth", "theres no possible world where its morally acceptable to torture children...", how could you possibly know that? Its possible that there have been societies on earth that found it morally acceptable, not to mention other creatures on plannets, other universes
mehico33 7 months ago
@mehico33 Why would morality be grounded in god? Morality only exists in those who accept it, it does not exist in the animal/insect kingdoms, only our own (to the best of our knowledge). Unless your concept of morality is simple empathy.
mehico33 7 months ago
I like him, and I don't hold theism, but I doubt my full rationality so I am open to his logic, and I like it.
Adeikov 7 months ago
Hero of the faith!
Endnuenfyr 8 months ago
metaphysical necessary ? What the hell is that ?
Science does not take " metaphysical necessity " into account.
zamestol 8 months ago
I often wonder that as his "cosmological argument" has been refuted a thousand times but he still sticks to it. People say that he's one of the best apologists around too...
huntmatuk 8 months ago
Philosophy has no place in Science, when someone is religious. The problem is how the hell can you study and generate arguments when your biased towards there being a god. It's just daft, the principle to deny that god can exists only as a human delusion makes his arguments seem childlike. Anything that happened thousands of years ago can now be explained by science. In that time things may have seemed GodLike. Craig has no technical ability to debate physics, Maths or Science.
theapeman10 8 months ago
Everything William Lame Craig says in this video assumes the truth of the conclusion that his particular god exists… This one big example of begging the question.
Wallyrus 9 months ago
i still dont see why a necessary god necessitates worship. or at least the kind of the worship as defined and illustrated by prayer and praise. worship could be defined otherise
nubbs 10 months ago
He says it's immoral to torture babies, but makes sure to add "for fun." since god commands torturous death to babies repeatedly he's got to make it clear that it's for a purpose and not just for fun. Glad he cleared that up.
BigIdeaSeeker 11 months ago
I honestly don't know where to start on this one...
You cannot deny that william is a very clever man, I've never seen such a unique combination of subtle false assertions, logical fallacies and semmantics.
You can imagine how easily this would convince someone who wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.
Amarkcalledme 11 months ago
@Amarkcalledme
Agreed, though weirdly it's probably the most compelling 'creationist' argument I've heard. Reminds me of the videos where people proove 2+2=5. Only has to have 1 illogical assertion, or step, and the whole argument becomes meaningless. And for me, that false assertion lies within 'god exists within a necessity of his own nature' which gives the reasonable (yet illogical to anyone who rejects the assertion) assumption that 'god exists necessarily'.
BrightonStudent 11 months ago
THIS DOESN'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING
notransitory1 1 year ago
@notransitory1 That's how Craig rolls, though. Listen to any of his debates. He asserts things he can't possibly be sure of, he claims to know what he can't know, and he sets win/lose conditions in debates which are obvious traps for his opponents to try to walk into, and then claims victory when they don't fall for the bait.
Craig can't prove the existence of god or even the likelihood of god, so he does what the religious do best: He tries to trick you and make you buy into his fantasy.
BigMikeMcBastard 9 months ago
IF God is a perfect being worthy of worship then he isnt talking about the christains God
badpanda84 1 year ago
WLC craig is wrong on 1:35 -- I'm sure the catholic church has no problems torturing small children a few centuries ago
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Whatever the Catholic church has done -- and by the way, I'm sure Craig has some of the same objections to Roman Catholicism that I have -- it doesn't mean they are justified in doing so. The question isn't whether an individual or a group *thinks* something is morally permissible, the question is, is it actually, objectively morally wrong, independent of what any particular individual thinks.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
@ebeatworld
@ebeatworldthe question is, is it actually, objectively morally wrong,"
You can never prove that . Sure you could simply say that rape for instance is objectively morally wrong but that would merely be your subjective opinion
Its like having the objective truth -- everyone claims to have the objective truth but how can you tell..
badpanda84 1 year ago
@ebeatworldthe question is, is it actually, objectively morally wrong,"
You can never prove that . Sure you could simply say that rape for instance is objectively morally wrong but that would merely be your subjective opinion
Its like having the objective truth -- everyone claims to have the objective truth but how can you tell..
badpanda84 1 year ago
@ebeatworld Because morals is something you can never physically prove ( unlike gravity for instance) all you have is people's subjective opinions.. There is no such thing as objective morals.
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Okay. That's fine. But you seemed to have an issue with the Catholic church "torturing small children." My point was, the Catholics may or may not justify this subjectively, but that doesn't mean they are right.
Are you proposing that it's only people's subjective opinions that determines right and wrong? What if a society thought it was okay to torture small children, would they be morally justified? After all, it's just their subjective opinions.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
@ebeatworld @ebeatworld
Are you proposing that it's only people's subjective opinions that determines right and wrong?"
Yes and also social and cultrual reasons.
For instance if you grew up in a Muslim country under Shira Law you morals and vaules would be very diffrenent to say growing up in the US.
badpanda84 1 year ago
@ebeatworld
Are you proposing that it's only people's subjective opinions that determines right and wrong?"
Yes and also social and cultrual reasons.
For instance if you grew up in a Muslim country under Shira Law you morals and vaules would be very diffrenent to say growing up in the US
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Okay. Just so we have that cleared up. So if a society said it was okay to throw babies into a burning pit of trash, as many pagan cultures did in the 1st century B.C., they would be morally justified because it's a social and cultural norm?
I'm just trying to find out where you stand. Because if you do agree with that, you and I have a very, very different worldview.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
@ebeatworld Because morals is something you can never physically prove ( unlike gravity for instance) all you have is people's subjective opinions.. There is no such thing as objective morals.
badpanda84 1 year ago
A Craige-hater who feels the need to make a snide remark about Craig's expertise as a PhD in philosophy based on a two-minute video is trying to make up for his own failure to apply himself to the real philosophical topics at hand.
It's an Ad Hominem Absusive Fallacy.
mypolicy9 1 year ago 20
@mypolicy9
"Craig's expertise as a PhD in philosophy based on a two-minute video "
Based on this video, one wonders whether Craig got his Ph.D. with a box of cereal. The whole argument that a god must "necessarily exist" is nothing but empty rhetoric. It has no meaning to anybody who doesn't already buy into his god-belief.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 months ago
@mypolicy9 amen to that
jmanexpress 8 months ago
@mypolicy9 Don't get me wrong, I maintain the utmost respect for anyone who can demonstrate erudition and has a PhD to back it up. But you fail to realize that somewhere along the line, Craig bumped his head and has spent the last 30 yrs under the gross misconception that his PhD is an all access pass granting him insight into the supernatural. The man even uses calculus to justify claims of human interaction with the supernatural. Sorry, but he deserves all the derision that comes his way.
TryTheRedPill 7 months ago
@mypolicy9 Philosophy is hard! Oh no, wait, sorry, I was thinking of physics. Philosophy is the one that tries to rationalize the world with fancy sounding rhetoric and without objective basis and physics is the one that rationalizes the world using objective data, advanced mathematical disciplines, and giant BAMFing particle super colliders. A better name for his degree would be, "PhD in Pretendology."
AletheianAeon 6 months ago
@AletheianAeon Philosophy is not about rhetoric, although rhetoric is a subsection of philosophy, and fancy sounding words. Philosophy gave birth to all subjects in academia; physics, biology, botany, quantum mechanics, psychology, medicine, theology, etc. It all started in the asia minor located ionia with the milesian school. Natural philosophy in those times used the 4 elements of fire, water, wind, earth to deductively establish a basis for creation. It is the aetiology of all disciplines.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@07Aristotle I wasn't specifically using the word "rhetoric" in the same sense a student of philosophy would use it; much like the difference between the colloquial use of "theory" versus the scientific definition. Philosophy did predate all academic subjects; but arguably religion predated philosophy. It doesn't, to me, lend much credibility beyond historical consideration. My comment was meant pejoratively; that our understanding of the world has gone beyond just philosophy.
AletheianAeon 6 months ago
@07Aristotle In essence, what I meant was that at his best William Lane Craig is only a philosopher and that our understanding of the world has gone far beyond anything he can merely conjecture or poorly rationalize. Philosophy has its place, certainly, but it's nothing compared to the trails other more difficult, more applicable, more relevant disciplines are blazing today.
AletheianAeon 6 months ago
@AletheianAeon Philosophy gave birth to logic.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
For a well spoken man Mr.Lane is a one confused puppy. He makes some very serious claims based on some very "un-serious" basis. If he at least gave us some examples or sources of his argument (other than the obvious literary source such as a Bible) perhaps he would not look like tool in a nice suit. He can use his Jedi-philosophical mind tricks all he wants but at the end of the day all we hear is a lot of guesses.
immortalis1001 1 year ago
@immortalis1001 I didn't hear him invoke the Bible once in this segment. Perhaps you did.
I don't think he is being tricky with his philosophy at all. He is proposing his ideas in the form of logical arguments. Some logical arguments don't necessarily require sources. If you form a proper logical argument and the premises are true, the conclusion follows logically.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
Why a BEING?? Change god by universe and everything he says applies equally... He slightly distorts funny tautologies and thinks he is making a revolutionary argument. This guy is extremely malicious and arrogant...
afonsoneto1 1 year ago
This is some cirular logic. God cannot have an explanation or cause for his existence or else he wouldn't be God, that means that God exists by a necessity of his own nature and therefore God exists necessarily. Is there any actual real logic in there? I think not.
SeeYourDoctor 1 year ago
@SeeYourDoctor It's not circular logic. It's a contest of definition. By logical definition God is that being which possesses maximal possible perfection. One of those properties is necessary existence. But if God is not a necessary being because he depends for his existence on something outside himself, then he lacks the perfection of necessary existence. Hence, God is not God. Contradiction.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Adding more nonsense doesn't make you "win" your debate. There is no reason to accept your supposed "logical definition."
SeeYourDoctor 1 year ago
""Define what it's like to see yellow to the blind"
that's proof that consciousness is not a function of the brain?""
--No, it's proof that it is logically possible a mind can exist without a brain, even if it is physically impossible. U can't reduce what it's like to see yellow to facts about sense perception since the mind is, in principle, not reducible to physical descriptions.There's an explanatory, logical, gap. Reduction is impossible because mental states are irreducibly subjective
mypolicy9 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "fine-tuning explains all other forms of complexity like life"
--No it doesn't, dipshit. Evolution explains the complexity of life. The design argument explains the astronomical improbablity of Fine-Tuning. Are you fucking dense??
God, indeed, is first cause of this life-permitting universe. That doesn't entail Design explains complexity on a microcosmic level. Evolution does that. Simply asserting "God can't be the explanation of this unvierse" is not an objection!!
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 you're so fucking stupid, you know that? how retarded a faith-head has to be not to get it that postulating a complex creator as an ultimate explanation of complexity is hopeless? even philosophers on your side like Plantinga say that, yet you're clueless. your moronic anwers, and desparate and pathetic attemps to prove your imaginery friend exists (using Bayes T!) only reveals how badly religion can rot one's brain. go waste somebody else's time
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "you're so fucking stupid, you know that? how retarded a faith-head has to be not to get it that postulating a complex creator as an ultimate explanation of complexity is hopeless? "
--Why? That's not an argument. LOL!
"even philosophers on your side like Plantinga say that, yet you're clueless."
--Plantinga defends the Argument from Fine-Tuning in that VERY SAME ARTICLE, dumbass. You are so lost it's pathetic. Get an education, illiterate fuck.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "postulating a complex creator is an ultimate explanation of complexity "
--No, it's not, moron. There are plenty of complex phenomena that are not best explained by God. Like I said right from the start, design is not the best explanation for those instances in which randomness is a perfectly likely to have produced a complex phenomenon--such as a snowflake, mitosis, or patterns in the sand on a beach, or the rise and fall of the stock market!
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI These articles are published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals by top-notch PhD ATHEISTS:
(1) Roger White's "Fine-tuning and Multiple Universes" (2000) Nous
--using Bayesian Probability.
(2) Monton, Brad. "God, Fine-Tuning, and the Problem of Old Evidence" (2006)British Journal of Philosophy.
--using Bayesian Probability
(3) And Jeffrey Lowder
/secularoutpost.infidels (dot) org/2006/02/sophisticated-critique-of-many-worlds.html
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Atheist philosopher Lowder writes:
"Let F = the statement, "our universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent, physical life," T = the hypothesis that God exists, N = the hypothesis that naturalism is true, and M = the hypothesis that multiple physical universes exist. Fine-tuning arguments for God's existence can be interpreted as containing a premise that states, Pr(F/T) >> Pr(F/N)."
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "Since, again, T is compatible with M and N is compatible with ~M, how could M be relevant to the fine-tuning argument? Since we don't know M to be true, we can't simply equate Pr(F/N) with Pr(F/N&M), or Pr(F/T) with Pr(F/T&M). In effect, consistent with Bayes's Theorem and the Rule of Total Evidence, we have to use a weighted average formula that takes into account both Pr(F/N&M) and Pr(F/T&M), as well as Pr(F/N&~M) and Pr(F/T&~M)."
mypolicy9 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "You will find that M gives us absolutely no reason at all to think the statement "Pr(F/T) >> Pr(F/N)," is false "
/secularoutpost.infidels (dot) org/2006/02/sophisticated-critique-of-many-worlds.html
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "I tried to explain to you why we need an explanation in the case of the complex designer: bc you use him as an explanation for organized complexity (since fine-tuning explains why all other forms of complexity, like life)"
--Well Dawkins uses the very low improbabilities of "random chance" to explain how the complexity of life is possible. So I guess Dawkins needs an explanation for why genetic mutations are random in the first place--and so on, ad infinitum
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "yet, you see no problem in explaining this with a COMPLEX God, whose "ridiculously high level of complexity..."
--You're just dead wrong. God is not complex. And even if he were, this doesn't invalidate the inference to design as the best and simplest explanation as has been explained ad infinitum by Plantinga, Swinburne, and every other philosopher of science. No one endorses this view even among atheists except Dawkins and a very small minority of materialists.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Random mutation means nothing more than "Chance did it." But you need to explain why mutations are random in order for random chance to be a good explanation.Then u need to explain that explanation in turn, & so off to infinity--otherwise you don't explain anything. But then nothing gets explained if we are always required to explain the explanation, and Dawkins has just therefore killed all scientific explanations, since ALL of them stop somwhere on some brute unexplained fact.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 " Why did it mutate? "It just happened" is not an explanation because no one can explain why it happened. Therefore, random mutation is not a good explanation."
apparently you're ignorant of evolutionary biology. there are various causes for the mutations, but mainly copying error. radiation due to cosmic rays can also cause mutations. this also explains why certain cells mutate and become cancer cells. so it is you who have to get an education. in science
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI There are some causes of mutation. But most of them are entirely random due to complete spontaneous molecular decay of the base pairs on the DNA strands during replication. The half-life of subatomic particle decay is entirely random, too. Why are these things random? You haven't explained anything. "Chance did it" is not an explanation.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "fine-tuning which would be "absent-mined" since it leaves unexplained the uncreated mind"
--No. Repeatedly asserting this falsity doesn't make it any more true. I don't need to explain the existence of God for the hypothesis of Design to best explain the Fine-Tuning of the universe's constants, just as I don't need to explain the lost tribe, where they came from, & how long they lived in order for design to best explain the existence of broken pottery shards & arrowheads
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "... eventhough he created our Universe, there are other Universes which he didn't create and therefore he's not the unlimate explanation of organized complexity"
--No one is postulating that God is the ultimate explanation for organized complexity, so your argument is a strawman, dipshit.
Furthermore, design is a perfectly warranted simple explanation for complex phenomena, especially as a simple explanation for the Fine-Tuning of the univers's constants. End of story.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "design is a perfectly warranted simple explanation for complex phenomena, especially as a simple explanation for the Fine-Tuning of the univers's constants"
not if your designer is complex, bc you're postulating more complexity to account for complexity, so you're shooting yourself in the foot.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "not if your designer is complex, bc you're postulating more complexity to account for complexity, so you're shooting yourself in the foot. " --It doesn't matter. Once again, my little squirrel, God is simple. But even if he were complex, the hypothesis of Design is a simple explanation of complexity that could not have arisen by chance alone. GOD'S NATURE DOESN'T AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE INFERENCE. Get an education.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "ULTIMATE cexplanation of organized complexity in general, would be unwarranted"
--It all depends on each specific case, sure!!!! I've already said earlier that in some evolutionary cases, for instance, complexity can be explained without design. NO ONE is defending the proposition that,
"Design is ALWAYS the best explanation for complexity," MORON!
LOL!!!!!!!!
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 " I've already said earlier that in some evolutionary cases, for instance, complexity can be explained without design"
and I'm not talking about "some evolutionary cases" when I say a complex designer can't be used to explain complexity, you idiot! I'm talking about postulating this designer as an ultimate explanation of the organized complexity in general. and since you seem to be hopelessly lost, I see no point in continuing the discussion. for the second and last time
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Plantinga is right. What's your malfunction? Furthermore, how can it possibly be the case that Plantinga who is arguing against Dawkins be also supporting Dawkins argument?
Moreover, I agreed Plantinga when I explicitly said earlier that, "I am willing to allow that in some cases chance is a perfectly likely and good explanation for complexity. I don't deny this."
But Fine-Tuning of the universe's constants is a whole other ball game. Plantinga even supports Design here
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Plantinga is arguing Design (in the case the designer is complex) would be a proper inferrence UNLESS it's used as an ULTIMATE explanation. and I agree! in fact even Dawkins agrees that it might be possible to detect design: in the case life was seeded by aliens, say (directed panspermia). but for a 100th time, that's not giving ultimate explanation of eorganized complexity in general. that's why it's warranted. and that's what Plantinga also says. read it again
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "Design is ALWAYS" i
by explanation of complexity "in general", I don't mean "always", dumbass. but about the unwarranted move of providing a final, ultimate acount of organized complexity (that would be the complex and delicate ballancing of nature's constants that in turn give rise to even more complext structures, like life) by postulating more complexity (the designer).
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "by explanation of complexity "in general", I don't mean "always", dumbass."
--But that's EXACTLY what Plantinga MEANS in the article, idiot. Read it again. He is arguming AGAINST Dawkins, not FOR him!
"(give rise to even more complext structures, like life) by postulating more complexity (the designer"
--Again, Design is not a complex hypothesis. Plantinga SUPPORTS the argument for desigan from Fine-Tuning, stupid! Read it again!
mypolicy9 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI @AgeOfReasonXXI "ULTIMATE cexplanation of organized complexity in general, would be unwarranted"
YES. NO ONE is defending the proposition that,
"Design is ALWAYS the best explanation for complexity" LOL.
But in specific cases, it is. So whether or not design is a good inference will always depend on the particular case at hand, and the weighing of competing hypotheses an explanations.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 you can also postulate a complex god, but if that's the same god who also designed the whole Universe, and therefore he is actually the ultimate explanation of organized complexity, then you can't infer him, bc he's not explainable by some process that starts from simplicity which is the case with the aliens. do you get it now?
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "therefore he is actually the ultimate explanation of organized complexity, then you can't infer him, bc he's not explainable by some process that starts from simplicity"
--According your rule, then, postulating the complexity of evolution to explain complex phenomena is unwarranted since evolution doesn't start from simplicity, but is ultimately complex--we would thus need an explanation of the explanation, and so on into infinity. So evolution doesn't explain anything.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "evolution doesn't start from simplicity"
you don't understand the first thing about evolution. the power of the theory of Darwinian evolution is preciesly that it starts with simplicity, you ignorant fool, like the first self-repicating molecule, and builds up from there. but even IF it was complex, it would still be warranted bc that's not ultimate explanation pf organized complexity.
"No one is postulating that God is the ultimate explanation for organized complexit" HAHA moron!
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Yes! Plantinga just refuted everything you're saying!! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! LOL! Read it again. He is saying the EXACT same thing Craig, me, and everyone else is who doesn't have a wedge in their brain.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 are you a complete retard?? look at both Plantinga's statement and mine, and if you can't see that they are saying the same thing, you're nuts!!
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI You're fucking lost dude. Plantina is arguing FOR the cogency of Design-type inferences, not against them. You truly are stupid. Read what you posted again.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Plantinga" "And (unless you are trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity)...."
so he agrees that if the designer is complex, you are justified in using him as an explanation of life on earth, but not as an ultimate expl.
of course, Plantinga goes on to argue that in fact God is simple, and hense you can use him to explain fine-tunning. and I agree: IF god is simple, the design hypothesis is justified. but 'god is simpl'e seem to be nonsense
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "ULTIMATE(that's the key point, fool) explanation for complexity by postulating even more complexity"
--Design doesn't "postulate more complexity" idiot. The hypothesis is a simple explanation for an irreducible complex phenomenon. So "ultimate" explanation or not, the inference is still a perfectly warranted inference, fool.
" is shooting itself in the foot."
--No it isn't. You haven't the first clue what you're talking about.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Plantinga" The point is we aren't trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity, and we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general; we are only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it (those tractors). And (unless you are trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity) it is perfectly proper to explain one manifestation of organized complexity in terms of another."
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI what????
"And (unless you are trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity) it is perfectly proper to explain one manifestation of organized complexity in terms of another."
that's not the same with what I said: that postulating a complext designer as an explanation of life on earth ( would be warranted, but postulating it as an ULTIMATE cexplanation of organized complexity in general, would be unwarranted
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 (cont) Plantinga: " Similarly, in invoking God as the original creator of life, we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general, but only a particular kind of it, i.e., terrestrial life. So even if (contrary to fact, as I see it) God himself displays organized complexity, we would be perfectly sensible in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of divine activity."
so, it is you who doesn't know what he's talking about, moron
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Even Plantinga recognizes the momumental difference of whether you're postulating a complext designer as an explanation of life on earth (which would be warranted), and postulating it as an ULTIMATE cexplanation of organized complexity in general. So I wasn't straw-manning him.
you're even dumber than Craig is
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Plantinga just refuted everything you're saying!! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! LOL! Read it again. He is saying the EXACT same thing Craig, me, and everyone else is who doesn't have a wedge in their brain.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 oops. "that's not the same with what I said"?? there was meant to be a question mark.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "Plantinga recognizes....postulating a complext designer as an explanation of life on earth (which would be warranted),"
--Great. I agree. So what, exactly, is your case again?
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "Great. I agree. So what, exactly, is your case again"
one more time. im principle you can infer a complex desinger as an explanation of watches, comp., or even life (if it's appripriate, by showing there is such thing as irreducible compl., say). for exapmle you may be justified infer aliens designed the first cell, but thise aliens are not the ultimate explanation of complexity of the Universe, and they themselves would be explainable by some Darwinian process
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "According to Dawkins definition (in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts. A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex"
--Plantinga
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 the only way around this is either if you assume that the designer is simple, or if you assume that, eventhough he created our Universe, there are other Universes which he didn't create and therefore he's not the unlimate explanation of organized complexity. in this case of course you're still left without ultimate explanation bc there are those other Universes that are not being accounted for. anyway, read my previous pots, I'm tired of writting the same thing over and over again
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI I'm tired of writting the same thing over and over again"
--Then give it up because everything you're claiming is false anyway. I've already said why ad infinitum. Learn to read.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Plantinga again!
"In invoking God as the original creator of life, we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general, but only a particular kind of it, i.e., terrestrial life. So even if (CONTRARY TO FACT, as I see it) God himself displays organized complexity, we would be PERFECTLY SENSIBLE in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of DIVINE activity."
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "So even if God himself displays organized complexity, we would be PERFECTLY SENSIBLE in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of DIVINE activity" sure. but if it's the same God who created the Universe, then "we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general" would be false. you ARE. then, Plantinga assumes that if naturalism leaves elementary particles (simplicity) unexplained, that's the same as leaving mind unexplained (assuming it's complex). that's BS
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI ""So even if God himself displays organized complexity, we would be PERFECTLY SENSIBLE in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of DIVINE activity" sure.
"but if it's the same God who created the Universe, then "we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general" would be false."
--NOPE. This is logically invalid.
--No one is trying to explain "orgainized complexity in general," except YOU. Your argument is a strawman. Get an education.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "No one is trying to explain "orgainized complexity in general"
to say God explains the complex balance of the constants of Nature IS trying to give an ultimate explanation of complexity, you deluded brain-dead faith-junkie. again, go back to church, that's where you belong. and pray it's later rather than sooner that as Sam Harris put it: believeing in God would be just too embarrassing. rest assure, it wil happen
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "to say God explains the complex balance of the constants of Nature IS trying to give an ultimate explanation of complexity,"
--No, it is not. It's giving an explanation for a terrestrial life-permitting universe, not just ANY universe. The probability of a life permitting universe given that it is a result of random chance is astronomically low. For each constant, if we change 1 part in a billiion billion billion, we don't get a life-permitting universe at all.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Your kind has been predicting the death of religion for over 400 years now, and it STILL hasn't happened. Religion throughout the world is alive and well.
You blockhead Pop-culture atheists are a minority. My sophisticated atheist friends and colleagues in academia can give very good arguments for their views. But you, Harris, and Dawkins are despicably sophomoric thinkers. NO professor prescribes their silly works in college! They're posers!
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI U need 2 read P- again,
"It is perfectly proper to explain one manifestation of organized complexity in terms of another. Similarly, in invoking God as the original creator of life, we AREN'T trying to explain organized complexity IN GENERAL, but only a particular kind of it,--TERRESTRIAL LIFE. So even if (contrary to fact) God himself displays organized complexity, we would be PERFECTLY SENSIBLE in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of divine activity.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Here is Plantinga on Fine-Tuning in that VERY SAME ARTICLE, dipshit. Learn how to read.
"It still seems striking that these constants should have just the values they do have; it is still monumentally improbable, GIVEN CHANCE, that they should have just those values; and it is still MUCH LESS improbable that they should have those values, if there is a God who wanted a life-friendly universe." So
let G=God, L=life=permitting universe, P=probability
P (L/G) >> P (L/~G)
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "minds are the end product of an evolutionary process took > 3 billliotn yrs to reach such a level of complexity"
--Sounds like a VERY complex Darwinian process to me. U need an explanation for the explanation (evolution), otherwise evolution is not a good explanation. LOL
But this is wrong. Why? Because simplicity is intrinsic to the HYPOTHESIS (random mutation & natural selection), NOT to its empirical consequences!! Similarly, DESIGN is simple; the WORLD is complex.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "Because simplicity is intrinsic to the HYPOTHESIS (random mutation & natural selection), NOT to its empirical consequences!!"
of course. no one is claiming otherwise. but if God is complex, then the "deisign hypothesis" is complex. period. I agree with the qote from Plantinga only in the sense it's not ultimate explanation of complexity (as long as you don't argue it's the same God who created the Universe, but only the first cell)
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "but if God is complex, then the "deisign hypothesis" is complex."
--No it is not. Both inferences are logically invalid.
(1) God himself is complex.
(2) Therefore, the hypothesis of desgin for the Fine-Tuning of the universe's constants is complex.
(3) Human beings are complex.
(4) Therefore, the hypothesis of design for watches and arrowheads is complex.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Even if God were complex (which is FALSE), it doesn't make the design hypothesis for Fine-Tuning any less probable or simple--just as the complexity of material human beings doesn't make the design hypothesis for watches any less probable or simple. The hypothesis of design is still the best explanation since these hypotheses explain a ridiculously high level of complexity which is so unlikely that it couldn't have arisen by random chance processes alone.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 hah you're hoplessly stupid: " these hypotheses explain a ridiculously high level of complexity which is so unlikely..." yet, you see no problem in explaining this with a COMPLEX God, whose "ridiculously high level of complexity..."
and I'm telling you for a 100th time, you brain-dead faith-head, the watch analogy is irrelevant bc postulating a complex being like a human as an explanation is NOT to give an ultimate explanation of complexity, but Yahweh IS!
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "the watch analogy is irrelevant bc postulating a complex being like a human as an explanation is NOT to give an ultimate explanation of complexity"
--Wrong. Design as an explanation for Fine-Tuning is not an "ultimate explanation" of complexity, but only an explanation for the astronomically improbable Fine-Tuning of THIS universe Constants and Terrestrial Life--and nothing else. Even Plantinga agrees
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "an explanation for Fine-Tuning is not an "ultimate explanation" of complexity, but only an explanation for the astronomically improbable Fine-Tuning of THIS universe Constants and Terrestrial Life"
since theists argue our Universe is all the material reality there is and God explains it, it IS an ultimate explanation of complexity, you idiot. what's wrong with you??? are you so utterly stupid, or has the 'god virus" mercilessly eaten away your brain?? seek treatment
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI @AgeOfReasonXXI "since theists argue our Universe is all the material reality there is and God explains it, it IS an ultimate explanation of complexity"
--No it isn't. It only explains phenomena which are so complex that it is highly unlikely it could have arisen by chance alone like the existence of the Fine-Tuning of THIS unvierse Constants and a Terrestrial-Life-permitting universe. It doesn't explain the complexity of a snowflake, for instance.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI The possibility for life is much more likely GIVEN that it were designed by an intelligent mind than chance. In fact, the possibility of life GIVEN chance is infinitesimally low. Probability 1/infinity=0. If some of the constants had values outside some very narrow range then life could not even exist. So,
P (L/G) > P (L/~G).
Consequetly, by Bayes Theorem,
P (G/L) > P (~G/L)
Therefore, God is much more likely to exist, than not exist. Q.E.D.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "God explains the complex balance of the constants of Nature IS trying to give an ultimate explanation of complexity"
--No it's not! It's giving an explanation for a terrestrial life-permitting universe, not just ANY universe or ANY complexity. The probability of a life permitting universe given that it is a result of random chance is astronomically low. For each constant, if we change 1 part in a billiion billion billion, we don't get a life-permitting universe at all.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "No it's not! It's giving an explanation for a terrestrial life-permitting universe"
if you postulate a complex designer as a scientific hypothesis needed to explain the complex (hense, statistically improbable) balance of the initial conditions , you ARE providing an ultimate explanation of complexity since all other instances of complexity within the Universe is the result of this complex balance. that's why it's unwarranted. even Plantinga recognizes this in this article: (cont)
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI " you ARE providing an ultimate explanation of complexity since all other instances of complexity within the Universe is the result of this complex bal"
--Wrong. Just because design best explains the Fine-Tuning of the universe Constants doesn't logically entail it explains everything within the universe. After all, it doesn't explain complex random evolutionary processes, & it is not meant to--since complexity arising as a result of random evolutionary mechanisms is likely.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 (cont) from 1996 "Darwin, Mind and Meaning":
"Dawkins accuses theists of giving a circular explanation. They set out to explain organized complexity (e.g., mind); they then propose as an explanatory hypothesis that there is an uncreated Eternal Mind who created everything else; but they stupidly overlook the fact that this Eternal Mind would be (naturally enough) a mind, and would have to think thoughts complex enough to match the complexity of what it creates." (cont)
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "So they set out to explain organized complexity, but absently-mindedly just assume or postulate it.
That would be pretty absent-mined, all right, but of course theists do no such thing. For first, they aren't here trying to explain the existence of organized complexity, but rather the existence of life on earth. And secondly, they don't postulate the existence of God, as if this were a scientific hypothesis of some kind" (cont)
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "They don't believe in God because God's existence and activity is a good hypothesis , a good explanation of organized complexity in the world. "
" Dawkins and Dennett make a wholly unjustified, unargued, and implausible assumption about Christian teachings: that they are really proposed and held as a sort of science, an effort to explain such things, e.g., as that there is a great deal of organized complexity and variety and apparent design in the world. " (cont)
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "Looked at as a scientific hypothesis designed to explain organized complexity, Christian doctrines are perhaps wanting-- "
shall I translate that for you? to postulate as a scienfitic hpothesis an uncreated and complex mind as an explanation of humans & human minds, which is the reslult of a process only possible due to fine-tuning is "absent-mined". that's why, btw, Plantinga is wrong when he says "For first, they aren't here trying to explain the existence of organized complexity"
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "to postulate as a scienfitic hpothesis an uncreated and complex mind as an explanation of humans & human minds, which is the reslult of a process only possible due to fine-tuning is "absent-mined"."
--Calling it "absent-minded" doesn't MAKE it absent-minded. This is non-sequiter.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 ".., but rather the existence of life on earth", bc as I already said it's the same God who fine-tuned the complex constants of the Universe, and therefore whether he created life on earth deirectly or indirectly(i.e. the very fine-tuning made it possible for the first cell to come about naturally, that in turn through Darwinian evolution would lead to humans) he IS used 'explain the existence of organized complexity".
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 but more importantly, Plantinga argues "they don't postulate the existence of God, as if this were a scientific hypothesis of some kind" since he recognizes this would be "absent-mined"! yet when you use God to explain fine-tuning you're doing exactly that! and in Plantinga's own words this would be "wanting", due to the fat it leaves this unreated mind unexplained. that's why he says belief in the existance of God is the result of experience, not bc he's a
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 good explanation of fine-tuning, etc. He says the same thing about evolution (in his debate with Dennett): that from an agnostic's position, indeed making the assumption that God guided evolution is a violation of Ockham's razor, since unguided evolution (i.e.natural selection acting upon mutations caused not by God, but by copying errors) is simpler. But Plantinga admits that the theist comes to evolution (or any other fact of nature, including fine-tuning) already believing
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI in God! So in the end, Plantinga's whole justification for belief in God is that ppl have subj. experience of God, not bc he's the best explanation of evolution (he admitted it's not!) or fine-tuning (which would be "absent-mined" since it leaves unexplained the uncreated mind!)
Unfortunatelly Plantinga forgets that many deluded theists (like you) DO use God as a scientific hypothesis, which is why Dawkins and Dennett make their "implausible" assumption.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI So let's apply your stupid "You need to Explain the Explanation" Rule to evolution, shall we? Though one half of evolutionary explanations--Natural selection--can explain the predominance & frequency of a gene in a population, the other half--random Mutation--doesn't explain the origin of a particular gene in the 1st place. Why did it mutate? "It just happened" is not an explanation because no one can explain why it happened. Therefore, random mutation is not a good explanation.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "You need to Explain the Explanation" Rule"
This is not my rule, nor Dawkins's, moron. I tried very patiently to explain to you why we need an explanation in the case of the complex designer: bc you use him as an explanation for organized complexity (since fine-tuning explains why all other forms of complexity, like life, are even possible-- that's the whole idea of the fine-tuning arg, fool!). that's why Plantinga calls sort of argumentation "absent-minded"!!
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "Plantinga assumes that if naturalism leaves elementary particles (simplicity) unexplained, that's the same as leaving mind unexplained (assuming it's complex). that's BS"
--Mind is not complex. Mind is simple. And this is the logical consequence of YOUR OWN RULE!!!!!! If you don't like it, then drop the rule, dumbass. This is exactly why your objection is so stupid.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "Mind is simple"
so a mind, like Yahweh, that can create a Universe and is in fact all-powerful, so can do anything that is not logically impossible is simpler than a bacteria?? only an utter lunatic and an ignoramuses can say that. minds are the end product of an evolutionary process that took > 3 billliotn yrs to reach such a level of complexity in biological life as to make it possible. 'immaterial mind' is NONSENSE you fucking MORON.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI PLANTINGA AGAIN!
"it is uncontroversial that God is a being who thinks and knows; so suppose we take Dawkins to be complaining that theism doesn't offer an explanation of mind. It is obvious that theists won't be able to give an ultimate explanation of
mind, because, naturally enough, there isn't any explanation of the existence of God. Still, how is that a point against theism?"............
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "because, naturally enough there isn't any explanation of the existence of God."
hahaha. what was that about God being a necessary being, which explains why (or rather how) he exists?
theism is a joke. unfortunatelly it's not the harmless delusion most scientists and philosophers take it to be. but I guess it would take some time before it's generally considered totally disreputable to believe in theism, in the same way it is disreputable to believe in witchcraft. cheers
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI ..P- continued.
"Explanations come to an end; for theism they come to an end in God. The same goes for any other view; explanations come to an end. The physicalist, for example, doesn't have an explanation for the existence of elementary particles: they just are. So to claim that what we need is an ultimate explanation of mind is, once more, just to beg the question against theism; the theist neither wants nor needs an ultimate explanation of personhood, or thinking, or mind"
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "So to claim that what we need is an ultimate explanation of mind is, once more, just to beg the question against theism; the theist neither wants nor needs an ultimate explanation of personhood, or thinking, or mind"
a perfect example of why theism is hopeless. then I can say to claim that what we need is an ultimate explanation of elementary particles, once more, just to beg the question against naturalism! :) so even though Plantinga can grasp Dawkins's arg, he's not very bright
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "a perfect example of why theism is hopeless"
--If theism is hopeless, then so is evolution. Why are evolutionary mechanisms part of the natural order?
"so even though Plantinga can grasp Dawkins's arg, he's not very bright"
--Hahaha! You're comparing a PhD in philosophy with a Layman in philosophy. Dawkins book is not even worth a passing grade for sophomores, as Plantinga so aptly put it.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 so there's a fundamental difference between making your starting point elementray particles and the forces of nature, or a complex mind. and even if those particles and forces need an explanation due to the complex relation between nature's constant, you can't postulate an even more complex mind, bc you're right back where you started: looking for an ultimate explanation of complexity. the inly warranted move is to postulate simplicity. period. again, watches, comp. are red-herring
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "period. again, watches, comp. are red-herring"
--Watches aren't red-herrings. They're directly analogous to complexity observed anywhere. The question always is whether that complexity is unlikely to have arisen by chance. If it is unlikely to have arisen by chance, then we are warranted inferring design. Period. Design is a simple hypothesis. You don't have a case at all.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "Watches aren't red-herrings"
shit-head, you're hopeless. go back to church, you're an embarrassment to.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "if by 'simple hypothesis' you mean that God is simple,"
--The hypothesis of design is simple on the grounds that minds are the only things capable of creating a complexity that is so astronomically unlikely to have arisen by chance alone.
The cogency of the inference from the complexity of Fine-Tuning to the existence of some Mind is not invalidated by the further question as to the Nature of the Designer Itself. But you people can't understand this!!!
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "that minds are the only things capable of creating a complexity that is so astronomically unlikely to have arisen by chance alone"
then, if this MIND is equally or more complex, you'll have to apply the same argument: "that minds are the only things capable of creating a complexity that is so astronomically unlikely to have arisen by chance alone", and so ad infinitum
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "then, if this MIND is equally or more complex, you'll have to apply the same argument:"
--IF minds are complex, yes. But minds are not complex. But let's suppose you are right that they are. Just because you don't have an explanation for some mind doesn't invalidate the original inference of design!! What do you not understand about this? Just because I don't have an explanation for the explanation doesn't mean the explanation is not the best explanation. Dumbass.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "" complexity that is so astronomically unlikely to have arisen by chance alone", and so ad infinitum "
--Then I guess no scientist can explain anything because you'll need an explanation for the explanation before the explanation can explain anything. Applying the same rule to Dawkins, evolution is not an explanation for complex organisms because he needs an explanation for evolution before evolution can be a good explanation, & so on ad infinitum.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 "Then I guess no scientist can explain anything because you'll need an explanation for the explanation before the explanation can explain anything."
you didn't understand a word of what I said, sis you. Dawkins never argues that, all he's saying is that a design argument that is trying to give an ULTIMATE(that's the key point, fool) explanation for complexity by postulating even more complexity is shooting itself in the foot. that's the fifth time I'm saying that
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI The cogency of the inference from the complexity of Fine-Tuning to the existence of some Mind is not invalidated by the further speculations as to the Nature of the Designer himself. Why is this so difficult to understand?
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Evidence for Design in the Fine-Tuning of the universe's constants: The probabilty that the God exists given that the universe is life permitting is greater than the prior probability of his existence alone. So,
P (G/L) > P (G)
Why?
Because it is incredibly UNlikely the universe is life permittig given that God does NOT exist. So,
P (L/G) > P (L/~G).
Consequetly, by Bayes Theorem,
P (G/L) > P (~G/L)
Therefore, God is more likely to exist, than not exist.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI "inferring a COMPLEX designer as an ULTIMATE explanation of COMPLEXITY is impermissible because this inference is left without an explanation for the designer"
--BUT THIS IS FALSE! It doesn't even MATTER what God is. Throw God out, for all I care. Just because I can't explain the explanation itself when I recognize something like a watch, a computer, or the Fine-Tuning of the constants is designed--doesn't change, invalidate, or falsify that DESIGN is the best explanation.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 " Just because I can't explain the explanation itself when I recognize something like a watch, a computer,"
I don't know how to make it simpler so that your brain can get it. the watch and computer are red herring. of course you can postulate a complex designer based on the complexity of a watch or comp., but that's bc their designer is not ultimate explanation of complexity. so the inference is justified.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Design is not always the best explanation. The inference is only warranted in the relevant cases in which something is so complex that is is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone. Chance is ruled out as a viable hypothesis for that type of complexity which couldn't have arisen any other way than by design.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Design is a perfectly warranted inference. The existence of the Fine-Tuning of the universe's constants for a life-permitting universe is the best evidence there is. The number of ways the value of each constants could have been are astronomically large, thus making a life-permitting universe incredibly unlikely.
mypolicy9 1 year ago