# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  William Lane Craig and the Kalam Cosmological Argument

## MorpheusSandman

(to the mods: I'm posting this in the philosophical forum because the way the argument is framed is in the realm of philosophical discourse, even though it's on the nature of God; I felt it fit better here than in the Religious Texts sub-forum, but feel free to move it). 

For those who don't know the reference, I mean the (now famous) Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God (there are subsets for these arguments if anyone wants to look them up): 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The argument from that basic syllogistic premise to the existence of God is (paraphrased, since I can't find the official version): 

4. The First Cause must be uncaused, personal, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.
5. Only the God of Theism fits that description

Basically: what does everyone here think of the argument? I'm an atheist myself, but it's been very entertaining reading and listening to the tons of debate over this argument. I do feel that the argument has significant flaws, but I also feel that Craig ultimately offers an inductive argument that's far stronger than most others I've heard for the existence of God. Ultimately, my take on it is that science is still very much up in the air over the truthfulness of both the central premises, and no matter of how many times I hear Craig claim that virtual particles are "caused" because they come out of a "sea of fluctuating energy," I really don't see how he gets from contingency to cause in that scenario. But that's just one minor flaw amongst many others that are interesting to explore.

----------


## mal4mac

Why should 'Whatever begins to exist' have a cause?

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Well, because everything we can think of that comes into existence has a cause for that existence. Can you think of any exceptions?

----------


## YesNo

> For those who don't know the reference, I mean the (now famous) Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God (there are subsets for these arguments if anyone wants to look them up): 
> 
> 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
> 2. The universe began to exist.
> 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
> 
> The argument from that basic syllogistic premise to the existence of God is (paraphrased, since I can't find the official version): 
> 
> 4. The First Cause must be uncaused, personal, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.
> ...


(1) seems to be correct, because I cannot imagine any alternative.

Anyone who rejects (2) must also reject the "standard model of cosmology" which is a key position of 21st century science. This model is so secure that the date of the universe's beginning has even been pinpointed to within 200 million years with the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

So, (3) is a consequence of (1) and (2).

(4) and (5) are what is still debatable. The alternative to these two statements is that the universe was created by some unconscious, random process. This has led to theories of a multiverse filled with perhaps 10^500 universes that failed to have any life in them for the one like ours that does.

----------


## Calidore

> Well, because everything we can think of that comes into existence has a cause for that existence. Can you think of any exceptions?


You have #4 as an exception above, and #5 to deal with it. A circle also has no beginning or end, nor would a circular process.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> (1) seems to be correct, because I cannot imagine any alternative.


(1) Have you heard of virtual particles? They seem to pop into existence completely uncaused by random chance, only contingent on the existence of quantum energy. A sticky matter here is whether contingency and cause is synonymous; I tend to think they aren't, because it's not hard to imagine many things that are contingent on something else that is, nonetheless, NOT the direct cause of that something else. Plus, if the universe brought spacetime into existence, then how does time "begin" when there was no time before? How does causality happen outside of spacetime? 




> You have #4 as an exception above, and #5 to deal with it. A circle also has no beginning or end, nor would a circular process.


Yes, but Craig will argue that because God never begins to exist, he is not an exception to "everything that begins to exist has a cause." He would have to begin to exist to be an exception.

----------


## YesNo

> (1) Have you heard of virtual particles? They seem to pop into existence completely uncaused by random chance, only contingent on the existence of quantum energy. A sticky matter here is whether contingency and cause is synonymous; I tend to think they aren't, because it's not hard to imagine many things that are contingent on something else that is, nonetheless, NOT the direct cause of that something else. Plus, if the universe brought spacetime into existence, then how does time "begin" when there was no time before? How does causality happen outside of spacetime? 
> 
> Yes, but Craig will argue that because God never begins to exist, he is not an exception to "everything that begins to exist has a cause." He would have to begin to exist to be an exception.


Perhaps what you say about (1) makes the conclusion (3) invalid. I don't know. The random popping into existence of virtual particles is how I view the proponents of a multiverse explaining how that might happen. However, the way I look at (1) is that there needs to be some kind of trigger to get the universe started since it had a beginning. 

All I think one can get from the conclusion is that something exists outside of the universe that allowed it to start, that was powerful enough to do such a thing, and that was controlled enough so we are not seeing universes popping out all over the place. Although I believe this is a conscious reality, unlike those who promote a multiverse, I don't think this has to be the God of any particular religion. Craig has 5 arguments suggesting that the Christian God exists. This is his first argument, and the strongest one when confronting materialistic atheism, since it relies entirely on the philosophy of (1) and the modern science of (2). His other four arguments I did not find as convincing.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

FWIW, the multiverse is a theory that arises to explain the wave function collapse of quantum mechanics, ie, the famous problem that gave rise to Schroedinger's Cat and the puzzle about why wave functions seem to reduce to a single state (rather than being in a position of several possible states) when it interacts with an observer. It's part of the Many-Worlds (or maybe MW is really a part of MV, come to think of it) interpretation that every possible outcome actually does happen, and we merely observe one of them. 

The multi-verse proponents can also argue that if you combine quantum theory with gravity you have everything needed to create spacetime, so if quantum fluctuations existed before the universe, then it merely needed one to produce the law of gravity. Perhaps the real question then becomes why quantum fluctuations exist at all... my rather simplistic theory is that it's simply not possible for nothing (complete and absolute) nothing to exist, but I'm very interested in being able to perhaps see even further down in the order of things... though it is possible that quanta is really all there is, and everything else is just the way in which certain fluctuations orders itself inside its randomly created laws. 

As for having universes popping out all over the place, I'm not sure why you think that would be likely to happen, or how, exactly, we could know if there actually aren't other universes already out there. Although, out there already supposes a kind of space-time, which maybe other universes wouldn't need (although it's impossible to imagine a universe without them). But it's just as hard for me to imagine a conscious entity existing beyond spacetime, as consciousness is something we only understand through its processes happening within time itself. The very nature of "I think, therefor I am" is innately a sequence of temporal events.

----------


## YesNo

From what I can tell the multiverse is as speculative as is God in the context of how our universe started or what might exist outside of it.

Regarding whether there can be a state of nothingness, I think when scientists say that the universe came "out of nothing" (which sounds a lot like it came out of a Catholic catechism), they mean that it came out of nothing like what the universe is made of. However, I may be wrong about that. I'm not a physicist. 




> As for having universes popping out all over the place, I'm not sure why you think that would be likely to happen, or how, exactly, we could know if there actually aren't other universes already out there.


If I remember correctly, one of the early multiverse theories to explain the origin of the universe was rejected because of this possibility. That's the only reason I mention it. One can try to look for evidence of a multiverse indirectly. 




> But it's just as hard for me to imagine a conscious entity existing beyond spacetime, as consciousness is something we only understand through its processes happening within time itself.


The primary question about the cause of the universe that I would find interesting is whether it came from _chance_ or from some act of _choice_. If it was a choice then there was something that would resemble consciousness involved. I agree that consciousness is normally experienced by us through our physical bodies in space and time. An out of body experience would be an abnormal experience for us but something worth studying as a way to understand more about consciousness in order to understand more about how such a choice could have occurred.

----------


## stuntpickle

> I really don't see how he gets from contingency to cause in that scenario.



Perhaps you don't see it because you don't understand the difference between efficient and material causes.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> From what I can tell the multiverse is as speculative as is God in the context of how our universe started or what might exist outside of it.


No. Those who propose MV and MW are trying to make sense of actual data and physically occurring phenomena and looking for ways to test it, rather than just mind-projecting a being similar (and thus understandable) to us and walking away from it and boiling everything down to this metaphysical being making conscious choices (somehow outside of things in which we have our only examples of conscious entities doing anything) and looking for more and more ways to make it cleverly unfalisifiable and untestable. Are you more likely to believe the people that say "let me show you" or the people that say "trust me, even when you find evidence to the contrary of what I say"? To put God on the same level as MV/MW is similar to putting flat-earthers on the same level as round-earthers, or Creationists with Evolutionists. Evidence doesn't play fair sometimes, and there's far more evidence for MV/MW than for God. 




> I think when scientists say that the universe came "out of nothing" (which sounds a lot like it came out of a Catholic catechism), they mean that it came out of nothing like what the universe is made of.


You are right about that. When (eg) Krauss talks about nothing he's talking about quantum vacuums, ie, empty space, and even that space is filled with quantum events, that "seething sea of energy" as Craig loves to call it. The problem is is that that vacuum is what pre-20th Century people meant when they said "nothing." They meant "non-tangible matter such as empty space," without ever dreaming that there were things so small occurring constantly in that space. Nothing is a word that arose out of our observation on no tangible matter in empty space, but has somehow gotten dragged through our discoveries of such empty space not being empty. So we can still imagine "nothing" even when it doesn't correspond to what we previously thought as nothing. 

My point being that Craig loves to argue that "nothing comes from nothing," but he does so by arguing things like "an eskimo village doesn't just appear on a road!" but that's, of course, because the road and the space around it isn't nothing at all! I contest that "nothing" in terms of complete absence of quanta or physical laws or whatever may not even be a possible state of (non)-existence. 




> The primary question about the cause of the universe that I would find interesting is whether it came from _chance_ or from some act of _choice_.


Well, we know quantum events are inherently probabilistic (by chance) rather than consciously caused, so if such things can cause they universe (and it seems like they can), then I'd put my money on "chance". 




> An out of body experience would be an abnormal experience for us but something worth studying as a way to understand more about consciousness in order to understand more about how such a choice could have occurred.


That assumes out-of-body experiences actually happen. Most of the famous reports are exaggerated stories (in the way stories seem to get exaggerated in the repeated telling), and most stated experience can by explained by our brain going into panic mode and attempting to reconstruct the space around us and "put us there" so we can figure a way out of whatever mess we're in. But I do agree it's a phenomenon that needs to be studied more, if only to understand how it works. 




> Perhaps you don't see it because you don't understand the difference between efficient and material causes.


Or maybe it's that Aristotlean philosophy has no place in modern science. Although I'd be curious to hear how either concept can be applied to virtual particles (though I'd pay to watch you explain it to a physicist! Oh, the hilarity!).

----------


## YesNo

> Evidence doesn't play fair sometimes, and there's far more evidence for MV/MW than for God.


What evidence are you referring to? 




> That assumes out-of-body experiences actually happen.


I suspect people tend to reject evidence that conflicts with their belief-system. Don't worry. I do it also. Usually, though, I find facing the evidence leads to better insight.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Or maybe it's that Aristotlean philosophy has no place in modern science. Although I'd be curious to hear how either concept can be applied to virtual particles (though I'd pay to watch you explain it to a physicist! Oh, the hilarity!).


I wonder if it would be as funny as you trying to explain the "serious flaws" in the Kalam to Craig.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> What evidence are you referring to?


I gave you links. FWIW, MW is becoming the most popular theory to explain the mysteries of quantum physics, and while many of the most technical, mathematical details go over my head, I trust the physicists I've talked to that tell me that the math and evidence is there more strongly for it than its competing theories. But I also trust them when they tell me that it's hard to argue for without a thorough understanding of that math. One book I'd recommend is Vilenkin's Many Worlds in One, which is written for lay audiences (and that means anyone who did not study quantum physics formally, including mysef). 




> I suspect people tend to reject evidence that conflicts with their belief-system.


I'm not rejecting evidence. I acknowledge that what people refer to as out-of-body experiences are legitimate phenomena (that they experience something that feels as if they're out of their body), and I should acknowledge that since I experienced myself once (when I almost drowned as a child). It's just that the way you phrased the statement made it sound as if you accept such experience as ACTUAL out-of-body experiences, which assumes that there's not a purely neuro-biological explanation, and experiments have been done that have replicated a lot of the aspects of such things, as well as those of NDEs. 

AFAIC, these things are legitimate phenomena, but they are legitimate _unexplained_ phenomena that, right now, don't provide solid evidence for being representative of a conscious LITERALLY out of a body, as opposed to a brain merely projecting itself as imagining being out of its body (as can happen in, say, lucid dreaming). 




> I wonder if it would be as funny as you trying to explain the "serious flaws" in the Kalam to Craig.


Craig lost a lot of credibility to me when he admitted that the first proposition was actually a probability claim based on a very incomplete picture of modern quantum cosmology, but yet he's still using it as proposition and pretending that the conclusion is a deductive proof. One of the major problems with the argument _in general_ is that all of the evidence for the 1st proposition are found in observing physical space-time, and yet he's attempting to apply the principles learned inside space-time to something that must've happened "outside" or "before" space-time (again, whatever concepts like "outside" and "before" even have in such a state). 

The Kalam also is completely reliant on the A theory of time, especially for Craig's claims about impossible infinities, but B theory of time is probably more popular amongst cosmologists right now, and that would (or, at least, should) stop Craig from arguing infinity when viewed as a series of linear succession because there is no such thing (it only appears so from our perspective). I also find it curious he insists on arguing against "actual" infinities when infinity is used all of the time by physicists. He says we only engineer the rules against adding and subtracting to/from infinity because allowing it leads to contradictions, but I've never heard him explain how that's different than any mathematical axioms we have! Everytime he talks about "actual" infinities he does it by imagining finite things, and Hilbert's Hotel is still very much an attempt to imagine infinite through the finite. A better example is to imagine a circle as infinite. One cannot add to or subtract from the circle until they've made it finite to begin with, and I've often thought that ever model we have is just our attempts to cut finite chunks out of an omnipresent infinite. 

Finally, even if our universe begun to exist, that doesn't necessarily mean that whatever is "outside" it or "before it" (again, whatever such words can mean in this case) necessarily had to begin to exist, and causeless, timeless, spaceless seems to fit just as well with quantum fluctuations as it does with a theoretical God (actually, much better because we know quanta exists, and it prevents us from having to work our way around how consciousness can work outside of space-time, as there's no need for such thing in randomly occurring fluctuations).

I will say this: Craig is a smart guy, and I have as much respect for him as I do any modern theist philosopher (except Plantinga), but there is a reason that his logical arguments fail to impress actual scientists (Stenger, Krauss) and that's because they recognize how silly it is to apply high-school syllogisms to something that has turned out be as completely counter-intuitive as quantum physics and early cosmology. The Kalam, as interesting it is, is still capitalizing on "God of the Gaps" as there are still "gaps" in our knowledge when it comes to this subject.

----------


## KillCarneyKlans

> it's simply not possible for nothing (complete and absolute) nothing to exist


http://www.historum.com/religion/368...servation.html
http://www.christianityboard.com/top...ost__p__139842 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/
Parmenides maintained that it is self-defeating to say that something does not exist. The linguistic rendering of this insight is the problem of negative existentials ... No relation without relata! 

Parmenides and his disciples elaborated conceptual difficulties with negation into an incredible metaphysical monolith. The Parmenideans were opposed by the atomists. The atomists said that the world is constituted by simple, indivisible things moving in empty space. They self-consciously endorsed the void to explain empirical phenomena such as movement, compression, and absorption.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-...-universe.html 
The earliest philosophers argued that out of nothing, nothing comes (ex nihilo, nihil fit). This ignited intense philosophical and theological debates and invoked challenging questions over the coming centuries. How could our universe in all its complexity come into existence from absolute nothingness, if nothing comes from nothing? In his new book, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing.

Everything that we know about the universe allows for it to come from nothing, and moreover all the data is consistent with this possibility," says Krauss, who teaches in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and the Department of Physics in ASU's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

The question of creating something from nothing is first and foremost a scientific one—as the very notions of 'something' and 'nothing' have been completely altered as a result of our current scientific understanding. science has literally changed the playing field for this big question. The latest physics research into the origins of the universe shows that, not only can our universe arise from nothing, but more generally, the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity imply that something will generally always arise from nothing.

http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...d-origins.html 

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2...ohn-ankerberg/ 
As I understand it, the astronomers were reluctant to accept the theory. They doubted it not because of scientific evidence but because of the metaphysical implications: if the Universe was not eternal, then where did it come from? The theory bore too much resemblance to the Creation “myth” of Genesis. Being good scientists, they tried as hard as they could to disprove the whole idea but in the end the evidence was too convincing. 

http://spectrummagazine.org/review/2...signature-cell 
Meyer methodically challenges the central doctrine of today’s scientific establishment that life arose from purely undirected materialistic and naturalistic forces in the absence of intelligence. [bio-info precedes evolution] 




> a conscious entity existing beyond spacetime, as consciousness is something we only understand through its processes happening within time itself. The very nature of "I think, therefor I am" is innately a sequence of temporal events.


Actually, if there are multiple dimensions, universes ... it is possible to communicate across them... provided you know the laws which govern the other universe 

http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...-big-bang.html
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...d-origins.html

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Excellent post, KCK. I am aware of Krauss and his excellent work. The theists argue what he refers to as "nothing" (empty space) isn't really nothing. Of course, they conveniently forget to mention they're shifting the goalposts since that's what nothing always referred to... until we learned it wasn't nothing!

----------


## YesNo

> I gave you links. FWIW, MW is becoming the most popular theory to explain the mysteries of quantum physics, and while many of the most technical, mathematical details go over my head, I trust the physicists I've talked to that tell me that the math and evidence is there more strongly for it than its competing theories. But I also trust them when they tell me that it's hard to argue for without a thorough understanding of that math. One book I'd recommend is Vilenkin's Many Worlds in One, which is written for lay audiences (and that means anyone who did not study quantum physics formally, including mysef).


I did check those links, but I couldn't follow them. Perhaps it was because it was late at night. I'll see if I can find Vilenkin in the library tomorrow.

I don't think I have any problem with quantum physics. What I was asking evidence for was the multiverse that would allow chance to have created our universe. I don't think there is any evidence for that at the moment. 



> I'm not rejecting evidence. I acknowledge that what people refer to as out-of-body experiences are legitimate phenomena (that they experience something that feels as if they're out of their body), and I should acknowledge that since I experienced myself once (when I almost drowned as a child). It's just that the way you phrased the statement made it sound as if you accept such experience as ACTUAL out-of-body experiences, which assumes that there's not a purely neuro-biological explanation, and experiments have been done that have replicated a lot of the aspects of such things, as well as those of NDEs. 
> 
> AFAIC, these things are legitimate phenomena, but they are legitimate _unexplained_ phenomena that, right now, don't provide solid evidence for being representative of a conscious LITERALLY out of a body, as opposed to a brain merely projecting itself as imagining being out of its body (as can happen in, say, lucid dreaming).


I also want a neuro-biological explanation. I think there has to be one unless these experiences are somehow learned from culture.

I've been watching some of Todd Murphy's videos describing a neurological basis for spiritual experiences. His mentor is Michael Persinger. Here's one I watched last night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmC1174POpA and Murphy's site is http://www.shaktitechnology.com/ 

Regarding consciousness being literally outside the body, I think that is possible, since some people with NDEs described events, such as activities of the hospital staff, doctors and their family, they could not have known if consciousness was restricted to their body while they were dead.

----------


## YesNo

> How could our universe in all its complexity come into existence from absolute nothingness, if nothing comes from nothing? In his new book, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing.


I'm looking forward to reading Laurence Krauss' new book. It was a YouTube link to one of his talks on cosmology that made me realize that the big bang was far different than what I originally thought it was.

----------


## cacian

> Why should 'Whatever begins to exist' have a cause?


Haha because everything happen for a reason and so a planet is not without a cause because it is the serviant to humans to be about .
a human is not without a cause for he has to have a reason to be and so is a serviant back to planet earth.
Everything else exists because of something else, it is like a circular movement where everything is reliant upon another and so on and so forth. What goes around is comes around in a unified forever movement of existence.

----------


## YesNo

> http://spectrummagazine.org/review/2...signature-cell 
> Meyer methodically challenges the central doctrine of todays scientific establishment that life arose from purely undirected materialistic and naturalistic forces in the absence of intelligence. [bio-info precedes evolution]


I noticed something in the link you posted, KillCarneyKlans. It looks as if Stephen C. Meyer showed that chance could not have produced life since there are not enough opportunities for it to have done so randomly. 




> Assuming a Big Bang about 13 billion years ago, there have been about 10 to the 16th seconds of time. Finally, if we take the time required for light to travel one Plank length we will have found the shortest time in which any physical effect can occur. This turns out to be 10 to the minus 43rd seconds. Or turning it around we can say that the most interactions possible in a second is 10 to the 43rd. Thus, the probabilistic resources of the universe would be to multiply the total number of seconds by the total number of interactions per second by the total number of particles theoretically interacting. The math turns out to be 10 to the 139th.


But the odds of creation of that first cell forming randomly, according to the article, is 10 to the 41,000th power. Of course it could have gotten lucky.

I have also wondered, given that a genetic mutation occurs about once every 3,500 years, which forms the basis of the mitochondrial DNA clock, are there enough years of history of life on earth for the changes leading to our species to have occurred solely by chance? Maybe it just got very, very lucky many, many times.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> I did check those links, but I couldn't follow them. Perhaps it was because it was late at night.


Yudkowsky has an entire QP sequence aimed at laypersons where he tries to gently ease them into the mathematics necessary to follow along with the basic argument. The entire sequence in its entirety can be found here.




> What I was asking evidence for was the multiverse that would allow chance to have created our universe.


One has to understand QP first, because MV and MW relates to the theory of decoherence and the mathematical arguments for favoring it over other interpretations. I do want to stress that MV and MW aren't necessarily mutually inclusive. To me, the MV is less interesting than MW in general, because, IIRC, the MV initially proposed that other universes arose out of the same quantum fluctuations. MW, however, is arguing that every apparent wave-function collapse is just the way in which we see one result happening in our world, while the other possibilities split into another. 




> Regarding consciousness being literally outside the body, I think that is possible, since some people with NDEs described events, such as activities of the hospital staff, doctors and their family, they could not have known if consciousness was restricted to their body while they were dead.


Be careful of such statements because most of the famous ones have been exaggerated or just plain false (the shoe on the upper floor of a hospital). Here is a very comprehensive overview of the claims made, the science behind some of it, and investigations of many of the most famous claims (Maria's shoe and Pam Reynolds). It's a good reminder of how so many facts get exaggerated or made up in the telling of stories. 

Personally, I would love to learn that consciousness can exist outside the body, primarily because I don't think the singularity will happen in my lifetime. But, currently, there's no solid evidence to support it, and you know a theory is in trouble when it's having to tout made up and exaggerated stories as evidence. 




> It looks as if Stephen C. Meyer showed that chance could not have produced life since there are not enough opportunities for it to have done so randomly.


I would question how Meyer could've possibly known how many chances it had. Our minds boggle at very large numbers, but we overestimate the unlikelihood of events occurring in the context of how many trials there were. In the case of something like the universe, we simply have no idea how many quantum fluctuations it may have taken to get a universe that was "tuned" for life. Likewise, in the case of abiogenesis, it's hard to know how many opportunities such material had to come together to form the first microscopic life. 




> I have also wondered, given that a genetic mutation occurs about once every 3,500 years, which forms the basis of the mitochondrial DNA clock, are there enough years of history of life on earth for the changes leading to our species to have occurred solely by chance?


One has to be careful when talking about "chance" when it comes to evolution. There are some things that are purely random, and some that are adaptive or, to put it perhaps more accurately, it's random on the smallest level, but as certain DNA sticks around across generations it has a greater and greater chance of reproducing in the next. We have a tendency of thinking as our species as some kind of end-point without realizing that every generation is different in some ways from the previous. Evolution is rarely (if ever) and event that produces a completely new species within a generation, it's usually just small changes over time that add up to a big change when we observe two points along the scale. So I would imagine there was plenty of time for us to get to this point.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Excellent post, KCK. I am aware of Krauss and his excellent work. The theists argue what he refers to as "nothing" (empty space) isn't really nothing. Of course, they conveniently forget to mention they're shifting the goalposts since that's what nothing always referred to... until we learned it wasn't nothing!


This singularity in conventional Big Bang theory is not the same variety of nothing.

----------


## stuntpickle

Is this the Krauss everyone is referring to?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eNjmN9Xtmg

He got completely savaged by Craig in that debate and then had the gall to write a nasty blog about Craig afterward, one to which Craig responded with typical class. Seriously, of all Craig's debate opponents, Krauss was probably the worst--at the very least, one of the worst.

Excerpt from Krauss's blog:

_I believe that if I erred at all, it was in an effort to consider the sensibilities of the 1200 smiling young faces in the audience, who earnestly came out, mostly to hear Craig, and to whom I decided to show undue respect. As I stressed at the time, I did not come to debate the existence of God, but rather to debate about evidence for the existence of God. I also wanted to demonstrate the need for nuance, to explain how these issues are far more complex than Craig, in his simplistic view of the world, makes them out to be.
_

For the record, I cannot recall a single thing the audience did to Krauss to make him think any respect he showed them was "undue." The truth is that Krauss was horribly unprepared, ended up making a fool of himself and used his blog to vent his narcissistic rage.

The following link is to Krauss's entire blog post and Craig's response.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/lawre...nd-perspective

----------


## KillCarneyKlans

> Excellent post, KCK. I am aware of Krauss and his excellent work. The theists argue what he refers to as "nothing" (empty space) isn't really nothing. Of course, they conveniently forget to mention they're shifting the goalposts since that's what nothing always referred to... until we learned it wasn't nothing!


[Thank-you, you too, and you all here at OL.com ... obviously if you've read any of my other posts ... you can see I come at this problem from a theist perspective ... this is a hotly debated question ... but, I really don't want debate ideology or politic's ... though we will have to use these terms no doubt ... I'm just saying this so you know where I'm at and where I' am coming from ... cause sometimes these debates can get messy ... Anyways, I was just adding my 2 cents ... As far as shifting the goal posts I won't debate whether Krauss is coming from this or intending this ... the perspective that I come from revolves about around the observation that ...] 

The Perfect Number 496 and the Prime Number 37 - Historum - History Forums
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...number-37.html

When approaching the speed of lite, mass goes to infinity, space becomes a null point, and you couldn't carry or unload enough fuel to overcome the force of gravity. Scientist suppose a quatum element called a tachon travels faster than light. Below this is string theory. Creating anything from a null space perspective is totally impossible but they say this is seen in the moments of the Big Bang when alll the physical elements break down ... of course gravity would be the last of the GUT elements to break down and the measure by which we would know. Which would be a point close to infiniti [The Irresistable Force] ... whereas we know just before 0 Kelvin, nuclear forces and apparently quatum activity comes into play [The Immovable Object] ... Strings unlike the chaotic Quatum World or the rather? .. the mundune physical world ... Dimensions itself in a torus or torodial plane, a donut shape

YesNo is right in the fact ... that without an element of consciousness, design, intelligence, forethought ... we wouldn't be asking these questions ... There's actually more than a few examples in the natural world that point to this fact. [Egyptian Blue, Chinese Jade, Prussian Blue, certain geometric shapes created by nature, prime number deriatives, etc ...]




> I'm looking forward to reading Laurence Krauss' new book. It was a YouTube link to one of his talks on cosmology that made me realize that the big bang was far different than what I originally thought it was.


Causation, Effectation and Intelligence - Historum - History Forums
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...ml#comment1491

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...n-1527306.html
Proofs of God in a photon - SCIENCE Since quantum physics, the idea of a purposeful universe has become scientifically admissible. Scientists themselves, however, remain firmly divided ... Theologians are discussing the origins of the physical universe, the beauty of the fundamental laws of physics and the wonder of the complexity of nature. Scientists, too, are discussing what they suggest may be a sense of purpose behind the universe and questioning why those laws of nature should be exactly the way they are and why they give rise. The problem comes to a head in cosmology where it is hard to explain what happened in the early universe without asking why.




> I noticed something in the link you posted, KillCarneyKlans. It looks as if Stephen C. Meyer showed that chance could not have produced life since there are not enough opportunities for it to have done so randomly.


http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...-response.html



> Quote: One of my issues with stuff like ID is how...it doesn't actually provide any fundamental answers, to anything which matters. Added to which, it begs the question, who created the supposed creator? Etc. ad infinitum. You know how it goes. Apart from anything else, there appear to be two issues to consider, the origin of life and the evoluton of life.


Yes, this is true. But Infomation is just DATA that is acted upon [by something]. I just heard some guy say last night, that said with the explosion of knowledge, that AI systems may become sentient within in a few hundred years surpassing human abilities. We already know that within a few decades, our knowledge will increase beyond itself expotentally; the doubling effect. The ultimate would be a quatum powered computer that could test all 0-to-infiniti possibilities with 1 pass. Some Computer AI specialists think pre-cursor's of Intelligent AI of this kind might even be forming with the increase of multi-informational-tasking computer comunication systems on the net. Anyways, interesting stuff ... Still you have Searle's Chinese Box Problem Paradox ... 

God by the Numbers | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...rch/26.44.html 

[One] number coming from astronomy that points to God is 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123. Oxford professor Roger Penrose discusses it in his book The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind. It derives from a formula by Jacob Beckenstein and Stephen Hawking and describes the chances of our universe being created at random. Penrose spoofs this view by picturing God throwing a dart at all the possible space-time continua and hitting the universe we inhabit. The Beckenstein-Hawking formula is too complicated to discuss here, but another approach to the same problem involves the fine-tuning of the universe and the existence of habitable planets. [And Probably its inhabitants]




> I have also wondered, given that a genetic mutation occurs about once every 3,500 years, which forms the basis of the mitochondrial DNA clock, are there enough years of history of life on earth for the changes leading to our species to have occurred solely by chance?


The Perfect Number 496 and the Prime Number 37 - Historum - History Forums
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...number-37.html 

Arithmetic inside the universal genetic code 
ScienceDirect - Biosystems : Arithmetic inside the universal genetic code
http://www.whatabeginning.com/Misc/G...s/Abstract.htm

Vladimir I. shCherbak, Department of Applied Mathematics, al-Faraby Kazakh National University, 71 al-Faraby Avenue, Almaty 480078, Kazakhstan, CIS Received 28 October 2001;&#xa0 revised 23 April 2002;&#xa0 accepted 10 December 2002.* Available online 28 June 2003

The first information system emerged on the earth as primordial version of the genetic code and genetic texts. The natural appearance of arithmetic power in such a linguistic milieu is theoretically possible and practical for producing information systems of extremely high efficiency. In this case, the arithmetic symbols should be incorporated into an alphabet, i.e. the genetic code. A number is the fundamental arithmetic symbol produced by the system of numeration. If the system of numeration were detected inside the genetic code, it would be natural to expect that its purpose is arithmetic calculation e.g., for the sake of control, safety, and precise alteration of the genetic texts. The nucleons of amino acids and the bases of nucleic acids seem most suitable for embodiments of digits. 

http://www.whatabeginning.com/Misc/Genetics/Rakbou.htm
The genetic code turns out to be a syntactical structure of arithmetic, the result of unique summations carried out by some primordial abacus at least three and a half billion years ago. The decimal place-value numerical system with a zero conception was used for that arithmetic. It turned out that the zero sign governed the genetic code not only as an integral part of the decimal system, but also directly as an acting arithmetical symbol. Being non-material abstractions, all the zero, decimal syntax, and unique summations can display an artificial nature of the genetic code. They refute traditional ideas about the stochastic origin of the genetic code. A new order in the genetic code hardly ever went through chemical evolution and, seemingly, originally appeared as pure information like arithmetic itself."

[the abstract to his "The Arithmetic Origin of the Genetic Code" which appears (2008) as a chapter in the book "The Codes of Life" ISBN 978-1-4020-6340-4 (Online)] These features emerge from the study of, the peer-reviewed paper, "A harmonic structure of the genetic code" by MM Rakocevic and, the privately published article, "The numeric connections of the genetic code" by J-Y Boulay.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> This singularity in conventional Big Bang theory is not the same variety of nothing.


I didn't say anything about the singularity... 




> Is this the Krauss everyone is referring to?


Oh, I don't deny that Craig "demolished" Krauss in their debate, because Craig has infinitely more experience at live debate and could really be called a master of all of the formal elements. He "demolishes" pretty much everyone he faces in live debate because almost none of the people he faces have any experience in the live debate format. I'd be much more interested him doing a book-length debate similar to what he did with Walter Sinnott-Armstrong with someone like Krauss or Carrier who could take the time to formulate their rebuttals and explanations of how quantum cosmology and Bayes should be used in this matter. Krauss went into the debate with Craig very much in his "lecturer" mode (as can be seen here), and you can tell by the way in which we keeps talking to the crowd, not about Craig's points, but about the most recent discoveries in quantum cosmology. It's complex stuff, and there's far too much of it and it's far too nuanced to get into it like it deserves to be in such a limiting format. Craig was there to argue (and, I admit, he does that very, very well), while Krauss was there to teach. 

Live debate formats make for an entertaining way to look at various topics, but they aren't really a good (or even semi-decent) forum for investigating the evidence for claims that are utilizing (more like manipulating) the evidence from theoretical physics and quantum cosmology. Krauss is _an actual_ theoretical physicist, Craig is a theistic philosopher who has mastered debate and mastered cherry-picking quotes from theoretical physicists (like Guth and Vilenkin, whom, btw, don't agree with Craig's conclusions) that he can use to fit into his arguments and overwhelming debate opponents with a "gatling gun barrage of arguments" (as I believe Richard Carrier called it). Krauss is right that Craig doesn't understand physics. Mathematicians are right when they say he doesn't understand math. But convincing others of that is more difficult when it takes an hour (if not more) to fully rebut a point it takes Craig 10 seconds to make.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Craig lost a lot of credibility to me when he admitted that the first proposition was actually a probability claim based on a very incomplete picture of modern quantum cosmology, but yet he's still using it as proposition and pretending that the conclusion is a deductive proof. One of the major problems with the argument _in general_ is that all of the evidence for the 1st proposition are found in observing physical space-time, and yet he's attempting to apply the principles learned inside space-time to something that must've happened "outside" or "before" space-time (again, whatever concepts like "outside" and "before" even have in such a state).


First, I think you might misunderstand something here. A valid argument is one whose form makes deduction possible. You are here attempting to criticize the soundness of the Kalam, and that's fine: that's what you, as an atheist, are supposed to do. However, your criticisms don't infringe upon the nature of its deduction or its validity. You can have a completely valid deduction from completely false premises.

Consider:

1. All men are made from jello.
2. Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is made from jello.

This is a proper deduction from false premises.

Even something as opaque as:

1. P
2. Q
Therefore, R.

...can be considered a valid deduction.

The distinction between validity and soundness is probably one of the most fundamental principles in logic.

Rather than sit here and try to wrestle over the meaning of words such as "proof", let me just state that Craig confesses to not being able to ascertain (emphasis on certainty) the existence of God.

Again, you seem to misunderstand the metaphysical nature of the first premise. Metaphysics essentially sets out to state what there is and how it is. Metaphysics is, by the way, involved in some way in every aspect of human inquiry. For instance, the uniformity of physical laws across the universe that science assumes is not an empirical observation, but rather a metaphysical judgment.

The first premise of the Kalam is not based simply upon observed physical phenomena, but also on typically a priori judgments such as that the Cartesian thinking I began to exist. By the way, you seem perilously close to making a positive assertion yourself that you would be entitled to defend against nearly the entirety of modern philosophy, and that is that premise 1 _should_ be based on observable phenomena.

I'm not sure whether you are purposefully misstating the basis for the first premise or doing it only accidentally. Craig is quite clear on what the premise is based on.

Consider:

_First and foremost, the causal premiss is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causa...#ixzz1uACKFhMk_

Craig is so prolific that we don't have to sit around and wonder what he really means; he's very willing to tell us himself. You actually seem to be mistaking his refutation of quantum particles being uncaused as the philosophical basis for the first premise.





> The Kalam also is completely reliant on the A theory of time, especially for Craig's claims about impossible infinities, but B theory of time is probably more popular amongst cosmologists right now, and that would (or, at least, should) stop Craig from arguing infinity when viewed as a series of linear succession because there is no such thing (it only appears so from our perspective). I also find it curious he insists on arguing against "actual" infinities when infinity is used all of the time by physicists. He says we only engineer the rules against adding and subtracting to/from infinity because allowing it leads to contradictions, but I've never heard him explain how that's different than any mathematical axioms we have! Everytime he talks about "actual" infinities he does it by imagining finite things, and Hilbert's Hotel is still very much an attempt to imagine infinite through the finite. A better example is to imagine a circle as infinite. One cannot add to or subtract from the circle until they've made it finite to begin with, and I've often thought that ever model we have is just our attempts to cut finite chunks out of an omnipresent infinite.


Much wrong here; a lot to correct.

First let's do away with the two fallacies here. To suggest that Craig is wrong because he does not adhere to a B theory of time is an argumentum ad populum and an argumentum ad verecundium. Moreover, Craig isn't simply some hokey small town apologist. He wrote his dissertation on theories of time, and his central academic focus was actually on time. He is, himself, an expert, which does not make him right, but it does seem to address the subtle ad hominem that Craig isn't qualified.

Second, you seem to be equivocating on "infinity." Yes, mathematicians and physicists regularly use infinity, but they use it in a theoretical manner rather than in a practical one. No physicists "uses" practical or actual infinities. Moreover, even the belief that practical infinities exist is controversial and rare. One such supporter Roger Penrose is fairly upfront that he suspects that they will be eventually useful but that they have not, as yet, been at all so.

I am familiar with Hilbert's Hotel, but that's a thought experiment just like The Grim Reaper Paradox that purports to explode the hotel. But you point out the obvious problem with your point when you state explicitly that it's an attempt to "imagine" the infinite. Practical or actual infinities are not a necessary component of Big Bang cosmology.

The problem with cutting finite chunks from any infinite thing is that it results in a paradox. If you are simply manipulating numbers on paper, then there are special procedures for manipulating infinity, whereas there are no such restrictions when presented with an infinite number of M&Ms. So if I take every other M&M from the pile, the total number of M&Ms in the pile remains the same, and, in fact, the number I removed is the same as the original pile. The problem here is that infinity is without value, and to try and render it actually is to try and confer value upon it.





> I will say this: Craig is a smart guy, and I have as much respect for him as I do any modern theist philosopher (except Plantinga), but there is a reason that his logical arguments fail to impress actual scientists (Stenger, Krauss) and that's because they recognize how silly it is to apply high-school syllogisms to something that has turned out be as completely counter-intuitive as quantum physics and early cosmology. The Kalam, as interesting it is, is still capitalizing on "God of the Gaps" as there are still "gaps" in our knowledge when it comes to this subject.


I see you stole Krauss's "high school syllogisms" insult right from his bitter little blog. Just so you know, most atheists agree Krauss got spanked by Craig. Moreover, Krauss was a jerk before, during and after their debate. No philosopher is trying to "impress" scientists. Philosophers are doing their own proper work.

Lastly, my challenge to you was rhetorical, as was your jab about my trying to explain something to a physicist. That you think your "refutations" address "serious flaws" is startling. Let me quickly explain something to you: the only thing we can be sure about the Kalam is that there are no obvious flaws, since otherwise we wouldn't know about it. Both atheistic and theistic philosophers agree that the Kalam is a damned fine argument, and if ever there comes a point that there are, in the academic literature, found to be "serious flaws" within it, then everyone will stop talking about it. It seems as though you have found some standard rebuttals on the web, but you do not recognize that rebuttals are par for the course, and they exist for nearly every argument ever made. If there were "serious flaws" in the argument, then no one would be interested in offering a rebuttal. If you actually tried these refutations out on Craig, himself, he would savage you intellectually just as Krauss would savage me if I tried to start arguing Big Bang cosmology with him. That you can't see this is disturbing.


P.S, Just realized I didn't address your timeless, spaceless, etc complaints. try to do it later.

----------


## stuntpickle

> I didn't say anything about the singularity...



No, but you did say that nothing has always meant some ambient energy in space (or something to that effect). I was pointing out that the singularity, which is supposed to be a zero-volume entity, is not at all the sort of nothing you are pretending that everyone refers to. Conventional Big Bang cosmology is really talking about no-thing.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> First, I think you might misunderstand something here. A valid argument is one whose form makes deduction possible.


I wasn't complaining about the validity, I was complaining about the fact that Craig is knowingly turning something he admitted was only a probability into a proposition and "selling it" as if it were true. It sounds real _nice_ to put a deductive argument out there, but what's the point if you acknowledge that one of the premises are in doubt? Forget the syllogism and spend your time just debating the issues surrounding that one proposition. 




> For instance, the uniformity of physical laws across the universe that science assumes is not an empirical observation, but rather a metaphysical judgment.


I was going to say this before the thread in General Literature was locked, but I didn't realize (at first) you were using metaphysics in the classic sense to simply refer to statements about the natural world. I see it used more (today) to refer to things that are actually meta(beyond)physics. But I'm still a bit curious as to how you're using "metaphysical judgment" in this context. Our understanding of "the uniformity of physical laws" DOES come from observation. If those laws didn't hold in what we observe, we wouldn't assume they held. So what distinction are you making between empiricism and metaphysical judgment? 




> The first premise of the Kalam is not based simply upon observed physical phenomena, but also on typically a priori judgments such as that the Cartesian thinking I began to exist... the causal premiss is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic.


I have, of course, heard Craig make the ex nihilo nihil fit argument many times, but the argument doesn't work. The problem is is that Craig, by his own admission, has never observed nothing. To state nothing comes from nothing one would actually have to be able to see nothing come from nothing, or else you might as well say nothing can come from blobligock. It's just as coherent. 

The argument Craig makes is actually rooted in observances of the physical world. The kind of "nothing" Craig talks of is the "nothing" of empty space in our universe. How do I know that? Because ever example Craig has ever given about of "nothing comes from nothing" is always along the lines of "Beethoven or Eskimo villages or... don't just pop into existence out of nothing!" But Beethoven and Eskimo villages exist within spacetime, within the physical universe, where the "nothing" of empty space actually weighs more than all the physical matter there is thanks to dark matter and dark energy. So when Craig talks about observing "nothing coming from nothing" he's either knowingly lying and manipulative, or unwittingly wrong, because what he's observing isn't nothing coming from nothing, but nothing coming from a whole lot of something. 

How do I know it's a whole lot of something? Well, by Craig's own admission! When Craig is shown the quantum vacuum, meaning empty space with no physical matter in it, he says "but that's not nothing! It's a seething sea of fluctuation energy." Well, congrats Craig, because if that's not nothing, then please show me nothing! Can nothing even exist? What's more, that seems to be the "nothing" he's referring to every time he gives examples of how "nothing comes from nothing." So, as I see it, he can either start calling the quantum vacuum nothing, and then he must admit something can come from nothing, or he can call the quantum vacuum something, and admit he's never actually observed nothing coming from nothing, thus making the ex nihilo nihil fit argument an incoherency because we don't even know if nothing exists or can exist. 

One final point, and that's that virtual particle still appear to be uncaused. Craig likes to say they're "caused," but when you have something that happens that you can't predict, how can you ever determine a cause? Every cause I know of we've discovered was because we were able to eliminate the variables to one thing, and repeat a result using that one thing we then labeled "cause". The entire notion of "cause" has a spatial, temporal, predictive, and empirical element built right into it, and virtual particles may violate all of them. FWICT, Craig has only shown that they're contingent, but contingency still isn't the same as cause. If I break a window, that window breaking is contingent on my mother having given birth to me, but that birth did not cause the window to break. What's more, how do we assess causes sans space-time? 




> To suggest that Craig is wrong because he does not adhere to a B theory of time is an argumentum ad populum and an argumentum ad verecundium...


Appealing to the popular opinions of experts is really all anyone can do here until something is proved empirically or mathematically. Still, if one is assessing probabilities on the truthfulness of propositions on subjects of which one isn't an expert in, assessing the popular opinions of those experts is a good place to start. That Craig is going against the grain shouldn't be all that surprising when we know he has a particular bias going into it. 




> Second, you seem to be equivocating on "infinity."


There is a reason we tend to believe that if theoretical math works out on paper, it may have its representative in reality as well; the reason being that math has proved so immensely valuable for modeling that reality so far. The fact that infinity works on paper is, itself, a good argument that it may have some basis in actual, practical reality. 




> The problem with cutting finite chunks from any infinite thing is that it results in a paradox. If you are simply manipulating numbers on paper, then there are special procedures for manipulating infinity, whereas there are no such restrictions when presented with an infinite number of M&Ms.


I'm not sure if you got my point... Hilbert's Hotel and the M&M examples are ways in which to imagine infinity by finite successions of things, which makes more sense if the A Theory of time is true, because then time is linear progression/succession of moments. But consider for a moment that B Theory is true and all time is omnipresent and we're merely observing it from one point and the illusion of time is merely a reflection of our limited epistemology. In that scenario, infinity becomes the totality of everything. In fact, there are no finite things, and everything we imagine as finite is just us drawing outlines in a circle. I always thought that would make sense of, eg, Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, because the natural numbers are, by their nature, treating reality as if it were finite. The limitations of treating the infinite as finite, as we observe the outline of things, would naturally lead to incompleteness. 

The paradoxes of cutting finite chunks out of infinity is precisely in the nature that one can not consider infinity in finites, whether they be M&Ms (which implicitly assumes the M&Ms are separate from each other and the person counting) or hotel rooms (which implicitly assumes hotel rooms are separate from each other and its residents). If infinity is to be infinite it seems to me it would have to be everything without finite distinction, and trying to imagine the infinity through finite distinctions doesn't work. The paradox doesn't reflect a problem with infinity, but rather with our tendency to view things as being separate and finite naturally. 

That also shouldn't be such a radical notion either, considering how much we've come to learn in the 20th century about how our perspective on reality has naturally distorted how we see and interpret that reality. One thing that should make anyone suspicious about, eg, the Kalam is when Craig says that something is rooted in our "metaphysical intuition" because, seriously, who can reasonably appeal to human intuition's innate ability for discovering metaphysical truths? As I said elsewhere, to our metaphysical intuition, the Earth is flat, the sun revolves around it, light doesn't bend, empty space is empty and nothing, and Schrodinger's Cat can't be both alive and dead; the metaphysical intuition of humanity sucks royally. 




> Just so you know, most atheists agree Krauss got spanked by Craig.


I agreed as well, and I explained why. Live formal debate is not a sufficient forum to dig into these issues with the kind of depth they require to understand. 




> the only thing we can be sure about the Kalam is that there are no obvious flaws, since otherwise we wouldn't know about it.


The fact that Craig has made a deductive argument out of premises he admits can only be probabilities is itself a major and obvious flaw. Any proper Bayesian would be rolling their eyes the minute they saw someone trying to turn a probability into a boolean proposition. It reeks of intellectual dishonesty. 




> No, but you did say that nothing has always meant some ambient energy in space (or something to that effect).


No, I didn't say that. What I said that was that nothing used to refer to empty space, which people used to think was actually empty, and then nothing came to mean something else when physicists discovered empty space wasn't empty. It's a good example of moving the goalposts. Unfortunately, changing definitions doesn't change reality. I've thoroughly parsed this problem before, but if you want me to go through it again, I can. It has to do with how our brain incorrectly processes language over time and with the acquisition of new facts. The short version would be that a term exists to refer to one thing, one thing is discovered to be something else, the term should lose it's meaning, but instead it still feels like a real thing that has a basis in reality, even though it lost its original referent. That's what's happened with "nothing".

----------


## stuntpickle

> I wasn't complaining about the validity, I was complaining about the fact that Craig is knowingly turning something he admitted was only a probability into a proposition and "selling it" as if it were true. It sounds real _nice_ to put a deductive argument out there, but what's the point if you acknowledge that one of the premises are in doubt? Forget the syllogism and spend your time just debating the issues surrounding that one proposition.


All premises are in doubt. Logic cannot justify itself.





> I was going to say this before the thread in General Literature was locked, but I didn't realize (at first) you were using metaphysics in the classic sense to simply refer to statements about the natural world. I see it used more (today) to refer to things that are actually meta(beyond)physics. But I'm still a bit curious as to how you're using "metaphysical judgment" in this context. Our understanding of "the uniformity of physical laws" DOES come from observation. If those laws didn't hold in what we observe, we wouldn't assume they held. So what distinction are you making between empiricism and metaphysical judgment?


I'm trying not to be rude. But it becomes difficult to know how to proceed when errors or misunderstandings start to compound exponentially.

I never said metaphysics referred simply to "statements about the natural world." To even make the distinction of a natural world from abstract things like beauty and the number two is already metaphysics. There's more to philosophy than "the natural world"; there always has been and always will be, and this is not at all controversial. Even the naturalist must consent to metaphysical discussion apart from nature at some point.

You seem to have this notion that philosophy is no longer important when, really, the truth is that philosophy is all-important, but it's so incredibly robust and diffuse that it encompasses the entirety of the academy now. Science is literally a branch of philosophy, and it was conducted in precisely that manner under the name "natural philosophy" for centuries. It's just that the establishing principles and foundations are so conventional now that rarely do persons recall its philosophical origins. The idea that a discussion of God is one in which science opposes philosophy is absurd. The truth is that discussions of God involve the collision of differing worldviews, of which neither has a proper claim on science.

No, the uniformity of physical laws is not an observation, but an inductive inference from an inconsequential amount of observation and a lot of philosophizing. If you want to understand the problems of induction start with Hume and then read a couple hundred years worth of literature. There's no real reason science ought to work, yet we both have worldviews that assume it does.




> I have, of course, heard Craig make the ex nihilo nihil fit argument many times, but the argument doesn't work. The problem is is that Craig, by his own admission, has never observed nothing. To state nothing comes from nothing one would actually have to be able to see nothing come from nothing, or else you might as well say nothing can come from blobligock. It's just as coherent.


It doesn't matter whether you think ex nihilo nihil fit works. Let's try to stay on topic. The point is that ex nihilo nihil fit is, contrary to your assertion, the basis of the first premise of the Kalam and not quantum theory.

I can't believe what you're writing here. The nothing Craig is referring to is not observable because it isn't A thing but NO thing. To even make your point you have to resort to a double negative, which would actually mean Craig has observed something. To suggest that Craig needs to have observed nothing is to say that Craig needs never to have observed anything. The word "nothing" is hardly incoherent. Every dictionary includes it, every child understands it, and this is hardly some major point of contention. You are literally trying to impose the standards of empirical observation on nothing. So if you are stating that empirical standards should be used in observing nothing, then I invite you to stop trying to use them.




> The argument Craig makes is actually rooted in observances of the physical world. The kind of "nothing" Craig talks of is the "nothing" of empty space in our universe. How do I know that? Because ever example Craig has ever given about of "nothing comes from nothing" is always along the lines of "Beethoven or Eskimo villages or... don't just pop into existence out of nothing!" But Beethoven and Eskimo villages exist within spacetime, within the physical universe, where the "nothing" of empty space actually weighs more than all the physical matter there is thanks to dark matter and dark energy. So when Craig talks about observing "nothing coming from nothing" he's either knowingly lying and manipulative, or unwittingly wrong, because what he's observing isn't nothing coming from nothing, but nothing coming from a whole lot of something.


Craig's metaphysics is based in part on observations of the physical world, but it is also based on more than that. Have you ever heard of Descartes? You understand that nearly everyone concedes that there are a priori arguments, right? This is wholly uncontroversial. "Cogito ergo sum" does not come from observing the physical world.

The only reason you've only heard Craig talk about Eskimo villages and Beethoven is because you haven't read his scholarly material. He has tons of material talking about Platonic forms and various other immaterialities. He's using those examples so that lay persons understand him. In fact, the most common example he uses is that he (I) came into existence, and he is talking about the Cartesian I.

The last part is just absurd. Craig has never claimed to have actually observed an actual phenomenon of nothing coming from nothing.





> How do I know it's a whole lot of something? Well, by Craig's own admission! When Craig is shown the quantum vacuum, meaning empty space with no physical matter in it, he says "but that's not nothing! It's a seething sea of fluctuation energy." Well, congrats Craig, because if that's not nothing, then please show me nothing! Can nothing even exist? What's more, that seems to be the "nothing" he's referring to every time he gives examples of how "nothing comes from nothing." So, as I see it, he can either start calling the quantum vacuum nothing, and then he must admit something can come from nothing, or he can call the quantum vacuum something, and admit he's never actually observed nothing coming from nothing, thus making the ex nihilo nihil fit argument an incoherency because we don't even know if nothing exists or can exist.


Fallacy of equivocation. Craig is simply making the point that his nothing and the quantum nothing are not the same. You are equivocating to make a fallacious refutation. 

When you make the ridiculous demand to be "shown nothing", you must understand that everyone in the world just complied with your request.




> One final point, and that's that virtual particle still appear to be uncaused. Craig likes to say they're "caused," but when you have something that happens that you can't predict, how can you ever determine a cause? Every cause I know of we've discovered was because we were able to eliminate the variables to one thing, and repeat a result using that one thing we then labeled "cause". The entire notion of "cause" has a spatial, temporal, predictive, and empirical element built right into it, and virtual particles may violate all of them. FWICT, Craig has only shown that they're contingent, but contingency still isn't the same as cause. If I break a window, that window breaking is contingent on my mother having given birth to me, but that birth did not cause the window to break. What's more, how do we assess causes sans space-time?


This reads like obfuscation. The only thing we know about quantum fluctuations is that we don't know what's going on. There are any number of theories about what is happening, and no one knows for sure. Craig isn't required to demonstrate how this is caused since it's your point. You are asserting that these particles come into being without a cause, and we do not know that to be the case. Not knowing if something has a cause is NOT the same as knowing something to have no cause. It's your assertion, and you have the explanatory onus. 




> Appealing to the popular opinions of experts is really all anyone can do here until something is proved empirically or mathematically. Still, if one is assessing probabilities on the truthfulness of propositions on subjects of which one isn't an expert in, assessing the popular opinions of those experts is a good place to start. That Craig is going against the grain shouldn't be all that surprising when we know he has a particular bias going into it.


No, that's not all anyone can do. One can actually try to adjudicate the issues, and I believe Craig is capable of doing that. The problem is one of audience. And as we've seen, with complications of metaphysics, deduction and what "nothing" means the additional layer of what "time" means would prove too difficult for most. You can read Craig's scholarly works for an engagement with the issue. BTW, Craig also has an argument from contingency that works regardless of which theory of time is used.




> There is a reason we tend to believe that if theoretical math works out on paper, it may have its representative in reality as well; the reason being that math has proved so immensely valuable for modeling that reality so far. The fact that infinity works on paper is, itself, a good argument that it may have some basis in actual, practical reality. 
> 
> I'm not sure if you got my point... Hilbert's Hotel and the M&M examples are ways in which to imagine infinity by finite successions of things, which makes more sense if the A Theory of time is true, because then time is linear progression/succession of moments. But consider for a moment that B Theory is true and all time is omnipresent and we're merely observing it from one point and the illusion of time is merely a reflection of our limited epistemology. In that scenario, infinity becomes the totality of everything. In fact, there are no finite things, and everything we imagine as finite is just us drawing outlines in a circle. I always thought that would make sense of, eg, Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, because the natural numbers are, by their nature, treating reality as if it were finite. The limitations of treating the infinite as finite, as we observe the outline of things, would naturally lead to incompleteness.


Are you familiar with the Grim reaper Paradox, which purports to prove the impossibility of actual infinities?

The irony of bringing up Godel's incompleteness theorems is wonderful. So we agree truth does not entail provability and that the more precise a system is the more incomplete it is? So you admit that God could exist regardless of what reason has to say about it?

"In your last letter you asked the weighty question, whether I believe that we shall meet again in an afterlife. About this, I can only say the following: If the world is rationally constructed and has meaning, then there must be such a thing. For what sense would there be in creating a being, which has such a wide realm of possibilities for its own development and for relationships to others, and then not allowing it to realize even a thousandth of those? That would be almost like someone laying, with the greatest effort and expense, the foundations for a house, and then letting it all go to seed again."

--Kurt Godel




> The paradoxes of cutting finite chunks out of infinity is precisely in the nature that one can not consider infinity in finites, whether they be M&Ms (which implicitly assumes the M&Ms are separate from each other and the person counting) or hotel rooms (which implicitly assumes hotel rooms are separate from each other and its residents). If infinity is to be infinite it seems to me it would have to be everything without finite distinction, and trying to imagine the infinity through finite distinctions doesn't work. The paradox doesn't reflect a problem with infinity, but rather with our tendency to view things as being separate and finite naturally.


This works in theory, which no one debates. But when you actually render the round pie of the infinite into a physical world of knives, it all goes to crap. People can simply start cutting pieces. Try to think of time as distinct arrangements of matter, which, regardless of how they are arranged, are still distinct. Observation is a knife. We are subtracting from your supposed infinite all the time.




> That also shouldn't be such a radical notion either, considering how much we've come to learn in the 20th century about how our perspective on reality has naturally distorted how we see and interpret that reality. One thing that should make anyone suspicious about, eg, the Kalam is when Craig says that something is rooted in our "metaphysical intuition" because, seriously, who can reasonably appeal to human intuition's innate ability for discovering metaphysical truths? As I said elsewhere, to our metaphysical intuition, the Earth is flat, the sun revolves around it, light doesn't bend, empty space is empty and nothing, and Schrodinger's Cat can't be both alive and dead; the metaphysical intuition of humanity sucks royally.


Again, you say you understand metaphysics, but then you make me wonder. There's nothing at all suspicious about Craig using the phrase "metaphysical intuition." When I sit down in a chair, I expect the chair not to dissolve into nothingness, which is a metaphysical intuition.

This is what's so frustrating about discussing this with the average atheist. They will just start throwing around all these really complicated ideas like Hilbert's Hotel, but at the same time, they demonstrate a misunderstanding about basic metaphysics. The result is that you get this really prodigious tower built atop a tiny pebble, and the resulting structure just falls down on its own.

Look, you sound like a really smart guy who has done a lot of research on his own, but I think there are some strange problems with what you're saying that make the conversation very weird. And by the way, what Craig means by "metaphysical" is not at all controversial.




> I agreed as well, and I explained why. Live formal debate is not a sufficient forum to dig into these issues with the kind of depth they require to understand.


You make it sound as though Krauss would fare better in written format. Krauss's problem wasn't that he was trying to lecture or that Craig was simply a better debater, but that he doesn't know the first thing about how to properly frame the discussion. He was ridiculing Bayesian probability during the debate and tried to say Craig was attempting to obscure the conversation with some ludicrous equations. And the truth is Bayesian probability is the only way to approach the issue of the debate, which Krauss, himself, chose.




> The fact that Craig has made a deductive argument out of premises he admits can only be probabilities is itself a major and obvious flaw. Any proper Bayesian would be rolling their eyes the minute they saw someone trying to turn a probability into a boolean proposition. It reeks of intellectual dishonesty.


LOL! Wrong. Certainty died with logical positivism. All premises are now only probable. This is why there are Christian philosophers back in the academy.




> No, I didn't say that. What I said that was that nothing used to refer to empty space, which people used to think was actually empty, and then nothing came to mean something else when physicists discovered empty space wasn't empty. It's a good example of moving the goalposts. Unfortunately, changing definitions doesn't change reality. I've thoroughly parsed this problem before, but if you want me to go through it again, I can. It has to do with how our brain incorrectly processes language over time and with the acquisition of new facts. The short version would be that a term exists to refer to one thing, one thing is discovered to be something else, the term should lose it's meaning, but instead it still feels like a real thing that has a basis in reality, even though it lost its original referent. That's what's happened with "nothing".


No, you tried to pretend that Craig was equivocating and "moving the goalposts" in his discussion of "nothing" since he was really talking about ambient energy. And I rightly pointed out that Craig was talking about the same nothing that was in orthodox Bing Bang cosmology, which is NOT ambient energy. It seems to me that your entire understanding of Craig is based off his response to a rebuttal concerning quantum fluctuations, and this is why your view of the Kalam is so distorted.

----------


## YesNo

> Evolution is rarely (if ever) and event that produces a completely new species within a generation, it's usually just *small changes over time* that add up to a big change when we observe two points along the scale. So *I would imagine* there was plenty of time for us to get to this point.


The small changes over time seems to contradict the punctuated equilibrium arguments of Eldridge and Gould, but that is a side issue. 

The question is whether it is possible for the sequence of events to be mathematically random. I would imagine that the sequence of events, if they were caused by chance, were a very, very _lucky_ sequence of events, that is, they could NOT be considered mathematically random simply because they happened too quickly, regardless of whether there was any actual design involved or not.

Now I don't know how to measure this and I would be interested in help from anyone on this.

We know how long life existed on the planet. We know the rate of random mutations. I don't know how many random changes are necessary to go from the simplest DNA to the most complicated DNA (which may not be human DNA). I don't know what a unit of such change would be in the DNA. Can anyone provide a link that would help with information on this?

----------


## YesNo

> Is this the Krauss everyone is referring to?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eNjmN9Xtmg
> 
> He got completely savaged by Craig in that debate and then had the gall to write a nasty blog about Craig afterward, one to which Craig responded with typical class. Seriously, of all Craig's debate opponents, Krauss was probably the worst--at the very least, one of the worst.
> 
> Excerpt from Krauss's blog:
> 
> _I believe that if I erred at all, it was in an effort to consider the sensibilities of the 1200 smiling young faces in the audience, who earnestly came out, mostly to hear Craig, and to whom I decided to show undue respect. As I stressed at the time, I did not come to debate the existence of God, but rather to debate about evidence for the existence of God. I also wanted to demonstrate the need for nuance, to explain how these issues are far more complex than Craig, in his simplistic view of the world, makes them out to be.
> ...


That looks like the Krauss I was referring to.

Just looking at the introductory arguments, I see that Craig has dealt with the multiverse as well. It also must have had a beginning based on a theorem provided by scientists themselves.

His first four arguments I accept. I have problems with the fifth argument since I suspect it leads to an acceptance of Jesus as the only possibility for the God he shows is likely to exist from the first four arguments. However, Jesus is certainly a candidate.

Craig doesn't win these debates simply because he is a good debater. He wins these debates because he is a good debater and the evidence is all on his side.

----------


## stuntpickle

> The small changes over time seems to contradict the punctuated equilibrium arguments of Eldridge and Gould, but that is a side issue.


This is a very good point. I do not disbelieve the theory of evolution. But I do believe most evolutionists are dishonest with most Christians when they try to explain the mechanisms in terms of gradualism, but then turn around and defend the fossil record in terms of punctuated equilibrium. Evolution has been in a bit of a crisis for a while. And although I suspect it will pull through with a more refined theory, I think it's a shame that its proponents won't own the inherent problems.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Craig doesn't win these debates simply because he is a good debater. He wins these debates because he is a good debater and the evidence is all on his side.


I agree. I think it's disingenuous at best to pretend Craig is simply a good debater and horrible where it counts. The fact is that developments in the sciences have made theism respectable again.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> No, the uniformity of physical laws is not an observation, but an inductive inference from an inconsequential amount of observation and a lot of philosophizing.


I realize science grew out of philosophy, I realize philosophy is still heavily studied, written, and read, I may disagree that science doesn't oppose philosophy concerning God, but that's neither here nor there, so I'm going to go ahead and only address the point you made that had anything to do with what I said, which is the above. 

I'll agree that every physical law we call a law is based on inductive inference from observation, but I'm not sure where you think the "philosophizing" is necessary, or why you'd call such observations an "inconsequential amount". Laws are observations that have held 100% of the time in every tested observation. Now, of course, there will always be more trials, and there's always some probability that, for some completely unknown reason, a law may suddenly fail to hold. It's similar to the Newcomb Problem in Decision Theory this discusses a scenario that seems to contradict our model of how things work and, thus, destroys the model of decision theory itself. Popper's answer was that science wasn't about induction to begin with, but about attempts to falsify existing theories, and science simply chooses amongst those that haven't been falsified. 

Either way, I never really saw what problem people had with this. All it's saying is that our knowledge is limited our models constructed based on the consistency of observing reality and certain causal relations in reality. I don't think scientists would have a problem saying that there's always a chance that one day those observations will stop holding and will upset every theoretical and conjectural and assumption base we have, but until then they don't feel the need to make any absolute claims about such things, or, at the least we can claim that laws are based on the consistency of our observations of reality and thus, we assume (even if we're prepared to be wrong), that it isn't simply limited to our subjectivity and finite observations. 




> The nothing Craig is referring to is not observable because it isn't A thing but NO thing... The word "nothing" is hardly incoherent... You are literally trying to impose the standards of empirical observation on nothing.


OK, we know you know something of philosophy, do you know something about semiotics? Saussure famously broke the study of signs into three categories: 

Signifier (in language, the word itself as text or sound)
Signified aka Intension (the subjective concept of the word)
Referrent aka Extension (the external thing the word refers to)

If you analyze "nothing" under these three terms you can see that nothing clearly has a signified (in terms of our internal concept of what it means), but what I'm arguing is that since the discovery by physicists that empty space is not empty, "nothing" may no longer have an referent, an external "thing" it refers to. If empty space is not nothing, then what is nothing? I'm sorry, but Craig CLEARLY resorts to observations of the physical world when he argues that nothing can't come from nothing. All of his examples are observations, meaning he has a referent in mind when he uses the term. Unfortunately, he has already eliminated his referent from being nothing! So what I'm asking is: what is Craig's referent for "nothing" now? Because if it no longer corresponds to anything external in reality, like his examples are, then "nothing" is, indeed, incoherent on a referential level. 

Put simply: How can one make the statement "nothing comes from nothing" if "nothing" has not been observed to exist, much less nothing coming from it?" It's very much like saying "blutaks can't come from blutaks." Well, what's a blutak? What's nothing? If you say "the absence of any thing," then I ask you "is 'the absence of any thing' possible?" I don't see how you think that "nothing comes from nothing" isn't based on empirical observation. The ancients observed empty space, noticed nothing spontaneously appeared in it, and said "nothing comes from nothing." Their notion of nothing (empty space) isn't nothing (according to Craig and physicists), so the entire basis for the original statement is demolished. 




> "Cogito ergo sum" does not come from observing the physical world.


Our brains are part of the physical world. 




> The only reason you've only heard Craig talk about Eskimo villages and Beethoven is because you haven't read his scholarly material...


So he's knowingly lying and being manipulative then? 




> In fact, the most common example he uses is that he (I) came into existence, and he is talking about the Cartesian I.


Fine, but the Cartesian I comes into existence out of the reordering of material that already exists. It's not evidence for nothing comes from nothing, it's evidence that something comes from something. 




> Craig has never claimed to have actually observed an actual phenomenon of nothing coming from nothing.


What he has done is used arguments based on observations of the physical world (Eskimo villages and Beethoven and...) to support that nothing comes from nothing, but why would he do this unless he was referring to some aspect of the physical universe as nothing? Otherwise, I repeat, it's not argument that nothing comes from nothing, it's an argument that things come from something. 




> When you make the ridiculous demand to be "shown nothing", you must understand that everyone in the world just complied with your request.


Nope, they complied with a request to show me something not physically observable, which is not the same nothing Craig is referring to, since he's already stated that's not nothing. Try again. 




> The only thing we know about quantum fluctuations is that we don't know what's going on. There are any number of theories about what is happening, and no one knows for sure. Craig isn't required to demonstrate how this is caused since it's your point. You are asserting that these particles come into being without a cause, and we do not know that to be the case.


1. I'm not saying they don't have a cause. 

2. Craig is the one claiming everything has a cause. 

3. The cause of virtual particles is unknown

4. Craig's "everything has a cause" proposition fails until we know what that cause is. 

5. What we do know about quantum fluctuations is they appear to be purely probabilistic. We know what they are contingent on, but the closer we get to measuring mass or velocity, the farther we get from being able to measure the other, thus making their position impossible to predict. 

QP presents a very real problem to our classical notions of causality, because causality is very much based on predictably observable consistency. When dealing with something that seems purely probabilistic, how does causality apply? What's more, even without this problem, how does Craig apply the notion of causality prior to the universe and, hence, prior to spacetime? (FWIW, if you don't know, look up his arguments on atemporal causality. Every scientist I've shown them to has called them rather laughable and, at best, a distortion of what we know of as causality). 




> No, that's not all anyone can do. One can actually try to adjudicate the issues, and I believe Craig is capable of doing that.


Yes, that's why he's not even listed here.




> The irony of bringing up Godel's incompleteness theorems is awesome. So we agree truth does not entail provability and that the more precise a system is the more incomplete it is? So you admit that God could exist regardless of what reason has to say about it?


What does any of this have to do with the incompleteness theorems being related to understanding the infinite through finite models like the natural numbers? 

I've never denied that God could exist regardless of anything. But if God exist it must exist out there somewhere in the unknown, and arguing about whether God is out there is as productive as arguing if anything else is out there. 




> But when you actually render the round pie of the infinite into a physical world of knives, it all goes to crap. People can simply start cutting pieces. Observation is a knife. We are subtracting from your supposed infinite all the time.


Observation is a knife, but it's only cutting in our mind, not in reality. The fact that we see a plane and its parts as distinct from each other and everything around it doesn't change the fact that it's actually just a collection of quanta that we can't see. Likewise, the fact that we can mentally draw lines through the infinite and keep them in compartments in our mind that make them seem/feel separate doesn't mean they actually are. We're just engaging in the mind-projection fallacy, no different than saying that the sun must move around the earth because we observe it moving in the sky. 




> When I sit down in a chair, I expect the chair not to dissolve into nothingness, which is a metaphysical intuition.


When I see the sun moving across the sky, I expect that the sun is actually moving across the sky. 




> Look, you sound like a really smart guy who has done a lot of research on his own, but I think there are some unfortunate deficiencies that make the conversation very weird.


Perhaps. But it's no different than when I (and others) try to discuss science or math or probabilities with theists who have unfortunate deficiencies that make those conversations weird too. Ever tried to explain to people how Bayes works? 




> You make it sound as though Krauss would fare better in written format.


Krauss would fare better if he and Craig actually sit down to discuss the science that Craig bases his first premise on in any format, because Krauss knows the science infinitely better than Craig. It's like how so many theists want to see Craig debate Dawkins but, for the life of me, I don't know why, because, AFAIK, Craig has never really debated on the subject of evolutionary biology. 




> Krauss's problem ...(was) that he doesn't know the first thing about how to properly frame the discussion.


Right, which is a debate tactic. 




> He was ridiculing Bayesian probability during the debate and tried to say Craig was attempting to obscure the conversation with some ludicrous equations. And the truth is Bayesian probability is the only way to approach the issue of the debate, which Krauss, himself, chose.


Carrier has dismantled some of Craig's arguments using Bayesian probabilities in print before. I don't recall Krauss ridiculing Bayesian probability; what I think he was ridiculing was Craig's usage of it. Maybe I'm wrong... what part of the video are you referring to? 

FWIW, I'm very skeptical that Craig really understands how to apply Bayes' Theorem. The Krauss debate isn't a good example because all he's doing is talking about it abstract terms but not actual probabilities. IIRC, it was in the context of Jesus' Resurrection, and this is really a relatively new area of investigation (in fact, Bayesian application to historical studies is new, in general). Carrier discusses this in depth in many of his books, but reading arguments on both sides of this issue is a bit like wading through mud, because figuring out the correct priors to assign to events from thousands of years ago that we only have limited access to through what writings have remained is very, very difficult and very, very complex. 




> Certainty died with logical positivism. All premises are now only probable.


Then stick with discussing probabilities. There's no reason for syllogisms. 




> I rightly pointed out that Craig was talking about the same nothing that was in orthodox Big Bang cosmology, which is NOT ambient energy.


I actually looked up Craig's argument on this matter, just to see what you were referring to. All I can figure is that either Craig is referring to the singularity itself as nothing, or he's saying that there was a point when space-time didn't exist, and that was nothing. Either way, he's wrong. Firstly, because we can only trace the origin of the universe back so far, and we simply intuit that the universe with a diameter of 0 actually happened. Problem is that general relatively breaks down before we start to get there and enter Planck time, and then we're into quantum events. Thus far, those quantum events are as far back as we can look, and if they were always there (a possibility), the singularity may never have happened. Quantum gravity is one attempt to reconcile QM and GR, and if it proves successful, we may come to conclusion that everything, including space-time, formed from that. So, I'm still not sure this "nothing" is actually "nothing" in any meaningful sense of the word. An infinitely dense point, if it actually happened, isn't nothing, and we're not sure what was there before planck time and the point where (if) QM breaks down. 

Maybe I'm missing something, but feel free point me out to a full argument from Craig about how the earliest known points in the universe are actually supposed to be "nothing," because I'm not sure how a singularity (again, if that's something that's an actuality, rather than just an intuitive extension of what we know from expansion) is "nothing".

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> The small changes over time seems to contradict the punctuated equilibrium arguments of Eldridge and Gould, but that is a side issue.


FWIW, Eldridge and Gould's boldest claims have been widely criticized, and I would say the majority of evidence and evolutionary biologists are still on the Neo-Darwinist's side. Of course, that's ad populum and authority again but, again, it's hard for folks like us to go on much else. 




> We know how long life existed on the planet. We know the rate of random mutations. I don't know how many random changes are necessary to go from the simplest DNA to the most complicated DNA (which may not be human DNA). I don't know what a unit of such change would be in the DNA. Can anyone provide a link that would help with information on this?


I'll ask some evolutionary biologists I know and get back to you... 




> Craig doesn't win these debates simply because he is a good debater. He wins these debates because he is a good debater and the evidence is all on his side.


No, he wins because he's a good debater. Consider this: The time limit on most presentations is usually about 20-minutes. A normal person speaks at a rate of 200-250 words-per-minute, and that amounts to 5000 words, maybe 6000 words if they talk fast. That's the size of a mid-sized written essay. 

In most of these debates, Craig is dealing with subjects on which mountains have been written, including tons of various theories, all of which has their evidence, arguments, and detractors. Do you REALLY think one can cover such a controversial subject as the origin of the universe in the span of a live formal debate? One can summarize, but then we're talking about the ability to cherry-pick through summaries that support your side. Craig is very good at this, and he frequently cherry-picks sources that outright state they disagree with his conclusions (Guth & Vilenkin, eg). 

Craig gets away with making all kinds of claims and quote-mining because his opponents are not equipped and capable of spouting off the most concise counter-argument summations to many of his various claims, sometimes because they're honest enough to do like Krauss and repeatedly say "we don't know," which is really all any honest person can say when it comes to the earliest point of the universe's existence. In the meantime, Craig "wows" by making all kinds of "points" (summary conclusions) that his opponents don't address, either because they are unaware of the available objections and arguments (perhaps because they're outside their specialty), or because they feel there's simply too much to go into and not enough time. I'm pretty sure that's the case when it comes to Krauss, because instead of going into the many theories that exist to explain QM or the earliest cosmology, he talks about what we DO know and how that is currently presenting us with even MORE questions. What's going to sound more convincing: someone making summarized, concise, positive arguments, or someone repeatedly saying "everything we learn just seems to confirm how much we don't have a clue"? 

FWIW, Craig has stumbled in debates where he's been with opponents that are equally equipped as he is. Stenger finally got him to go almost fully on the subject of early cosmology and I think Stenger, if he loses at all, is only on speed and organization (as LukeProg noted). I actually thought Craig got beat by Kagan on the subject of morality without God in their debate. Craig, to my complete surprised, seemed quite unprepared for many of Kagan's points and rebuttals (I also thought Craig lost to Sinnott-Armstrong in their debate on morals in their book-long debate, actually; I think Craig has a pretty pitiful response to the Problem of Evil, which is basically "we can't know God's plans," or the retreat to ignorance and the possible). I also think Craig lost on pure logic (another rarity) to Parsons, but that debate was a bit technical for my tastes, actually. 

One thing that I'm disturbed that nobody has ever mentioned when Craig uses the resurrection as a basis for arguing for God is that Craig often switches from making the circumstantial evidence surrounding the resurrection as evidence for it, but then admits that the resurrection is only unlikely if we "presume" naturalism, but that it would be perfectly reasonable if we "presume" God. But you can't, on the one hand, use the resurrection as an inductive evidence for God, but then presume God and the supernatural to argue for the likelihood of the resurrection! That's ACTUAL question begging. Likewise, using naturalistic bases for Bayesian priors, I don't think any circumstantial evidence could ever overcome the initial improbability of a resurrection. As I see it, the only way to get over that problem is to first presume God, but then that doesn't help us either because we would then lose any basis for a prior if we're not using naturalism with regards to resurrections!

----------


## YesNo

> FWIW, Eldridge and Gould's boldest claims have been widely criticized, and I would say the majority of evidence and evolutionary biologists are still on the Neo-Darwinist's side. Of course, that's ad populum and authority again but, again, it's hard for folks like us to go on much else.


One point I'm trying to make with bringing up Eldridge and Gould is that punctuated equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium) is a currently valid alternative to phyletic gradualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletic_gradualism). Contrast that with the Standard Model of Cosmology (aka, the Big Bang) where there is no surviving alternative since the results of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe came in.




> Craig gets away with making all kinds of claims and quote-mining because his opponents are not equipped and capable of spouting off the most concise counter-argument summations to many of his various claims, sometimes because they're honest enough to do like Krauss and repeatedly say "we don't know," which is really all any honest person can say when it comes to the earliest point of the universe's existence.


Everyone should know by now what Craig's arguments are going to be especially the core argument that the universe--space, time, matter and energy--had a beginning 13.73 billion years ago. If you want to stop him, you have to show that something is eternal besides God, but with the confirmation of the big bang that is difficult to do. 

He mentioned one thing in the debate that I was unaware of, and apparently so was Krauss. It seems that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem also requires the multiverse to have a beginning. So the multiverse is not an alternative to God either. It was crucial that Krauss address this, but he really had nothing to say except to repeat that the multiverse was "eternal". I would have expected more from him than that.

It seems that Craig backed Krauss into a corner by using evidence coming right out of Krauss' field. It's no wonder Craig wins these debates.

----------


## stuntpickle

Morpheus, I want to take a second to get the conversation back on track. This is not an argument about the existence of God, but rather one concerning whether the Kalam has "serious flaws". You seem to think we're engaged in an argument over God and are conducting this discussion in that manner.

What I dislike so much about debating whether God exists is that such discussions generally end up like this one--with a preponderance of problems that mount faster than they can be addressed. We both end up writing increasingly longer posts, and the result is something like a high school Lincoln-Douglas debate in which the participants are not particularly invested in their assertions and are just trying to exhaust the opposition with superfluous statements. In light of this, I'm going to try and limit myself to covering a few basic points, rather than going line by line.

First, logic is a mode of discourse that occurs only once any number of things have been taken for granted--even if only logic, itself. For any discussion to take place, we have to agree on something so that we may have a foundation from which to begin. The notion that the theist has the explanatory onus since he's making all the assertions is a sort of half-truth perpetuated by popular atheism. The whole truth is that most philosophical disagreements involve differing world views, both of which imply a number of assertions that cannot be proved with certainty.

Our major disagreement does not concern the existence of God. The disagreement is not one primarily of atheism vs. theism, but one of metaphysical naturalism vs. metaphysical dualism. Your atheism isn't simply a lack of belief in God, but rather an entailment of a naturalistic worldview that assumes any number of metaphysical and epistemological premises with which I do not agree and which are easily attacked. The same can be said for my dualism. 

The strategy for our discussion must be one that provides some common ground from which to start, but unfortunately, many of your objections wrongly assume naturalistic assertions that trespass on our ability to even discuss the issue. The most glaring example of this was when you tried to deny metaphysics altogether, which was ironically a variety of metaphysical statement (in which you seem to be claiming that metaphysics didn't exist). This is a poor objection for any number of reasons, but mostly because you have, after making it, the monstrous task of defending it. And I can't think of a single philosopher, atheist or theist, who would defend this assertion.

Your objection about Craig admitting to the probabilistic nature of the Kalam's premises is so wildly off-base that it's hard to address. Consider the following argument that is used as the classic example of the syllogism:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This is the strongest type of argument because it is forcing. If the premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. No one has any doubt about whether this argument is a forcing syllogism. That is, however, not to say that its premises are certain. We don't have a total knowledge about the mortality of men. The statement is an inductive inference. Humanity could have developed an earlier Civilization, departed the Earth, conquered aging with genetics and now be living in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri as immortals. This, of course, is not likely, but it is logically possible. Socrates might have been a woman living in disguise, or the name of Plato's dog, or simply a fictional construct. This, of course, isn't likely, but it is possible. 

It is nearly impossible to ascertain the truth of most statements. This does not at all affect the nature of the deduction. When Craig calls the Kalam "the strongest type of argument", he is correct in doing so, simply because it is obviously one in which the conclusion follows necessarily IF the premises are true. And Craig always adds "if the premises are true" simply because that's the correct qualification one encounters in most introductory logic texts. What Craig is saying is not at all controversial, but you seem to think it's a knockout refutation. No philosopher would be willing to make the same refutation you did, because the refutation is demonstrably wrong. One need only check out a logic primer to discover this.

Like this:

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Syllogisms.pdf

You seem to think that because you can reasonably question the premises that the argument isn't forcing. And frankly, that's just wrong.

Look, you seem like an exceptioanlly bright guy. I think you would be well served by actually taking a look into logic. There have to be some open courses online that you can take for free. Not only will it help you in discussing arguments for the existence of God, but it will also greatly increase your appreciation of philosophy in general.

I hope this doesn't seem like a personal attack. I certainly don't intend it that way. I have actually enjoyed the conversation even though it was at times frustrating. Good luck and have fun debating God's existence in the future.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

That was actually a very interesting and informatice post, stuntpickle. Thanks.

I watched parts of the debate, and while I agree with Krauss's position, he struck me as an all around a-hole who gives atheists a bad name--his arrogance, his dress, the very way he would slouch back in his chair as if he was above it all. Craig had class. 

I don't pretend to know logic. It seems like its purpose is to complicate what would otherwise be simple things. The above post made it a little clearer.

----------


## KillCarneyKlans

The MetaCosmoBio - The use of creation, ie origins and re-creation, ie evolution in a justapostioned argument against 

http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...d-origins.html



> You just say there is a correlation. That is a meaningless statement without demonstrating there is a mechanism that allegedly connects them, much less how this mechanism works


© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Correlation - [Looks a lot what I'm talking about doesn't it] 

When two social, physical, or biological phenomena increase or decrease proportionately and simultaneously because of identical external factors, the phenomena are correlated positively; under the same conditions, if one increases in the same proportion that the other decreases, the two phenomena are negatively correlated. Investigators calculate the degree of correlation by applying a coefficient of correlation to data concerning the two phenomena. The most common correlation coefficient is expressed as 

E(x/o°(x).y/o°(y))/n

in which x is the deviation of one variable from its mean, y is the deviation of the other variable from its mean, and N is the total number of cases in the series. A perfect positive correlation between the two variables results in a coefficient of +1, a perfect negative correlation in a coefficient of -1, and a total absence of correlation in a coefficient of 0. Intermediate values between +1 and 0 or -1 are interpreted by degree of correlation. Thus, .89 indicates high positive correlation, -.76 high negative correlation, and .13 low positive correlation.



http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...ml#comment1148
As has been implied above, the Creation may be treated as a three-dimensional event - which suggests that the application of simple principles of coordinate geometry will best lead to a satisfactory conceptual realisation. We proceed accordingly.

Fig.1 depicts a standard left-handed coordinate system in the region of the origin (O). Proceeding from O, the progression of events in time is recorded along each axis: the 6 days of earth's creation along x, and the 6 days of heaven's creation along z. The suggestion is that the square OLMN (shaded blue) lying in the xz-plane is a fair geometrical expression of the week's creative activi

In Fig.2, the 'day of rest' that follows the 6 days of activity is similarly represented by an identical square, O'L'M'N', lying in a plane parallel to the xz-plane and displaced 1 unit in y.

Interestingly, two of its principal defining characteristics, the diagonals M'O and M'L, are, respectively, the square roots of 73 and 37 - prime factors of the 73rd triangular number, 2701, and of Genesis 1:1! 

http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/geneticpatterns.htm
The mathematical patterns found in the genetic code indicate Intelligent Design. They suggest that life came from some Cause that possessed arithmetical ability, that enjoyed harmony and balance and perfect order. Even scientists like Shcherbak are forced to admit that arithmetic seems to have preceded life itself. To quote Shcherbak. In February 2010, prompted by Steve Coneglan to carry on the genetics research, I made a careful study of the work of another geneticist - M. M. Rakocevic. The resemblance between Rakocevic's genetic patterns and those in the creation narratives is astounding. These findings have been submitted to Vernon Jenkins, Steve Coneglan and Richard McGough. Steve Coneglan has peer reviewed them and confirmed the accuracy of these startling patterns. Most recently, in early December 2010, I became aware of the extraordinary research of Jean Claude Perez, a French geneticist and mathematician. This very year he published a very interesting discovery that shows some very remarkable symmetries within the genetic code. ][divisibility of 37 as it relates to bio-systems, the Genesis narrative, rib/DNA syntax/structures]

http://whatabeginning.com/Breastplat...ael/Star_2.htm 
In his recent book, Is God a Mathematician?, astrophysicist and author Mario Livio explores the question of how it is that mathematics has evolved over the last few thousand years to so accurately describe and predict nearly all aspects of the physical world in which we live. In casting his learned eye over the subject, one domain that appears to have escaped his attention is the burgeoning field of bioinformatics, although he does muse on the possibility of its having a mathematical underpinning:

The astounding success of the physical sciences in discovering mathematical laws that govern the behavior of the cosmos at large raised the inevitable question of whether or not similar principles might also underlie biological, social, or economic processes. Is mathematics only the language of nature, mathematicians wondered, or is it also the language of human nature?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...135&p=3692161&
The kabbalist whose studies of the creation account in Genesis are the most precise and authoritative was Nechunya ben HaKanah. Among other matters in which he was expert, Nechunya specifically asserted that the 42-lettered name allowed one to deduce from the creation account the correct age of the universe. because in his day this kind of information was considered religiously sensitive (as it is today), Nechunya's own explanation of the numbers involved was somewhat sketchy. But another kabbalist who followed closely in Nechunya's footsteps -- Rabbi Yitzhak deMin Acco -- laid out the calculations precisely. These make it doubly clear that the calculations of the synodical "starting date" for the first new moon and of the "primordial year" (which values both Nechunya and deMin Acco used) were to be understood literally only insofar as the numbers produce accurate results. They were not meant to be taken literally as indicating the age of the world. 

Did Nechunya (or deMin Acco) obtain this number from some other source and then retrofit the information into complicated "permutations" of Genesis? It's hard to imagine how: DeMin Acco lived in the thirteenth century A.D.; Nechunya himself in the first century A.D.

The "meaning" of Genesis 1:1 is to be found at a deeper level of the text. The Torah according to Jewish Rabbi's is said to be written on 4 different and meaningful levels.

http://www.fixedearth.com/HB%20179%2...T.EVIDENCE.htm

“Nechunya ben HaKana, a 1st century Kabbalist asserted that if you know how to use the 42 letter name for God you could decipher a lengthy time between the creation of the universe and man. He estimated the age of the Universe at 15.3 billion years, some 2000 years ago, the very age modern astrophysics have just arrived at….” 

http://sites.google.com/site/oldshep...ologicalwisdom 

According to modern Kabbalists: Kabbala and physics “…work together to draw a picture of the Mysteries of such phenomena as The Big Bang, Parallel Universes, Relativity Theory, and The Superstring Theory. Kabbala can explain the mathematics of physics as well as providing a deeper spiritual comprehension of religion’s literal teachings….” (Kabbalah Centre http://www.kabbalah.com/ k/index.php/p=life/science? p. 3 of 11)

According to modern Kabbalist physicist Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder: “the development of time, day by day, based on the expansion factor [1 million times 1 million from start till now]. The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first Biblical day lasted 24 hours … But…from our perspective it was 8 billion years.

The second day of 24 hours…was 4 billion years. 

Posted December 1st, 2011 at 01:39 PM by KillCarneyKlansman 
http://www.christianityboard.com/top...tive-material/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...iscovered.html
Scientists say that they have found evidence that our universe was 'jostled' by other parallel universes in the distant past. The incredible claim emerged after they studied patterns in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) – the after-effects of the Big Bang. They say they may have found evidence that four circular patterns found in the CMB are 'cosmic bruises' where our universe has crashed into other universes at least four times. The findings, by Stephen Feeney from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at University College London, are likely to be controversial.

The paper, published online yesterday, comes just a month after a similar study of the background radiation claimed to have discovered evidence that the universe existed before the Big Bang. They say they have discovered 12 examples of concentric circles, some of which have five rings, meaning the same object has had five massive events in its history. [This can also be linked to Geometric forms and Gematria, within the Genesis Narrative] The rings appear around galaxy clusters in which the variation in the background radiation appears to be strangely low. The research appears to cast aside the widely-held 'inflationary' theory of the origins of the universe, that it began with the Big Bang, and will continue to expand until a point in the future, when it will end. They believe the circles are imprints of extremely violent gravitational radiation waves generated by supermassive black hole collisions in a previous aeon before the last big bang.

http://www.fixedearth.com/HB%20179%2...T.EVIDENCE.htm

Attachment of Evidence for HB or SB # Sections 2, 3, & 4 “Evidence Confirming ‘Establishment Clause’ Rulings Against ‘Creation Science’ In County And State Courts And The Supreme Court Of The United States”

“According to kabbalistic wisdom, there are two parallel universes; one highly ordered; the other; random and chaotic ....Author Ziman tells us that Kabbalah and physics “…work together to draw a picture of the mysteries of such phenomena as the big bang, parallel universes, relativity theory, and the superstring theory.” All of evolution’s essential concepts (15 billion years, relativity, heliocentricity, big bang, expanding universe)--which are now textbook “science”--are the same concepts that were formulated by Kabbalist(s) ... as far back at least as the 1st century A.D and expanded in the 12th, 13th, 16th and 20th centuries. 

The third day of 24 hours…was 2 billion years. 
The fourth day of 24 hours…was 1 billion years. 
The fifth day of 24 hours…was ½ billion years. 
The sixth day of 24 hours…was ¼ billion years. 

Then you add it up and you get 15 ¾ billion years … the same as modern cosmology allows….” (Web Article Entitled: “The Age of the Universe”. (Issues - Age of the universe - Aish Hatorah), pp.15, 16.) [Amplified version of all this: The Science of God by physicist Gerald L. Schroeder. Broadway Books, New York, 1998.] 

Ed. Note: How was it possible for ancient and medieval Kabbalah rabbis to inscribe conclusions of what are apparently the premises of modern cosmology in their holy book (long before Copernicus formulated his heliocentricity hypothesis) and for those premises to hold the exact same conclusions agreed to by modern cosmologists? 

Without going into more detail about the philosophical side of these argument, the evidence from a scientific dogmatic point of view, points to it being less than honest, in determining the sources of there criteria and explaining them. The distain of science for the religious right, and young earth creationists are the basic fuel for this fire. neither of which I am. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga
In Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism, he argues that the truth of evolution is an epistemic [study of knowledge, info systems, how's it acquired, what do we know] defeater for naturalism (i.e. if evolution is true, it undermines naturalism). His basic argument is that if evolution and naturalism are both true, human cognitive faculties evolved to produce beliefs that have survival value (maximizing one's success at the four F's: "feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing"), not necessarily to produce beliefs that are true. Thus, since human cognitive faculties are tuned to survival rather than truth in the naturalism-evolution model, there is reason to doubt the veracity of the products of those same faculties, including naturalism and evolution themselves. On the other hand, if God created man "in his image" by way of an evolutionary process (or any other means), then Plantinga argues our faculties would probably be reliable. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Scientism refers to a belief in the universal applicability of the systematic methods and approach of science, especially the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints. "Scientism" can apply in either of two equally pejorative senses:

1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims. This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply, such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. In this case the term is a counter-argument to appeals to scientific authority.
2. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[10] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[6] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience." 

Standard dictionary definitions include the following applications of the term "scientism":

* The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed by scientists.
* Methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.
* An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation, as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities.
* The use of scientific or pseudoscientific language.[36]
* The contention that the social sciences, such as economics and sociology, are only properly sciences when they abide by the somewhat stricter interpretation of scientific method used by the natural sciences, and that otherwise they are not truly sciences.
* "A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences." 
* "1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists. 2. The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry."
* As a form of dogma: "In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth." 

E. F. Schumacher in his 'A Guide for the Perplexed' criticized scientism as an impoverished world view confined solely to what can be counted, measured and weighed. "The architects of the modern worldview, notably Galileo and Descartes, assumed that those things that could be weighed, measured, and counted were more true than those that could not be quantified. If it couldn’t be counted, in other words, it didn’t count." The term is also used to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...post&p=3693694
Just to interject [but] a combo of proofs [are needed] -> examples:
[that] ... would tend to lend significant support to the Scriptures, as well as the Gen 1:1-5:32 narrative!
Also, to note: it would be highly unlikely anyone would be able to fully decipher this information, before the invention of computers & modern science. 

http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...d-origins.html
Mathematical Proofs that point to Intelligent Design in Information Systems Unknown until the Invention of the Computer (Brain)

(Note: What there saying here is that until the invention of computers, which use this very same type of encryption, especially Mersenne's, formulation of these numbers and or patterns would be difficult to reproduce in ancient times. 'Though I would say there are hints of it". Anyways, which leads us to, "If the Bible is encoded specific to topic in regional alphanumeric coordinates, which show specificity to the subject and a numerical, geometrical, etc ... permutation, this would be sufficent cause to suspect non-randomness, purpose, intelligence, information systems, or something to that effect, etc ,,,)

Other Sources
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...-big-bang.html 
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...ins-page2.html
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...ins-page3.html
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...-response.html

----------


## stuntpickle

In case anyone's interested here's a link to an Austrialian physicist's blog that deals a lot with fine tuning. He's also an atheist, and he criticizes a lot of the atheist-theist debate in regards to fine-tuning. He has been critical of Craig, but his ultimate conclusion is that Craig is actually making good points and deserves to be read. His conclusions regarding PZ Myers, Krauss and Stenger are actually much harsher.

http://letterstonature.wordpress.com...01/of-nothing/

----------


## KillCarneyKlans

http://www.historum.com/philosophy-p...onalism-2.html
Empiricism, in philosophy, a doctrine that affirms that all knowledge is based on experience, and denies the possibility of spontaneous ideas or a priori thought. 

Rationalism (Latin ratio,”reason”), in philosophy, a system of thought that emphasizes the role of reason in obtaining knowledge, in contrast to empiricism, which emphasizes the role of experience, especially sense perception.

The Age of Einstein Frank W. K. Firk Professor Emeritus of Physics Yale University

It is necessary for the scientist to have a conviction that Nature can be understood in terms of a small set of fundamental laws, and that these laws should provide a quantitative account of all basic physical processes. It is axiomatic that the laws hold throughout the universe. In this respect, the methods of Physics belong to Philosophy. (In earlier times, Physics was referred to by the appropriate title, “Natural Philosophy”). In one of Einstein's writings entitled “On the Method of Theoretical Physics”, he states:

“If, then, experience is the alpha and the omega of all our knowledge of reality, what then is the function of pure reason in science?” He continued, “Newton, the first creator of a comprehensive, workable system of theoretical physics, still believed that the basic concepts and laws of his system could be derived from experience.” Einstein then wrote “But the tremendous practical success of his (Newton’s) doctrines may well have prevented him, and the physicists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, from recognizing the fictitious character of the foundations of his system”. It was Einstein’s view that “..the concepts and fundamental principles which underlie a theoretical system of physics are free inventions of the human intellect, which cannot be justified either by the nature of that intellect or in any other fashion a priori.” He continued, “If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? ... Can we hope to be guided safely by experience at all when there exist theories (suchas Classical (Newtonian) Mechanics) which to a large extent do justice to experience, without getting to the root of the matter? I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it.” Einstein then stated “Experience remains, of course, the sole criterion of the physical utility of a mathematical construction. But the creative principle resides in Mathematics. ... I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.”

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> One point I'm trying to make with bringing up Eldridge and Gould is that punctuated equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium) is a currently valid alternative to phyletic gradualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletic_gradualism). Contrast that with the Standard Model of Cosmology (aka, the Big Bang) where there is no surviving alternative since the results of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe came in.


I think "valid alternative" is a wrong way of looking at in in this case, because there's nothing mutually exclusive about those two theories, really. That sometimes evolution happens abruptly in spurts has long been noted, even by Darwin, but there are also cases where it seems there is gradual change over a long period time. It simply seems to mean that PE and PG aren't either/or in general, but either/or in each specific case. So I still see one theory (evolution) split into two different methods (of which there is likely a long continuum between them). 




> Everyone should know by now what Craig's arguments are going to be... If you want to stop him, you have to show that something is eternal besides God


The problem with "everyone should know... Craig's arguments" is that it assumes most of the people that debate him have nothing better to do with the majority of their time. That's part of the problem; Craig mostly debates people who have spent their lives studying the things that he cherry-picks conclusions from to fit into his arguments. These people haven't been spending their time honing their arguments because they've been too busy figuring out the facts, or even how they CAN figure out the facts (which is often the real challenge itself). Krauss et al. go into these debates have a great depth of knowledge usually on a single subject, while Craig goes into these debates with a great breadth of knowledge on a variety of subjects. Craig works this to his advantage by keeping most debate subjects quite broad, which allows him to work in every element of his "5-point attack". But it's just common sense that, in the same format (like the time of live debates), the broader something is, the shallower it's going to be. And Craig punishes his opponents for not addressing the full breadth of his arguments when they usually choose (to their own detriment, in appearance, at least) to focus on just one thing. Watch the Krauss debate again: Craig is organized, he is broad, he is fast, he hits points like a gatling gun. What does Krauss do? He picks one subject (like nothing) and can stay with it almost for the entire length of one of his sections. Krauss doesn't address many of Craig's point (like the resurrection) because that's completely outside his area of expertise. 

Now, as for showing that "something is eternal besides God," that's just plain incorrect. It's believed that time itself came into existence with the origins of the universe, and if that's the case, then we know the universe can't be eternal because that would imply there was never a time without time. What a term like "eternal" could possibly mean outside time is a real question mark. It's one reason Craig calls God "timeless" rather than "eternal," because he couldn't be limited by something that "begun to exist". So it's actually not up to an opponent to argue that something else can be eternal, but merely that something else that can create the universe can exist outside of time. It's very possible that such a description could fit quantum energy, because there's some theories of quantum gravity that state if you combine quantum mechanics and gravity you get something that brings spacetime and material into existence itself. The problem is that quantum gravity is a pain to test, although attempts are still being made. 

Plus, why does God get a pass here? Why can God be timeless, spaceless, causeless, etc. and how does such a being bring space time, gravity, and matter into existence? The problem with God, speaking scientifically, is that it offers absolutely no testable predictions. People are hard at work trying to test quantum gravity, but who's at work trying to even find a way to test God? In the classic phrase: "it's not even wrong". 




> It seems that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem also requires the multiverse to have a beginning. So the multiverse is not an alternative to God either.


That's because "beginning" can simply mean "point that time itself began," but that doesn't mean there can't be something natural that can't create spacetime itself.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

stuntpickle, 

There isn't much in your last post I have a problem with, but I'll try to restrict my own reply to the points I think are directly relevant to the Kalam, even though I feel most of my last post WAS directly related to the argument. 

*1. The Problem of Nothing*

Most of my last post was related to Craig's definition of "nothing" in his "ex nihilo nihil fit" argument that he has stated argues for the first premise. My argument is that Craig seems to be equivocating when he talks about this, from using observational examples from natural reality, to talking about the singularity, to talking about everything prior to spacetime. In all cases, his nothing doesn't seem to be nothing in absolute sense, so his entire basis for using that classic argument crumbles, as does his basis for accepting P1 as true. 

*2. The Problem of Everything*

Another objection that could be made that I haven't brought up is that it's unclear what Craig means by "everything" in "everything that begins to exist." Similar to the above, when he talks about this everything he always uses examples from natural reality. But if he's using examples that are part of the "universe" set, he can't go from arguing from things in the set (everything) to the set itself (the universe), the same way you can't go from arguing about observations made concerning Socrates to being applicable to all mortals. Sets can't be part of themselves. Craig has insisted before he's not doing this, but then, for the life of me, I can't figure out what he means by "everything," because to use it in a way that would allow "the universe" to be a subset of "everything," "everything" would have to address things outside the universe and, currently, we have no examples of anything outside the universe beginning to exist. Again, at this point, Craig always brings up "ex nihilo," which is why I was focusing so much on that. 

*3. The Problem of Ignorance, Induction and Syllogisms*

When I say the argument is flawed, I mean it's flawed in that we cannot accept its premises as true because there are still too many question marks. I'm not talking about "are all humans mortal" question marks, I'm talking about "we simply have no clue" question marks. There is a ginormous gap between the assumption that's made when we say "all humans are mortal" and "everything (including things outside the universe) that begins to exist has a cause." In the former case, we have no examples to refute it, and many examples that support it; in the latter case, we have no examples outside the universe to refute OR support it, and some examples in the universe (virtual particles) that seem to frustrate it, if not refute it. These two arguments are clearly not on equal grounds. 

Yudkowsky once said that because logic is valid in all possible worlds, it doesn't tell you what world you're in. The idea is that pointing out that an argument is valid does nothing if the observations of reality do not support it. The "All men are mortal" syllogism works in terms of its valid inferences, but we only accept the premises as true because our observations of reality continue to support them. If at some time we find a human who is immortal, we may have to rethink that. But, see, scientists are always prepared to do this, we're prepared to let the world TELL US what premises to "assume as true" based on the consistency of our observation. 

I addressed you earlier when you mentioned Hume's problem of induction, both with Popper's theory that it wasn't really about induction, but about our inability to refute, which means that we don't have to say that something like "All men are mortal" is some eternal, metaphysical fact, all we have to say is that "we accept it because so far we aren't able to refute it." 

My problem with using such syllogisms is likely innate to my distaste for much of (not all of, mind) philosophy in general. There's so often too much of a tendency to obscure ontological complexity through linguistic simplicity. "A syllogism is logically sound if its premises are true and its inferences are valid." Fine and dandy, until one gets to talking about what truth is. It's not enough to state that everything is innately induction and then act as if everything we choose to assume as truth is equal. That's the same as saying all assumptions of truth made from any observations are equal, which is absurd. 

To me, using syllogisms is worse when the person using them realizes that there there are issues with the arguments on which the premises rest. It's not that I disagree that the Kalam is a forcing argument, that if its premises are true then the conclusion must be true, but rather that everybody recognizes that there is major doubt concerning the truth of one (if not both), so why are we wasting time stating the argument at all? It's putting the cart before the horse. 

This really shouldn't be controversial either, and it's not in science. In science, when there's a theory nobody feels the need to say "If all of X is true, then the theory is true." No, they simply find ways of testing it, and, if necessary, they say "there may be a problem here," and then ALL attention goes on figuring out the case of what's wrong, because it could turn out to be nothing or minor, or it could completely upset the paradigm. Nobody would feel the need to say "well, if light doesn't bend around a gravitational field then Newtonian physics is true." No, they waited for the results of Einstein's eclipse measurements to come in, which proved general relativity right and Newton wrong. 

Applied to the Kalam, one can see these kinds of problems all over. Besides "nothing" and "everything" I'll add two more: 

3. What is the cause of virtual particles? It must be something predictable or else it's unclear what we mean by "cause" anymore, since cause has always been connected to the consistency of predictions of one (ideally) variable acting upon something else. A distinction must be made between "contingency" and "cause." 

4. How does causality work outside of spacetime? Because it's unclear how we get from "cause" as events in spacetime to an event that brings spacetime into existence. 

*Conclusion: Towards a Bayesian Approach*

To me, these are just four big, honking question marks. Not a question mark like "are all humans mortal?" But question marks to which we have no observational answers to. We've seen humans die (every one so far that we know of), we have not seen nothing come from nothing, or spacetime itself come into existence, or what, exactly, causes virtual particles, or anything outside the universe come into existence. With these enormous gaps in our knowledge, it is not reasonable to accept the premises as true. 

If we agree that there's no reason to accept them as true (and we should agree; again, there's a major difference in the problem of induction when we have one premise that has never been refuted and is consistently supported and another that has many possible refutations and some that aren't supported at all), then we should really be talking about probability, Bayesian reasoning for their likelihood of truthfulness. In doing this, we could save a lot of time and hassle from continuing to mention the argument itself, and just focusing on the parts that are in question.

----------


## YesNo

> I think "valid alternative" is a wrong way of looking at in in this case, because there's nothing mutually exclusive about those two theories, really. That sometimes evolution happens abruptly in spurts has long been noted, even by Darwin, but there are also cases where it seems there is gradual change over a long period time. It simply seems to mean that PE and PG aren't either/or in general, but either/or in each specific case. So I still see one theory (evolution) split into two different methods (of which there is likely a long continuum between them).


I agree that the good points of both will merge into something better overall. At the moment they enjoy the fight. I'm no expert in the area, but I like the way change is presented by the punctuated equilibrium group. The extinction event stimulates speciation, if I have it correct. I think that is how change occurs in general during some crisis. They also have the fossil record on their side.



> The problem with "everyone should know... Craig's arguments" is that it assumes most of the people that debate him have nothing better to do with the majority of their time. That's part of the problem; Craig mostly debates people who have spent their lives studying the things that he cherry-picks conclusions from to fit into his arguments. These people haven't been spending their time honing their arguments because they've been too busy figuring out the facts, or even how they CAN figure out the facts (which is often the real challenge itself). Krauss et al. go into these debates have a great depth of knowledge usually on a single subject, while Craig goes into these debates with a great breadth of knowledge on a variety of subjects. Craig works this to his advantage by keeping most debate subjects quite broad, which allows him to work in every element of his "5-point attack". But it's just common sense that, in the same format (like the time of live debates), the broader something is, the shallower it's going to be. And Craig punishes his opponents for not addressing the full breadth of his arguments when they usually choose (to their own detriment, in appearance, at least) to focus on just one thing. Watch the Krauss debate again: Craig is organized, he is broad, he is fast, he hits points like a gatling gun. What does Krauss do? He picks one subject (like nothing) and can stay with it almost for the entire length of one of his sections. Krauss doesn't address many of Craig's point (like the resurrection) because that's completely outside his area of expertise.


The problem is that cosmology is what Krauss studies. If he feels overwhelmed, he should stick to the first two of Craig's points. He only needs to prepare a response to the Kalam argument in a professional manner. That is the main reason there is an audience in the room.



> Now, as for showing that "something is eternal besides God," that's just plain incorrect. It's believed that time itself came into existence with the origins of the universe, and if that's the case, then we know the universe can't be eternal because that would imply there was never a time without time. What a term like "eternal" could possibly mean outside time is a real question mark. It's one reason Craig calls God "timeless" rather than "eternal," because he couldn't be limited by something that "begun to exist". So it's actually not up to an opponent to argue that something else can be eternal, but merely that something else that can create the universe can exist outside of time. It's very possible that such a description could fit quantum energy, because there's some theories of quantum gravity that state if you combine quantum mechanics and gravity you get something that brings spacetime and material into existence itself. The problem is that quantum gravity is a pain to test, although attempts are still being made.


To me eternal means timeless rather than something that existed throughout all time since time itself is finite. Being within time and being infinite (eternal) is where, I suspect, the mathematical contradictions of infinity arise. 

Krauss claims that he uses infinity in his profession but what he is really using is the limit process in the calculus. He never actually counts an infinite number of things, nor is any proof that the algorithms he uses are correct based on an actual infinite computation. I noticed that he didn't seem to understand that in the debate.



> Plus, why does God get a pass here? Why can God be timeless, spaceless, causeless, etc. and how does such a being bring space time, gravity, and matter into existence? The problem with God, speaking scientifically, is that it offers absolutely no testable predictions. People are hard at work trying to test quantum gravity, but who's at work trying to even find a way to test God? In the classic phrase: "it's not even wrong". 
> 
> That's because "beginning" can simply mean "point that time itself began," but that doesn't mean there can't be something natural that can't create spacetime itself.


Well, the Judeo-Christo-Islamic religions predicted that God created the universe, even "out of nothing" as I recall Catholics claiming. The Kalam argument provided the reasoning that if something begins to exist it has a cause. So there has been for some time a "theory" within these various religions about the origin of the universe.

Others felt secure that the universe was eternal in time and no one could test the prediction anyway. But then came relativity, the expanding universe and quantum mechanics in the 20th century and a cosmological theory of the universe coming out of nothing. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, in the 21st century, provided the confirming scientific data that our universe--yes--had a beginning. And not only did it have a beginning, the standard model of cosmology insisted it came out of nothing and so did space and time. So, whatever caused it is not in space or time. Apply the Kalam argument and a core component of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic theory receives a major confirmation.

Although the Kalam argument doesn't give you any specific God, it gives you the existence of something capable of starting off the universe outside of space and time since that was created as well. Craig's other points try to fill in the details with his Christian perspective of what that God is.

Ironically, Krauss is an atheistic cosmologist whose very work is validating a religious position he does not support.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> In case anyone's interested here's a link to an Austrialian physicist's blog that deals a lot with fine tuning.


I actually read that, and while I agree about the essential idea of nothing bein an equivocation, I think he's wrong to put the blame on Krauss. Here's why: 




> Now lets look at Krauss claims again. Does it make sense to say that there are different types of not anything? That not anything is not stable? This is bollocks. What Krauss is really talking about is the quantum vacuum. The quantum vacuum is a type of something... The quantum vacuum is not nothing.
> 
> This suggests a very simple test for those who wish to talk about nothing: if what you are talking about has properties, then it is not nothing. It is pure equivocation to refer to the quantum vacuum as nothing when a philosopher starts asking the question why is there something rather than nothing?.


Luke is confusing semiotics with ontology; this is what I brought up to you earlier. It's not exactly outrageous to recognize that we utilize the same word to mean different things; nothing is simply one of those words. Let me simplify this as much as possible:

Ancient man looked at empty space (empty space meaning "empty of tangible sensible matter") and they said "nothing comes from nothing" because they defined "nothing" as "absence of tangible, sensible matter" and they never saw something come out of it. This should not be a controversial claim. They didn't realize that there was even a difference between "nothing" (absence of any thing at all) and "nothing" (absence of tangible, sensible matter). 

Luke quotes Rees who states: "Weve realised ever since Einstein that empty space can have a structure such that it can be warped and distorted. Even if shrunk down to a point, it is latent with particles and forces  still a far richer construct than the philosophers nothing."

Yes, "WE'VE" realized that empty space isn't actually empty, but nobody, at the time of that discovery, seemed to bother with asking whether "nothing" was still a coherent concept. Remember, the referent of "nothing" began as "empty space," suddenly, we see SOMETHING in "empty space" and we keep the word "nothing," but perhaps not everybody updates it from being a word that has an observational referent ("empty space") to a word that has a theoretical concept ("the complete absence of something.") with no observational referent. 

I agree that Krauss et al. are "equivocating," but it's not their original equivocation, it's the philosophers'! The word began its existence referring to space people THOUGHT was absent anything, but which turned out not to be. The word transformed, observationally, to having a definite referent, to being a concept, an idea, a possibility, (I won't call it a theory). The fact that Craig still discusses nothing AS IF it has an obvious, unambiguous, factual referent is disturbing to me. When he mentions nothing he doesn't qualify that by saying "it's possible that nothing can't exist, it's possible that there can't be a complete absence of anything". No. When he mentions nothing he moves on to giving examples from the observational, physical world, which clearly isn't nothing, or he mentions the singularity, which isn't nothing, or he mentions the universe before spacetime, which may be nothing, but we have no clue because we can't go that far back yet. 

So Craig's "nothing" has no definite referent any more. It's, at best, a hypothesis. But it should be worrisome that Craig acts as if this nothing has a real-world referent that is "metaphysically intuitive" when he's admitted that people's initial metaphysical intuition of nothing (empty space) isn't nothing at all. You did the same thing when you said "When you make the ridiculous demand to be "shown nothing", you must understand that everyone in the world just complied with your request." The nothing you talk about here is the "metaphysically intuitive" type of nothing that even the person in that link you provided me with is calling equivocation. If I request someone to show me nothing, and they "comply", all they've done is shown me an absence of tangible, sensible matter, not a complete absence of any thing.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> They also have the fossil record on their side.


I think that's been overstated. The fossil record is always incomplete, and not all evolutionary changes can be detected through the fossil record. That's why there's been so much interest in observing evolution in controlled environments that isn't limited by the obscuration of distant time. 




> The problem is that cosmology is what Krauss studies.


And I don't see that Krauss was outmatched in this area (fwiw, Krauss is a theoretical physicist, which means he studies more than just cosmology). The fact that Craig presents answers to problems we currently don't have answers for is not him "beating" Krauss at his own game. Krauss is dead on when he says "we don't know." It's that simple. Craig would like to convince you that he knows something Krauss and other theoretical physicists don't on the subject of physics in cosmology. He doesn't. That's why Krauss and others like him are unimpressed. 




> Krauss claims that he uses infinity in his profession but what he is really using is the limit process in the calculus. He never actually counts an infinite number of things, nor is any proof that the algorithms he uses are correct based on an actual infinite computation.


It's true we may be talking about the limits of our mathematical models when we talk about infinity, but we currently have no other word for it. Read my replies to stuntpickle about infinity: "counting an infinite number of things" presumes that infinity obeys the same laws as finite things. It's possible (likely) that there can't be "an infinite number of (discrete) things," because suggesting discreteness already presumes finiteness. Krauss is right in that all physicists and mathematicians "use" infinity and it does seem to function and have its uses. As for what that means regarding real-world referents is debatable, but Craig simply saying that it can't exist isn't convincing, nor is his trying to demonstrate the absurdity of infinity using finite calculations. 




> The Kalam argument provided the reasoning that if something begins to exist it has a cause.


Yes, but see the problems I outlined above. 




> And not only did it have a beginning, the standard model of cosmology insisted it came out of nothing and so did space and time. So, whatever caused it is not in space or time. Apply the Kalam argument and a core component of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic theory receives a major confirmation.


See above again on the problem of "nothing". All we can really say is that whatever created the universe wasn't limited by spacetime, and must have brought both into existence. But we still don't know what that thing is. It doesn't really supply support for the Judeo-Christo-Islamic theory of "something from nothing," because we don't know if it was nothing. It's still possible (maybe even likely) that it was quantum gravity. Again, let's wait for some tests to provide some kind of solid conclusion before we accept another theory that gives us no predictive power. 




> Ironically, Krauss is an atheistic cosmologist whose very work is validating a religious position he does not support.


To validate the position there would first have to be a way to falsify it, and there's not.

Let me add something I haven't brought up yet: In mathematical logic there's something called the Conjunction Fallacy. Simply stated, if one probably is contained inside another one, the one that's contained will always be more likely to occur. So, if you look at two dice-roll sequences:

1. 531542
2. 3425651

The first sequence will ALWAYS be more likely because it is contained inside the second probability (the 531542 sequence occurs in the second, out of order, with a 6 added in an extra roll). 

What this has to do with the Kalam is this: Let's accept that the universe must have a cause that precedes spacetime. Let's suppose that this cause could be narrowed down to God or quantum energy. All things being equal, we should always state the latter is more likely. Why? Because we know quantum energy exists, whether God exists or not. So even if God does exist, quantum energy fits inside that hypothesis the same way the 1st roll in the dice example fits inside the 2nd. 

This is often sometimes informally expressed as "Occam's Razor", or "the simplest answer is usually the best." Every extra element we add to a theory adds something that can go wrong with it. God "seems" like a simple answer until one gets past the linguistic simplicity to imagining rendering ourselves in, say, AI terminology, but adding abilities that even we don't possess. In comparison, utilizing things we already know exist (like quantum energy) is to be much preferred, if only for the reason we don't have to worry about the probability of its existing at all.

----------


## Darcy88

No one has all the answers but Craig has a lot of them. I disagree with him on many things while agreeing with him on many. His precocious debating skills and charisma cannot be denied. I still side with Hawking though.

----------


## mal4mac

> Well, because everything we can think of that comes into existence has a cause for that existence. Can you think of any exceptions?


The English thought all swans were white until they went to Australia.

Just because I can't think of anything that doesn't have a cause that doesn't mean there isn't such a thing. That thing might be the universe. Why not?

----------


## mal4mac

> Haha because everything happen for a reason...


Really? How do you know?

----------


## YesNo

> I think that's been overstated. The fossil record is always incomplete, and not all evolutionary changes can be detected through the fossil record. That's why there's been so much interest in observing evolution in controlled environments that isn't limited by the obscuration of distant time.


I think what is known so far about the fossil record supports punctuated equilibrium. 



> And I don't see that Krauss was outmatched in this area (fwiw, Krauss is a theoretical physicist, which means he studies more than just cosmology). The fact that Craig presents answers to problems we currently don't have answers for is not him "beating" Krauss at his own game. Krauss is dead on when he says "we don't know." It's that simple. *Craig would like to convince you that he knows something Krauss and other theoretical physicists don't on the subject of physics in cosmology.* He doesn't. That's why Krauss and others like him are unimpressed.


I am pretty sure Craig does not want to claim he knows more about cosmology that the physicists. He is mirroring the physicists results back to them with his religious twist. Also the audience is not expecting him to provide any new insights on cosmology, but use the ones that the physicists have discovered to make his religious point.




> It's true we may be talking about the limits of our mathematical models when we talk about infinity, but we currently have no other word for it. Read my replies to stuntpickle about infinity: *"counting an infinite number of things" presumes that infinity obeys the same laws as finite things.* It's possible (likely) that there can't be "an infinite number of (discrete) things," because suggesting discreteness already presumes finiteness. Krauss is right in that all physicists and mathematicians "use" infinity and it does seem to function and have its uses. As for what that means regarding real-world referents is debatable, but Craig simply saying that it can't exist isn't convincing, nor is his trying to demonstrate the absurdity of infinity using finite calculations.


The problem of doing an infinite number of even mental events is at the heart of the axiom of choice in mathematics. One cannot assume that is logically permitted without the explicit axiom, at least that is how I remember it.




> See above again on the problem of "nothing". *All we can really say is that whatever created the universe wasn't limited by spacetime, and must have brought both into existence.* But we still don't know what that thing is. It doesn't really supply support for the Judeo-Christo-Islamic theory of "something from nothing," because we don't know if it was nothing. It's still possible (maybe even likely) that it was quantum gravity. Again, let's wait for some tests to provide some kind of solid conclusion before we accept another theory that gives us no predictive power.


Yes, that is all we can say. Perhaps it was a multiverse outside our space and time that caused our universe to exist. That is why Craig's reference to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is critical. If he is correct about that theorem, even the multiverse had a beginning and we are caught in the same problem.

I'm not a member of a Judeo-Christo-Islamic group, but I don't mind giving credit where it is due. Part of their worldview, if I understand it, has been validated. It hasn't all been validated.



> To validate the position there would first have to be a way to falsify it, and there's not.
> 
> Let me add something I haven't brought up yet: In mathematical logic there's something called the Conjunction Fallacy. Simply stated, if one probably is contained inside another one, the one that's contained will always be more likely to occur. So, if you look at two dice-roll sequences:
> 
> 1. 531542
> 2. 3425651
> 
> The first sequence will ALWAYS be more likely because it is contained inside the second probability (the 531542 sequence occurs in the second, out of order, with a 6 added in an extra roll). 
> 
> ...


I think the idea of God that you have and the one that I have are different. I suspect it doesn't even correspond to Craig's idea of God. I may be wrong, but I suspect that you are right about the God you are describing. It does not exist. 

I don't think the Christians are interested in some deistic God. They want a God that is ultimately friendly and loves them--who will save them. I am interested in a God that makes sense of my own consciousness--and I trust is friendly. These Gods not only explain the origin of the universe but also of our and other species consciousness. In that sense it is the simplest explanation. The way to come up with indirect testable statements about that God is to ask questions about our own consciousness, how it relates to the individual brain and across individuals and even species. 

As the Christians claim, we are made in the image of God. If you want to study God, look within.

----------


## stuntpickle

Limiting yourself to a few numbered points is certainly a good attempt at restricting the scope of the discussion, and, thus, preventing it from slipping away from us. I want to point out that what I'm about to do is not best described as a "refutation". I'm not going to try and offer counterarguments to debate the point; I'm simply going to point out the sections I see as being bald errors. It might also be a helpful exercise to try and render your thoughts in terms of numbered assertions, listed in terms of increasing consequence. I'll try to direct my post in this manner.

Also, I have a request: can we try to address your points one at a time? I'd really like to address all of them, but I think if we do, the conversation will run away from us. Let's try to deal with one point completely before moving on.




> stuntpickle, 
> 
> 
> *1. The Problem of Nothing*
> 
> Most of my last post was related to Craig's definition of "nothing" in his "ex nihilo nihil fit" argument that he has stated argues for the first premise. My argument is that Craig seems to be equivocating when he talks about this, from using observational examples from natural reality, to talking about the singularity, to talking about everything prior to spacetime. In all cases, his nothing doesn't seem to be nothing in absolute sense, so his entire basis for using that classic argument crumbles, as does his basis for accepting P1 as true.


*Craig's not equivocating, but you are.*

From what I can tell your argument throughout your posts about Craig's equivocation goes something like this:

1. The philosophical concept of "nothing", which means "not anything", is derived from a faulty conception of empty space.
2. The above error constitutes equivocation.
3. Craig uses the philosophical concept of "nothing".
Therefore, Craig is guilty of equivocation.

The problems with this argument are manifold.

First and foremost, your argument isn't valid. The conclusion cannot be reasonably deduced from the premises, regardless of the truth of those premises. Just because something originates in error does not mean that it must persist in error.

Second, the first two premises are obviously untrue. The philosophical concept of "nothing" is a priori and does not utilize the senses to arrive at the concept. Rational discourse is one of thought as opposed to observation. The concept of "nothing" came about within the context of the negation of being rather than observation of space. The concept of nothing did not come about because a philosopher discovered he was swimming in nothing, but rather because he wondered why he and everything else existed.

Of course, empty space was, at one time, thought to be figuratively representative of this nothing. This was simply an error of fact--not of equivocation. Equivocation is an error in which two different meanings of a word are used irrationally in the construction of a single argument. The fact that two different meanings of the term exist is not sufficient reason for an instance of equivocation. To be guilty of equivocation means to use, in an argument, two different meanings of the term in a fallacious manner, which is precisely what you and Krauss are doing. Craig is not doing this.

Krauss is arguing something like the following:

1. Craig says nothing can come from nothing.
2. We know from observation that nothing can produce various particles.
Therefore, Craig is wrong.

This is a perfect example of equivocation. "Nothing" in the first premise means "not anything". "Nothing" in the second premise means "quantum vacuum". 

There is nothing (ha!) that I have read in any of Craig's works that commits the fallacy of equivocation. I say this not because I like Craig, but because it's true.

By the way, Craig does not discuss things "prior to" time. He discusses things outside time. Any examples he uses are not necessarily the bases of his assertions; they're just that: examples. His assertions are not derived wholly from _observing_ the generation of Eskimo villages or his own coming into being, but rather these examples corroborate his assertions.

Did the very post you are now reading begin to exist? Did my idea to write it begin to exist? Did the thoughts contained therein begin to exist?

----------


## OrphanPip

> FWIW, Eldridge and Gould's boldest claims have been widely criticized, and I would say the majority of evidence and evolutionary biologists are still on the Neo-Darwinist's side. Of course, that's ad populum and authority again but, again, it's hard for folks like us to go on much else.


I would just like to point out that PE vs. gradualism are debates within Neo-Darwinism, they're both on the Neo-Darwinist side.

Gould certainly had a tendency to over-emphasize how drastic changes between stability and rapid evolution occur, mostly in his popular literature. I'd say the current consensus is a more developed understanding of gradualism that admits how radically rates of evolutionary change can differ. PE is still important as a description of a phenomena in the fossil record.




> This is a very good point. I do not disbelieve the theory of evolution. But I do believe most evolutionists are dishonest with most Christians when they try to explain the mechanisms in terms of gradualism, but then turn around and defend the fossil record in terms of punctuated equilibrium. Evolution has been in a bit of a crisis for a while. And although I suspect it will pull through with a more refined theory, I think it's a shame that its proponents won't own the inherent problems.


That's a common misunderstanding of Punctuated Equilibrium, it is still a form of gradualism, the point of PE has to do with discrete changes in the rate of change. On the other side, Phyletic Gradualism argues that changes in the rate are more continuous and less radical. Although, neither the PE or the PG side is arguing about substantial differences in rates of evolutionary change, since even small differences will have noticeable effect in geological time scale.

----------


## stuntpickle

> That's a common misunderstanding of Punctuated Equilibrium, it is still a form of gradualism, the point of PE has to do with discrete changes in the rate of change. On the other side, Phyletic Gradualism argues that changes in the rate are more continuous and less radical. Although, neither the PE or the PG side is arguing about substantial differences in rates of evolutionary change, since even small differences will have noticeable effect in geological time scale.


Again, Pip, let me reiterate that I am not at all hostile to the theory of evolution. I think you here concede the point that I was making, which was not that PE was a complete departure from evolution. Perhaps your objection is simply one of semantics and that PE is properly considered gradualistic and that the true disagreement is with phyletic gradualism. 

I have had some limited coursework in evolution and historical geology, but I suspect your acquaintance with the subject is vastly superior to mine. So let me just try to state what I understand to be true. Punctuated equilibrium came about because the previously understood mechanism of the gradual accumulation of changes was not adequately demonstrated in the fossil record. My understanding is that the fossil record does not represent an abundance of incremental change that would necessarily surround all the distinct speciation. My understanding is that PE came about to rectify this problem.

To be honest, it seems to me (although I could be wrong) that you are trying to obscure the point behind technicalities, which was my original complaint.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Yes, that is all we can say. Perhaps it was a multiverse outside our space and time that caused our universe to exist. That is why Craig's reference to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is critical. If he is correct about that theorem, even the multiverse had a beginning and we are caught in the same problem.


Let's just go ahead and talk about the elephant in the room. As of right now, the scientific consensus is that the universe had an absolute edge. This is incredibly disconcerting to scientists because the edge is also an absolute limitation of science. Many scientists are simply unhappy that they seem to have discovered an absolute constraint of their own discipline. What has resulted is a wild attempt to turn science in on itself to avoid the edge. String theory isn't even really a theory; it's a metaphysical discussion about some far-off possible theory. Hawking's quantum tunneling genesis of the universe has not come from a necessity of the theory, but rather it is an attempt to avoid precisely what Hawking knows, and has stated, to be the alternative--extra-physical causation. Science is now in revolt against its own findings, and string theory is simply the foremost symptom.

----------


## OrphanPip

> I have had some limited coursework in evolution and historical geology, but I suspect your acquaintance with the subject is vastly superior to mine. So let me just try to state what I understand to be true. Punctuated equilibrium came about because the previously understood mechanism of the gradual accumulation of changes was not adequately demonstrated in the fossil record. My understanding is that the fossil record does not represent an abundance of incremental change that would necessarily surround all the distinct speciation. My understanding is that PE came about to rectify this problem.
> 
> To be honest, it seems to me (although I could be wrong) that you are trying to obscure the point behind technicalities, which was my original complaint.


The point is that incremental changes are still occurring, but phenotypic stability occurs to varying degrees so that transitional figures within species do not readily appear in the fossil record. The argument between the PE people and the PG people is about how consistent the rate of gradual change is. PE does not contradict the explanation of evolution through the accumulation of gradual change. Specifically, it is using ideas from population genetics to explain why we see stasis despite gradual change always occurring at the individual level. 

The take away point is that PE does not contradict that evolution occurs through small gradual changes, genetic drift is a continuous process. However, things like lineage splitting and major morphological changes are rare enough that they appear suddenly in the fossil record. 

The main problem with Gould's over emphasis on PE is that we see gradual change and stasis within the fossil record. They both occur to different degrees. Also, genetic change occurs continuously even when phenotypes stay relatively stable. Gould sometimes argued that speciesation almost always occurred through his proposed mechanism, but this is unlikely. However, it is likely that something like what Gould proposed does explain some of the fossil record. 

Where you get opposition to Gould is from gene-centric perspectives, like those of Dawkins. If you view the gene as the unit of selection, rather than the individual, PE does not address the emergence of new genes and thus is not explanatory in that model of evolutionary biology. Dawkins would view strict gradualism as sufficient explanation without the need to come up with an idea of radical change in evolutionary rates.

Edit: Just to clarify, both PG and PE admit that intermediate morphologies are not preserved in the fossil record (which explains the sudden jump). PG contends that a slow gradual rate accounts for the difference between the forms that appear in the fossil record. PE contends that rapid evolutionary change occurs in burst (over say 1 million years instead of 5 million), where small gradual changes occur faster under only certain conditions, and for most of the time morphology is static because of dynamics of population genetics creating stability in large groups. 

Neither side would disagree that sometimes lineages maintain static morphologies for a long time. The disagreement is over how rapidly the change occurs whenever what event that facilitates the fixation of new traits happens.

The third and completely rejected alternative is the "hopeful monster" who pops out fully different from one generation to the next.

----------


## stuntpickle

> The point is that incremental changes are still occurring, but phenotypic stability occurs to varying degrees so that transitional figures within species do not readily appear in the fossil record. The argument between the PE people and the PG people is about how consistent the rate of gradual change is. PE does not contradict the explanation of evolution through the accumulation of gradual change. Specifically, it is using ideas from population genetics to explain why we see stasis despite gradual change always occurring at the individual level. 
> 
> The take away point is that PE does not contradict that evolution occurs through small gradual changes, genetic drift is a continuous process. However, things like lineage splitting and major morphological changes are rare enough that they appear suddenly in the fossil record. 
> 
> The main problem with Gould's over emphasis on PE is that we see gradual change and stasis within the fossil record. They both occur to different degrees. Also, genetic change occurs continuously even when phenotypes stay relatively stable. Gould sometimes argued that speciesation almost always occurred through his proposed mechanism, but this is unlikely. However, it is likely that something like what Gould proposed does explain some of the fossil record. 
> 
> Where you get opposition to Gould is from gene-centric perspectives, like those of Dawkins. If you view the gene as the unit of selection, rather than the individual, PE equilibrium does not address the emergence of new genes and thus is not explanatory in that model of evolutionary biology. Dawkins would view strict gradualism as sufficient explanation without the need to come up with an idea of radical change in evolutionary rates.


I think I have a grasp on what you stated here. My point is that in public discussions people like Dawkins propound PG as a mechanism, yet they defend the fossil record from the prospective of PE. The reason a lot of fundamentalist Christians argue about lack of transitional forms isn't because Christians are stupid, but because most evolutionists are reluctant to actually discuss the different interpretations of their own theory, as they presume that any discussion about disagreement or lack of unity within the discussion of evolution will be interpreted as a weakness of the theory. I do not think the theory of evolution is in jeopardy, but I do believe that the proposed mechanisms are now being hotly contested.

Would you agree with my last point?


I guess I should address a disagreement about "stasis and gradual change" existing in the fossil record. I understand that stasis is adequately represented in the fossil record, but I also understand that gradual change is not sufficiently represented for PG to be the primary mechanism. In fact, any stasis is, itself, a reasonable objection to PG.

----------


## YesNo

> Let's just go ahead and talk about the elephant in the room. As of right now, the scientific consensus is that the universe had an absolute edge. This is incredibly disconcerting to scientists because the edge is also an absolute limitation of science. Many scientists are simply unhappy that they seem to have discovered an absolute constraint of their own discipline. What has resulted is a wild attempt to turn science in on itself to avoid the edge. String theory isn't even really a theory; it's a metaphysical discussion about some far-off possible theory. Hawking's quantum tunneling genesis of the universe has not come from a necessity of the theory, but rather it is an attempt to avoid precisely what Hawking knows, and has stated, to be the alternative--extra-physical causation. Science is now in revolt against its own findings, and string theory is simply the foremost symptom.


I agree. Physicists are trying to avoid any extra-physical, God-like causation. That is what prompts speculation about the multiverse. The characteristic of a God-like cause is that some _choice_ was made. The multiverse could operate on _chance_. 

If there was choice involved, then some sort of consciousness made the choice. I hope it is friendly and something we can relate to, but I see no reason why it wouldn't be.

----------


## OrphanPip

> I think I have a grasp on what you stated here. My point is that in public discussions people like Dawkins propound PG as a mechanism, yet they defend the fossil record from the prospective of PE. The reason a lot of fundamentalist Christians argue about lack of transitional forms isn't because Christians are stupid, but because most evolutionists are reluctant to actually discuss the different interpretations of their own theory, as they presume that any discussion about disagreement or lack of unity within the discussion of evolution will be interpreted as a weakness of the theory. I do not think the theory of evolution is in jeopardy, but I do believe that the proposed mechanisms are now being hotly contested.


Certainly there is always going to be debate over the mechanisms of such a complex process. Yet, I think there is justification in why speakers about evolution are hesitant about presenting these debates, because there is a history of misunderstanding and misrepresentation by anti-evolutionist. Eugenie Scott had this problem in Texas in 2009 when she went to speak on new textbook standards. The school board wanted there to be a "strengths and weaknesses" section on evolutionary theory in the science books. The problem is that the technical debates about the pace of evolution are so subtle that it is better to keep on point about the things evolutionary biologist do agree on.

I'm also not sure Dawkins attempts to defend the record through PE, I've read the Ancestor's Tale and he is a clear supporter of PG. For Dawkins the fossil record presents sudden changes because of its incompleteness (which PG and PE agree on), and he thinks the change occurs over longer scales of time (which PG disagrees with PE on).

Just as a visual aid to make the distinction clear:

PG



PE



We can see from the visuals that the actual distinction between PG and PE is subtle and often the disagreement is overemphasized in popular discussion of evolutionary biology.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Certainly there is always going to be debate over the mechanisms of such a complex process. Yet, I think there is justification in why speakers about evolution are hesitant about presenting these debates, because there is a history of misunderstanding and misrepresentation by anti-evolutionist. Eugenie Scott had this problem in Texas in 2009 when she went to speak on new textbook standards. The school board wanted there to be a "strengths and weaknesses" section on evolutionary theory in the science books. The problem is that the technical debates about the pace of evolution are so subtle that it is better to keep on point about the things evolutionary biologist do agree on.
> 
> I'm also not sure Dawkins attempts to defend the record through PE, I've read the Ancestor's Tale and he is a clear supporter of PG. For Dawkins the fossil record presents sudden changes because of its incompleteness (which PG and PE agree on), and he thinks the change occurs over longer scales of time (which PG disagrees with PE on).
> 
> Just as a visual aid to make the distinction clear:
> 
> PG
> 
> 
> ...


Excellent post, Pip. But I think the point that critics of PG rightly make is that the number of lost changes one must presume to believe PG is unwarranted. If I understand PG correctly, then the number of gradual changes in the actual populations of creatures would dwarf any static population. That is to say that the road to speciation should be, even in the fossil record, littered with numerous steps as well as false steps since the representations of incremental change would vastly outnumber distinct speciations. It is my understanding that a number of stumpy in-betweens should be evident that are not. The near complete absence of such steps seems to me highly improbable.

As for Dawkins, I think he simplifies to a position of PE in discussion with anti-evolutionists for the reasons you state, but I don't think that makes it right.

By the way, I never meant to suggests that Dawkins explicitly defends PE. He usually just says something like "the fossil record adequately demonstrates my theory of evolution" when really the Christian is lodging the same complaint as the PE supporter, and Dawkins knows it but doesn't want to touch it with a ten-foot stick.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Just because I can't think of anything that doesn't have a cause that doesn't mean there isn't such a thing. That thing might be the universe. Why not?


Fine. Who cares. This isn't an objection to anything. Try to organize that into a relevant argument, and I think you'll encounter insurmountable difficulties or, at least, come up with a bad argument. I guess I'm trying to say that severe skepticism and asking why not over and over again doesn't accomplish anything and can be used to frustrate any commonly accepted fact or intuition. The purpose of reason is not to establish things with 100% certainty. We're just concerned with what's likely. And there doesn't seem to be sufficient reason for special pleading in the case of the universe.

What if the universe is really made of jello, and we just don't know it because we're living in the matrix? Why not?

----------


## KillCarneyKlans

http://www.online-literature.com/for...52#post1138652

*OrphanPip*
Punctuated Equilibrium, it is still a form of gradualism, the point of PE has to do with discrete changes in the rate of change. On the other side, Phyletic Gradualism argues that changes in the rate are more continuous and less radical. Although, neither the PE or the PG side is arguing about substantial differences in rates of evolutionary change. 

*stuntpickle*
Punctuated equilibrium came about because the previously understood mechanism of the gradual accumulation of changes was not adequately demonstrated in the fossil record. My understanding is that the fossil record does not represent an abundance of incremental change that would necessarily surround all the distinct speciation. My understanding is that PE came about to rectify this problem. 

Dawkins explicitly defends PE. He usually just says something like "the fossil record adequately demonstrates my theory of evolution" when really the Christian is lodging the same complaint as the PE supporter, and Dawkins knows it but doesn't want to touch it with a ten-foot stick. 

http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...ins-page2.html



> Can you please re-state your point? Or at least give us a precis of your evidence


The Bio-info is in Genesis verse 1. Can you tell me how life started according to evolution ... this would take a while. 

The structure of the extremely active quatum world, predicts measures of randomness and its variablity, if one chose to 'test' it. Observe = Test, randomness, and variablity. Much like one would have to assume when ... for example, describing a partical wave. If I took this approach I would stress the use of computational gematria, SY, I-Ching, and a binary [trinary better] set that flips 0's & 1's in 32 ways, much like computers. I would also have to include the formulae of the divisibility of 37, which would relate heavily as far as encryption. I would have to link the hebrew equivalent for the word compute, and 'figures of speech' like 'count the number of it' to the text; which i can. 

*MorpheusSandman*
The problem with God, speaking scientifically, is that it offers absolutely no testable predictions. 

[Predictions of where infiniti, PI or God begin or end are irrelevant; the text of the scriptures state specifically state a premise alpha-numerically, if the hypothesis can be proved, its correct ... as far as the cosmos or bio-genesis goes ... this idea doesn't need to be expanded beyond this level]

That's because "beginning" can simply mean "point that time itself began," but that doesn't mean there can't be something natural that can't create spacetime itself. Well, the Judeo-Christo-Islamic religions predicted that God created the universe, even "out of nothing" as I recall Catholics claiming. The Kalam argument provided the reasoning that if something begins to exist it has a cause. So there has been for some time a "theory" within these various religions about the origin of the universe. 

[Cause and even retro-causality is it's own reason for being; Aristotle's tree-seed example: everything a tree needs to reproduce itself is contained within the seed ... provided the conditions for it]

*YesNo* 
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, in the 21st century, provided the confirming scientific data that our universe--yes--had a beginning. And not only did it have a beginning, the standard model of cosmology insisted it came out of nothing and so did space and time. So, whatever caused it is not in space or time. Apply the Kalam argument and a core component of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic theory receives a major confirmation.

Although the Kalam argument doesn't give you any specific God, it gives you the existence of something capable of starting off the universe outside of space and time since that was created as well ...Ironically, Krauss is an atheistic cosmologist whose very work is validating a religious position he does not support. 

Ancient man looked at empty space (empty space meaning "empty of tangible sensible matter") and they said "nothing comes from nothing" because they defined "nothing" as "absence of tangible, sensible matter" and they never saw something come out of it. This should not be a controversial claim. They didn't realize that there was even a difference between "nothing" (absence of any thing at all) and "nothing" (absence of tangible, sensible matter).

Luke quotes Rees who states: "We’ve realised ever since Einstein that empty space can have a structure such that it can be warped and distorted. Even if shrunk down to a ‘point’, it is latent with particles and forces – still a far richer construct than the philosopher’s ‘nothing’." 

I'm not a member of a Judeo-Christo-Islamic group, but I don't mind giving credit where it is due. Part of their worldview, if I understand it, has been validated. It hasn't all been validated. 

*stuntpickle*
The philosophical concept of "nothing" is a priori and does not utilize the senses to arrive at the concept. Rational discourse is one of thought as opposed to observation. The concept of "nothing" came about within the context of the negation of being rather than observation of space. The concept of nothing did not come about because a philosopher discovered he was swimming in nothing, but rather because he wondered why he and everything else existed.

Let's just go ahead and talk about the elephant in the room. As of right now, the scientific consensus is that the universe had an absolute edge. This is incredibly disconcerting to scientists because the edge is also an absolute limitation of science. Many scientists are simply unhappy that they seem to have discovered an absolute constraint of their own discipline. What has resulted is a wild attempt to turn science in on itself to avoid the edge. String theory isn't even really a theory; it's a metaphysical discussion about some far-off possible theory. Hawking's quantum tunneling genesis of the universe has not come from a necessity of the theory, but rather it is an attempt to avoid precisely what Hawking knows, and has stated, to be the alternative--extra-physical causation. Science is now in revolt against its own findings, and string theory is simply the foremost symptom. 

I think I have a grasp on what you stated here. My point is that in public discussions people like Dawkins propound PG as a mechanism, yet they defend the fossil record from the prospective of PE. The reason a lot of fundamentalist Christians argue about lack of transitional forms isn't because Christians are stupid, but because most evolutionists are reluctant to actually discuss the different interpretations of their own theory, as they presume that any discussion about disagreement or lack of unity within the discussion of evolution will be interpreted as a weakness of the theory. I do not think the theory of evolution is in jeopardy, but I do believe that the proposed mechanisms are now being hotly contested. 

http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...ins-page2.html
Well, though I would generally agree with you [science] ... [but] the question still plagues them ... also punctuated equilibrium and transititional forms ... but they can't give up on these questions because it's just to important. [It involves the origin, creation, evolution of life]

I've mentioned the Torah has 304805 words ... Does everyone agree Genesis 1:1 states: In the Beginning Created God, the Heavens, and the Earth?

http://www.historum.com/philosophy-p...onalism-2.html
The subjects treated in Aristotle's Metaphysics (substance, causality, the nature of being, and the existence of God) fixed the content of metaphysical speculation for centuries. Among the medieval Scholastic philosophers, metaphysics was known as the “transphysical science” on the assumption that, by means of it, the scholar philosophically could make the transition from the physical world to a world beyond sense perception. 

http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...ml#comment1491
Aristotle regarded the world as made up of individuals (substances) occurring in fixed natural kinds (species). Each individual has its built-in specific pattern of development and grows toward proper self-realization as a specimen of its type. Growth, purpose, and direction are thus built into [this] nature. Science and philosophy must therefore balance, not simply choose between, the claims of empiricism (observation and sense experience) and formalism (rational deduction) ... One of the most distinctive of Aristotle's philosophic contributions was a new notion of causality. Each thing or event, he thought, has more than one “reason” that helps to explain what, why, and where 

[The Premise is that 'In The Beginning' everything was complete [in Gen 1:1] and that in Gen 1:2 'the earth became null or void'; beginning a re-creative narrative from the earth's or a person's stand point]

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/...historyid=ab83
Several mythologies, including one developed in China, begin with the splitting in two of a cosmic egg. The Germanic version begins with a magic emptiness, one of the most characteristic features of creation stories. The Hebrews imagine a first moment when all is void, with darkness on the face of the deep. In Greece the story begins with Chaos, meaning a gaping emptiness. In Egypt and Mesopotamia a boundless ocean sets the primal scene.

[The Dimensioning of Gen 1:1 and the growth and decay constants of John 1:1, also reflected in the decay rate of the ages of the patriarchs which is also based on Euler's formula which wasn't dicovered until the modern age; can be reflected in certain symmetries, such as the Ulam Spiral, other art forms of this type, and symetries of harmony, like musical notation in islamic practice, as well as being seen in mesopotamia in circle, astrological, and time-based forms based on 6, 60 and 360. Far East and Indian forms representing an 8 fold fold path or grid that displays anti-symetries] 

Does any anyone here ... doubt ... the similarities or 'patterns' in John 1:1... have mirroring and reflective qualities with Genesis 1:1?. [Euler and PI]

Fritjof Capra (1939 - ) Austrian-born famous theoretical high-energy physicist and ecologist wrote:

"Modern physics has thus revealed that every subatomic particle not only performs an energy dance, but also is an energy dance; a pulsating process of creation and destruction. The dance of Shiva is the dancing universe, the ceaseless flow of energy going through an infinite variety of patterns that melt into one another’’.For the modern physicists, then Shiva’s dance is the dance of subatomic matter. As in Hindu mythology, it is a continual dance of creation and destruction involving the whole cosmos; the basis of all existence and of all natural phenomenon.

In our times, physicists have used the most advanced technology to portray the patterns of the cosmic dance."
(source: The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism - By Fritjof Capra p. 241-245). 

There is a striking resemblance between the equivalence of mass and energy, symbolized by Shiva's cosmic dance and the Western theory, first expounded by Einstein, which calculates the amount of energy contained in a subatomic particle by multiplying its mass by the square of the speed of light: E = mc2.

( Source: Richard Waterstone, " India: Living Wisdom" p.135 ) 

http://www.christianityboard.com/top...ost__p__145013
A team of researchers from the Astrobiology Centre (INTA-CSIC) has shown that hydrogen cyanide, urea and other substances considered essential to the formation of the most basic biological molecules can be obtained from the salt Prussian blue. "We have shown that when Prussian blue is dissolved in ammoniac solutions it produces hydrogen cyanide, a substance that could have played a fundamental role in the creation of the first bio-organic molecules, as well as other precursors to the origin of life

http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/bigbang.htm
One of the most surprising recent discoveries about the universe is not only that it is expanding, but that it is expanding at an accelerating rate. What this means is that extrapolating backwards we find the universe expanding more and more slowly. The initial state wasn't one of maximum acceleration, it was one of minimum acceleration. So, rather than an explosion, the expansion of the universe resembles " organic growth". There is a steady increase in the momentum and energy of galaxies as time passes, which is not just a reversal of entropy, but also seems to involve the creation of energy itself. It seem that the creation of energy and the creation of order are taking place throughout all the galaxies, and this process is the very same process that was responsible for the Big Bang - the creation of our universe ex nihilo. 

http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/geneticpatterns.htm
Previously, Vernon Jenkins, discovered a mathematical pattern encoded within the Hebrew text of the Old Testament creation narratives. I was deeply impressed by the mathematical consistency of the patterns that Vernon discovered and I studied his work for about 2 years, contributing insights now and then. One of the things I discovered early on was the occurrence of the ratio 1: 1.2732, the ratio for a squared circle. This led Vernon to the discovery of pi in Genesis 1. This, in turn, led Peter Bluer to the discovery of e {Euler's Formula] in Genesis 1 also.

The patterns that Vernon discovered in Genesis were very clear and strong, so I reasoned that these patterns were unlikely to be the product of chance, and so were probably put into the narrative deliberately. I surmised that if God had encoded the patterns in the creation narrative, then perhaps the patterns would also manifest in the things that God supposedly created - ie in the living things He made. The mathematical patterns found in the genetic code indicate Intelligent Design.

http://www.historum.com/religion/368...ce-god-43.html
The problem comes to a head in cosmology where it is hard to explain what happened in the early universe without asking why. It also crops up in the study of our internal, psychological world and in particular in the study of consciousness. Reductionist scientists hover like vultures around this last refuge of the secondary qualities of mind, seeking explanations through physical brain function. Daniel Dennett, with his bold title Consciousness Explained, and Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis feel that they have achieved this in all but detail. Others are not so sure. However much you correlate brain function with sensations, thought patterns and so on, all you find is brain function. You never find subjective experience in itself. To the atheists this is mere pedantry but it is on this issue, the so-called hard problem of consciousness, that numerous conferences and publications are based. The issue which is still the most divisive is that of the locality of the mind. If, as the atheists believe, it is entirely rooted in physical brain function, then they feel they can forget about the secondary qualities, the spirit and the soul, for good. 

http://www.physorg.com/news160994102.html
Prime numbers have intrigued curious thinkers for centuries. On one hand, prime numbers seem to be randomly distributed among the natural numbers with no other law than that of chance. But on the other hand, the global distribution of primes reveals a remarkably smooth regularity. This combination of randomness and regularity has motivated researchers to search for "PATTERN" in the distribution of primes that may eventually shed light on their ultimate nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_Automata
A cellular automaton (pl. cellular automata, abbrev. CA) is a discrete model studied in computability theory, mathematics, physics, complexity science, theoretical biology and microstructure modeling. It consists of a regular grid of cells, each in one of a finite number of states, such as "On" and "Off". Cellular automata are also called "cellular spaces", "tessellation automata". Cellular automata have been proposed for public key cryptography. The one way function is the evolution of a finite CA whose inverse is believed to be hard to find. Given the rule, anyone can easily calculate future states, but it appears to be very difficult to calculate previous states. 

[For the lack of a better analogy right now, I'll use this example as a means of Alpha-Numeric Patterns of Symmetry]

http://www.halexandria.org/dward012.htm
In the Tarot, the Fool card symbolizes the Creative Force or Power that initiates and guides the Universe. “The Fool card is actually the God card in the Tarot.” ... Incidentally, 22 is also the number of letters in the Hebrew Alphabet, which due to the Geometry of Alphabets is a highly profound grouping of language symbols. ... One might note an underlying, cyclical nature -- from the emphasis on the individual ... to the cultural/tradition nature ... to the return to the individual (but now on a higher level) .... in each of the Cycles. This cyclical nature is repeated in [Myth], Astrology, Numerology, in the Tao de Ching, and ultimately, in the hierarchical aspects of the [Sephiroth] Tree of Life. It is cycles within cycles within cycles -- much in the same pattern of fractals in Chaos Theory. 

http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...ml#comment1148
XIII. THE LACK OF A TRANSITIONAL EVOLUTIONARY RECORD
[This is for the scientific community, just to make things fair. This is just off the top of my head, so educate me!] 

Why? The lack of scientifically backed transistional fossils, out of the [100's of 1000's?] of species; with very few, if any of these puntuatially equilibriated forms being seen. Within each [genome speciation?] varies very little over time and within acceptable parameters. We see species come and go like the dinosaur; but within each biological age the survivors remain relatively unchanged. At certain biological stages we see life almost spontaneously appear, yet some species like the cockroach, trylobite and alligator remain relatively unchanged. We see this going back millions of years. 

The answer I'm looking for is the original species, the transitional fossil, and the current or last one? 

The Cosmo [PATTERN], the Katebo [kaos], the recreative process [cosmo2bio processes], evolution [bio-environ process], none of which contradict the Bible or science ... Kaos means without form, order, unsubstatiated, kaotic, desolate, 0 a NULL form, without the direct means of ordered forms, the nothingness of Gen 1:2 as contrasted with the completenes of Gen 1:1 ...

Other Sources
http://www.online-literature.com/for....php?p=1138652 
http://www.historum.com/religion/347...d-origins.html
http://www.historum.com/religion/347...rigins-11.html
http://www.historum.com/religion/347...rigins-12.html
http://www.historum.com/religion/312...lution-80.html 
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...-response.html

----------


## YesNo

> The problem comes to a head in cosmology where it is hard to explain what happened in the early universe without asking why. It also crops up in the study of our internal, psychological world and in particular in the study of consciousness. *Reductionist scientists hover like vultures around this last refuge of the secondary qualities of mind, seeking explanations through physical brain function.*


When it comes to spiritual experiences, I think it is in a theist's favor to have those experiences associated with brain functions. This validates that the experience is truly a human _experience_ and not a culturally induced _idea_. When a person describes an experience it goes through language so a critic can say that there was no underlying experience at all claiming it was all culturally induced. But when one can see a brain function associated with the experience there is no intermediate language involved and this legitimates the spiritual experience. 

Reductionist scientists who seek explanations of experiences in the brain are much like Krauss who thinks he has scored some victory over religion by claiming the universe came out of nothing. They are actually validating the religious position.

I started reading Krauss's _A Universe from Nothing_ looking for more insights into the universe. However, I was disappointed. After skimming around, I began to realize that I already knew most of what he was presenting there from other texts and I was amused by the amount of anti-religious ranting he was wasting both his time and mine on in the text. I suppose I could read the book to see how his ranting turns out, but I have better things to do.

My first encounter with Krauss was when OrphanPip posted the YouTube link to his talk over a year ago on a thread at Lit Net. That was the first time I realized that the universe had such a radical beginning. I couldn't believe it--out of nothing! How could an _atheist_ say that with a straight face? Later, stuntpickle introduced me to Craig in another thread. By then I had already read enough astronomy to convince myself that Krauss was right about the universe and Craig was right with the Kalam argument.

----------


## mal4mac

> 1. Craig says nothing can come from nothing.


And Craig is God so we have to accept what Craig says  :Smile: 

If Craig says the universe comes from A, then A has to be something we can detect, or he's just blowing hot air. Do you have you a photograph of A?

----------


## stuntpickle

> And Craig is God so we have to accept what Craig says 
> 
> If Craig says the universe comes from A, then A has to be something we can detect, or he's just blowing hot air. Do you have you a photograph of A?


I don't think you understand what Craig means when he says "from nothing, nothing comes." He's saying "not anything" comes from "not anything." That is to say that he's suggesting nothing comes into being without adhering to conventions of causality. This is one of the oldest, most innocuous and least controversial ideas in all of philosophy (and science). It's like saying "there's a reason something happens."

The Kalam does not say "the universe comes from this or that thing." The Kalam is simply saying that the universe comes from _something_ with X, Y and Z necessary properties. The Kalam does not aspire to identify or name this something.

Not so surprisingly, we have no photographs of God, nor do we have photographs of logical absolutes, love or electrons, yet we all still believe in these things. Your insistence that all claims must be subjected to empirical verification is an old and entirely refuted criterion of logical positivism. For us to entertain your absurd criterion, we first require that you empirically verify it. Thus explodes your criterion, thus explodes logical positivism. Your demand is best suited to refute your demand: you refute yourself, which is to say your position is self-refuting, self-contradicting, etc. Capice?

The problem with most New Atheists is that they are unwittingly reviving a dead and completely refuted worldview. Yes, you heard me right: the requirement of empirical verification for all claims is less reliable than theistic philosophy, and this is something both atheistic and theistic philosophers agree on.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Can you tell me how life started according to evolution


No, because evolutionary theory doesn't address how life started. Might as well ask how life started according to gravitational theory.

----------


## KillCarneyKlans

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-...-universe.html
Everything that we know about the universe allows for it to come from nothing, and moreover all the data is consistent with this possibility," says Krauss, who teaches in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and the Department of Physics in ASU's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

the question of creating something from nothing is first and foremost a scientific one—as the very notions of 'something' and 'nothing' have been completely altered as a result of our current scientific understanding. science has literally changed the playing field for this big question. The latest physics research into the origins of the universe shows that, not only can our universe arise from nothing, but more generally, the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity imply that something will generally always arise from nothing.

http://www.christianityboard.com/top...e__pid__143052
The idea is that in verse Gen 1 everything was created perfectly [the 1st perfect creation, the template for everything - how the bio-info - pre-evolution got there], in verse 2 the katabole [The Big Collapse - Chaos], and in verse 3+ a re-creation. [The Big Bang and subsequent Bio-Genesis] [1, 2 & 3 may get mushed together in a scientific view]

http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...elligence.html
Aristotle limited his “theology,” to what he believed science requires and can establish. The influence of Aristotle's philosophy has been pervasive; it has even helped to shape modern language and common sense. His doctrine of the Prime Mover as final cause played an important role in theology. Until the 20th century, logic meant Aristotle's logic. 

[I think you' all are missing the point in Aristotle's analogy of the tree ... in the end, the sead of it contains all the info necessary to reproduce itself ... the chicken and egg question pops up here ... what came first ... the template of design from the original ... chicken] 

http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...d-origins.html
The human DNA is constructed of two halves. Replication of the two strands takes place when both halves of the helix are pulled apart and then used as a template to copy the original model. The information received from this genetic copying is how replication of the original model is built. 

The word ‘replicate’ defined by Webster’s Dictionary means, "to duplicate." The word ‘replica’ defined by Webster’s Dictionary means, "a reproduction or copy of a work, especially a copy by the maker of the original." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation
Human_genetic_variation The recency of our common ancestry and continual gene flow among human groups have limited genetic differentiation in our species. [Gene mutation though present ... is within acceptablle limits ... which also suggests recency to our original parents ... in that huge genetic variation hasn't ocurred]

http://www.icr.org/article/mutations...for-evolution/
Carl Sagan, in his Cosmos program "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue," stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations." While this may be the current popular theory, real science disagrees. The perpetuation of the Darwin myth clashes with reality. 

http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...elligence.html
Paul Davies is a British-born mathematical physicist who's now Professor of Physics and Natural Philosophy at the University of Adelaide. He has written many popular books on physics and cosmology as well as highly regarded textbooks. Central to Paul Davies's ideas is the sense of purpose he sees in the universe and our place within it: "I find it very hard to accept that our existence in the world is something that just happens to be. It seems to me that the fact that the universe is self-aware is something that's written into the laws of nature. Paul Davies is keen to point out that the Templeton Prize is for progress in religion; in order to be able to make progress, this suggests to him, religion does not have all the answers. Science too should be progressive and not dogmatic, he says. Scientists must always be prepared to change their minds in the light of new evidence; that is the power, not weakness, of science. Such an approach brings a sense of humility that tells us we do not yet have all the answers, nor are we not necessarily the pinnacle [of] creation. [or knowledge] 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak...ou_b_6105.html
It's high time to rescue "intelligent design" from the politics of religion [and science]. There are too many riddles not yet answered by either biology ... the Bible [or even other sacred texts] .... by asking them honestly, without foregone conclusions, science could take a huge leap forward. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
In March, 2002, Meyer announced a "teach the controversy" strategy, which alleges that the theory of evolution is controversial within scientific circles, following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education. The presentation included submission of an annotated bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as "Darwinian evolution". In response to this claim the National Center for Science Education, an organisation that works in collaboration with National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association that support the teaching of evolution in public schools, contacted the authors of the papers listed and twenty-six scientists, representing thirty-four of the papers, responded. None of the authors considered that their research provided evidence against evolution.

On June 23, 2009, HarperOne released Meyer's Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. Philospher Thomas Nagel submitted the book as his contribution to the "2009 Books of the Year" supplement for The Times, writing "Signature in the Cell...is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin 

http://www.historum.com/religion/375...estion-22.html
God [if he exists ... and is ... as possible for you to conceive him] wishes you to have life more abundantly ... the human condition, evolution and the material world are much easily understood than say ... the mind, consciousness, altered states of reality, existence or sentience. Basically physical material matter barely consistuients 5% of the universe, with dark matter over 20%, and dark energy comprising a whopping 70+% ... If we were to compare this to earth ... it would be a waterworld with one tiny speck of an island of mostly a vast unclaimed wilderness ... How hot can it get above 0 Kelvin ? [7.2 trillion degrees Fahrenheit] 

Keywords: textbooks, schools, education, current political scientific paradigm, applications of ID that "meet the critrea". 
http://www.historum.com/philosophy-p...subject-3.html

Other Sources
http://www.historum.com/religion/347...d-origins.html
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...-big-bang.html
http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...elligence.html

----------


## KillCarneyKlans

*YesNo*
My first encounter with Krauss was when OrphanPip posted the YouTube link to his talk over a year ago on a thread at Lit Net. That was the first time I realized that the universe had such a radical beginning. I couldn't believe it--out of nothing! How could an atheist say that with a straight face? Later, stuntpickle introduced me to Craig in another thread. By then I had already read enough astronomy to convince myself that Krauss was right about the universe and Craig was right with the Kalam argument. 

Yes, I agree ... my sentiments too 

*OrphinPip*
No, because evolutionary theory doesn't address how life started. Might as well ask how life started according to gravitational theory. 

Exactly ... hence the need to know ... not exactly ... because evolutionary theory must address it ... in whatever form, function or cause, it takes ... or even the real questions that plague science won't be answered ... it's a must, for science, it's the purpose and origins and development everyone's is interested in finding out.

----------


## OrphanPip

No it doesn't, the origins of life are issues of abiogenesis not evolution. Evolutionary Theory attempts to understand how inheritance with modification works. It is not necessary to explain where life came from to look at how life works now and in the relatively recent past. 

The origins of life are left up to molecular biologist and biochemist to work out.

----------


## stuntpickle

KCK, first I want to offer you a couple hopefully helpful tips. Your posts are very long, which is fine, but unfortunately, your posts also tend to lack a certain unity/direction--an error that is magnified by the length of the posts. For example, you often quote persons in this forum without making use of the quote feature, and you tend to address others in an indirect manner so that your ultimate point is hard to discern. It might be helpful if you tried to be control the breadth of your posts, so that they better cohere. 





> Everything that we know about the universe allows for it to come from nothing, and moreover all the data is consistent with this possibility," says Krauss, who teaches in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and the Department of Physics in ASU's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
> 
> the question of creating something from nothing is first and foremost a scientific one—as the very notions of 'something' and 'nothing' have been completely altered as a result of our current scientific understanding. science has literally changed the playing field for this big question. The latest physics research into the origins of the universe shows that, not only can our universe arise from nothing, but more generally, the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity imply that something will generally always arise from nothing.


Not only have you adopted Krauss's unwitting equivocation, but now you are also unwittingly arguing against the Kalam. That's no big deal because everything you've stated above is simply incorrect.

Consider the following from the physicist's blog I earlier linked to:

_We can now see that this question cannot be answered by any of the methods we normally call scientific. Scientific theories are necessarily theories of something, some physical reality. Equations describe properties, and thus describe something. There cannot be equations that describe not-anything. Write down any equation you like – you will not be able to deduce from that equation that the thing that it describes must exist in the real world. Existence is not a predicate, as Kant memorably explained._

You've got it exactly wrong. Science isn't the arbiter of "nothing"; in fact, science can't even traffic with such. Science requires some physical reality to even get going. Krauss, who may be a brilliant physicist, is a philosophical dullard. He often makes such weird and bizarre claims that he embarrasses himself publicly. For instance, he co-hosted a talk with Richard Dawkins called, I think, "Something from Nothing", and was continually humiliated when he proposed such boners to Dawkins as "Isn't evolution a great example of something from nothing?" And, of course, to keep from looking like a nincompoop, Dawkins was forced to answer coldly, "No." This happened all throughout the talk: Krauss would say, "Don't you think X?" and Dawkins would have to answer "No."

What Krauss is calling "nothing" is really a quantum vacuum, which is something. "Not anything" cannot have properties, and Krauss's "nothing" has tons of properties and tons of applicable theories. This is all unimportant because Hawking actually provided the "nothing" we're looking for.

Of course, Hawking didn't strictly find "nothing", but rather he found the complete absence of physical existence--something called the singularity. The singularity is a zero-volume, infinitely dense thingum, which really describes the complete nonexistence of physical things and the absence of any possible system of scientific measure. What Hawking unwittingly established was that the universe had no MATERIAL cause. What the Kalam argues for is EFFICIENT cause, which is SOMETHING.

Not only are your incorrect statements unhelpful, but they are counterproductive since you seem to support the Kalam but are providing evidence (bad) against its underlying premise (nothing comes from nothing). Moreover, you are agreeing with the logical positivists when you tried to cede authority over the absence of existence to science, with which just about every extant philosopher would disagree.

Also, please consider the following points.

*The Bible is not an authoritative text for the purpose of this discussion.* 

You keep talking about some vague interpretations of the Bible that sound roughly similar to numerology, and the truth is that, regardless, of the truth of your statements, you are ruining your position.

In a discussion, a text is only authoritative if both sides agree to its authority.

The only way I can see you establishing the authority of the Bible to an atheist is to:

A. Beg the question.

1. Either God exists and the Bible/Torah is His authoritative message, or God does not exist and the Bible is not His authoritative message.
2. God exists.
Therefore, the Bible/Torah is His authoritative message.

B. Resort to a non sequitur.

1. The Bible/Torah includes startling truths.
Therefore, God exists.
Therefore, we ought to take the Bible/Torah seriously.


*Evolution is undeniable*

Evolution is in some manner an inescapable truth. Antibiotics-resistant bacteria confirm evolutionary phenomena. The equivalent would be if we witnessed, after several generations of humans getting speared in the face, a human with an exo-skeletal face plate emerge. Evolution has proved applicable in any number of applied fields. Evolution gets tangible, undeniable results that are nearly impossible to deny.

This doesn't matter since evolution and God's existence are hardly mutually exclusive. Even Yaweh and evolution aren't mutually exclusive--unless, of course, you adhere to the most rudimentary, comic-book literalism of a seven-day creation and a 6,000 year-old Earth, which would eliminate the Kalam as a possible justification for God's existence, which presumes the truth of modern physics.

The truth is a world with evolution is more mysterious and startling than one without it. If evolution is true and God exists, that means that God created a self-assembling universe that built itself from hydrogen, which is far more impressive than--poof!--there's Adam. The engineering feat of creating a self assembling machine is not only unmatched by humanity, it is nearly inexplicable.

And, of course, this is precisely what current science is telling us. All the formerly questionable aspects of the universe (it's vastness, for example) are not needless extravagances, but rather the necessary preconditions of our own pendant world. This is one of the most startling discoveries of not Christian apologists, but secular physicists.

C.S. Lewis said that believers should not be afraid of the truth, but rather they should seek it. For God is the truth. But so is evolution. We shouldn't run from science because we're afraid it will convince us there is no God, but rather we should embrace science because it can help us discern the truth, and each and every day, science is proving the truth looks a lot like God. So stop trying to resist it.

----------


## YesNo

> You've got it exactly wrong. Science isn't the arbiter of "nothing"; in fact, science can't even traffic with such. Science requires some physical reality to even get going. 
> 
> Of course, Hawking didn't strictly find "nothing", but rather he found the complete absence of physical existence--something called the singularity. The singularity is a zero-volume, infinitely dense thingum, which really describes the complete nonexistence of physical things and the absence of any possible system of scientific measure. What Hawking unwittingly established was that the universe had no MATERIAL cause. What the Kalam argues for is EFFICIENT cause, which is SOMETHING.


I think KillCarneyKlans was quoting Krauss, but without the quote tags it is hard to tell. I also agree that quoting the Bible is not relevant here.

The problem with nothing confuses me, but I think your post, stuntpickle, sums it up the way I see it. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding something here.

When physicists such as Krauss run out of causes and have no explanation for why something came into existence or happened they are tempted to claim _Chance_ was the cause or the object came out of _Nothing_. Rather than saying, "I don't know", they come up with a bogus explanation. Since neither of these are explanations, I have capitalized the words "chance" and "nothing" to suggest that these are constructs in some underlying and probably not well-reasoned metaphysics. 

In the case of the universe Krauss has run out of everything he can accept as existing that could be a cause of the universe, or even the speculative multiverse. Rather than admitting that he now doesn't know what caused the universe to begin, he claims, oh, yes, he does know--the universe came out of Nothing. He thinks the argument can stop there. However, the Kalam argument tells him that that explanation will not work.

Krauss's Nothing is used to fill in the gaps of his knowledge. It is his explanation of last resort. It is not quite a God since no choice was made by this Nothing to create the universe. Whatever triggered the event had to be that other construct Chance. Although Nothing is not a God, it behaves for Krauss the way a God would. Rather than a _God of the gaps_ Krauss employs a _Nothing of the gaps_ as a denial of what the Kalam argument is forcing him to accept.

I've started reading John D. Barrow's _The Book of Nothing_ to try to get a better understanding of what physicists are referring to by Nothing and see if my suspicions about Nothing are correct. If anyone thinks I've misrepresented this, please let me know. I'm no expert.

----------


## stuntpickle

> In the case of the universe Krauss has run out of *everything he can accept as existing* that could be a cause of the universe, or even the speculative multiverse. Rather than admitting that he now doesn't know what caused the universe to begin, he claims, oh, yes, he does know--the universe came out of Nothing. He thinks the argument can stop there. However, the Kalam argument tells him that that explanation will not work.


I agree with most of what you're saying with one major exception. The problem isn't with what Krauss doesn't know, but with what he DOES know. The singularity isn't simply some unknown quantity: it is the structural prohibition against science probing further. He understands that the greatest development in physics during his generation was Hawking's work with Penrose, which basically tracked the universe back to non-existence. Other than relativity and quantum theory, there's nothing more central to modern cosmology than Hawking's work. Hawking's findings do not end with a question mark, but rather with an emphatic exclamation point. It's not that scientists don't know how to progress, but, in fact, know that they can't progress. Krauss is simply engaged in a switcharoo in which he has said "Fine, if they want nothing, then I'll give them nothing." But everyone understands that Krauss's "nothing" and Hawking's are not the same thing.

----------


## Darcy88

It doesn't matter! If you are an atheist you ascribe everything to nature. If you are a Christian you ascribe nature to God. The tedium of proof is superfluous for one of true faith.

----------


## KillCarneyKlans

> stuntpickle
> You've got it exactly wrong. Science isn't the arbiter of "nothing"; Science requires some physical reality to even get going.


_
1st I never impied any of this ... 2nd, to go straight to the heart of the matter without quoting more quotes The argument goes to the heart of the matter of ... is origens or evolution right? [or both] Are we monkees or are we men?

I know all about abiogenesis, I was just impling that bio and cosmo questions are fundamental to science, they are first order questions ... Who I am, how does life come to be? Where Am I, How big is it, what's it like, etc ... It is the basis for all scientific inquiry
_


> From a historum member
> Well, though I would generally agree with you ... the question still plagues them ... also punctuated equilibrium and transititional forms ... but they can't give up on these questions because it's just to important.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evoluti...ife-begin.html
What are the origins of life? How did things go from non-living to living? From something that could not reproduce to something that could? One person who has exhaustively investigated this subject is paleontologist Andrew Knoll, a professor of biology at Harvard and author of Life on a Young Planet: The First Three Billion Years of Life. In this wide-ranging interview, Knoll explains, among other compelling ideas, why higher organisms like us are icing on the cake of life, how deeply living things and our planet are intertwined, and why it's so devilishly difficult to figure out how life got started.

http://www.livescience.com/10531-lif...-approach.html
All currently known organisms rely on DNA to replicate and proteins to run cellular machinery, but these large molecules—intricate weaves of thousands of atoms—are not likely to have been around for the first organisms to use. "Life could have started up from the small molecules that nature provided," says Robert Shapiro,a chemist from New York University . 

Biologist James Ferry and geochemist Christopher House from Penn State University found that this primitive organism can get energy from a reaction between acetate and the mineral iron sulfide. Compared to other energy-harnessing processes that require dozens of proteins, this acetate-based reaction runs with the help of just two very simple proteins.

The researchers propose in this month's issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution that this stripped-down geochemical cycle was what the first organisms used to power their growth. "This cycle is where all evolution emanated from," Ferry says. "It is the father of all life." Shapiro is skeptical: Something had to form the two proteins. But he thinks this discovery might point in the right direction.

http://www.freewebs.com/genetics37/geneticamino.htm
There are 64 code words, but there are only 20 amino acids. Therefore, more than one code word can signify the same amino acid ... Of all the amino acids, only two, methionine and tryptophan, have a single DNA code word. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methionine 
Methionine Together with cysteine, methionine is one of two sulfur-containing proteinogenic amino acids. 

http://www.whatabeginning.com/Misc/G...enetics_VS.htm 
It transpires that 19 of the amino acids comply with the generic formula: The variety in amino acid characteristics derives entirely from R - the unique side chain. The one exception to this general rule is Proline which has one less hydrogen bonded to the nitrogen of its standard block. Since shCherbak's findings take us further along this route in which the prime number 37 dominates - but only when Proline is harmonised with the other 19 amino acids by transferring one hydrogen from R to B. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proline 
Proline (abbreviated as Pro or P) is an α-amino acid, one of the twenty DNA-encoded amino acids. It is not an essential amino acid, which means that the human body can synthesize it. It is unique among the 20 protein-forming amino acids in that the α-amino group is secondary.
_
All this stuff above ... its all in the Scriptures, the text, in the cosmological constants, in the bio-info, transcendantal numbers, the nuclear decay constant [NDC], the golden mean, the ulam spiral, fibonacci numbers, unusual forms in nature, etc ...

3rd transposing the more complicated scientific view on a simple theist's perspective "that something came of of nothing", that nothingness being space ... hardly requires more thought or evidence from my perspective ... 
_


> What Krauss is calling "nothing" is really a quantum vacuum, which is something.


_ 
Is the Glass half full or half empty ??? Hebrew had no zero notation, The Sephiroth does, since ancient times divisions of 1 have been used to the 64th power ... like the Eye of Horus ... which is imbedded in the text, also ... It wasn't to long ago science was calling a vacuum of ordinary space, nothing ... hence the phrase, "nothing lives inside a vaccuum" 
_


> Of course, Hawking didn't strictly find "nothing", but rather he found the complete absence of physical existence--something called the singularity. The singularity is a zero-volume, infinitely dense thingum, which really describes the complete nonexistence of physical things and the absence of any possible system of scientific measure. What Hawking unwittingly established was that the universe had no MATERIAL cause. What the Kalam argues for is EFFICIENT cause, which is SOMETHING.


_ 
Yes, I know ... NDC ... well without going into The Shroud ... http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...94-shroud.html ... which assumes a singularity also, possibly ... I'll just throw that out ... anyways, because whatever form it becomes or cause it assumes is only relative to it nature ... unless your folding time ... all mattter is pressed to infiniti ... data is displayed on its event horizon ... Krauss by your understanding calls this "an Efficient Something" ... There's only a 4 to 5 % material cause at best ... Not every cause is an argument for a designer, if fact there's only 1 [ish] ... have scientists ever measured nothingness, let alone virtual nothingness

As far as the rest, if this is true in sense I have expresed here ... Kalam is correct in the layman's sense ... I not here to evangalize you, I'm just lining up my ducks ... I hope you can better see my position ... I hope I haven't offended you ... I like your engaging style ... I spent some 20 pages engaging atheists, evolutionists, agnositics and theists in conversions at least as difficult to prove ... Thanks for you patience, I'll try to be more precise ... but, this is the same problem I had ... anyways ... maybe a new thread 
_
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...5142007AAc2sMi 
If Quatua is a plugin, a means by which things can be manipulated. to fit within design rules, (my words) then it may be possible to harness certain powers that don't obey the laws of general relativity. [This is apposed to a string multi-verse which is more ordered than chaos or quata, but built on these and physical Laws][Photon packet of light the best example/shroud][100,000 years for light to excape from a sun's core to the corona] 

http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...-big-bang.html
"Signature in the Cell...is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter [ZERO] – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. [a-PI-ori]

Signature in the Cell, a big book that methodically, but agreeably, constructs an argument that intelligence in some unspecified form [becoming a familiar term], is responsidble for the bio-molecular machinery in the cell and, therefore, for first life. Meyer's argument is, at its heart, logical and statistical but also strives for a reality check by engaging the reader's day-to-day experience of cause and effect. His long argument is encyclopedic yet lively and persuades that science is at an impasse in explaining the origin of life as the product of undirected processes.
_ 
4th - ultimately without solving a higher function component like the mind/body question or conscious, forethought, altered states of reality, being bound by time [the p-NP like problem], etc ... the problem will never be able to be solved 
_

----------


## YesNo

> It doesn't matter! If you are an atheist you ascribe everything to nature. If you are a Christian you ascribe nature to God. The tedium of proof is superfluous for one of true faith.


At some level nothing matters. Most people aren't going to be convinced by any proof that violates their beliefs anyway, whether atheist or theist. One can always posit a "God of the gaps" or a "Nothing of the gaps" to get out of being backed into a logical corner. Or, more easily, one can ignore the arguments.

Craig's use of the Kalam argument along with Krauss's _A Universe from Nothing_ are parts of a culture war going on now between Christians (and indirectly all religious people) and atheists such as Krauss and Dawkins. Dawkins wrote the concluding chapter to Krauss's book and he wanted Hitchens to write an introduction, but Hitchens was dying at the time. Krauss's text is not so much about science as it is an anti-religious polemic.

So whether the issue ultimately matters or not, it will be interesting to many people.

The core problem is can atheism explain our universe, including space and time, without recourse to some cause beyond space and time? That our universe had a beginning is now part of the standard model of cosmology. The Kalam argument, which is quite simple and which Craig is popularizing with many of the debates he engages in, insists it cannot. Krauss seems to be arguing that we should just accept stuff coming out of nothing without a cause because he can't find one that suits his beliefs.

----------


## OrphanPip

Signature in the Cell is a joke that misrepresents molecular biology in order to convince the layman of Intelligent Design. It's the same old **** from Meyers about the impossibility of generating "information." Meyers is a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute who has no respect for intellectual honesty, he deliberately misleads his readership.

----------


## KillCarneyKlans

> OrphanPip
> Signature in the Cell is a joke that misrepresents molecular biology in order to convince the layman of Intelligent Design. It's the same old **** from Meyers about the impossibility of generating "information." Meyers is a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute who has no respect for intellectual honesty, he deliberately misleads his readership.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
On June 23, 2009, HarperOne released Meyer's Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. Philospher Thomas Nagel submitted the book as his contribution to the "2009 Books of the Year" supplement for The Times, writing "Signature in the Cell...is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04...itc033471.html 
A new review of Signature in the Cell is just out in The Journal of the International Society of Philosophical Enquiry. It brings to the forefront of the overall debate the perspective of a software engineer and logician. Specifically, Harry Kanigel, former executive director, Information Technology at UBS Investment Bank, whose expertise is in computer algorithms. So he knows a thing or two about digital information. His reviews starts strong:

Stephen C. Meyer changes the game in the intelligent design fight with Signature in the Cell, a big book that methodically, but agreeably, constructs an argument that intelligence in some unspecified form, is responsidble for the bio-molecular machinery in the cell and, therefore, for first life. Meyer's argument is, at its heart, logical and statistical but also strives for a reality check by engaging the reader's day-to-day experience of cause and effect. 

_Despite how much you despise "the Discovery Institue"_ 

http://www.stephencmeyer.org/biography.php 
Meyer has argued that the intelligent design field is still in its infancy and that vital evidence of a designer’s “signature” on life only emerged as recently as just 10-15 years ago. His work in biological information represents the cutting edge of the argument for design.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/educa...wkins-refuses/
Stephen C. Meyer asks Richard Dawkins to Debate, Dawkins Refuses. Anika Smith has noted at Evolution News and Views that Richard Dawkins, author of the recently published book The Greatest Show On Earth, refuses to debate Stephen C. Meyer, author of the recent book The Signature in the Cell. Dr. Meyer challenged Dawkins to a debate when he saw that their speaking tours would cross paths this fall in Seattle and New York. Dawkins declined through his publicists, saying he does not debate “creationists.” “Dawkins’ response is disingenuous,” said Meyer. 

It’s a fair question to ask why Richard Dawkins won’t debate even a creationist, but much more telling that he won’t debate Dr. Meyer, who wants only to discuss science. Dr. Dawkins​ calls “Life” the Greatest Show On Earth, yet he will not debate someone in how that show was produced? 

Signature in the Cell proposes to revisit the origins controversy particularly in light of the discovery over 50 years ago of DNA and the enormous advances in our knowledge of cellular biology and information theory since then. Meyer does this using the motif of his personal journey toward understanding what he calls “the DNA enigma.” This enigma is “the mystery of the origin of the information needed to build the first living organism.” Until such a first life exists Darwinian evolution cannot commence.

_ Well, there's more than enough evidence that, that isn't true_ 

http://www.historum.com/blogs/killca...ml#comment1148
On the average, in any randomly-selected set of integers, 1 in every 37 will be a multiple of 37. Applying this principle to the 127 values represented by the 7 words of Genesis 1:1 and their various combinations, it is to be expected that 3 or 4 will have 37 as a factor. As has been shown here, there are actually 23 - ie over 6 times the expected number! 

The reality of the appearance of 37 (now including its numero-geometrical analogues, 7, 13, 19, 61, 73 and 121, besides its multiples, 666 and 703), among the various particle counts of the 20 canonical amino acids is now supported in the writings of two experts in the field of genetics, viz. shCherbak and Rakocevic, and in the writings of a significant contributor to the nascent field of bioinformatics, Boulay. 

"When evolutionary biologists use computer modeling to find out how many mutations you need to get from one species to another, it's not mathematics — it's numerology ... They know nothing about biological systems like physiology, ecology, and biochemistry ... Whatever is brought together by sex is broken up in the next generation by the same process. Evolutionary biology has been taken over by population geneticists." - Lyn Margulis

----------


## OrphanPip

So, in summary:

Signature in the Cell was published by a popular press for mass market and not by an academic publisher, and this publisher sings the praise of its product in its descriptions.

It was reviewed favourably in an irrelevant magazine with a highly pretentious name.

Dawkins refused to debate Meyer because he's a sham. And somehow we're to take this as a poor reflection on Dawkins.

And then a quote mined from Lynn Margulis, who rejected the importance placed on natural selection in Darwinism in favour of her own symbiotic evolutionary theory (and of the Gaia Hypothesis), which was clearly wrong. Margulis is a rather bizarre figure because she was right about one thing, the endosymbiotic origins of the mitochondria, but otherwise she was a life long fringe scientist with bizarre ideas. Despite this, it is disingenuous to quote Margulis suggesting she favoured creationism, because she was adamantly not a creationists. She believed in evolution, just in her own weird personal version of it.

----------


## YesNo

Based on what I am reading, I take it Stephen C. Meyer is a creationist. That means he must believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old. If that is the case, that's fine. There are books in the public library I use by scientists claiming the big bang didn't happen. That's fine, too. It is always useful to have viewpoints that challenge the current models.

This thread, however, is about Craig's use of the Kalam argument based on scientifically verified data, confirmed within the past 10 years, that the universe is 13.72 billion years old, plus or minus 1%, and that the big bang actually occurred. With Craig relying on this data, he is _not_ a creationist, although he is a Christian. 

One thing I've noticed about creationists is that they seem to be waiting for both theistic and atheistic scientists to come to their senses and ultimately confirm their worldview. Until those scientists do, the creationists use a "God of the gaps" argument to justify their position.

One thing I've noticed about atheists is that they now have to do the same thing. They have to wait until those same theistic and atheistic scientists come to their senses and confirm their worldview. Until those scientists do, these atheists, like Krauss and Dawkins, use a "Nothing of the gaps" argument to get the results they want. 

It is amusing that atheists and creationists are in the same position today when it comes to science.

----------


## mal4mac

> ... we have no photographs of God, nor do we have photographs of logical absolutes, love or electrons, yet we all still believe in these things.


Why does logic have to be absolute? We observe it to work, in a pragmatic sense, in our universe, that's good enough for me. So I 'believe' in logic, in the sense that 'I think it's useful'. 

If you are viewing love as 'a subjective feeling', then, OK, I don't expect pictures of that. So this is something that, I agree, that we can believe in but, also something we have no pictures. (We might see brain scans light up when we have the feeling, but that isn't a picture of the subjective feeling...)

We have seen bubble chamber tracks of electrons, that's 'good enough' for me as photographic evidence -- if you combine it with all the other theoretical & experimental evidence. Has God shown up in a bubble chamber?




> Your insistence that all claims must be subjected to empirical verification is an old and entirely refuted criterion of logical positivism.


I didn't, and wouldn't, insist on that, see my comment above on love. I like Bryan Magee's example 'Mozart is a better composer than Ted Heath' as an another example that refutes the strong version of logical positivism - I would certainly agree with this statement but there is no empirical evidence.




> The problem with most New Atheists is that they are unwittingly reviving a dead and completely refuted worldview.


I've read Dawkins, and a few others, and never had this impression. 




> ...the requirement of empirical verification for all claims is less reliable than theistic philosophy, and this is something both atheistic and theistic philosophers agree on.


What New Atheists has claimed that you must have empirical verification for all claims? I've never read a claim like this from Dawkins, or any other New Atheist of similar intellectual stature.

God, viewed as the cause the Big bang, is something I might reasonably expect to have some empirical evidence of, as the Big Bang is in the empirical domain.

----------


## YesNo

> And then a quote mined from Lynn Margulis, who rejected the importance placed on natural selection in Darwinism in favour of her own symbiotic evolutionary theory (and of the Gaia Hypothesis), which was clearly wrong. Margulis is a rather bizarre figure because she was right about one thing, the endosymbiotic origins of the mitochondria, but otherwise she was a life long fringe scientist with bizarre ideas. Despite this, it is disingenuous to quote Margulis suggesting she favoured creationism, because she was adamantly not a creationists. She believed in evolution, just in her own weird personal version of it.


Thanks for pointing out Lynn Margulis, KillCarneyKlans and OrphanPip. 

I found a book by her and Dorion Sagan called _Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species_, published in 2002 in the library. The cover says this about her:




> Lynn Margulis, Distinguished University Processor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Natural Science. She received a National Medal of Science from President Clinton in 2000.


Niles Eldredge is quoted on the jacket as saying the following about the book:




> Novel, mind-spinning ideas abound throughout this book. If _Acquiring Genomes_ doesn't stimulate new directions of thought in evolutionary biology, I can't imagine what will.


Eldredge came up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium with Stephen Jay Gould and appears, from his _Why We Do It: Rethinking Sex and the Selfish Gene_, to be opposed to Richard Dawkins' _Selfish Gene_.

I'm looking forward to reading it.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Why does logic have to be absolute?


Apparently, you don't understand what I mean when I say "logical absolutes", as they are something both sides generally accept. The following link should help you sort it out:

http://logical-critical-thinking.com...cal-absolutes/




> If you are viewing love as 'a subjective feeling', then, OK, I don't expect pictures of that. So this is something that, I agree, that we can believe in but, also something we have no pictures. (We might see brain scans light up when we have the feeling, but that isn't a picture of the subjective feeling...)


Sigh... God, like the number two, isn't a physical phenomenon, so presuming one can take a picture of Him is absurd. Moreover, when someone makes a statement in a rational discussion, they make the assertion that the statement is true IN PRINCIPLE, which is to say in all cases. So to ask for a picture of God is to imply that criteria is somehow standard or reasonable in all cases, and this is obviously untrue. Thus the examples. Your "explanation" of how these examples are different doesn't matter.





> I didn't, and wouldn't, insist on that, see my comment above on love.


Of course, you wouldn't because you're prejudiced and seem not to understand how rational discussions are generally conducted.




> I've read Dawkins, and a few others, and never had this impression. What New Atheists has claimed that you must have empirical verification for all claims? I've never read a claim like this from Dawkins, or any other New Atheist of similar intellectual stature.


You should watch Dawkins's debate with George Coyne in which Dawkins flatly admits to a scientistic (NOT scientific) worldview. Of course, this was so embarrassing for Dawkins that the interview never aired, but it is still available on the internet.





> God, viewed as the cause the Big bang, is something I might reasonably expect to have some empirical evidence of, as the Big Bang is in the empirical domain.


That's because you either don't understand or are unwilling to understand what people mean when they say "God", Who is, by definition, immaterial, which makes empirical testing impossible. Any cause outside the universe, whether God or otherwise, is necessarily unable to adhere to empirical criteria, and science is suggesting precisely extra-material causation. That's the whole point: science has found its own constraints. So asking to extend empiricism or science beyond their own stated constraints is a little absurd.

----------


## Darcy88

> At some level nothing matters. Most people aren't going to be convinced by any proof that violates their beliefs anyway, whether atheist or theist. One can always posit a "God of the gaps" or a "Nothing of the gaps" to get out of being backed into a logical corner. Or, more easily, one can ignore the arguments.
> 
> Craig's use of the Kalam argument along with Krauss's _A Universe from Nothing_ are parts of a culture war going on now between Christians (and indirectly all religious people) and atheists such as Krauss and Dawkins. Dawkins wrote the concluding chapter to Krauss's book and he wanted Hitchens to write an introduction, but Hitchens was dying at the time. Krauss's text is not so much about science as it is an anti-religious polemic.
> 
> So whether the issue ultimately matters or not, it will be interesting to many people.
> 
> The core problem is can atheism explain our universe, including space and time, without recourse to some cause beyond space and time? That our universe had a beginning is now part of the standard model of cosmology. The Kalam argument, which is quite simple and which Craig is popularizing with many of the debates he engages in, insists it cannot. Krauss seems to be arguing that we should just accept stuff coming out of nothing without a cause because he can't find one that suits his beliefs.


Tell me who started this "culture war." The atheists? The christians? How is science any less valid than religion?

And if scientists need something beyond space and time to account for the universe's creation then that thing is called a force. Its your choice if you want to call it god, you have the right to call it whatever you want. But when you hold as a conviction a theistic view of things, when you try to make faith into fact, you are essentially becoming a scientist.

Craig is a scientist. He's just not as good a one as Hawking is. Literalism of all sorts amounts to the death of imagination and soul. I have faith but proving it amounts to beating it with a broomstick.

Literalist interpretations of religious books are wrong and harmful and anti-faith.

----------


## stuntpickle

> And if scientists need something beyond space and time to account for the universe's creation then that thing is called a force. Its your choice if you want to call it god, you have the right to call it whatever you want. But when you hold as a conviction a theistic view of things, when you try to make faith into fact, you are essentially becoming a scientist.


This is not only wrong, but silly too. The Kalam (and that's what we're talking about, right?) suggests an extra-spatial, extra-temporal, supremely powerful, personal cause for the universe. To suggest that calling this cause "God" is simply some arbitrary rationalization of theists is, frankly, hilarious. First, personhood, immateriality and timelessness have never been strictly associated with "force", but they have, in fact, been strictly associated with "God". In fact, that's the entire definition of the Western monotheistic God.

And, in your last statement, you reveal your scientistic (not scientific) stripes. Never in the entire history of all humanity has science been the sole arbiter of fact. That's why we have departments of math, history and philosophy on every university campus, rather than one monolithic college of science. The only people who don't understand this are people adhering to a faulty worldview of scientism. Science has not been, is not now and will never be a sufficient arbiter of truth. To state a truth does not make one a scientist, nor has it ever.




> Craig is a scientist. He's just not as good a one as Hawking is. Literalism of all sorts amounts to the death of imagination and soul. I have faith but proving it amounts to beating it with a broomstick.
> 
> Literalist interpretations of religious books are wrong and harmful and anti-faith.



Again, this is patently false and entirely ridiculous. Craig is a philosopher, and there's absolutely no doubt about this. It is obviously true that Hawking is a better scientist than Craig, but it is also obviously true that Craig knows more about science than Hawking knows about philosophy. Yet Hawking understands the implications of his work, and that's why he's been so feverishly trying to find alternatives. The problem is that Craig is capable of drawing reasonable conclusions from scientific data, and most of the atheistic participants in this public debate aren't capable of discerning what constitutes a reasonable conclusion within the confines of the discussion. That is to say scientists are incredibly good at collecting data and drawing conclusions about it within the scope of their own field, but they are rank amateurs when it comes to drawing extra-scientific conclusions, which, unfortunately, happens all the time.

----------


## Darcy88

> This is not only wrong, but silly too. The Kalam (and that's what we're talking about, right?) suggests an extra-spatial, extra-temporal, supremely powerful, personal cause for the universe. To suggest that calling this cause "God" is simply some arbitrary rationalization of theists is, frankly, hilarious. First, personhood, immateriality and timelessness have never been strictly associated with "force", but they have, in fact, been strictly associated with "God". In fact, that's the entire definition of the Western monotheistic God.
> 
> And, in your last statement, you reveal your scientistic (not scientific) stripes. Never in the entire history of all humanity has science been the sole arbiter of fact. That's why we have departments of math, history and philosophy on every university campus, rather than one monolithic college of science. The only people who don't understand this are people adhering to a faulty worldview of scientism. Science has not been, is not now and will never be a sufficient arbiter of truth. To state a truth does not make one a scientist, nor has it ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is patently false and entirely ridiculous. Craig is a philosopher, and there's absolutely no doubt about this. It is obviously true that Hawking is a better scientist than Craig, but it is also obviously true that Craig knows more about science than Hawking knows about philosophy. Yet Hawking understands the implications of his work, and that's why he's been so feverishly trying to find alternatives. The problem is that Craig is capable of drawing reasonable conclusions from scientific data, and most of the atheistic participants in this public debate aren't capable of discerning what constitutes a reasonable conclusion within the confines of the discussion. That is to say scientists are incredibly good at collecting data and drawing conclusions about it within the scope of their own field, but they are rank amateurs when it comes to drawing extra-scientific conclusions, which, unfortunately, happens all the time.


I won't discuss this with you if you can't speak with decency and respect.

Cheers SP.

----------


## stuntpickle

> I won't discuss this with you if you can't speak with decency and respect.
> 
> Cheers SP.


I haven't treated you otherwise. To say your point is silly isn't the same as saying you, yourself, are. To suggest that that Craig is a scientist and science is the arbiter of fact is as bizarre as to suggest that Craig is a baker and baking is the arbiter of fact.

This has been my experience in discussing this issue with atheists. I never get to have the actual discussion, but, instead, have to spend my time informing my interlocutor why, for instance, uncertain premises do not infringe upon an argument's validity, or why science isn't the arbiter of fact, or why metaphysics isn't tantamount to voodoo, or why this or that absurd assertion isn't admissible in any reasonable discussion--all while the atheist pretends that he has some special claim on truth, and theists are dolts who believe in fables. Of course, all my efforts are generally for naught since my interlocutor will then take his toys home under the pretense that I'm not respecting him.

Always, the atheists assume the mantle of reason and then immediately start to tell theists why it isn't reliable. If science is the arbiter of all facts, truths and things in general, then this discussion is impossible since it is not a scientific experiment.

Sometimes saying something is silly isn't an insult, but an accurate description.

----------


## KillCarneyKlans

_
Ok Pip, this is the last song and dance, I really don't wanna debate the politics of this argument as I said before ... Anyways, this is my last salvo ... I hope we can have more meaningful discussions in the future ... sometime
_



> So, in summary:
> Signature in the Cell was published by a popular press for mass market and not by an academic publisher, and this publisher sings the praise of its product in its descriptions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
In March, 2002, Meyer announced a "teach the controversy" strategy, which alleges that the theory of evolution is controversial within scientific circles, following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education. The presentation included submission of an annotated bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as "Darwinian evolution". In response to this claim the National Center for Science Education, an organisation that works in collaboration with National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association that support the teaching of evolution in public schools, contacted the authors of the papers listed and twenty-six scientists, representing thirty-four of the papers, responded. None of the authors considered that their research provided evidence against evolution.
_
Sounds like to me, evolutionists or darwinists if you prefer ... aren't to big on publishing material that ... "raise significant challenges to key tenets" ... that being "something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin" ... The Ohio State Board of Education, 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles, the National Center for Science Education and multiple other sub-organizations closely tied to education contacted 26 of the scientific authors, representing 34 of the 44 scientific peer-reviewed papers, which were needed to constitute the thesis ... none of which "considered that their research provided evidence against evolution." ... But more than that actually confirms through those scientific methods that previous presumptions of evolutionary theory in the light of the "Biological Abacus" for the lack of a better word are inheritantly wrong and misleading ... this is nothing but a double standard and a scientific ponze scheme ... [but both party's if you wanna call it that are to blame]
_



> It was reviewed favourably in an irrelevant magazine with a highly pretentious name.


_
So was Global Warming ... the University of East Anglia ... what if I googled say these terms vs Stephen Meyers ... Signature in the Cell ... if it news to evolution.org ... it is to most people then ... The reviewer and posters below in the Spectrum article ... seemed very informed of the subject ... the Reviewer here
_
http://spectrummagazine.org/review/2...signature-cell
The book itself is almost 600 pages in length, the last 100 contain footnotes, bibliography and index. [Sounds like a reference book to me ?!?] In the 150 years since 1859 the dominant scientific establishment has, it is fair to say, fully embraced the “materialistic naturalism” model generally and specifically as applied to origins. Signature in the Cell proposes to revisit the origins controversy particularly in light of the discovery over 50 years ago of DNA and the enormous advances in our knowledge of cellular biology and information theory since then ... While the book chronicles and explains a host of issues, I was fascinated by the discussion of random chance and the assembly of the minimum amount of proteins necessary for “simple” life to function ... If Meyer stopped here and simply asserted that “since undirected, random chance cannot produce even one protein (given the entire resources of the universe) then life must be attributable to an Intelligent Designer,” he would be guilty of something that he strenuously denies: relying on a “God of the gaps” argument. Meyer does not do this. Instead, he explains “abductive reasoning” which enables one to come up with the “best explanation” ... In short, “God of the gaps” argues from ignorance whereas “Inference to the Best Explanation” argues from knowledge.



> Dawkins refused to debate Meyer because he's a sham. And somehow we're to take this as a poor reflection on Dawkins.


_
Well, whether Dawkin's or Meyer's for that matter is a sham or in my words a ponze schemer ... wouldn't it be great if the some world's most pre-eminent scientists and debaters each clash for there respective magisterium, by whom they were groomed to become? I never seen Dawkins backed down so easily? 
_
http://spectrummagazine.org/review/2...signature-cell
The problem with the origin of life is that there is currently no adequate non-intelligent cause identified, according to Meyer. So while I agree it is inadequate to make the two-step premise/conclusion I set forth, nevertheless that seems to be pretty much exactly what someone like Dawkins does.



> And then a quote mined from Lynn Margulis, who rejected the importance placed on natural selection in Darwinism in favour of her own symbiotic evolutionary theory (and of the Gaia Hypothesis), which was clearly wrong. Margulis is a rather bizarre figure because she was right about one thing, the endosymbiotic origins of the mitochondria, but otherwise she was a life long fringe scientist with bizarre ideas. Despite this, it is disingenuous to quote Margulis suggesting she favoured creationism, because she was adamantly not a creationists. She believed in evolution, just in her own weird personal version of it.


_ Well, I'll give you this one ... I'm glad your listening ... I got this one from a fellow poster at unexplaned-mysteries.com ... I always thought it is rather amusing, don't you think? No Harm Intended ... This argument seems to raise more questions ... than it answers ... so I'm seeing this as a good thing_

----------


## KillCarneyKlans

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/no...ess/#ProMulNot
What does a man love more than life? 
Hate more than death or mortal strife? 
That which contented men desire, 
The poor have, the rich require, 
The miser spends, the spendthrift saves, 
And all men carry to their graves? 
(Leemings, 1953, 201)

The answer, Nothing, can only be seen through a kaleidoscope of equivocations. Some of the attempts to answer ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ equivocate or lapse into meaninglessness. The comedic effect of such errors is magnified by the fundamentality of the question. Error here comes off as pretentious error. Those who ask the question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ commonly get confused. But the question itself appears to survive tests for being merely a verbal confusion. 

NOVA The Elegant Universe Pt 2
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...se-string.html

BRIAN GREENE: However it was discovered, Euler's equation, which miraculously explained the strong force, took on a life of its own. This was the [re-] birth of string theory. Passed from colleague to colleague, Euler's equation ended up on the chalkboard in front of a young American physicist, Leonard Susskind.

LEONARD SUSSKIND: To this day I remember the formula. The formula was... and I looked at it, and I said, "This is so simple even I can figure out what this is."

BRIAN GREENE: Susskind retreated to his attic to investigate. He understood that this ancient formula described the strong force mathematically, but beneath the abstract symbols he had caught a glimpse of something new.

LEONARD SUSSKIND: And I fiddled with it, I monkeyed with it. I sat in my attic, I think for two months on and off. But the first thing I could see in it, it was describing some kind of particles which had internal structure which could vibrate, which could do things, which wasn't just a point particle. And I began to realize that what was being described here was a string, an elastic string, like a rubber band, or like a rubber band cut in half. And this rubber band could not only stretch and contract, but wiggle. And marvel of marvels, it exactly agreed with this formula.

BRIAN GREENE: Veneziano was amazed to discover that Euler's equations, long thought to be nothing more than a mathematical curiosity, seemed to describe the strong force. He quickly published a paper and was famous ever after for this "accidental" discovery.

GABRIELE VENEZIANO (CERN): I see occasionally, written in books, that, uh, that this model was invented by chance or was, uh, found in the math book, and, uh, this makes me feel pretty bad. What is true is that the function was the outcome of a long year of work, and we accidentally discovered string theory.

BRIAN GREENE: However it was discovered, Euler's equation, which miraculously explained the strong force, took on a life of its own. This was the birth of string theory. Passed from colleague to colleague, Euler's equation ended up on the chalkboard in front of a young American physicist, Leonard Susskind.

LEONARD SUSSKIND: To this day I remember the formula. The formula was... and I looked at it, and I said, "This is so simple even I can figure out what this is."

http://www.craigdemo.co.uk/geneticpatterns.htm
One of the things I discovered early on was the occurrence of the ratio 1: 1.2732, the ratio for a squared circle. This led Vernon to the discovery of pi in Genesis 1. This, in turn, led Peter Bluer to the discovery of e {Euler's Formula] in Genesis 1 also.

http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.je...rst_Princs.htm
In mathematics, the sciences, and engineering, the two most widely known (and used) dimensionless constants are p (pi) and e. Both are transcendental numbers, ie neither can be defined exactly by the ratio of two integers, nor by any algebraic process.

The first (p) is most famously involved in the mensuration of circle and sphere, and has been known from ancient times. Its value is 3.141592654... - commonly approximated by the simple fraction [of 22 Hebrew letters divided by 7 days of creation] 22/7, or 3.142857... (error: + 0.04%). Leibniz discovered that it was possible to express this number precisely as an infinite alternating series involving the reciprocals of the odd integers, thus:

The second (e) is of a more recent vintage (18th century). Known also as 'Euler's number', it occurs naturally in any situation where a quantity increases at a rate proportional to its value, such as a bank account producing interest, or a population increasing as its members reproduce.

The application of a simple numerical procedure to the Hebrew letters and words of the Bible's first verse (Gen.1:1) generates an approximation of p, correct to 5 significant figures (error: 0.0012%). 

The application of the identical procedure to the first verse of the Gospel of John (which has much in common with Gen.1:1) generates an approximation of e, also correct to 5 significant figures (error: 0.0011%). 

It would be extremely unreasonable to suppose that these events are fortuitous accidents; rather, highly likely that they are features of purposeful design. 

PATTERN & PURPOSE - An augmented review of Stan Tenen's web page
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Letr_Sym.htm 

"Symmetry Woven into the First Verse of the Hebrew Text of Genesis"
Mr. Tenen's essay, "Damning by Faint Praise", can be found at http://www.meru.org/DamnbyFaintPraise.html.

It has already been observed that the Ulam spiral arrangement of the letters of Genesis 1:1 takes place within an 11 x 11 array of unit squares. Using this structure as a backcloth, it is now possible to develop some apposite symmetrical patterns ... which represent 37 

REALITY 101: THE BOOK GENESIS - Hidden Secret (The Golden Mean Spiral)
http://reality101blog.blogspot.com/2...iljournal.html

We now know thanks to Stan Tenens work into the origin and nature of the Hebrew alphabet and Daniel Winter’s additional research into the significance of the Golden Mean spiral, that the sacred Hebrew alphabet was designed with a clear intention to convey the very essence of creation and to teach later generations what the Be-resjiet, the principle of creation really is. Independently [both] Stan Tenen and Daniel Winter noticed that the characters of the Hebrew alphabet are projections of a special form on the faces of a tetrahedron seen from different angles! However it was Daniel Winter who pointed out that this special form is actually the Golden Mean or Phi spiral. The Phi spiral describes the surface of the torus, the basic element of matter. Now if we put the Phi spiral inside a tetrahedron and then slowly revolve it around a pivot axis, and shine a light from behind the Phi spiral, all of the Hebrew characters will show up as the shadows on the inside face of the tetrahedron. Hence, the characters of the Hebrew alphabet are the projections of a Golden Mean spiral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedean_spiral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulam_spiral 

The Ulam spiral, or prime spiral (in other languages also called the Ulam Cloth) is a simple method of visualizing the prime numbers that reveals the apparent tendency of certain quadratic polynomials to generate unusually large numbers of primes. It was discovered by the mathematician Stanislaw Ulam in 1963 ... According to Ed Pegg, Jr., the herpetologist Laurence M. Klauber proposed the use of a prime number spiral in finding prime-rich quadratic polynomials in 1932, more than thirty years prior to Ulam's discovery. 

All prime numbers, except for the number 2, are odd numbers. Since in the Ulam spiral adjacent diagonals are alternatively odd and even numbers, it is no surprise that all prime numbers lie in alternate diagonals of the Ulam spiral. What is startling is the tendency of prime numbers to lie on some diagonals more than others. Robert Sacks devised a variant of the Ulam spiral in 1994. In the Sacks spiral the non-negative integers are plotted on an Archimedean spiral rather than the square spiral used by Ulam. (In the Ulam spiral, two squares occur in each rotation.) Euler's prime-generating polynomial, x2-x+41, now appears as a single curve as x takes the values 0, 1, 2 ... 

Secrets of the Hebrew Letters 
http://www.redicecreations.com/speci...ewletters.html

Though the realization was an instantaneous 'Aha!', it took him years to mathematically perfect the shape of the hand model, which incorporates fourteen explicit features representing aspects of western philosophies and is based on a spiral used in art throughout the ancient world, most notably under the Egyptian 'Eye of Horus.' "It is not the Golden Spiral," he says. "The golden spiral is a modern invention that circles itself endlessly in its own image-philosophically, it denotes narcissism. True sacred geometry appears like the golden spiral for quite a while and then it straightens out." "Like the Egyptian spiral," he continues, "ours has a tightly coiled part which expands into all there is-the coiled part represents the human head and brain and the straight part, the spine ... if you overlay the spiral over a human embryo at 56 days, they match perfectly."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Horus
In the Ancient Egyptian measurement system, the Eye Of Horus defined Old Kingdom number one (1) = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64, by throwing away 1/64 for any rational number. Eye of Horus numbers created six-term rounded-off numbers. The Old Kingdom definition has dropped a seventh term, a remainder 1/64, that was needed to report exact series ... The Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll, the RMP 2/n table and the Akhmim Wooden Tablet wrote binary quotients and scaled remainders. The metaphorical side of this information linked Old Kingdom fractions 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, and 1/64, to separate parts of the eye. 

Ancient Egyptian Religion and Mythology; The Eye of Horus (Eye of Ra)
http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/eye.html

The symbol was divided into six parts, representing the shattering of Horus´ eye into six pieces. Each piece was associated with one of the six senses and a specific fraction ... More complex fractions were created by adding the symbols together. It is interesting to note that if the pieces are added together the total is 63/64 not 1. Some suggest that the remaining 1/64 represents the magic used by Thoth to restore the eye, while others consider that the missing piece represented the fact that perfection was not possible.

http://www.whatabeginning.com/Themes/Part1/BP.htm
http://www.whatabeginning.com/Themes...Teach_Ulam.htm 
Themes from Creation's Blueprint - 1: Teach_Ulam

The Ulam spiral is a graphically concise way of representing long sequences of the natural numbers, of highlighting properties that may be held in common, and of detecting patterns of behavior that would otherwise be largely unknown. 

http://www.greatdreams.com/grace/146/153quran.html
http://www.greatdreams.com/grace/99/99AAelectrons.html
The Quran's Number 19 -Electrons and Mythologies

Number 19, the number upon which all of the Quran is based, represents two octaves plus the fifth of the third octave of 7 notes.

The use of the torus in my studies is one of modularity ... cyclical in definition of integer solutions solving certain diophantine [allows the variables to be whole numbers negative or positive only] equations. The torus means doubly periodic, which is a two cycle entity. These forms can be represented by the complex values of e (natural log) as: e^(ix)=doubly periodic form. 
_
No, these transcendental constants are embedded and encrypted in the text of the Scriptures ... a priori, before it's discovery ... In the Bio-Info and in the Cosmological Component and crossing each other ... The writers of it ... by science's own admission ... could not have conceived or designed it with their own hand ... or at least without [God's help] ... supernatural invention ... or science is just catching up ... I have tons of more ammo ... but, I need a break ... so until next time ... please don't be mad at me for saying this 
_

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Sorry if it seems like I abandoned this debate. It's been an interesting one, but I decided to take most of the week off and do zen out to some good music. I'll try to get back to YesNo and StuntPickle asap.  :Smile:

----------


## mal4mac

> God, like the number two, isn't a physical phenomenon...


Physical phenomena can only be explained by other physical phenomena. The Big Bang is a physical phenomenon and, therefore, God must, at least in part, be a physical phenomenon. 




> You should watch Dawkins's debate with George Coyne in which Dawkins flatly admits to a scientistic (NOT scientific) worldview. Of course, this was so embarrassing for Dawkins that the interview never aired, but it is still available on the internet.


If your conclusions are correct about him being embarrassed about what he said then *so what*. He might have had an off day. If George Coyne said something daft 'off the cuff' I'd let him off, everyone is likely to do that - low blood sugar levels can make everyone irrational. To engage in serious debate you need to refer to serious sources. Can you point to anything in Dawkins published writings to defend your idea that he is an unreconstructed logical positivist?

----------


## mal4mac

> To say your point is silly isn't the same as saying you, yourself, are.


Depends on one's philosophy - if one identifies with one's views and you call one silly then one is likely to draw the conclusion that you are calling one silly, and the thread gets derailed. Proof - it just happened.

Why not just say a view doesn't add up, for you? 




> This has been my experience in discussing this issue with atheists. I never get to have the actual discussion, but, instead, have to spend my time informing my interlocutor why, for instance, uncertain premises do not infringe upon an argument's validity, or why science isn't the arbiter of fact, or why metaphysics isn't tantamount to voodoo...


Why do you think that we should know that metaphysics isn't voodoo? You have to start with the assumption that you might have to explain everything in a general forum.

----------


## mal4mac

> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/no...ess/#ProMulNot
> ...


Is anyone reading all this? I'm not. I think a forum discussion should involve the give and take of argument, not someone standing up and giving a long lecture. Why not make *one* substantial point KCK, and let the argument roll on... oops three posts in a row, time to eat my own words, I'll stop there....

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> (Craig) is mirroring the physicists results back to them with his religious twist.


I think that's a rather positive and simple way to look at it. Again, I stick with the idea that he cherry-picks quotes and conclusions that he can retroactively fit into his worldview. It's basically hindsight bias, and it's why physicists/cosmologists aren't impressed. You can't move from a point of "we don't know" to "we know!" based on nothing but word games. 




> The problem of doing an infinite number of even mental events is at the heart of the axiom of choice in mathematics. One cannot assume that is logically permitted without the explicit axiom, at least that is how I remember it.


And I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here... 




> Perhaps it was a multiverse outside our space and time that caused our universe to exist... If he is correct about that theorem, even the multiverse had a beginning and we are caught in the same problem.


FWIW, I think the multiverse is more damaging to the teleological ("fine-tuning") argument than it is the Kalam. The teleological argument really relies on ours being the only universe out there for its rhetoric to impress. If we're just one of countless universes, then we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in one that supports life. But, yes, even multiverse seems to take us back to a beginning, but the nature of that beginning is what we're debating now. 




> Part of their worldview, if I understand it, has been validated.


Well, that's like saying that the psychic's powers have been validated when they correctly predict if a pregnant woman will have a boy or a girl; it was 50/50 from the beginning: either the universe began or it didn't, and things beginning is more metaphysically intuitive for us, so they went with that. They also went with a lot of other metaphysically intuitive things that turned out to be completely wrong. The record of Holy Texts predicting the future of scientific discoveries is rather abysmal, if we're going on a case-by-case basis. 

I think the idea of God that you have and the one that I have are different. I suspect it doesn't even correspond to Craig's idea of God. I may be wrong, but I suspect that you are right about the God you are describing. It does not exist. 




> These Gods not only explain the origin of the universe but also of our and other species consciousness. In that sense it is the simplest explanation.


God explains everything without explaining anything, which is precisely the problem. It covers up ontological complexity (what such a god-like being would entail mathematically or in terms of AI programming) with linguistic simplicity. Yudkowsky once put this very eloquently in saying that "anger" seems very simple to us because we simply feel it, but to try and program in anger is infinitely more difficult than programming in "gravity" which is just a simple mathematical formula, but is completely counter-intuitive to how our minds understand the universe. That's the gist of the thing: there are some things that seem very simple to us because they reflect our natures back to us. We understand without really understanding. Then there are things that seem very complex to us, like math, because they don't reflect our natures back to us. Yet we call these latter things "complicated" and "complex" when, in reality, most mathematical formulas are much simpler than the workings of the human brain. In much the same way, God *seems* like a very simple concept until you really, actually think about how complex such a being would have to be to exist at all. 

Anyway, what I said about the conjunction fallacy still applies to God. If we can explain the universe by natural means that already exist, then that's much simpler than having to add an external variable (whose existence is unknown) to the mix. It's no different than phlogiston. Phlogiston sounds like a very simple answer. Very easy to understand. But the very fact that one doesn't know if it exists means it's less likely to be the cause of something that already exists. 

To quote that article: "Fake explanations don't feel fake. That's what makes them dangerous."




> As the Christians claim, we are made in the image of God.


As the atheist claims, God is made in our image, and it is a fact that people mind project onto reality all the time, so what's the argument that God just isn't another one of those times?

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Stuntpickle,

I think this is what most of the first half of your last post is stating: Rather than nothing being equated by classical philosophers as empty space, nothing was instead equated with the absence of any thing, and nothing comes from nothing was an a priori statement made regarding this imagined complete absence nothing which Ill call CAN from now on. 

Firstly, I have my doubts about whether CAN was really the only way in which nothing was originally thought of. If existence was equated with tangible, sensible material (as Im pretty sure it was), then non-existence was equated to the absence of tangible, sensible material. One might label this nothing and think that it was really CAN based on their ignorance, but it still seems to me that if you asked such people would you define nothing as the absence of all tangible, sensible reality (living creatures, earth, water, stars, sun, etc.)? they probably wouldve said yes. Which means that all that wouldve been left was empty space (you couldve asked them about that instead: is empty space nothing? and I think they wouldve said yes just as well). 

But lets ponder on CAN for a moment anyway. It seems to me that CAN is just an example of a human brain inventing categories to which nothing in reality belongs (no external referent) and pretending not only that this category is real, but that it would obey certain rules and laws. So, we can imagine CAN, whether CAN does (or can) exist or not, and we can go further and state something like nothing comes from CAN, without ever even having observed CAN, which strikes me as positively silly. Its as if one is programming in the rules of a video game that exists only in their mind. 

Back to the Kalam and Craig. When Craig argues for the first premise, nothing from CAN (lets call that NFC) is often invoked. But, dear reader, I ask you: what in the world does a rule invented for an empty set in our brain have anything to do with external, material reality? And why if NFC is so important does Craig constantly refer to examples of things coming from other things inside material reality? How does NFC argue for the first premise? Nobody has ever argued that everything we have observed beginning to exist seems to have a cause (except maybe virtual particles) and that all of those things came from something that was pre-existing. But that has nothing to do with NFC, that has to do with our empirical observations, and everything has a cause is only considered a law because its been empirically reinforced time after time. That we may have found something that refutes that would seem to be reason to begin doubting its metaphysical truthfulness, rather than invoking NFC that seems to have nothing to do with it in the first place. 

Perhaps youre correct in that Craig has never equivocated on nothing meaning NFC in print, but Im mostly familiar with his debates, and in those debates when he argues for P1 he always uses examples from material reality, that such-and-such things dont appear out of nothing. But shouldnt Craig stress before he says such a thing that hes not talking about empty space nothing to his audience? Because I bet if you asked most people not up on their quantum vacuums if they considered empty space nothing theyd say yes. In fact, go ask your average Joe if they think nothing actually exists in external reality, and, if they say yes (Im guessing most will), ask them what they think of as nothing. Even if I accept Craig is always using nothing to mean CAN, that stresses all the more why he should specify that to his lay audiences at his debates rather than just rattling off NFC and then giving examples from material reality. Thats, at best, extremely dishonest. 

You say that Krauss is equivocating, but Id argue hes actually using a very, very common assocation/referent for the word nothing. Perhaps its only you that assumed when he said nothing he meant CAN, rather than QV, and he was never equivocating at all (perhaps Krauss quite simply mistook Craig's CAN for QV to begin with). As clear as it may make things, you cant stop people from associating nothing with empty space, and you cant say Krauss is equivocating when thats a perfectly legitimate referent for nothing in many peoples minds. Plus, lets not forget, there is a rhetorical power to words, and if nothing can be equated with empty space, then its all the more remarkable to prove that that nothing is actually a great deal of something that can produce the entire universe. It seems to me that to fuss over the use of nothing in such an instance is to miss the magnitude of the facts of whats being claimed. 

One final point: You say Craig says outside of time, but outside itself implies space, which wouldnt have existed then either.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Is anyone reading all this? I'm not. I think a forum discussion should involve the give and take of argument, not someone standing up and giving a long lecture. Why not make *one* substantial point KCK, and let the argument roll on...


I've been thinking this exact thought while looking over Carney's posts. I'm not sure he gets what forums are for. No one is going to read those dissertations.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Sounds like to me, evolutionists or darwinists if you prefer ... aren't to big on publishing material that ... "raise significant challenges to key tenets" ... that being "something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin" ... The Ohio State Board of Education, 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles, the National Center for Science Education and multiple other sub-organizations closely tied to education contacted 26 of the scientific authors, representing 34 of the 44 scientific peer-reviewed papers, which were needed to constitute the thesis ... none of which "considered that their research provided evidence against evolution." ... But more than that actually confirms through those scientific methods that previous presumptions of evolutionary theory in the light of the "Biological Abacus" for the lack of a better word are inheritantly wrong and misleading ... this is nothing but a double standard and a scientific ponze scheme ... [but both party's if you wanna call it that are to blame


This is a typical rhetorical strategy of the Discovery Institute, claim there is an institutional bias towards their non-science that explains why they can't get any respect in legitimate scientific publications. And then they point to legitimate science and twist it to confirm their ID hypothesis (which is unfalsifiable and thus not a scientific hypothesis according to modern science), even though they clearly misunderstand the science they quote (but the more cynical part of me knows full well that the likes of Dembski and Behe know full well that they are misleading their audiences).

To understand how pathetic these arguments are you have to consider that the number of legitimate scientific articles supporting evolutionary theory number in the thousands every year, and the ID crowd have to mine all of these to find a handful of publications they delusionally believe support their position (or in a few cases they have been implicated in fraudulently getting their own stuff published) despite the actual authors of the papers refuting it.

And all of this depends on the layman audience not understanding the scientific process. A weakness in one hypothesis does not demonstrate a strength in an alternate hypothesis. The ID crowd would have us believe that when someone raises a question about certain models of natural selection under certain conditions that this somehow validates ID or invalidates all of evolutionary theory. 




> The book itself is almost 600 pages in length, the last 100 contain footnotes, bibliography and index. [Sounds like a reference book to me ?!?] In the 150 years since 1859 the dominant scientific establishment has, it is fair to say, fully embraced the materialistic naturalism model generally and specifically as applied to origins. Signature in the Cell proposes to revisit the origins controversy particularly in light of the discovery over 50 years ago of DNA and the enormous advances in our knowledge of cellular biology and information theory since then ... While the book chronicles and explains a host of issues, I was fascinated by the discussion of random chance and the assembly of the minimum amount of proteins necessary for simple life to function ... If Meyer stopped here and simply asserted that since undirected, random chance cannot produce even one protein (given the entire resources of the universe) then life must be attributable to an Intelligent Designer, he would be guilty of something that he strenuously denies: relying on a God of the gaps argument. Meyer does not do this. Instead, he explains abductive reasoning which enables one to come up with the best explanation ... In short, God of the gaps argues from ignorance whereas Inference to the Best Explanation argues from knowledge.


The weakness of this reasoning is quite obvious. First of all, Meyers relies heavily on out of date research on RNA and Amino Acids to support his arguments, which itself should be a red flag that he has to selectively ignore new evidence in biology to make his argument hold up. Secondly, his information theory is old hat and has long been refuted by mathematicians. I don't want to get into a point by point discussion of how Meyers misrepresents current knowledge about origins of life research.

Here is a full rebuttal of Meyers "information" nonsense by Computer Science professor Jeffrey Shallit, of the University of Waterloo:
http://recursed.blogspot.ca/2009/10/...on-theory.html

Meyer has been peddling the same old BS for years, and it is always the same. He is also a well known liar. 




> Well, whether Dawkin's or Meyer's for that matter is a sham or in my words a ponze schemer ... wouldn't it be great if the some world's most pre-eminent scientists and debaters each clash for there respective magisterium, by whom they were groomed to become? I never seen Dawkins backed down so easily?


No, Meyer is neither a scientist nor a respected anything. Moreover, he is a well known BSer and mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute who spends most of his time promoting their products and fostering conspiracy theories. Dawkins is completely right to go nowhere near anyone from the DI.

----------


## stuntpickle

Morpheus,

With all due respect, I'm beginning to think you're the worst of all possible things: unpersuadable. When I stopped being an atheist about five years ago, it was precisely because people like you demonstrated the inadequacy of my own worldview and, moreover, my own obstinance.

You demonstrate that you have difficulties with what exactly it is that constitutes metaphysics or a technically valid argument, yet you speak on these very same subjects as though you were an authority. You start out propounding some variety of empiricism and then quickly hop off into postmodern obfuscation. A discussion with you about the "serious flaws" in the Kalam is complicated by that you can't see the serious flaws in your own assertions, nor do you seem willing. Let me be clear: these flaws I'm referring to have nothing to do with whether God exists, but concern your own capacity to formulate believable statements--not to mention a reasonable arguments.

Your whole attempt to salvage this one point about Craig's equivocation is simply a rehash, at length, of previous errors. Consider:




> Perhaps you’re correct in that Craig has never equivocated on nothing meaning NFC in print, but I’m mostly familiar with his debates, and in those debates when he argues for P1 he always uses examples from material reality,


You concede the argument, but then you take the concession right back with a straw man fallacy and a plain misstatement of fact that we've already covered. Of course, Craig is guilty of equivocating in neither print nor public debate since he's had a first year logic course. The guy's a PhD philosopher for Chrissake, and you seem convinced against all reasonable evidence that he's made some simpleton's error. Craig's most common example of coming into being is that of himself, in the Cartesian sense, and thus has nothing to do with sensory experience of the material world. And even if he had only used material examples of coming into being, it would not follow that his concept of "nothing" is ruined. But this is all beside the point since none of this would constitute equivocation even if you were 100% right, which you probably aren't.

I've tried to explain to you what equivocation is, and apparently you have not understood. You have resisted all reasonable corrections and insist that Craig is equivocating, and so I throw the gauntlet down.

Until you produce a sourced example of Craig committing a fallacy of equivocation, I will consider you ignorant of the facts. You choose. No more lengthy irrelevancies about semiotics. We needn't discuss Saussure to point out an elementary flaw of logic. The only thing that you can possibly provide to make your point is a quote with an apparent equivocation and a link to the source material. It should be a fairly easy operation without you having to explain some far-off triviality. A fallacy of equivocation involves the speaker/writer confusing two different meanings of the same term in a single argument--not a speaker/writer making a statement and then you descrying the nature of the equivocation through your crystal ball.

A fallacy of equivocation, FYI, generally takes the following form:

1. A1=B
2. A2=C
Therefore, A1=C

What you don't understand, I don't think, is that even if Craig were absolutely incorrect about the nature of "nothing", it would NOT constitute equivocation. It would simply be an error of fact. You are trying to suggest that Craig can never accurately use "nothing" because of some obscure misunderstanding. But this is irrelevant because to commit the fallacy of equivocation, Craig would need to be able to use both the right meaning and the wrong one in the same argument. Your position refutes itself.

BTW, I don't care if you think Craig has made an error of fact. My only goal is to disabuse you of the notion that the Kalam has "serious flaws" of logic. Any error in this instance other than equivocation is simply unimportant since your strategy seems to be to endlessly generate errors. 

Stay on topic, and please provide the equivocation in question.

----------


## YesNo

> I think that's a rather positive and simple way to look at it. Again, I stick with the idea that he cherry-picks quotes and conclusions that he can retroactively fit into his worldview. It's basically hindsight bias, and it's why physicists/cosmologists aren't impressed. You can't move from a point of "we don't know" to "we know!" based on nothing but word games.


It doesn't matter whether Craig "cherry-picks" his points or not, he has made these points many times in the past. His opponents should be prepared to respond to them since the points come from the fields of their alleged expertise. 




> FWIW, I think the multiverse is more damaging to the teleological ("fine-tuning") argument than it is the Kalam. The teleological argument really relies on ours being the only universe out there for its rhetoric to impress. If we're just one of countless universes, then we shouldn't be surprised to find ourselves in one that supports life. But, yes, even multiverse seems to take us back to a beginning, but the nature of that beginning is what we're debating now.


There could be many universes. The question is whether something made a conscious _choice_ to create them or not. The multiverse is set up to find some explanation for our universe that involves _chance_ and not _choice_. 



> Well, that's like saying that the psychic's powers have been validated when they correctly predict if a pregnant woman will have a boy or a girl; it was 50/50 from the beginning: either the universe began or it didn't, and things beginning is more metaphysically intuitive for us, so they went with that. They also went with a lot of other metaphysically intuitive things that turned out to be completely wrong. The record of Holy Texts predicting the future of scientific discoveries is rather abysmal, if we're going on a case-by-case basis.


I said the Big Bang validates _part_ of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic religion. It does not validate _all_ parts of these religions. However, I think it completely invalidates creationism as well as atheism. These two positions are the big losers with the confirmation of the Big Bang. 

The Big Bang may invalidate _parts_ of the Indian shramanic, non-vedic religions such as Jainism or Buddhism. It does not, however, invalidate _all_ parts of these shramanic religions.



> I think the idea of God that you have and the one that I have are different. I suspect it doesn't even correspond to Craig's idea of God. I may be wrong, but I suspect that you are right about the God you are describing. It does not exist.


I don't claim that the God I'm interested in the the same as the God Craig believes in, nor do I claim that we agree on a definition of God. The God I'm interested in is essentially consciousness. So if consciousness doesn't exist neither do we.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> It doesn't matter whether Craig "cherry-picks" his points or not, he has made these points many times in the past. His opponents should be prepared to respond to them since the points come from the fields of their alleged expertise.


Listen, I don't disagree that if his opponents are willing to debate him they SHOULD be more prepared than they typically are, but I still insist that simply makes them bad debaters and not WRONG. My point about Craig cherry-picking is that it prevents a very biased, selective, and skewered view of the subjects he's discussing, because there's too much technical nuance to just throw conclusions out there and then twist them to fit into an argument. It's telling that most of those whom he quotes doesn't even agree with his conclusions, often saying so in the same books he quotes from. Of course, he never presents THOSE parts of the arguments. 




> The multiverse is set up to find some explanation for our universe that involves _chance_ and not _choice_.


Correct, and if the multiverse/many-worlds is correct, then it does seem like chance would have to be involved. But we already know chance is involved in something like evolution, so I don't know why we should think the universe wouldn't be subject to it. 




> However, I think [The Big Bang] completely invalidates... atheism.


How so? Atheism would have had to have made claims about how the universe began for TBB to invalidate it. 

The Big Bang may invalidate _parts_ of the Indian shramanic, non-vedic religions such as Jainism or Buddhism. It does not, however, invalidate _all_ parts of these shramanic religions.




> So if consciousness doesn't exist neither do we.


But what the hell is consciousness anyway? Is it another thing that has a direct referent, or it just another metaphysical intuition? 
That's what I keep trying to stress in this thread; there are a lot of things that feel naturally right to us, concepts like "nothing" and "free will" and "consciousness," but saying they feel right is a very different thing than saying what they actually are and if they actually exist in the way we think of them as. One reason I subscribe to reductionism is it prevents this kind of ontological obscurity where we refer to complex phenomena as one thing, rather than the many things that they often are. That consciousness refers to a process in our brains/mind is fine, but as to exactly what that entails biologically is another matter entirely.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> What you don't understand, I don't think, is that even if Craig were absolutely incorrect about the nature of "nothing", it would NOT constitute equivocation. It would simply be an error of fact My only goal is to disabuse you of the notion that the Kalam has "serious flaws" of logic.


I wanted to address this first: 

1. I never said the Kalam had serious flaws _of logic._ You added the of logic addendum. I merely said seriously flaws, and, to me, errors of facts are flaws as serious as any errors of logic. 

2. I already conceded that I could definitely be wrong that Craig is knowingly equivocating, but I drew this inference based on his own arguments, of which I quote below. If I was wrong about how Craig was using nothing, then I suspect many people are wrong about it, and I dont think you can blame us for being wrong based on how Craig makes the argument. 

To elaborate briefly on 2.: Craig is a very careful and powerful rhetorician, and I highly suspect that if he isnt equivocating then hes being more than a bit dishonest with how he presents his ex nihilo argument. Because he should know that when you use examples from material reality, where there is always something so far as we can and have observed, that people will equate nothing with being related to whatever material examples that are given. The fact that we as people regularly equate nothing with merely the absence of some things (like you said in your nothing is what everyone just showed you), then it is not fair to use the absence of some things as an argument for nothing from CAN. It creates natural equivocations in the minds of audiences, if not in the mind of the user, and that either makes the user knowingly manipulative, or ignorantly mistaken. Im not sure how you get around that. 




> You concede the argument, but then you take the concession right back with a straw man fallacy and a plain misstatement of fact that we've already covered. Of course, Craig is guilty of equivocating in neither print nor public debate since he's had a first year logic course Until you produce a sourced example of Craig committing a fallacy of equivocation, I will consider you ignorant of the facts.


I think you misunderstood the majority of my previous post. My point wasnt necessarily that Craig was equivocating, but merely thats what his arguments can create in the minds of audiences who likely have a very different notion of nothing than the philosophical one of CAN. If Craig always has CAN in mind when discussing nothing, he should be more diligent about making this clear, and one way to do that would be to STOP using examples from material reality. When he says Surely an Eskimo village cant come into existence out of nothing!* most people will think yes, thats right, if nobody was around to build a village then it wouldnt just appear on its own in Alaska! What they will think about isnt an Eskimo village popping into being where theres CAN, but rather theyll think of nothing as, say, everything in Alaska sans an Eskimo village. 

*The video of him using examples from material reality is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXu1H_3y5vI (starting at 21:00). 

Allow me to quote Craig: 


> I have never argued that because every part of the universe has a cause the whole universe has a cause. That would be manifestly fallacious. Rather the reasons Ive offered for thinking P1 is true are: 
> 
> 1. Something cannot come from nothing
> 
> To claim that something can come into being out of nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least you have the magician, not to mention a hat; but to deny P1 you have to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever; but nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse, or an Eskimo village can pop into being without a cause. 
> 
> 2. If something can come into being from nothing, it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesnt come into being from nothing. 
> 
> Think about it; why dont bicycles, and Beethoven, and root beer come into being out of nothing. Why is it only universes that only pop into being from nothing. What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There cant be anything about nothingness that favors universes for nothingness doesnt have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness since there isnt anything to be restrained.
> ...


What jumps out of me about this whole spiel is that, one, not once does Craig make it explicit that he is using nothing to refer to CAN, (EG, would he include abstract laws? How is virtual energy even legitimately a thing? How about space and time itself? How are those things?) and, two, whenever he discusses his reasoning for why nothing comes from nothing he uses examples from material reality (horse, Eskimo village, bicycles, Beethoven, and root beer), of which we only know of them they came from a lot of something else. So I still insist that what I initially claimed was right: that Craig seems to use the everything we know of in material reality comes from something, so nothing can come from CAN, which simply doesnt seem to follow. How is it that we use our observance of material reality, where something is always there, to argue that nothing comes from CAN when there may never have been CAN to begin with? 

The other problem with this is that everything thats observed is observed within the constraints of spacetime, within the constraints of everything the universe brought into existence. So while Craig may be right that the arguments for P1 is inductive reasoning, we have a very good reason for being skeptical that this induction holds outside of the universe. Why? Because everything observed obeys the laws that the universe brought into existence, and without that universe there, theres absolutely no reason to think these laws would hold. Likewise, the common experience and scientific evidence he refers to only addresses things inside material reality, inside the universe, and nothing outside of it. 

To treat the universe in the same way one would treat root beer and Beethoven and Eskimo villages is patently absurd, and the fact that Craig uses these examples seems equivocal to me; if not in his own mind, then in what he engenders in the minds of his audience. He wants them to draw on their intuitions that things inside material reality dont happen without causes, and that this consistency of experience holds for the universe itself, whose existence is predicated on a very different set of laws that seem innately counter-intuitive to us to begin with. His entire second point is built on rhetorical questions, and the answer is simple: those things dont come into existence from nothing because there is no nothing for them to come into existence from! Again, its no different than asking why doesnt Beethoven pop into being from glorckenspiel? The answer is that glorckenspiel has no external referrent, the same way nothing has in this case. We couldnt see anything coming or not coming from a state of existence that is not possible to be experienced. 

And let me just say this about his: I have never argued that because every part of the universe has a cause the whole universe has a cause. Really? Because that seems exactly like what hes doing to me. Eskimo villages and Beethoven and root beer and (every part of the universe weve observed) has a cause, therefore the universe itself has a cause. Whats the difference?

----------


## YesNo

> Listen, I don't disagree that if his opponents are willing to debate him they SHOULD be more prepared than they typically are, but I still insist that simply makes them bad debaters and not WRONG. My point about Craig cherry-picking is that it prevents a very biased, selective, and skewered view of the subjects he's discussing, because there's too much technical nuance to just throw conclusions out there and then twist them to fit into an argument. It's telling that most of those whom he quotes doesn't even agree with his conclusions, often saying so in the same books he quotes from. Of course, he never presents THOSE parts of the arguments.


The question is are Craig's opponents simply bad debaters or is Craig right and there is no reasonable response to his challenge? It is not Craig's fault, _in any way_, that he is presenting a challenge his opponents can't adequately answer. It is _their_ fault they can't answer it.




> Correct, and if the multiverse/many-worlds is correct, then it does seem like chance would have to be involved. But we already know chance is involved in something like evolution, so I don't know why we should think the universe wouldn't be subject to it.


The existence of a multiverse in itself is not important. Something conscious could have chosen to create many universes with life. Although it is not going to be easy for anyone to test the multiverse theory, a critical part of that theory is that if we happen to find another universe that has life anywhere on it, the chance argument would be destroyed just as surely as if there were no other universe but ours.




> How so? Atheism would have had to have made claims about how the universe began for TBB to invalidate it.


The Big Bang takes us to a beginning of the universe, including space and time. Physics cannot go beyond the first quantum of time. By the Kalam argument the universe, which is a finite object, needs a cause. If atheists cannot find a cause that is based on chance, whatever caused the universe to come into existence was based on choice. Once you have choice you have consciousness to make that choice. That means you have a God of some sort which completely invalidates atheism because atheism claims such Gods do not exist. The stakes are high here for atheism.




> But what the hell is consciousness anyway? Is it another thing that has a direct referent, or it just another metaphysical intuition? 
> That's what I keep trying to stress in this thread; there are a lot of things that feel naturally right to us, concepts like "nothing" and "free will" and "consciousness," but saying they feel right is a very different thing than saying what they actually are and if they actually exist in the way we think of them as. One reason I subscribe to reductionism is it prevents this kind of ontological obscurity where we refer to complex phenomena as one thing, rather than the many things that they often are. That consciousness refers to a process in our brains/mind is fine, but as to exactly what that entails biologically is another matter entirely.


The reason I find consciousness key is because of my preference for choice rather than chance regarding the Big Bang. If a choice was made in creating the universe there was some kind of consciousness involved to make that choice. That puts consciousness outside space and time which confirms what people report with near-death and shared-death experiences. They sense a timelessness and a non-local sense of space. Describing God from a perspective of consciousness allows us to scientifically study whatever might have caused the Big Bang and permits us to go beyond where physics can go.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> The question is are Craig's opponents simply bad debaters or is Craig right and there is no reasonable response to his challenge? It is not Craig's fault, _in any way_, that he is presenting a challenge his opponents can't adequately answer. It is _their_ fault they can't answer it.


They're bad debaters, it's that simple. There are an enormous amount of reasonable responses to Craig's claims even in the literature he quotes from. But, look, that video alone is 30 minutes long and it only addresses the first premise. Not even that, it addresses a few arguments for the first premise. You can't spend 30 minutes debunking arguments for one premise in a debate in which Craig presents 5 different arguments. Why? Because if you do, Craig will call you on your "drops" (debate term) and claim he won the argument. 

It's not Craig's fault that he's presenting challenges to his opponents that they can't answer, but it is his fault for insisting on a live debate format that maximizes the strengths of his arguments and presentation and minimizes the ability to fully investigate any counter-argumnts. And, btw, Craig does INSIST on this format. Many previous debaters have commented about how the only way Craig would accept an invitation for a debate or a discussion is if they followed his chosen format. Why do you suppose he does this? Maybe it's because he knows it's next to impossible to refute all of his arguments within the constraints of his chosen debate format. Richard Carrier smartly claimed that it takes twice as long to refute a claim as it does to make it, but I think he really underestimated the amount of time it takes to parse claims on subjects to which there's no agreement like the origin of the universe. The fact that Craig can present in 4 minutes what a mountain of contradicting scientific literature has been written is proof positive that he's simplifying and obscuring the issue to a great degree. There's no way to compress that much controversy and information into 4 minutes and think it's going to be thorough. 

But, with that aside, yes, it's his opponents' fault that they don't come prepared with well-manicured arguments that refute his claims and present their own in as concise and economical a manner as possible. Almost nobody that debates him seems versed AT ALL in the techniques of debate. None of them call out Craig for his drops, none of them frame the argument, none of them make attempts to challenge Craig in the same way he challenges them (and by "challenges," I'm talking about those "if my opponent can't refute X, then their position is untenable"). They spend all of their time on their heels trying to dig beneath Craig's over-simplifications of very complex and controversial subjects, and they "lose debates" because they simply can't manage their time and arguments with Craig's laser-like like speed, economy, and precision. 




> The existence of a multiverse in itself is not important. Something conscious could have chosen to create many universes with life.


Again, what the multiverse does is quash the notion that our universe is somehow special. If ours was the only one then it would be terribly unlikely that it just happen to be able to support life. But if it's the case that there are many universes, then it wouldn't be so amazing that we found ourselves in one that was able to support life. Again, it defeats fine-tuning, but not the Kalam. 




> The Big Bang takes us to a beginning of the universe, including space and time. Physics cannot go beyond the first quantum of time. By the Kalam argument the universe, which is a finite object, needs a cause. If atheists cannot find a cause that is based on chance...


TBB takes us to the beginning of OUR universe, and spacetime in OUR universe. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "physics can't go beyond the first quantum of time." QP existing in a completely massless state would be one in which time and space is an incoherent concept, and it's possible that one fluctuation could contain within it, eg, a kind of quantum gravity that would pull everything into it, creating spacetime along with all matter. This would necessarily be "by chance" as all quantum fluctuations are. 

There are certainly other theories besides this one, fwiw. See that video that presents some of them. 




> The reason I find consciousness key is because of my preference for choice rather than chance regarding the Big Bang.


But, really, what is that "preference" based on? So far, when we look down on the smallest level all we see is randomness, probability, and chance, so where's the evidence for which to prefer choice? 




> Describing God from a perspective of consciousness allows us to scientifically study whatever might have caused the Big Bang and permits us to go beyond where physics can go.


Firstly, I don't see how you think science could study such a thing, and how it's possible for science to go "beyond where physics can go." If you mean that science can study OUR consciousness, then you're talking neurobiology, and I don't think there's anything in neurobiology that mirrors the origins of the universe. I already gave you a link discussing NDEs and other "out of body" experiences. They may not be literally out of body at all.

----------


## YesNo

> It's not Craig's fault that he's presenting challenges to his opponents that they can't answer, but it is his fault for insisting on a live debate format that maximizes the strengths of his arguments and presentation and minimizes the ability to fully investigate any counter-argumnts.


People who lose should start accepting responsibility for their loses. It is as simple as that. 

Craig can insist on any format he desires. It is not his "fault" he wins, it is to his credit that he wins these debates.




> But, with that aside, yes, it's his opponents' fault that they don't come prepared with well-manicured arguments that refute his claims and present their own in as concise and economical a manner as possible. Almost nobody that debates him seems versed AT ALL in the techniques of debate.


I agree with that. However, Craig does not win all the debates he engages in. I don't think he won the debate with Bart Ehrman on the resurrection of Jesus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac

Why didn't he win this debate? It was not because Ehrman was a better debater than he was. Craig was the better debater. It was because in this case the evidence was on Ehrman's side.




> Again, what the multiverse does is quash the notion that our universe is somehow special. If ours was the only one then it would be terribly unlikely that it just happen to be able to support life. But if it's the case that there are many universes, then it wouldn't be so amazing that we found ourselves in one that was able to support life. Again, it defeats fine-tuning, but not the Kalam.


I just want to make sure you are not missing something. The problem is not whether there are many universes or not. There may be. That is irrelevant. But if there are many universes, I think the estimate is that 10^500 do not support life. Now if it happens that even one of them besides our own does support life, then the chance argument is destroyed.

One might be able to make a similar case for life arising by chance on the earth. We know that life did start on earth, but what are the odds that it did so by chance? That should give us a clue as to how many planets we should find with life on them or not. If we find more than that with life on them, the chance argument is destroyed.




> TBB takes us to the beginning of OUR universe, and spacetime in OUR universe. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "physics can't go beyond the first quantum of time." QP existing in a completely massless state would be one in which time and space is an incoherent concept, and it's possible that one fluctuation could contain within it, eg, a kind of quantum gravity that would pull everything into it, creating spacetime along with all matter. This would necessarily be "by chance" as all quantum fluctuations are.


How do you know anything is by chance? What chance means in these contexts is that one does not know what the cause is.




> There are certainly other theories besides this one, fwiw. See that video that presents some of them. 
> 
> But, really, what is that "preference" based on? So far, when we look down on the smallest level all we see is randomness, probability, and chance, so where's the evidence for which to prefer choice?


Again, how do you know anything is by chance? And what does it mean to say that something occurred by chance except that one doesn't really know what caused it?




> Firstly, I don't see how you think science could study such a thing, and how it's possible for science to go "beyond where physics can go." If you mean that science can study OUR consciousness, then you're talking neurobiology, and I don't think there's anything in neurobiology that mirrors the origins of the universe. I already gave you a link discussing NDEs and other "out of body" experiences. They may not be literally out of body at all.


The fact that you gave me a link doesn't mean that I accept everything in that link. Those out of body experiences may literally be out of body.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> People who lose should start accepting responsibility for their loses... Craig can insist on any format he desires.


But surely you can see how he stacks the deck all in his favor. It's like someone that insists on only ever playing on their home court. I'm not saying that his opponents shouldn't be more prepared, that they shouldn't accept responsibility for losing, but merely that Craig does, undoubtedly, arrange everything so that he has the greatest chance of winning, and I don't find that much better than the general laziness that his opponents display. They may be ignorant and inept with regards to the format, but Craig is knowingly manipulating the format to his advantage knowing it will put his opponents at a disadvantage. 




> The problem is not whether there are many universes or not. There may be. That is irrelevant. But if there are many universes, I think the estimate is that 10^500 do not support life.


But what difference does it matter what the number is of those that don't support life if we have no clue how many there are? There could be 1,000,000 times that number of universes or worlds and, again, if that's the case then it was likely inevitable that we would be the result of one of them. Our mind boggles at seemingly impossibly small numbers, but we should consider those numbers in the context of how many trials there were for such a thing to come about. That's just probability 101. You can deal any single hand of poker and calculate the incredibly small probability that the hand would've unfolded THAT particular way, but it means nothing if you don't consider how many trials there were before that one hand actually happened. 




> How do you know anything is by chance? What chance means in these contexts is that one does not know what the cause is.


QP is innately probabilistic, and when you’re dealing with probabilities, you’re in the realm of chance. You can make the argument that we simply don’t know what causes a wave to collapse, but that it has a case, but I’d like to see you argue that to any of the physicists who flat out say that it’s random chance. I mean, there are determinist schools of thought that claim that there is a mechanism behind this and we merely observe one outcome that was already decided by some unknown mechanism, but even then; what is the mechanism? Further, how can cause exist outside of time and space when our entire understanding of cause is bounded up in predictions that are carried out in both? 




> The fact that you gave me a link doesn't mean that I accept everything in that link.


What in that link don’t you accept? The fact that most of the famous out-of-body claims have been distortions and lies, or that the scientific claims surrounding them have been eschewed? The simple fact is that there’s no solid evidence that consciousness can exist outside of body/brain. The fact that we can experience something akin to an OBE doesn’t mean that’s literally what it is, and it’s remarkable that with all of the reports of such things that there’s never been any hard data to support it. I once saw a special where one hospital inserted a digital scroll above an operating table so if a patient ever did have an OBE they would be able to read what was on the scroll and report it to the doctors after they woke up. Nobody has yet been able to read it. What does that tell you?

----------


## YesNo

> But surely you can see how he stacks the deck all in his favor. It's like someone that insists on only ever playing on their home court. I'm not saying that his opponents shouldn't be more prepared, that they shouldn't accept responsibility for losing, but merely that Craig does, undoubtedly, arrange everything so that he has the greatest chance of winning, and I don't find that much better than the general laziness that his opponents display. They may be ignorant and inept with regards to the format, but Craig is knowingly manipulating the format to his advantage knowing it will put his opponents at a disadvantage.


When Craig is courteous during the debate and clearly presents his side to the audience, he is in a sense setting up his opponents to make a mistake. There is nothing wrong with this. I admire his cool. It is what his opponents should do in return. Someone might see that as Craig "manipulating the format to his advantage", but he is really just letting his opponents' characters work against them and to his advantage.




> QP is innately probabilistic, and when youre dealing with probabilities, youre in the realm of chance. You can make the argument that we simply dont know what causes a wave to collapse, but that it has a case, but Id like to see you argue that to any of the physicists who flat out say that its random chance. I mean, there are determinist schools of thought that claim that there is a mechanism behind this and we merely observe one outcome that was already decided by some unknown mechanism, but even then; what is the mechanism?


I have no problem with chance being used to model the occurrence of events. My only problem is with claiming chance causes events to happen. My interest here is in things like radioactive decay which has no cause to my knowledge but seems to work consistently enough to be used as a clock in certain circumstances.




> Further, how can cause exist outside of time and space when our entire understanding of cause is bounded up in predictions that are carried out in both?


I don't know how that happens, but the only clue that I have is if a choice is made, then consciousness of some sort exists outside of space and time--this is way beyond claiming our consciousness can leave our bodies, but similar to it.




> What in that link dont you accept? The fact that most of the famous out-of-body claims have been distortions and lies, or that the scientific claims surrounding them have been eschewed? The simple fact is that theres no solid evidence that consciousness can exist outside of body/brain. The fact that we can experience something akin to an OBE doesnt mean thats literally what it is, and its remarkable that with all of the reports of such things that theres never been any hard data to support it. I once saw a special where one hospital inserted a digital scroll above an operating table so if a patient ever did have an OBE they would be able to read what was on the scroll and report it to the doctors after they woke up. Nobody has yet been able to read it. What does that tell you?


What I would accept as evidence is what comes from Raymond Moody who originally coined the term "near-death experience". Since I am not an expert, if you can convince him that the out of body experience is not literally an out of body experience, I will entertain it.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Someone might see that as Craig "manipulating the format to his advantage", but he is really just letting his opponents' characters work against them and to his advantage.


I don't think it's their "characters" that work against them, unless by "character" you mean their lack of preparation. Many of his opponents have offered to simply have a discussion on these topics, but Craig always insists on the debate format. As much as I love debate in general, I also understand where many of his opponents are coming from in recognizing the constraint the form itself puts on getting to the bottom of issues that are this big. I wish Craig would simply be willing to sit down and discuss one subject and allot enough time to do more than just skim the surface of various conclusions that have been reached by certain theorists. 




> My only problem is with claiming chance causes events to happen.


Chance isn't an active mechanism so it can't "cause" anything, it just means thing HAPPEN at complete random. I know such a thing is completely counter-intuitive to us, but we should be getting used to the way the universe works being counter-intuitive by now. 




> the only clue that I have is if a choice is made, then consciousness of some sort exists outside of space and time


It sounds nice until you start to consider how conscious thought could possibly exist outside of time. Doesn't the very act of thought require time? Even if I suppose that NDEs do represent real OBEs, then even then if a person is thinking they are thinking inside of time, and they can't think for eternity before they wake up. 




> What I would accept as evidence is what comes from Raymond Moody who originally coined the term "near-death experience".


AFAIK, Moody was mostly documenting the phenomenon, not offering and testing theories as to how it worked. Again, I said several pages back that I don't dispute that people experience something that feels as if they're out of their body, but what I do dispute is that this is ACTUALLY them being out of their body. I wish the digital scroll concept would be implemented in hospitals everywhere because, eventually, someone would have an OBE and if they were really out of their body they would be able to read the scroll and report back. I know there have been no readings at the one hospital where it was implemented.

----------


## YesNo

> I don't think it's their "characters" that work against them, unless by "character" you mean their lack of preparation. Many of his opponents have offered to simply have a discussion on these topics, but Craig always insists on the debate format. As much as I love debate in general, I also understand where many of his opponents are coming from in recognizing the constraint the form itself puts on getting to the bottom of issues that are this big. I wish Craig would simply be willing to sit down and discuss one subject and allot enough time to do more than just skim the surface of various conclusions that have been reached by certain theorists.


When I mentioned "character" I was thinking more of how their personal behavior appears to the audience: good or bad posture, kind of attitude they have, whether they present themselves as egotistical or not--stuff like that.

Actually, I don't enjoy the debate format, but it does provide structure and it guarantees that it wraps up in a reasonable time.

The debate I've most enjoyed which was less formal was between Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow called _War of the Worldviews_. 




> Chance isn't an active mechanism so it can't "cause" anything, it just means thing HAPPEN at complete random. I know such a thing is completely counter-intuitive to us, but we should be getting used to the way the universe works being counter-intuitive by now.


If that is what you believe, then I agree with you. Chance doesn't cause anything.




> It sounds nice until you start to consider how conscious thought could possibly exist outside of time. Doesn't the very act of thought require time? Even if I suppose that NDEs do represent real OBEs, then even then if a person is thinking they are thinking inside of time, and they can't think for eternity before they wake up.


I don't know how that works either.




> AFAIK, Moody was mostly documenting the phenomenon, not offering and testing theories as to how it worked. Again, I said several pages back that I don't dispute that people experience something that feels as if they're out of their body, but what I do dispute is that this is ACTUALLY them being out of their body. I wish the digital scroll concept would be implemented in hospitals everywhere because, eventually, someone would have an OBE and if they were really out of their body they would be able to read the scroll and report back. I know there have been no readings at the one hospital where it was implemented.


In his most recent book, _Paranormal_, which was his autobiography Moody mentioned a woman who saw an apparition of her dead son, if I remember correctly, after going through one of the scrying techniques he offered. She asked him if she could touch him, figuring she probably shouldn't, but he didn't seem to mind. He gave her a hug and lifted her off her feet.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> When I mentioned "character" I was thinking more of how their personal behavior appears to the audience:


Well, yeah, that's part of it too. Most of his opponents could use some basic instruction on how to present themselves to an audience. 




> Chance doesn't cause anything.


Right, especially things that have no cause and happen just by (not because of) chance.  :Wink: 




> I don't know how that works either.


Then keep in mind the link I gave you about fake explanations. Because just because if feels metaphysically intuitive doesn't mean it's even remotely close to the right answer. 




> In his most recent book, _Paranormal_, which was his autobiography Moody mentioned a woman who saw an apparition of her dead son...


That's all well and good, but I'm still not sure what it has to do with answering what the cause of the OBE phenomenon is. Like I said, such stories establish that there's a phenomenon to begin with, not what the explanation for it is.

----------


## YesNo

> Then keep in mind the link I gave you about fake explanations. Because just because if feels metaphysically intuitive doesn't mean it's even remotely close to the right answer.


The phrase "metaphysically intuitive" means to me "unexamined cultural assumption". It is something learned and then assumed to be true.

I am reading Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan's _Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species_ based on a side issue that KillCarneyKlans and OrphanPip brought up in this thread. 

I didn't realize that I had the neodarwinist cultural assumption that "random mutation is the major source of evolutionary change, that natural selection acts upon". I am beginning to see that neodarwinism is a side issue at best. Also I tended to view evolution as starting only 560 million years ago ignoring the microscopic life that began a couple billion years earlier. I am now seeing that that microscopic life is key to any evolutionary theory. I think I'm beginning to understand more why Eldredge is so opposed to the "selfish gene" concept. 

Another unexamined cultural assumption is beginning to bite the dust for me.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Another unexamined cultural assumption is beginning to bite the dust for me.


It's an unexamined cultural assumption to assume Neo-Darwinism is an unexamined cultural assumption. It came about because of all the evidence for it, and it took evolutionary biologists a good long time to get it to become accepted as much as it is. I'd hardly call it an "unexamined cultural assumption". I haven't read the book in question, but I do know that Margulis is a respected name in the field. Although, I somehow doubt she's trying to dismantle the whole of natural selection and Neo-Darwinism. That microbiology has a role to play in evolution is undeniable, but I think this is likely like the gradualism/equilibrium concept in that it's a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be either/or.

----------


## OrphanPip

Sorry double post happened accidentally somehow.

----------


## OrphanPip

> It's an unexamined cultural assumption to assume Neo-Darwinism is an unexamined cultural assumption. It came about because of all the evidence for it, and it took evolutionary biologists a good long time to get it to become accepted as much as it is. I'd hardly call it an "unexamined cultural assumption". I haven't read the book in question, but I do know that Margulis is a respected name in the field. Although, I somehow doubt she's trying to dismantle the whole of natural selection and Neo-Darwinism. That microbiology has a role to play in evolution is undeniable, but I think this is likely like the gradualism/equilibrium concept in that it's a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be either/or.


Margulis was a respected name, but her ideas are highly marginal. What kept her a margin of respectability is a moderate commitment to real science and testable hypotheses. Although, she got increasingly crazy as time went on, becoming an HIV/AIDS denialist and 9/11 truther. 

Margulis suffered from an unfortunate blindness about natural selection, that I think derives from her commitment to the Gaia hypothesis, she imagined life as a cooperate web like super organism, so she had trouble accepting evolution as a mutation and competition driven process. Her ideas about symbiotic evolution are almost entirely rejected, except for a few instances like the origins of the mitochondria and chloroplast. 

The evidence supporting mutation and natural selection as the primary, of many, mechanisms of evolutionary change is very strong.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Thanks for the info, OrphanPip.  :Smile:

----------


## YesNo

> Margulis was a respected name, but her ideas are highly marginal. What kept her a margin of respectability is a moderate commitment to real science and testable hypotheses. Although, she got increasingly crazy as time went on, becoming an HIV/AIDS denialist and 9/11 truther. 
> 
> Margulis suffered from an unfortunate blindness about natural selection, that I think derives from her commitment to the Gaia hypothesis, she imagined life as a cooperate web like super organism, so she had trouble accepting evolution as a mutation and competition driven process. Her ideas about symbiotic evolution are almost entirely rejected, except for a few instances like the origins of the mitochondria and chloroplast. 
> 
> The evidence supporting mutation and natural selection as the primary, of many, mechanisms of evolutionary change is very strong.


Unfortunately, OrphanPip, I'm finding her book convincing, as well as Niles Eldredge's rejections of the "selfish gene". Do you have any references that might lead me to think otherwise?

----------


## OrphanPip

> Unfortunately, OrphanPip, I'm finding her book convincing, as well as Niles Eldredge's rejections of the "selfish gene". Do you have any references that might lead me to think otherwise?


There are substantial problems with Margulis' hypothesis, it lacks evidence and some of its substantial predictions do not pan out. 

Her idea is not entirely ridiculous, as endosymbiosis played a major role in the evolution of eukaryotes. It is after all the defining feature of Eukarya that they have organelles descended from the endosymbiotic relationship between the progenitor of eukaryotes and bacteria, with strong evidence that the progenitor of eukaryotes was possibly descended from an archaean. There are also numerous instances of horizontal gene transfer between archaea and bacteria that creates another means for genetic change.

However, the major problem occurs when you get into the sexually reproducing eukaryotes: fungi, animals, and plants. These eukaryotes sometimes have gene exchange with viruses (that often incorporates bits of DNA from hosts) and occasionally retroviruses promote mutations or incorporate bits of DNA into their hosts' genome. However, because of the existence of germ cells these instances of genetic change do not have any lasting effects on eukaryotic species. Moreover, mutation occurs routinely in the production of gametes, and we have numerous examples of mutation leading to major changes in organisms. Natural selection has far more explanatory power, and it has produced many more predictions that have been tested in the literature.

Symbiotic evolution, or symbiogenesis, has a long history in the Lysenkoist tradition of biology originating from Soviet Russia. The Lysenkoist were forced to view genetics as a "fascist" science, and thus had to reject Darwinian evolution (those who objected loss their jobs or ended up shot). Margulis' ideas have been tried historically, and have failed, to account for the evidence we see around us. The Lysenkoist predictions lead to disastrous agricultural policies in the USSR and China that contributed to mass starvation. Selective breeding (operating off of predictions based on Darwinian natural selection) has proven extremely successful. 

Margulis is not so extreme as Lysenko, in that she accepts mutation and natural selection as existing processes in evolution. However, there is simply no evidence for the broad reaching claims of her symbiotic evolutionary theory. Neodarwinism is the dominant view in biology precisely because it has stood up to tests. There is merit in thinking about lateral gene exchange in some microorganisms, but mutation and natural selection remain the best explanations of how evolution occurs. 

Eldredge would agree, since he also views mutation and natural selection as the major driver of evolution. His position is based on the emphasis on the unit of selection, whether it is the individual (as Eldredge and Darwin emphasized), the gene (Dawkins et al.), or the species (group selection now rejected by any legitimate biologists).

----------


## YesNo

Thanks, OrphanPip. I'll keep this in mind as I go through her book.

----------


## mal4mac

> The Big Bang takes us to a beginning of the universe, including space and time. Physics cannot go beyond the first quantum of time. By the Kalam argument the universe, which is a finite object...


How do you know it's a finite object? the standard models of cosmology allow for space being infinite. If space was created at the big bang why could it not have been created as infinite?

----------


## stuntpickle

> I wanted to address this first: 
> 
> 1. I never said the Kalam had “serious flaws” _of logic._ You added the “of logic” addendum. I merely said “seriously flaws,” and, to me, errors of facts are “flaws” as “serious” as any errors of logic.


First, you said Craig was equivocating and committing compositional fallacies (though you dressed it up with set theory jargon), and those are "flaws of logic"--regardless of what you pretend to have meant. Moreover, any "serious flaw" would necessarily be one of logic. If you think the fact that you can question one of the premises of an argument demonstrates a serious flaw, then you must think every argument ever made has "serious flaws". The truth is that, insofar as logic is concerned, you don't seem all that informed, and most of your complaints seem to have been plucked from second-rate atheist web sites. The compositional objection even had the dishonor of appearing in Craig's popular article "The World's Worst Objections to the Kalam" which basically dealt with various "objections" that appeared online that no atheist philosopher would ever make.




> 2. I already conceded that I could definitely be wrong that Craig is knowingly equivocating, but I drew this inference based on his own arguments, of which I quote below. If I was wrong about how Craig was using nothing, then I suspect many people are wrong about it, and I don’t think you can blame us for being wrong based on how Craig makes the argument.


"Could definitely?" Talk about shifty language. That you--who do not understand metaphysics in the slightest--think Craig--who is a PhD philosopher--is unwittingly engaged in elementary blunders of logic is absurd. You know, this entire concession would be far more palatable if you hadn't dressed it up in a way to try and save face. You were wrong. I know it, you know it, and anyone who familiar with fallacies of equivocation knows it.






> I think you misunderstood the majority of my previous post. My point wasn’t necessarily that Craig was equivocating, but merely that’s what his arguments can create in the minds of audiences who likely have a very different notion of “nothing” than the philosophical one of CAN.


This is simply a lie. You listed equivocation as the first in your little list of "serious flaws". Frankly, I think you're just trying to save face after I called your bluff and you couldn't produce an actual equivocation.



* There's absolutely no equivocation in the argument you present from Craig.* 

I would, however, like to present you with a fairly good, practical example of a fallacy of equivocation--one with which I'm sure you'll be familiar.

Morpheus: 1. A fallacy of equivocation, which means to use different meanings of the same word in a single argument fallaciously, is a "serious flaw."
Morpheus: 2. When Craig says "From nothing, nothing comes" he commits a fallacy of equivocation, which means <insert some non-standard, bizarre, inexplicable definition that requires Morpheus to write a 1,000-word essay just to try and explain it>.
Morpheus: Therefore, Craig is guilty of committing a "serious flaw".

That's right. You're actually equivocating on "equivocate".

So are we done with #1 and ready for #2?

Edit: initially, I had some rather harsh criticisms for the quote you selected, but then I realized that they would be interpreted as having been directed at Craig rather than as I intended. Suffice it to say that your selection, in no way, demonstrates what you're claiming.

It seems that you now claim that all you ever meant to say is that people misunderstand what Craig means by "nothing". Besides this not being anything close to a "serious flaw" in general or equivocation in particular, I think it is absolutely false. Whenever a child says he wants "nothing" for dinner, he demonstrates precisely what Craig means. The child isn't saying that he wants to eat a cubic foot of air or a quantum vacuum; he's saying he wants not a thing to eat.

----------


## YesNo

> The compositional objection even had the dishonor of appearing in Craig's popular article "The World's Worst Objections to the Kalam" which basically dealt with various "objections" that appeared online that no atheist philosopher would ever make because they are so absurd.


I search for and watched Craig's talk, _10 Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument_: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfsYhWNMYr4

Thanks for mentioning this. Craig's talk seems to me to be one of the best lectures on logic I have ever heard.

The 10th argument was one where he quoted Dawkins as _accepting_ the Kalam argument but with Dawkins claiming that the Kalam argument doesn't imply that this cause has all the attributes of the Christian God. Craig then said that he never claimed it did, only that the Kalam argument implied an efficient cause of the universe. The idea this left me with is that when Dawkins accepted the Kalam argument with the restrictions he made, he contradicted his own atheism.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Stunt, 

In your last several responses to me you have completely failed to address any of my arguments and have instead preferred to shift the debate over one concerning logic. You seem to miss that that if *I* have misunderstood what Craig meant by "nothing," then I am not the only one. You can sit here and blame me (and others) for not getting what Craig meant when he "clearly" wasn't equivocating, or you can admit that his own examples lead us to the wrong conclusion about what "nothing" he was referring to. If you really want to talk about fallacies, you've mentioned Craig's credentials I don't know how many times now. That he knows what he's talking about isn't even in dispute, it's what he's communicating to others that's in dispute. That he knows there are multiple associations with the word nothing, and yet he uses examples that do not illustrate his concept of nothingness, should be strikes against him. But you are so intent on pounding on my inability to grasp logic (and, apparently, everyone else's) that you refuse to see that. 

Yes, I linked to and quoted from Craig's own video about the "10 worst objections to the Kalam," and I believe he hangs himself with what I quoted and for the reasons I gave. Why don't you address those reasons and stop beating around the bush with what you think I said or what you think I think? A child wanting "nothing" for dinner is clearly not the same "nothing" Craig is talking about, because the child can only eat tangible material. So his nothing is "I don't want any tangible material to eat" not "I want a complete absence of anything to eat." That you have repeated this same type of argument twice, but fail to grasp that someone handing me "nothing" and a child wanting "nothing" to eat is still not Craig's "nothing" is ironic to the extreme.

----------


## stuntpickle

> In your last several responses to me you have completely failed to address any of my arguments ...
> 
> .Why don't you address those reasons and stop beating around the bush with what you think I said or what you think I think?


Let's get something straight: I'm not at all interested in debating the existence of God with you. I've already told you this. The reasons are many. For one, I don't think you're particularly prepared for such a discussion, nor do I think you are willing to concede any point I don't force you to. I suspect you are fundamentally dishonest insofar as this discussion goes, not only with me, but with yourself. Moreover, I'm not convinced that you possess the requisite understanding to judge when this or that point has been properly adjudicated. Essentially, I'm saying I believe you are so entirely hostile to this subject in general that no real discussion can occur. My only interest in this discussion is to demonstrate that the Kalam does not have "serious flaws" as you claim.

I'm not beating around the bush; you're moving the goalposts. YOU listed three points YOU thought best demonstrated the "serious flaws" of the Kalam. You could have said anything you wanted. You took your best swing, and you missed entirely. YOU are the one who said Craig was equivocating. This isn't some straw man you're being forced to defend, but rather it is the foremost "flaw" at the top of your list. It turns out (surprise, surprise) that the only "flaw" was in your thinking. Now that this has been made so abundantly clear that not even you can deny it, you prefer to change the subject. 

Now you prefer to discuss how Craig is "misleading" people. Well, guess what? You had your shot at complaining. The complaint department is now closed. This conversation has convinced me that you are absolutely unpersuadable and committed to generating pointless complications to frustrate the discussion. I suspected as much after reading your first couple of posts, in which you veered from one worldview to the next, and I thought to myself, "Well, Stunt, how do you squash an average obfuscator?" The answer, of course, is "Get him to commit."

And commit you did. Oh, you're trying to run from what you said, but I won't let you escape. There's only one way to talk to someone who jumps around incessantly just to avoid the actual discussion, and that's with him on a leash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlnSfr2DBGw

You ready for #2?

----------


## YesNo

I'm confused about one thing in Craig's explanation of the Kalam argument that you might know, stuntpickle. He claimed that the cause of the universe was "personal". I don't know what he meant by that.

The way I see it, a _choice_ had to be made by this cause. That meant the cause had to be _conscious_ in some way in order to make that choice. I don't know what that consciousness is, but I wonder if it is related to the "personal" aspect of the cause that Craig claimed is required.

Do you know?

----------


## stuntpickle

> I'm confused about one thing in Craig's explanation of the Kalam argument that you might know, stuntpickle. He claimed that the cause of the universe was "personal". I don't know what he meant by that.
> 
> The way I see it, a _choice_ had to be made by this cause. That meant the cause had to be _conscious_ in some way in order to make that choice. I don't know what that consciousness is, but I wonder if it is related to the "personal" aspect of the cause that Craig claimed is required.
> 
> Do you know?


By "personal" Craig means relating to a person or personhood-- that the cause must be some sort of person capable of choosing.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Stunt, 

I don't know why you keep bringing up "debating the existence to God." Every single point I've made (at least in our debate: YesNo and I got off-track) has been directly--not indirectly, not roundaboutly--related to the the arguments that are a part of the KCA. So you claiming I'm just trying to debate about God is a strawman. I also don't know what you mean about me being "hostile" and "dishonest". Even in my "three points" post I stated, very clearly, "Craig _seems to be_ equivocating when he talks about (nothing)." Note "seems to be." I did not say "Craig IS," I said he "seems to be," and I based this observation ON HIS ARGUMENTS. I did not invent his own arguments, I'm merely saying that when he, himself, talks of nothing, he doesn't specify what meaning of the word he's using, and, in fact, his examples seem to argue for a very different type of nothing. Thus far, you've completely failed to address this fact, and have preferred to shift the argument to my inadequacies and how you perceive me of being "dishonest" and "unqualified" and "hostile." 

You'd like to blame me and me alone for making this "mistake," but considering you seem to know next to nothing about semiotics, let me take a moment to enlighten you to your own inadequacy: communication is a two-way street. When a student misunderstands a teacher, it is not automatically the student's fault. The teacher could be a bad teacher, the teacher could even be knowingly manipulative in order to get the students to believe what they believe. So far, all you've done to defend Craig is point out his credentials, and I've simply stated that I don't doubt Craig knows what he's talking about, but as to whether he's relating this lucidly/clearly to his audiences is another matter, especially when the option is out there that he could be knowingly manipulating them by playing upon their metaphysical intuitions of one word, while using it himself in a completely different matter. 

If by "me committing" you're referring to my original statement: "Craig seems to be equivocating when he talks about (nothing)," then I stand by it. Because "seems to be" qualifies the statement as a perception about what's going on, not an absolute statement of what's going on. What you need to do now is argue as to why that perception is wrong, to argue why people are unreasonable and dense for thinking Craig means "empty space nothing" when he uses examples from the material world. You haven't even once attempted to do this, and your insistence on switching the argument around to my level of competence, my hostility, dishonesty, and "unwilling to concede a point" is just a smokescreen. But why would I expect anything less from a follower of the master of smokescreens?

----------


## stuntpickle

> Stunt, 
> 
> I don't know why you keep bringing up "debating the existence to God." Every single point I've made (at least in our debate: YesNo and I got off-track) has been directly--not indirectly, not roundaboutly--related to the the arguments that are a part of the KCA. So you claiming I'm just trying to debate about God is a strawman. I also don't know what you mean about me being "hostile" and "dishonest". Even in my "three points" post I stated, very clearly, "Craig _seems to be_ equivocating when he talks about (nothing)." Note "seems to be." I did not say "Craig IS," I said he "seems to be," and I based this observation ON HIS ARGUMENTS. I did not invent his own arguments, I'm merely saying that when he, himself, talks of nothing, he doesn't specify what meaning of the word he's using, and, in fact, his examples seem to argue for a very different type of nothing. Thus far, you've completely failed to address this fact, and have preferred to shift the argument to my inadequacies and how you perceive me of being "dishonest" and "unqualified" and "hostile." 
> 
> You'd like to blame me and me alone for making this "mistake," but considering you seem to know next to nothing about semiotics, let me take a moment to enlighten you to your own inadequacy: communication is a two-way street. When a student misunderstands a teacher, it is not automatically the student's fault. The teacher could be a bad teacher, the teacher could even be knowingly manipulative in order to get the students to believe what they believe. So far, all you've done to defend Craig is point out his credentials, and I've simply stated that I don't doubt Craig knows what he's talking about, but as to whether he's relating this lucidly/clearly to his audiences is another matter, especially when the option is out there that he could be knowingly manipulating them by playing upon their metaphysical intuitions of one word, while using it himself in a completely different matter. 
> 
> If by "me committing" you're referring to my original statement: "Craig seems to be equivocating when he talks about (nothing)," then I stand by it. Because "seems to be" qualifies the statement as a perception about what's going on, not an absolute statement of what's going on. What you need to do now is argue as to why that perception is wrong, to argue why people are unreasonable and dense for thinking Craig means "empty space nothing" when he uses examples from the material world. You haven't even once attempted to do this, and your insistence on switching the argument around to my level of competence, my hostility, dishonesty, and "unwilling to concede a point" is just a smokescreen. But why would I expect anything less from a follower of the master of smokescreens?




Is it really a surprise that I'm not eager to address your "arguments?" I mean, you did demonstrate that you had no understanding of what metaphysics actually means or what a valid argument is. You accused a PhD philosopher of equivocating while, at the same time, equivocating yourself. These aren't errors in isolation, but rather the very essence of what you're calling your "arguments". I mean, really, how am I supposed to have a discussion about a metaphysical argument with a person who did not until a few days ago understand that his own naturalism was, itself, a properly metaphysical belief?

What I don't think you understand is that I'm not simply defending Craig. I would probably say the same sorts of things had you accused Shelly Kagan of equivocating. Both Craig and Kagan are obviously more capable thinkers than either of us. Listening to you critique Craig is like listening to a first-time opera-goer explain why opera is awful: it's completely wrongheaded and seemingly ignorant of what's actually going on. I'm not suggesting that the Kalam is unassailable, but I know enough to understand the avenues of approach a reasonable person might take in objecting. You, on the other hand, are wondering through the desert in the wrong direction, bud. So why don't I want to address your arguments? The same reason I don't want to argue with the guy who thinks the lady singing is fat and has an ugly wig.

Your entire first point has already been decided--with or without your approval or awareness. I can't help it if you refuse to see it. You were wrong. You lost. In case you missed it, it turned out you didn't really have a point.

By your own admission you "have misunderstood what Craig meant by nothing," and since this is, itself, the basis of the objection, then we can safely assume that "your misunderstanding" and your own faulty presuppositions of what Craig meant do not constitute "serious flaws" of the Kalam. And since your accusation that Craig had equivocated turned out to be entirely unwarranted, then there's no reason to continue belaboring the point. Your own befuddlement doesn't constitute a flaw in Craig's argument. It's not my job to correct your misapprehensions, and if ever I decided to do such a thing, I would require a far more persuadable subject than you.

If you take out the equivocation, all you're left with is that you don't understand why Craig uses the examples he does. Your own lack of understanding does not a "serious" objection make. Without the equivocation, there's no flaw in your first flaw.

Ready for more on #2?

P.S. More irony:




> I did not invent his own arguments, I'm merely saying that when he, himself, talks of nothing, he doesn't specify what meaning of the word he's using, and, in fact, his examples seem to argue for a very different type of nothing. Thus far, you've completely failed to address this fact, and have preferred to shift the argument to my inadequacies and how you perceive me of being "dishonest" and "unqualified" and "hostile."


And you wonder why I call you dishonest. You say Craig has never explained what he means by "nothing". You can't be serious. He does just that in the same video you, yourself, quoted and does it immediately after the section you quoted, and he keeps explaining it well into the next segment. He means "not anything." And he says exactly that. I hope you're kidding yourself because you're not kidding anyone else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnHO8seI8Js

The relevant section begins at 24:40. He even reads from Plato at 26:20 to give the history of what he means by "out of nothing..." This conversation is so ridiculous.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Stunt, 

No, I'm not ready for Question 2, and If you're going to continue in this manner then I'm not ready for anything more because it's becoming blatantly apparent you'd rather attack me than address anything I've said. 




> You say Craig has never explained what he means by "nothing".


Please go back and find where I said he "never" (as in never at any point in any debate or any text) explained this. When you find that I never said that, maybe I can go on to question who's being dishonest.

In fact, I'm going to go back through all of my posts since this started and quote exactly what I said on this matter: 


> My argument is that Craig seems to be equivocating when he talks about this, *from using observational examples from natural reality, to talking about the singularity, to talking about everything prior to spacetime. In all cases, his nothing doesn't seem to be nothing in absolute sense*





> ...*why if NFC is so important does Craig constantly refer to examples of things coming from other things inside material reality?* 
> 
> ...Perhaps you’re correct in that Craig has never equivocated on nothing meaning NFC in print, but I’m mostly familiar with his debates, and in those debates *when he argues for P1 he always uses examples from material reality, that such-and-such things don’t appear out of nothing...* Even if I accept Craig is always using “nothing” to mean “CAN,” *that stresses all the more why he should specify that to his lay audiences at his debates rather than just rattling off “NFC” and then giving examples from material reality.*





> I already conceded that I could definitely be wrong that Craig is knowingly equivocating, but I drew this inference based on his own arguments, of which I quote below. If I was wrong about how Craig was using nothing, then I suspect many people are wrong about it, and I don’t think you can blame us for being wrong based on how Craig makes the argument.





> Craig is a very careful and powerful rhetorician... *he should know that when you use examples from material reality, where there is always “something” so far as we can and have observed, that people will equate “nothing” with being related to whatever material examples that are given.* The fact that we as people regularly equate nothing with merely the absence of some things (like you said in your “nothing is what everyone just showed you”), then *it is not fair to use the absence of some things as an argument for “nothing from CAN”. It creates natural equivocations in the minds of audiences...*





> *If Craig always has CAN in mind when discussing nothing, he should be more diligent about making this clear, and one way to do that would be to STOP using examples from material reality.* When he says “Surely an Eskimo village can’t come into existence out of nothing!”* most people will think “yes, that’s right, if nobody was around to build a village then it wouldn’t just appear on its own in Alaska!” What they will think about isn’t an Eskimo village popping into being where there’s CAN, but rather they’ll think of “nothing” as, say, everything in Alaska sans an Eskimo village.


Now, one consistency throughout all of these posts is that I'm essentially saying this: "If Craig is using 'nothing' in the CAN sense, then it is unfair of him to use examples from material reality to argue 'nothing from CAN' because it creates equivocations in the mind of the audience." 

THAT is the point you have repeatedly side-stepped and utterly refused to address. You'd rather make all kinds of hay-maker accusations about me than you would to simply say: "You're absolutely correct. Craig's own examples do imply that the nothing he's talking about is equated to a physical reality we know to exist, rather than a CAN that is only theoretical." That's all I'm asking you to admit. And then you either have to concede that Craig is being unknowingly manipulative or knowingly manipulative (and, given his credentials and him knowing that there are multiple associations with the word "nothing," I'd lean towards the latter). The fact that Craig decides to define "nothing" in that video AFTER he has already made his example arguments from material reality does nothing to alleviate the point about this creating equivocations in the audience. In fact, it's a common tactic known as bait-and-switch. Hook them in with their own metaphysical intuitions using examples of one kind of nothing from material reality, and then switch to talking about a completely different kind of nothing later. Craig has been called out on this before (once in another video I already posted above).

So I will still be waiting for you to address the above. 

Oh, and, btw, even in the explanation Craig gives, he still just blows by a naked assertion rather quick-like. When scientists say "nothing preceded the universe" they aren't talking about the philosophical CAN either, they're talking about the absence of space, time, and matter. That something else could still be there is still entirely a possibility. So Craig's still wrong. The fact that he's using Plato in light of modern science is still silly.

----------


## stuntpickle

> No, I'm not ready for Question 2, and If you're going to continue in this manner then I'm not ready for anything more because it's becoming blatantly apparent you'd rather attack me than address anything I've said.


Of course, you're not ready. No narcissist is ever ready to have his sophomoric errors paraded before everyone. Perhaps you'd prefer to have another discussion of formalism to make yourself feel better. Unfortunately, I'm going to reveal all the other fallacies in your silly little list eventually anyway. But I admit it is fun to watch stick your foot in your mouth over and over again. Perhaps one of these days you'll actually make an effort to know what you're talking about.




> Please go back and find where I said he "never" (as in never at any point in any debate or any text) explained this. When you find that I never said that, maybe I can go on to question who's being dishonest.


You're splitting semantic hairs. Saying someone "does NOT do something" and saying someone "never does something" is essentially the same. In fact, most style guides recommend the latter. You say something and then immediately take it back when someone proves you wrong. And frankly, you're wrong an awful lot.




> THAT is the point you have repeatedly side-stepped and utterly refused to address. You'd rather make all kinds of hay-maker accusations about me than you would to simply say: "You're absolutely correct. Craig's own examples do imply that the nothing he's talking about is equated to a physical reality we know to exist, rather than a CAN that is only theoretical." That's all I'm asking you to admit. And then you either have to concede that Craig is being unknowingly manipulative or knowingly manipulative (and, given his credentials and him knowing that there are multiple associations with the word "nothing," I'd lean towards the latter). The fact that Craig decides to define "nothing" in that video AFTER he has already made his example arguments from material reality does nothing to alleviate the point about this creating equivocations in the audience. In fact, it's a common tactic known as bait-and-switch. Hook them in with their own metaphysical intuitions using examples of one kind of nothing from material reality, and then switch to talking about a completely different kind of nothing later. Craig has been called out on this before (once in another video I already posted above).
> 
> So I will still be waiting for you to address the above.


I destroyed your entire fallacious accusation, and just because you're incapable of understanding that doesn't mean I'm ignoring you. You lost. You don't know what equivocation means, so you should probably stop accusing people of doing it. I'm not about to pretend to have a philosophical discussion with someone who doesn't even have a basic grasp of the most fundamental philosophical principles and whose entire worldview is a hodgepodge of contrasting cliches.

Here is your first point in all its erroneous entirety:




> 1. The Problem of Nothing
> 
> Most of my last post was related to Craig's definition of "nothing" in his "ex nihilo nihil fit" argument that he has stated argues for the first premise. My argument is that Craig seems to be equivocating when he talks about this, from using observational examples from natural reality, to talking about the singularity, to talking about everything prior to spacetime. In all cases, his nothing doesn't seem to be nothing in absolute sense, so his entire basis for using that classic argument crumbles, as does his basis for accepting P1 as true.


So if, as you've conceded, Craig isn't equivocating and he does, in fact, make clear that his nothing is "absolute", then your entire objection evaporates. All the other quotes you provide are from you backpedaling from the initial point.

You lost. You conceded every point you originally tried to make. All you're doing now is kicking and screaming like a child because you're angry.

Perhaps you should go back to discussing literary theory, where all bad philosophy goes to die.

----------


## YesNo

I'm not sure I'm following all the nuances of the discussion about nothing, but I want to state what I think is critical for me in this: _is it possible for something to come into existence without any sort of cause whether this is within space-time or not?_  That is, can it come into existence totally by chance and without any material out of which it came (from nothing).

I don't think that is possible.

Does anyone think that is possible?

If it is not possible, then the beginning of the universe had a cause. Since the beginning of the universe in the standard model of cosmology includes the beginning of space and time as well, there appears to be no material cause to the universe, which is what would ground a determinism and which science could study. But even though there is no material cause, there still has to be a cause. All that is left is an efficient cause--something powerful enough to create a universe out of nothing that made a choice to do so.

----------


## stuntpickle

> I'm not sure I'm following all the nuances of the discussion about nothing, but I want to state what I think is critical for me in this: _is it possible for something to come into existence without any sort of cause whether this is within space-time or not?_  That is, can it come into existence totally by chance and without any material out of which it came (from nothing).
> 
> I don't think that is possible.
> 
> Does anyone think that is possible?
> 
> If it is not possible, then the beginning of the universe had a cause. Since the beginning of the universe in the standard model of cosmology includes the beginning of space and time as well, there appears to be no material cause to the universe, which is what would ground a determinism and which science could study. But even though there is no material cause, there still has to be a cause. All that is left is an efficient cause--something powerful enough to create a universe out of nothing that made a choice to do so.



If you're referring to the "discussion" I'm having with Morpheus, then there are no nuances. Of course, he'd probably try to debate the validity of the word "no". He's just saying Craig's equivocating, but, wait, he says he isn't saying that. He's saying that Craig doesn't explain what he means by nothing, but, wait, he says he isn't saying that. There's absolutely nothing intricate or involved about our discussion. Morpheus has resorted to obfuscation, the last refuge of a failed debater. He's trying to confuse the point since he can't properly refute it.

----------


## YesNo

I agree that Craig is not equivocating. I don't see anything wrong with his arguments in using the Kalam. Apparently, even Dawkins doesn't. My concern is only marginally related to the discussion you are having with MorpheusSandman.

What I am trying to do is make sure that I am not missing something. Is there any other place where we could assume that something comes from nothing, or if there is something, that is, if there is a material cause, that Chance is the efficient cause? I think I am using "material" and "efficient" correctly here, but I don't know much philosophy and I know these are technical terms.

EDIT: I thought of a way of expressing my concern:_ Can Chance ever be the efficient cause of anything?_ 

For me, chance is only a probabilistic model and covers our ignorance of the actual cause. There is no Chance that is an efficient cause of anything. Or, to put this in other words, an efficient cause is either deterministic or it is the result of a free choice. There is no non-deterministic, non-choice efficient cause of anything.

Here is the Wikipedia article on Aristotle's Four Causes and Bacon's restriction of them to material and efficient causes as far as science is concerned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

----------


## stuntpickle

> I agree that Craig is not equivocating. I don't see anything wrong with his arguments in using the Kalam. Apparently, even Dawkins doesn't. My concern is only marginally related to the discussion you are having with MorpheusSandman.
> 
> What I am trying to do is make sure that I am not missing something. Is there any other place where we could assume that something comes from nothing, or if there is something, that is, if there is a material cause, that Chance is the efficient cause? I think I am using "material" and "efficient" correctly here, but I don't know much philosophy and I know these are technical terms.


There's no instance where we can assume that something comes from nothing. What people like Krauss seem not to understand is that when someone asserts something to be true, they assert that it is true in principle. So to say that something can come from nothing is to state that such is a workable principle and generally applicable. If we accept that something can come from nothing, then the foremost devastation will be done to science, as science presumes that material effects result from explicable mechanisms, which is to say science, more than any other discipline, presupposes the essence of the Kalam's first premise. Craig is right when he says that if we accept such inanities as something can come from nothing, then it becomes impossible to explain why things don't just pop inexplicably into existence all the time. What he's rightly pointing out is that to claim that something can come from nothing is to attempt to destroy every variety of human inquiry, all of which presuppose that things operate according to some basic reliable mechanisms.

The sort of argument that is now occurring is precisely why I stopped being an atheist. I realized that most atheists, myself included, were refuting their own worldview in order to deny the existence of God. The difference between me and most other atheists, I believe, is that when I realized this, I changed positions. The sort of irrational obstinance I often see demonstrated among atheists isn't really an "atheistic" characteristic, but a human one. Most persons don't know why they think what they think. And when the errors of their thinking have been pointed out, they simply try to find some other means to rationalize the position they had already presupposed. 

The truth is that you needn't take anyone who takes issue with the Kalam's first premise seriously. The first premise is one of the most banal, uncontroversial ideas in all philosophy, and any attempt to undermine it, will result in undermining one's own capacity to prosecute the issue. If things really don't work according to intelligible mechanisms, then there's no point in trying to discuss anything.

The truth is that reasonable objections to the Kalam are made against the second premise. The second premise is an inductive inference that is, although the current consensus, controversial. Of course, any objection to the second premise would generally require a a certain amount of specialized knowledge that most persons don't have, so rather than just give up before things get started, most atheists prefer to attack the first premise without understanding the consequences. When an actual atheist philosopher, like Quentin Smith, tries to refute the Kalam, he gives a very intricate explanation of a different cosmological view based loosely on relativity. He doesn't lodge absurd complaints that impeach his own capacity as a speaker.

----------


## YesNo

> When an actual atheist philosopher, like *Quentin Smith*, tries to refute the Kalam, he gives a very intricate explanation of a different cosmological view based loosely on relativity. He doesn't lodge absurd complaints that impeach his own capacity as a speaker.


I thought Craig's and Quentin Smith's _Theism, Atheism, and the Big Bang Cosmology_ was more informative than the debates Craig had with Hitchens or Krauss. I'm going to read it again.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Stunt, 

Let's just stop this discussion. It's gone from being interesting to just being unpleasant, in general. You are so concerned with insisting I said things I never said, and so concerned about killing a strawman, that you have completely ignored the same argument I've made on this subject in every post since my very first one. You have singled out one part of that one argument, attempted to twist it into something it never was, and have completely ignored the reasoning behind that point. The fact that I've repeated the same thing countless times now, even going back through the thread and quoting myself where I mentioned it in every post, yet you STILL refuse to address it, is proof of YOUR dishonesty, not mine. 




> I thought of a way of expressing my concern:_ Can Chance ever be the efficient cause of anything?_


YesNo, I've tried to explain this several times by now, but chance has never been said to "cause" anything, things have been said to happen BY chance but not BECAUSE OF chance. That's a key difference. Our entire understanding of cause is bound up in the realm of spacetime where variables acting on something can be predicted to occur at a certain point of time and space. Take gravity; we say we "understand" gravity because we can calculate with scary accuracy exactly at what point an object will hit the ground, or fly around a gravitational field. If we see a brick go through a window, we say the broken window was "caused" by the brick because we witness this event in spacetime, where there's a continuum between the brick being thrown, landing on the other side, and going through the window, leaving the window broken. 

The entire point of evoking "chance" in terms of the universe's origin is that, outside of spacetime, and in the realm of quantum physics, there seems to be no predictable outcomes. Things just happen, and even though we can calculate probability, this is hardly the same thing as saying we understand the cause and the mechanism of those quantum events. Craig likes to make the argument that virtual particles are "caused" by the fluctuating energies, but, again, if you can't predict it, then how can it be a cause? That's why I said early on that contingency is not the same as cause. Cause is, and always has been, a much more precise term. It's the difference in saying the window breaking was contingent on the window being made at all, but the window being made did not cause the brick to go through it. Similarly, virtual particles are reliant upon the fluctuating energies, but saying those energies are the cause of virtual particles is dubious. 

One thing to keep in mind was that Eisenstein's General Relativity shattered our first real understanding of causal physics, and quantum physics shattered our second real understanding of causal physics, and people are still trying to reconcile them. The notion that we have had our understanding of cause severely shaken twice within the span of one century should be enough to pause our reliance on it and, if nothing else, to try and parse exactly what our understanding of causality is and how that relates to quantum physics and events outside of spacetime. I honestly don't understand why Stunt thinks that atheists have to "violate" their worldview in challenging the first premise, because accepting that events happen by chance does not destroy our epistemology. And even if it did, we'd be willing to accept it. One can't impose what they want to believe on to reality, and even if we've staked our materialism in natural causes, then all that happens is that we shift that to natural chance that create a system in which natural causes exist. It's what I've often called the fishbowl analogy; we're living in a system that is the universe with its own laws that we observe. When we're talking about how the universe started, it's not reasonable to think that what we observe from the fishbowl holds outside of it.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Stunt, 
> 
> Let's just stop this discussion. It's gone from being interesting to just being unpleasant, in general. You are so concerned with insisting I said things I never said, and so concerned about killing a strawman, that you have completely ignored the same argument I've made on this subject in every post since my very first one. You have singled out one part of that one argument, attempted to twist it into something it never was, and have completely ignored the reasoning behind that point. The fact that I've repeated the same thing countless times now, even going back through the thread and quoting myself where I mentioned it in every post, yet you STILL refuse to address it, is proof of YOUR dishonesty, not mine.


Look, Morpheus, you just don't understand the conversation at all. What Craig is doing in his examples is called reductio ad absurdum, and it attempts to reduce a position to its absurd extremities to prove its falsity. You see, when anyone proposes that a statement is true, they assert that it is TRUE IN PRINCIPLE. So when someone states that it is true that something can come from nothing, they are proposing it is true generally. Craig isn't giving us examples from his worldview, but yours. He's stating that if you assert that something can come from nothing then the following examples are consistent with your worldview. A 747 appearing in your bed for no reason would be, according to the atheist's proposition, logical. When you start asserting that this doesn't adhere to his idea of an immaterial God or that there is some fundamental inconsistency with his own worldview, you demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea what is happening at this point in the conversation. He has no obligation to demonstrate some manner of immateriality since he's trying to conform to the atheist's proposition(nor would he otherwise).

I say the following without any malice whatsoever: you have no clue what is going on in the conversation. I have tried multiple times to tell you, but you're just absolutely unpersuadable. You keep demonstrating that you don't understand what's being talked about, whether it's metaphysics, fallacies of equivocation, or this or that point of fact. I can only try so many times to engage with you in this manner.

You keep saying that I'm ignoring your "arguments" but the truth is that you're not making any and don't seem to know how to go about doing so. You're making a ton of bald assertions from which no reasonable, consequential, relevant conclusion can be drawn. It's just mistake after mistake.

As an exercise, you should try to form a logically concluding argument from that mountain of "stuff" you said about Craig equivocating or using material examples, and it should conclude in direct opposition to the point you're trying to refute, which is the natural criterion for even having an objection to begin with, to say nothing of a good one. If your point is that Craig is wrong, then your argument would need to conclude with that. If your point is NOT that Craig is wrong, then you've lost all purchase on the original point about there being some fundamental flaw in the Kalam.

All this would be forgivable were you not such an impudent liar. Ignorance I can forgive. Intellectual dishonesty is more difficult. And, by the way, just parroting back whatever I said about you to me isn't at all impressive. In grade school I believe that's the called the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I defense. 

And I'm still going to dismantle all the other fallacies in your little list regardless of whether you want me to. I simply cannot tolerate the falsity of it.




> I honestly don't understand why Stunt thinks that atheists have to "violate" their worldview in challenging the first premise


Just add that to the already long list of things you don't understand.


http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/




> in the realm of quantum physics, there seems to be no predictable outcomes.


This is, I believe, a gross misstatement. Quantum mechanics is generally thought to involve probabilistic predictions rather than deterministic ones, which is altogether different from having "no predictable outcomes." Heisenberg's indeterminacy was about accuracy of predictions rather than their possibility. * Perfectly precise*  predictions are thought to be impossible, not predictions altogether. 

Consider this:

_One electron will be stripped away from a helium atom that is exposed to ultraviolet light below a certain wavelength. This threshold wavelength can be determined experimentally to very high accuracy: it is

50.425 929 9 ± 0.000 000 4 nanometers.
The threshold wavelength can also be calculated from quantum mechanics: this prediction is

50.425 931 0 ± 0.000 002 0 nanometers.
The agreement between observation and quantum mechanics is extraordinary. If you were to predict the distance from New York to Los Angeles with this accuracy, your prediction would be correct to within the width of your hand. In contrast, classical mechanics predicts that any wavelength of light will strip away an electron, that is, that there will be no threshold at all._

http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstye...eQM/intro.html

Besides, there isn't really a clear understanding about what's going on with quantum phenomena. As I understand there are ten currently viable theories, and some of them are actually deterministic. As I understand it, most persons assume a more complete theory will emerge eventually, and right now we're still grappling with our ignorance of what's actually happening.

----------


## Darcy88

Praise to Craig. He fights the sick and stupid attitude which atheists have which says that Christians are retarded. He's the man. Even if I disagree with him scientifically at least he fights the arrogance rampant among atheists.

----------


## YesNo

> YesNo, I've tried to explain this several times by now, but chance has never been said to "cause" anything, things have been said to happen BY chance but not BECAUSE OF chance. That's a key difference. Our entire understanding of cause is bound up in the realm of spacetime where variables acting on something can be predicted to occur at a certain point of time and space. Take gravity; we say we "understand" gravity because we can calculate with scary accuracy exactly at what point an object will hit the ground, or fly around a gravitational field. If we see a brick go through a window, we say the broken window was "caused" by the brick because we witness this event in spacetime, where there's a continuum between the brick being thrown, landing on the other side, and going through the window, leaving the window broken.


I agree with what you are saying about chance. What I am trying to do is eliminate chance as a cause in my own mind. As I see it, if chance cannot be an efficient cause, then the Kalam argument is sound and the conclusion follows. That means atheism has been completely invalidated. 

So at the beginning of the universe there was nothing, at least nothing that depends on space and time for existence since there was no space and time. That means the universe did not have a _material_ cause. Since it came into being, it must have had an _efficient_ cause. What I am trying to do is argue that that efficient cause is not chance, which we agree on. A deterministic process would require a material cause, but no material cause exists. (Some speculate that there is a multiverse which would provide a material cause and a ground for determinism, but even that had a beginning according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theory Craig mentioned.) So, unless chance is involved as a cause, the efficient cause created the world as a _choice_, that is, out of freedom.

I don't think this has to be a "person" as Craig suggests simply because the word person is unclear, but the efficient cause has to have enough consciousness to make a choice. Saying that this cause is "conscious" is more powerful to me than saying it is a "person".




> The entire point of evoking "chance" in terms of the universe's origin is that, outside of spacetime, and in the realm of quantum physics, there seems to be no predictable outcomes. Things just happen, and even though we can calculate probability, this is hardly the same thing as saying we understand the cause and the mechanism of those quantum events. Craig likes to make the argument that virtual particles are "caused" by the fluctuating energies, but, again, if you can't predict it, then how can it be a cause? That's why I said early on that contingency is not the same as cause. Cause is, and always has been, a much more precise term. It's the difference in saying the window breaking was contingent on the window being made at all, but the window being made did not cause the brick to go through it. Similarly, virtual particles are reliant upon the fluctuating energies, but saying those energies are the cause of virtual particles is dubious.


Although one may not be able to predict the outcome accurately, one can still point to a cause. For example, take the changes in price of a stock index. These are not always predictable, but the cause of the change is obvious. The change is caused by people making transactions, or programming computers to make these transactions for them.




> One thing to keep in mind was that Eisenstein's General Relativity shattered our first real understanding of causal physics, and quantum physics shattered our second real understanding of causal physics, and people are still trying to reconcile them. The notion that we have had our understanding of cause severely shaken twice within the span of one century should be enough to pause our reliance on it and, if nothing else, to try and parse exactly what our understanding of causality is and how that relates to quantum physics and events outside of spacetime. I honestly don't understand why Stunt thinks that atheists have to "violate" their worldview in challenging the first premise, because *accepting that events happen by chance does not destroy our epistemology.* And even if it did, we'd be willing to accept it. *One can't impose what they want to believe on to reality*, and even if we've staked our materialism in natural causes, then all that happens is that we shift that to natural chance that create a system in which natural causes exist. It's what I've often called the fishbowl analogy; we're living in a system that is the universe with its own laws that we observe. When we're talking about how the universe started, it's not reasonable to think that *what we observe from the fishbowl holds outside of it.*


I think we are in agreement regarding chance. When events "happen by chance" I think we both mean that we do not know enough about the cause to determine the outcome but we still can use a probabilistic model to predict the outcome. 

However, if "happen by chance" means that chance itself was the cause, then that would "destroy our epistemology", if I understand the issue correctly. The reason to make chance the cause of the universe's creation is to try to guarantee that no consciousness was involved making a choice that resulted in the creation of the universe. Saying that chance was the efficient cause would do that.

Now that we know that the universe had a beginning, we still have the fishbowl. However, previously we thought the universe was the whole of the fishbowl. Now we realize it is just a part of it. It is just another fish inside the fishbowl. Previously, the fishbowl contained eternity since we assumed the universe was eternal (mainly to avoid an efficient first cause of the universe). Now we are forced to accept that the universe is not eternal. We are forced to deal with an efficient cause of the universe. We see that the fishbowl is bigger than we thought it was. The fishbowl still contains eternity. It is just different than we thought it was previously.

Imposing one's belief on reality has nothing to do with the Kalam argument. One must be careful not to try to impose an atheistic belief system onto reality as well. Atheism is a belief system just as surely as Christianity is especially now that we know that the universe had a beginning without a material cause, out of nothing as Krauss wants to argue.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Again, I'm ignoring the mountain of ad hominem to simply stick to what little fragments you stated that have anything to do with anything that's been said. 




> Craig isn't giving us examples from his worldview, but yours. He's stating that if you assert that something can come from nothing then the following examples are consistent with your worldview. A 747 appearing in your bed for no reason would be, according to the atheist's proposition, logical.


No, that is not consistent with the atheist's proposition, and if you or Craig think so then you clearly ARE equivocating, because my bedroom and the space around it IS NOT NOTHING, it is not A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING, and that's the WHOLE F'ING POINT. Saying that nothing, in the scientific terms an absence of material, time, and space, could give rise to random events that could generate, say, mathematical laws, or something like gravity, from which everything else could be created, is not the same as saying that, once in that "something" that's been created that just anything can appear in it at any time. We're already in the system, and the laws that hold for it may be very different than those that exist (if they exist at all) outside it. Craig is using examples from inside the system to try and argue for how absurd it would be to believe such things outside the system, and it doesn't work, precisely because the "nothing" we refer to inside the system (empty space, the quantum vaccuum) is not CAN, and it is not the nothing outside of it. 

The "nothing" that preceded the universe is gone at the point the universe is created. We are now living in a universe that is all "something," especially if we're going to consider space, time, and quantum fluctuations "something." It's this universe that we're observing that should give us whatever metaphysical principles we take as true, but that we take of as true within the universe. That we always look on something--because something is all that we can ever see--and see something coming from it, is evidence that when you're in a system that's all something that something always comes from something else, then that's a law within that system, it is not a law one can willy-nilly apply to anything outside of. There is no "nothing from CAN" that can be stated as a metaphysical principle when we don't know of if CAN is even a possible mode of existence, and if something is always there, then what is the point of evoking CAN to argue for the first premise, and, what's more, why evoke something like causality that is equally only understood within the system where there is no CAN as far as we can tell? 

You like to talk about me not understanding anything, but I truly wonder if you (can) understand any of that. Craig's 1P is a proposition that is trying to pertain to more than just things within the universe, and yet, I'm sorry, the examples he gives are very much meant to provoke our "metaphysical intuitions" of how "nothing comes from nothing" inside the universe where his version of CAN doesn't exist. It's incredibly dishonest. 




> This is, I believe, a gross misstatement. Quantum mechanics is generally thought to involve probabilistic predictions rather than deterministic ones,


Yes, but I think you missed the context in which that bit was quoted: I was referring to predictions as it relates to causality, which were always deterministic until QM. When you're talking about probabilistic predictions it's very dubious as to whether you can still be talking about "cause" in any classic sense. 




> Besides, there isn't really a clear understanding about what's going on with quantum phenomena.


Indeed, which is why I stress that the Kalam is useless. We don't even have a clear picture of what's going on with the science that it relies on. And, no doubt, whatever interpretation wins out, Craig et al. will retrofit the argument to match the newest data. That's what happens when beliefs don't pay rent in anticipated experiences.

----------


## YesNo

> Praise to Craig. He fights the sick and stupid attitude which atheists have which says that Christians are retarded. He's the man. Even if I disagree with him scientifically at least he fights the arrogance rampant among atheists.


Come to think of it, I think that is part of the reason Craig wins his debates over people like Hitchens and Krauss (and Dawkins if he debated Craig). They come into their debates with an attitude that Christians are intellectually beneath them. This is easy for Craig to work to his advantage.

Not all the people that Craig debates shoot themselves in the foot like these three do. I'm rereading the book version of the debate with Quentin Smith, _Theism, Atheism, and the Big Bang Cosmology._ My motivation for doing so is that I want to hear the _best_ atheistic argument that can be made. Smith may be able to do that. Hitchens, Krauss and Dawkins are not up to that challenge.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> So at the beginning of the universe there was nothing, at least nothing that depends on space and time for existence since there was no space and time. That means the universe did not have a _material_ cause. Since it came into being, it must have had an _efficient_ cause.


YesNo, you use the word "cause" so many times in your last post, but what you keep overlooking is this question: What does "cause" mean outside of spacetime? 

I've asked that several times, and you keep glossing over it and returning to the word "cause" as if "cause" is something that simply MUST exist outside the universe and outside spacetime. One reason QM seems so mysterious is because it violates our classic notions of causality. Probabilities of events is not the same thing as causal, deterministic events, and whether "cause" is a word that has any meaning in such a context is debatable. So you can keep talking about "material causes" and "efficient causes" for the universe, when I'm asking "perhaps there wasn't a 'cause' at all in any meaningful, classic, intuitive sense of the word 'cause' as everyone understands it." To understand how the universe came into existence may require rethinking our notions of cause altogether. Again, we're trying to talk about reality outside of a fishbowl, and you're still at the point where you're assuming everything outside the fishbowl is wet, and that faces distort as they get closer. 




> (Some speculate that there is a multiverse which would provide a material cause and a ground for determinism, but even that had a beginning according to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theory Craig mentioned.)


FWIW, BGV states that the universe's _expansion_ had a beginning, which is slightly different than what Craig often leads people to believe. Go to 10:28 here for a much fuller explanation of the GBV theory, what it argues for, and how it doesn't argue for the Kalam as much as Craig leads some to believe. For the most relevant conclusion snippet, Stenger asked Guth if his theory proved that the universe had a beginning, and Guth replied: "No, but it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning." 




> Although one may not be able to predict the outcome accurately, one can still point to a cause. For example, take the changes in price of a stock index. These are not always predictable, but the cause of the change is obvious.


Yes, but virtual particles aren't stock prices. I'm a professional poker player so I do know a thing about probabilities as it applies to things like cards or the stock market. In such a case, probability does, indeed, express our epistemological ignorance. When I shuffle a deck of cards, whatever card is on the top is there because of how the deck was shuffled, and in such a case, the probability that any card is on top exists due to my ignorance of what that process resulted in. But this is still very different than the kind of indeterminacy that QM talks about in relation to things like virtual particles, because even though we seem to understand what they're contingent on, those fluctuations, we can find absolutely nothing that "causes" them to come into existence when and where they do. We can estimate based on our measurements of mass and velocity, but the more accurate we get on one, the more inaccurate the other gets, which has nothing relation to the probabilities of stocks or decks of cards. 




> When events "happen by chance" I think we both mean that we do not know enough about the cause to determine the outcome but we still can use a probabilistic model to predict the outcome.


No, I don't think we're quite in agreement. I tried to spell it out above. Probabilistic models that have actual causes express our lack of knowledge about most things in reality, but not, perhaps, about QM. It could just be that we don't know enough about it, but it's been almost 3/4 of a century now, and a lot of people know an awful lot about QM, but we're still not able to talk about causality in any classic sense, and the theories that exist have proven very difficult to test. 




> Atheism is a belief system just as surely as Christianity


Atheism states what one doesn't believe in, not what one believes in; that makes it very different than Christianity. One can be an atheist without being a materialist, eg. I know atheists that believe in ghosts and the afterlife, but not any traditional Gods.

----------


## YesNo

> YesNo, you use the word "cause" so many times in your last post, but what you keep overlooking is this question: What does "cause" mean outside of spacetime?


I don't think it means anything different outside spacetime as it does within spacetime. Certainly outside spacetime, there is no material cause for determinism to work with, but that doesn't mean there isn't a free, non-deterministic efficient cause, nor that we can skip such an efficient cause because it does not fit into our belief system.




> I've asked that several times, and you keep glossing over it and returning to the word "cause" as if "cause" is something that simply MUST exist outside the universe and outside spacetime. One reason QM seems so mysterious is because it violates our classic notions of causality. Probabilities of events is not the same thing as causal, deterministic events, and whether "cause" is a word that has any meaning in such a context is debatable. So you can keep talking about "material causes" and "efficient causes" for the universe, when I'm asking* "perhaps there wasn't a 'cause' at all in any meaningful, classic, intuitive sense of the word 'cause' as everyone understands it."* To understand how the universe came into existence may require rethinking our notions of cause altogether. Again, we're trying to talk about reality outside of a fishbowl, and you're still at the point where you're assuming everything outside the fishbowl is wet, and that faces distort as they get closer.


I want to suggest something to you. My claim is that the only reason someone would want to say that there wasn't a cause at all is because they want to _impose_ an atheistic set of beliefs upon reality. 

Let's extend the fishbowl metaphor. What we thought the fishbowl contained was water and fish. We now know the fishbowl contains other fishbowls each of which contain water and fish. 

I think it is OK to consider other ideas of causality. The one I am using comes from Francis Bacon's restriction of causality to material and efficient causes. This came from Aristotle who had four causes and this has grounded science. The test of any new idea of causality is whether it is consistent enough not to undermine our epistemology.




> FWIW, BGV states that the universe's _expansion_ had a beginning, which is slightly different than what Craig often leads people to believe. Go to 10:28 here for a much fuller explanation of the GBV theory, what it argues for, and how it doesn't argue for the Kalam as much as Craig leads some to believe. For the most relevant conclusion snippet, Stenger asked Guth if his theory proved that the universe had a beginning, and Guth replied: "No, but it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning."


Actually, I think that might be adequate for Craig's argument. If there was an eternal material cause, that is fine. I think Craig would prefer that there was. I don't think it matters. However, since the expansion had a beginning, an efficient cause started the expansion. That is all Craig needs to use the theorem for his purposes.




> Yes, but virtual particles aren't stock prices. I'm a professional poker player so I do know a thing about probabilities as it applies to things like cards or the stock market. In such a case, probability does, indeed, express our epistemological ignorance. When I shuffle a deck of cards, whatever card is on the top is there because of how the deck was shuffled, and in such a case, the probability that any card is on top exists due to my ignorance of what that process resulted in. But this is still very different than the kind of indeterminacy that QM talks about in relation to things like virtual particles, because even though we seem to understand what they're contingent on, those fluctuations, we can find absolutely nothing that "causes" them to come into existence when and where they do. We can estimate based on our measurements of mass and velocity, but the more accurate we get on one, the more inaccurate the other gets, which has nothing relation to the probabilities of stocks or decks of cards.


I agree with you about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I don't think this eliminates the need for a cause, but I will see if I can find out more about that.




> No, I don't think we're quite in agreement. I tried to spell it out above. Probabilistic models that have actual causes express our lack of knowledge about most things in reality, but not, perhaps, about QM. It could just be that we don't know enough about it, but it's been almost 3/4 of a century now, and a lot of people know an awful lot about QM, but we're still not able to talk about causality in any classic sense, and the theories that exist have proven very difficult to test.


OK, then we are not in agreement. You claim that Chance (with a capital C) is the cause.

I was reading a little about the tau lepton yesterday that Martin Perl discovered. He found this by converting kinetic energy in an accelerated particle into mass energy and looked at the output. To my understanding he never saw direct traces of the tau particle itself, but he used the conservation laws (charge, baryon number, etc) to reason that the tau lepton must have existed very briefly in order for the output to be what it was. The tau lepton was the material cause for the output and that is the only reason to justify the brief existence of the tau lepton. It seems to me he used classical causality to get his results even though this was quantum mechanics.




> Atheism states what one doesn't believe in, not what one believes in; that makes it very different than Christianity. One can be an atheist without being a materialist, eg. I know atheists that believe in ghosts and the afterlife, but not any traditional Gods.


Atheism now has to claim that Chance caused the universe to begin. The validity of atheism depends on this. The only difference between this and claiming that some God did it is that Chance is _unconscious_. It offers no better understanding of reality than some other generic God. It is just a "Nothing of the gaps" argument.

Actually, I suspect everyone who thinks about it is an atheist to some extent. No one believes in all possible Gods. One of the Gods I don't believe in is Unconscious Chance.

----------


## stuntpickle

> Again, I'm ignoring the mountain of ad hominem to simply stick to what little fragments you stated that have anything to do with anything that's been said.


Perhaps you should learn what ad hominem is before you start accusing people of doing it. Ad hominem isn't simply saying something about someone or calling someone a name. It is to deduce a conclusion fallaciously from an irrelevant statement of character. You can actually make a deduction about a relevant statement of character and be perfectly logical. Or you can make a statement of character in addition to any deduction without committing the fallacy. An ad hominem is like saying Jane is wrong about evolution because she doesn't pay her taxes. Saying it is nearly impossible to discuss philosophy with you because you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding isn't an ad hominem. But please prove my point some more.

Consider:

_The major difficulty with labeling a piece of reasoning as an ad hominem fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is relevant. For example, attacks on a person for their actually immoral sexual conduct are irrelevant to the quality of their mathematical reasoning, but they are relevant to arguments promoting the person for a leadership position in the church. Unfortunately, many attacks are not so easy to classify, such as an attack pointing out that the candidate for church leadership, while in the tenth grade, intentionally tripped a fellow student and broke his collar bone._

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AdHominem

You fail again.




> You like to talk about me not understanding anything, but I truly wonder if you (can) understand any of that. Craig's 1P is a proposition that is trying to pertain to more than just things within the universe, and yet, I'm sorry, the examples he gives are very much meant to provoke our "metaphysical intuitions" of how "nothing comes from nothing" inside the universe where his version of CAN doesn't exist. It's incredibly dishonest.


Yeah, I understand perfectly what you're saying: amateurish gobbledygook. 

There's no reason that because we now have something, your spontaneous generation ceases to be possible. I demand that you demonstrate the necessity of this proposition logically. I also demand evidence that something can come from nothing.

This is simply another fallacy. 

_Special pleading is a form of inconsistency in which the reasoner doesn’t apply his or her principles consistently. It is the fallacy of applying a general principle to various situations but not applying it to a special situation that interests the arguer even though the general principle properly applies to that special situation, too._

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#SpecialPleading





> Yes, but I think you missed the context in which that bit was quoted: I was referring to predictions as it relates to causality, which were always deterministic until QM. When you're talking about probabilistic predictions it's very dubious as to whether you can still be talking about "cause" in any classic sense.


There can be no appropriate context for a material misstatement of fact.

I guess we can simply add quantum mechanics to the list of things you have no clue about.




> and if you or Craig think so then you clearly ARE equivocating, because my bedroom and the space around it IS NOT NOTHING, it is not A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING, and that's the WHOLE F'ING POINT.


Talking to you is like engaging in a bad Abbot and Costello routine. To say something is caused by nothing is to say it has no cause, not that it was caused by a thing called "nothing'. The actual equivocation occurs when the person objects to the statement "From nothing, nothing comes" with another implausible, inexplicable variety of nothing. I have already shown you explicitly Krauss's equivocation. You were absolutely incapable of pointing out Craig's supposed equivocation. Dude, you're making the rudimentary error of a kindergartner here. You are making the mistake of thinking "nothing" has positive philosophical properties rather than being a particular grammatical structure. I refer you back to the video of Craig's you've already seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfsYhWNMYr4 

The relevant section is AGAIN 24:40

You're again making accusations of equivocation that are unfounded, which you did and then didn't and then did do. The truth is that the objection Craig is answering includes the actual equivocation. You apparently have no clue what I was saying about the reductio ad absurdum. The "you" I was using in my explanation was rhetorical.




> Indeed, which is why I stress that the Kalam is useless.


HA! Dude you really do make me laugh. Nice argument.

1. We don't understand quantum mechanics.
Therefore, the Kalam is useless.

Consider: 

_When a conclusion is supported only by extremely weak reasons or by irrelevant reasons, the argument is fallacious and is said to be a non sequitur. However, we usually apply the term only when we cannot think of how to label the argument with a more specific fallacy name. Any deductively invalid inference is a non sequitur if it also very weak when assessed by inductive standards._

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#NonSequitur

At this rate we're going to cover every possible logical fallacy. Keep 'em coming. Nothing quite so invigorating as playing whack a mole with pseudo-arguments.

----------


## stuntpickle

> I want to suggest something to you. My claim is that the only reason someone would want to say that there wasn't a cause at all is because they want to _impose_ an atheistic set of beliefs upon reality.


Bingo! All while claiming that they don't actually have any positive beliefs about it.

I commend you for seeing so clearly through the smokescreen.

BTW, you might find the following interesting, YesNo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg_95wZZFr4

Yes, that's atheist Roger Penrose (of Hawking-Penrose fame) really giving the skinny on some of the issues we're discussing.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> I don't think it means anything different outside spacetime as it does within spacetime.


Well, there you go, _you don't think it means anything different,_ but how in the world (or, maybe "how in the universe") are you supposed to know when your (and our) entire understanding of causality has been restricted to events in spacetime? I don't think you seem to grasp how radically different things would be without spacetime, and you and Stunt bringing up theories that go back to the ancient Greeks, thousands of years before modern science, even longer before we realized that there was a point when there was no space and time, seems very peculiar to me. Any causes that any philosopher prior to the 20th century talked about was necessarily drawn from observations of events in spacetime, so using that to talk about causality sans-spacetime seems quite silly to me. 

Listen, I'm not saying that we must abandon causality and accept the randomness of chance, but what I am saying is that, right now, QM makes sense in no other way. Right now, that's where science is: the relationship between chance and events on the quantum level. Not deterministic causality. Even the deterministic model of QM still have an innate mystery to them as in, eg, MW I haven't heard any theory that proposes why one wave goes to one world and the other stays within ours that we observe. So far, all it's concerned with is stating that this DOES happen, and if it does then it would be determined, but BY WHAT would still be left wide open. Really, what I'm suggesting is that we may have run into the barrier of the fishbowl, we may have reached the point where we cease to be able to understand things in ways that relate to how we experience them within a system where time, space, and certain laws exist. We're trying to penetrate past that point using models that were created to model what is, seemingly, a very different system. Whether or not we can understand anything outside of that is still very much in question, but in such a state of ignorance one can not reliably fall back on notions like causality, or God. Even "chance" seems inadequate considering how the word means something very different inside the system. 




> Atheism now has to claim that Chance caused the universe to begin. The validity of atheism depends on this.


 :FRlol:  This is theistic thinking, not atheistic thinking. Again, the validity of atheism doesn't rest on anything except the lack of proof for Gods. That's it. As for the universe, we prefer to let it tell us what to believe. Right now it's telling us that random chance seems to rule things at the quantum level, so that's what I believe. If we suddenly find a deterministic causal mechanism for why things happen as they do, then I'll believe that, including if that mechanism turns out to be God. As Yudkowsky's 3rd Virtue of Rationalism states: "The third virtue is lightness. Let the winds of evidence blow you about as though you are a leaf, with no direction of your own... Surrender to the truth as quickly as you can... Be faithless to your cause and betray it to a stronger enemy." If the winds of evidence blows towards chance, I believe chance, if they blow towards causal determinism, I believe that, if they blow towards materialism, I believe that, if they blow towards God, I'll believe that. Right now, my belief is directed the same way the winds seem to be blowing, and that's towards chance ruling at the quantum level. That belief, though, is only expressing the best of what's understood now, and that may not reflect what's discovered tomorrow.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> There's no reason that because we now have something, your spontaneous generation ceases to be possible. I demand that you demonstrate the necessity of this proposition logically. I also demand evidence that something can come from nothing... To say something is caused by nothing is to say it has no cause, not that it was caused by a thing called "nothing'.


Talk about "amateurish gobbledygook." 

The "something" we have includes all of the laws that have created the universe as we know it, the universe that we have observed and in which we have extrapolated laws by those observations and tests. Within that system there are limitations on what can and can't happen based on those laws. What the Kalam addresses _is not_ those laws of the universe as it exists and as it has been observed, but what must precede those laws. Yet, in doing so, all of the arguments I have heard regarding the Kalam falls back on arguments based on observations inside the universe. The 20th Century has provide ample proof of how observing things on the macro level (the lack fo 747s spontaneously appearing) tells us little about how things work on the micro-level. This isn't special pleading, this is a statement of fact has been (and is still being) shown through QM and our lack of understanding about it and inability to test the theories that try to explain it. 

There is no way in which the general principles that exist to describe what happens in the universe, within its boundaries of spacetime and laws, is equally applicable outside of that. And yet, the Kalam must be applicable to more than just events inside the universe. What we're talking about with the beginning of the universe is, again, things that happen outside of spacetime, outside of those laws that prevent a 747 from spontaneously appearing "uncaused" inside the system. Outside the system there are no such limitations or, at least, if there are limitations we have not discovered them. So it's not special pleading because we are talking about two very different things: the universe and laws that hold within it, and what preceded (and "created") the universe and the laws (if any) that hold there. When science talks about things that can and can't happen inside the universe, that's not to say it must be that way outside the universe. One doesn't even have to appeal to the universe/pre-universe to argue this, since Newton's laws seem to hold perfectly well on the macro-level, even though they're, technically, inaccurate. 

So, to conclude: To say everything is caused by something inside the universe is not to say that this general principle holds outside the universe. Outside the universe such a thing would create a system with its own set of laws that would be obeyed, and observing those laws may or may not be relevant to describing reality outside of that. That Craig can amply prove that inside the universe nothing that comes into existence lacks a cause does not prove that this applies to the universe itself. 




> There can be no appropriate context for a material misstatement of fact.


The context can easily qualify what any propositional statement is referring to. I've mentioned numerous times in this thread that QM is probabilistically predictable, so you trying to make it out as if I was claiming it wasn't predictable at all is either ignorant or dishonest. You choose which one. My statement about it not being predictable was quite clearly related to deterministic causality. 




> You were absolutely incapable of pointing out Craig's supposed equivocation.


Using examples from physical reality within the universe to argue how nothing comes from "no cause" while using "nothing" (CAN) in a very different way to argue that things don't come from nothing outside the universe. 

Again, if I have misunderstood Craig's usage of nothing, then I am far from the only one. There's a lot of smart people that have made this objection, a lot of smart people that are not unused to dealing with very complicated subjects with a lot of terminology that is not easily or immediately understood. I don't think I'm willfully misunderstanding Craig's "nothing," or even your attempted clarification, but even here again now you're switching from "nothing" being related to "CAN" to "nothing" being related to "no cause," which again are two different kinds of nothing. 




> 1. We don't understand quantum mechanics.
> Therefore, the Kalam is useless.


When an argument rests upon the truthfulness of things we don't understand, I'd say it is completely useless. If you'd like a silly modus ponens formulation: 

1. If an argument relies on the truthfulness of propositions which themselves rely on the truthfulness of theories which are doubtful, then the argument is useless. 

2. The Kalam argument relies on the truthfulness of propositions which themselves rely on the truthfulness of theories which are doubtful

3. Therefore, the Kalam is useless

Again, most scientists would just give you a "duh" look if you stated 1. Only would a theist be so concerned with asserting an argument whose premises rest in areas of study that are so full of doubt and uncertainty. Figure out how things work, and then put forth the argument. Don't knowingly admit that things are unknown, yet you're going to arbitrarily pick which is right and formulate an argument out of it. Scientific discoveries have a history of making such attempts look silly, and the people that insisted on them look sillier.

----------


## stuntpickle

> here is no way in which the general principles that exist to describe what happens in the universe, within its boundaries of spacetime and laws, is equally applicable outside of that.





> 1. If an argument relies on the truthfulness of propositions which themselves rely on the truthfulness of theories which are doubtful, then the argument is useless.


WOW! I have never in my life seen such a brazenly ridiculous claim. You say there is "no way". Wow! Now all you need to do is prove the impossibility of any "general principle" existing apart from the universe such as the basic principles of mathematics (commutative, associative, distributive, property of zero, etc.) and the laws of logic (identity, excluded middle, non-contradiction) --oh no! Wait a second! 

All these are generally held to exist apart from the universe already. Oh, crap! You've got your work cut out for you. You're probably going to be busy for the next hundred years, but you might want to check out Roger Penrose's (the guy that did all Hawking's math) *The Road to Reality* in which he argues quite forcefully for their actual existence apart from material and temporal existence. You might want to check out all of philosophy, most of which contradicts you, with particular interest paid to Plato's theory of forms. I guess you might as well check out all of Western thought, which generally holds counter to your claim. The good news is that somewhere in your reading, around the 18th Century, you'll start to find some persons sympathetic to your cause, but unfortunately, they mostly disappear in the 1930s.

Well, you're certainly ambitious. I wish you luck. Perhaps somewhere along your journey, you'll actually learn how to make an argument that isn't totally asinine.




> Using examples from physical reality within the universe to argue how nothing comes from "no cause" while using "nothing" (CAN) in a very different way to argue that things don't come from nothing outside the universe. 
> 
> Again, if I have misunderstood Craig's usage of nothing, then I am far from the only one. There's a lot of smart people that have made this objection, a lot of smart people that are not unused to dealing with very complicated subjects with a lot of terminology that is not easily or immediately understood. I don't think I'm willfully misunderstanding Craig's "nothing," or even your attempted clarification, but even here again now you're switching from "nothing" being related to "CAN" to "nothing" being related to "no cause," which again are two different kinds of nothing.


Just give me an example with an apparent equivocation. You failed at this once, so let's try again. I will need a source with an apparent equivocation in which two different definitions of the same term are used in one argument. Better luck this time.




> The context can easily qualify what any propositional statement is referring to. I've mentioned numerous times in this thread that QM is probabilistically predictable, so you trying to make it out as if I was claiming it wasn't predictable at all is either ignorant or dishonest. You choose which one. My statement about it not being predictable was quite clearly related to deterministic causality.


The statement that quantum mechanics results in "no predictable outcomes" is false. Period. Try your hand waving on someone else. 

Consider:

_ The law of excluded middle can be summarized as the idea that every proposition must be either true or false, not both and not neither._

http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-log/

Seriously, bud, this is probably your most ridiculous post. I have never, ever, ever seen anyone say stuff this absurd. I've heard stories but never actually witnessed it...until now.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

This is why I suggested we drop this, Stunt. I'm addressing something, like the Kalam's claims about how things work inside and outside the universe, how that relates to causality and "nothing from nothing", and you completely eliminate that entire context to make it seem as if I'm applying that to everything. Granted, I misstated that first quote, but instead of assuming I misstated it, and that the statement is actually related/limited to what I spent 400 of the 450 words of those three paragraphs discussing, you'd prefer to extract that piece from the whole and base your entire sardonic reply on that. 

And I'm dishonest? Yeah right. 

Why couldn't you have quoted this part: "Outside the universe such a thing (another general principle) would create a system with its own set of laws that would be obeyed, and *observing those laws may or may not be relevant to describing reality outside of that.*"

Let me rephrase more precisely: We have ample reasons for not assuming that ALL of principles that we have observed holding within the universe, within spacetime, mostly concerning how material reacts to other material, automatically holds in the same way outside of that. This is not to say that NOTHING will hold, that, eg, math or logic or other models won't hold, but it is to suggest that something like causality, something which we only understand within spacetime, may not, and we already have reason to doubt it does thanks to the probability based predictions of QM that are described as happening by chance. 

To restate even clearer, for the umpteenth time, The Kalam absolutely relies on the principle of causality to hold outside the universe as well as inside it. Unfortunately, every example it has of supporting itself is inside the universe, and QM and, specifically, virtual particles is one existing potential defeater to the principle, the validity of causality outside of spacetime is another, not to mention all of the scientists suggesting that if the universe began with some quantum event it was likely due to chance, rather than some deterministic cause. 

I don't know how you can wiggle away from the fact that the Kalam needs science to be settled on the correct interpretation of QM, as well as the correct interpretation of whether some quantum event is at the universe's origin and how causality works in the absence of spacetime. Unless you want to throw out some scientific names that have solved these issues, there is ample reason to reject the first premise as anything approaching truthfulness. It has the potential of truth, but I'm not about going around promoting potential truths as being something more.

----------


## YesNo

> Well, there you go, _you don't think it means anything different,_ but how in the world (or, maybe "how in the universe") are you supposed to know when your (and our) entire understanding of causality has been restricted to events in spacetime?


Perhaps part of the problem is with the word "causality". The wikipedia article on Aristotles Four Causes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes) says this:
_"Cause" might be better translated as "explanatory conditions and factors"._Replace the word "cause" with "explanation". To say that something has no cause is to say that is has no explanation. The no explanation is not a description of our limited knowledge, but a claim that there is no possible explanation.




> Again, the validity of atheism doesn't rest on anything except the lack of proof for Gods. That's it. *As for the universe, we prefer to let it tell us what to believe.* Right now it's telling us that random chance seems to rule things at the quantum level, so that's what I believe. If we suddenly find a deterministic causal mechanism for why things happen as they do, then I'll believe that, including if that mechanism turns out to be God. As Yudkowsky's 3rd Virtue of Rationalism states: "The third virtue is lightness. Let the winds of evidence blow you about as though you are a leaf, with no direction of your own... Surrender to the truth as quickly as you can... Be faithless to your cause and betray it to a stronger enemy." If the winds of evidence blows towards chance, I believe chance, if they blow towards causal determinism, I believe that, if they blow towards materialism, I believe that, if they blow towards God, I'll believe that. Right now, my belief is directed the same way the winds seem to be blowing, and that's towards chance ruling at the quantum level. That belief, though, is only expressing the best of what's understood now, and that may not reflect what's discovered tomorrow.


The Kalam argument, based on scientific evidence for the second premise, is telling us that there is an efficient cause (aka explanation) for the universe. Why are you not willing to "surrender to the truth as quickly as you can" as Yudkowsky suggests?

Also, just as a side note, I don't want to quickly convince you or to convince you at all. I'm glad you are bringing objections to what I have to say and not following Yudkowsky's suggestion. It helps me clarify my own thoughts. If you agreed with me, who would perform that role? Thanks for the discussions.

I don't think the failure of determinism at the quantum level implies a failure of classical causality at the quantum level, but it is something you have got me thinking about. Perhaps there is an element of freedom at that level that determinism has refused to acknowledge because it would undermine determinism.

----------


## stuntpickle

Look, Morpheus, I'm going to pay you a gratuitous courtesy and stop arguing with you for a moment. Instead, I'm going to explain a few things to you that I think might be helpful. Now, it's up to you how you react to this, but if I may be so bold, I'd like to suggest that you react reasonably, which is to say differently than you have reacted thus far. Now I suspect you think what I have just said is preposterous and unfair, but I think this might just be symptomatic of the problems I'm about to address.

Consider, for a moment, the first premise of the Kalam cosmological argument:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is called, in logic, a statement, and it is the basic building block of any argument. A statement is simply a declarative sentence. Questions are generally not good for the purpose of constructing arguments, nor are imperative statements, such as “Take out the trash!” Now it is generally agreed that the first premise of the Kalam takes the form of a good statement. 

I want you now to consider the following amendment to the premise:

1. Everything that begins to exist MAY have a cause.

Now this sentence actually satisfies the requirements of being a statement. However, we're going to run into a problem when we try to deduce a conclusion from this statement. The truth is that the above statement is implying the follow one:

1. Everything that begins to exist MAY or MAY NOT have a cause.

And this one in turn implies the following:

1. The statement “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” is either true or false.

Now the above statement is necessarily true since it includes both possible dispensations of its subject. It is basically a summary of the law of excluded middle with regards to a particular statement. Of course, this is a good statement, but it, alone, cannot be used to derive the truth of its subject. To do so would be a textbook example of begging the question.

Consider:

1. Statement A is either true or false.
2. Statement A is true (absent any further justification).
Therefore, A.

You see, a statement of excluded middle with regards to ANY subject is absolutely irrelevant to the truth of the subject. Everyone presumes that every statement is either true or false, and to attempt to deduce either truth or falsity from that knowledge is blatantly fallacious.

Consider:

1. Either an elephant will or will not fall out of the sky and land on top of my car.
2. I don't know whether an elephant will fall on my car.
Therefore, I should not get into my car.

The absurdity of the above should be obvious. The conclusion is a non sequitur that does not follow logically from the preceding statements.

Consider:

1. A is either true or false.
2. I'm not sure if A is true.
Therefore, not A.

Now you seem to think I have treated you and your arguments unfairly. You even go so far as to suggest that I should have dealt with another statement in particular, which is as follows:




> Outside the universe such a thing (another general principle) would create a system with its own set of laws that would be obeyed, and [b]observing those laws may or may not be relevant to describing reality outside of that.


Now the truth is that this statement actually includes two statements, the first of which is so bad that we're going to ignore it for the moment and, instead, concentrate on the second one. I'm going to try to fairly paraphrase the second statement so that we can consider it in isolation from the first one.

Consider:

1. Observing laws inside the universe may or may not be relevant to describing reality outside the universe.

I suspect you'll agree (or have to) that this is essentially what you're saying. But I also suspect you already recognize the error since you're a bright guy. The problem, as I see it, is not that you're stupid, but that you're ignorant of how to properly formulate good statements—to say nothing of good arguments.

Of course, the above statement implies this:

1. It is either true or false that laws inside the universe are applicable outside the universe.

This, alone, is obviously true and satisfies the requirements of being a good statement. However, the only way it could be used to address the issue at hand is to resort to begging the question.

1. It is either true or false that laws inside the universe are applicable outside the universe.
2. It is false that laws inside the universe are applicable outside the universe.
Therefore, laws inside the universe are not applicable outside the universe.

This is blatantly fallacious reasoning. The reason I quoted the statement that I did rather than what you preferred is that what I quoted was actually part of a well structured argument rather than a fallacy. Of course, that argument was, itself, a very bad one, but it was nonetheless better than the fallacy.

I think I can anticipate your thoughts on this. You're probably wondering “Well, aren't you begging the question when you say that cause is applicable outside the universe?” And this leads us to my next subject.

I know you think I'm just unfairly picking away at minor errors in your posts, but the truth is that I have actually ignored most of your errors. Nearly every sentence you write is in some way based on a straw man fallacy. This might sound harsh, but if you give me a second, I think you just might agree with me.

Consider:




> The Kalam absolutely relies on the principle of causality to hold outside the universe as well as inside it.


There's something very interesting occurring in this statement. And I could actually write a fairly long essay explaining it to you, but since that wouldn't be particularly enjoyable for either of us, I'll try to make it as succinct as possible.

Consider the following argument:

1. Everything made out of wood tastes like cherries.
2. Chairs are made out of wood.
Therefore, chairs taste like cherries.

Metaphysical arguments generally try to address categories. The above argument starts with the term “everything”, which is probably the broadest category possible. It includes all “things”: bicycles, air, integers, really any “thing.” Of course, the first statement narrows the category to things made of wood, and this would include pianos, benches, desks, really anything constructed of wood. Now perhaps there's a celestial chair that exists in the Dimension of Weird. Does that chair taste like cherries?

The first thing you ought to notice is that the initial argument was not addressing the category of “things in the Dimension of Weird.” Nor was it addressing the category of “things outside the Dimension of Weird.”

Consider:

1. Knowledge of things outside the Dimension of Weird is not necessarily applicable to things inside the Dimension of Weird.

Now something very interesting has occurred in this objection, which is that we now have two new categories. Now it is an error to assume that the initial argument was asserting anything about the Dimension of Weird since it never distinguished that category. It would necessarily be a straw man fallacy to pretend that the initial argument “requires our knowledge hold both inside and outside the Dimension of Weird” since the initial argument makes no such distinction. In fact, the objection makes new distinctions and suggests that they are necessary distinctions. 

Of course, according to the argument, any chair, so long as it was actually a chair, would taste like cherries, whether it was in the Dimension of Weird or not. Of course, we have no reason to privilege the category of "things in the Dimension of Weird" * unless we have strong evidence that chairs do not, in fact, taste like cherries in the Dimension of Weird, or that taste is an improper measure in there*. That we do not have absolute knowledge of chairs in all instances is not a natural impediment to making inferences regarding chairs unless you have strong evidence that suggests that such inferences are * false*  under certain circumstances. The suggestion that chairs may or may not behave as we expect in the Dimension of Weird is not even an objection. To state that we know that chairs behave differently when we do not, in fact, know that is an error. The fact that we do not have knowledge of all chairs is not, itself, an impediment to making an inference but rather a characteristic of inference itself. You can't simply bring up the Dimension of Weird unless you have specific and strong evidence that there is some necessary contradiction, and until you have some verifiable instance to the contrary, then you cannot cite the Dimension of Weird as an exception. In fact, it begins to look like the objector is using the Dimension of Weird as an arbitrary distinction simply because the argument is problematic for his own assumptions.

That is unless....

...the objector actually means that our statements depend upon our experience and that the statements should not overreach our experience. And here we arrive at Hume. 

Hume was an empiricist, which distinguished him historically from rationalists (like Descartes and Leibniz). Hume thought all our knowledge was extrapolated from experience and that metaphysics was just an irrational way of overstepping that experience. He preferred a “wait and see” approach, which is the essence of empiricism. He thought causality was an illusion, metaphysics was a racket and that human experience could never provide for proper deduction since all our knowledge was inductive by nature.

With the advance of modern science, empiricism became the de facto philosophy, despite being basically antagonistic to science, and even Hume, himself, acknowledged that science had to be exempted from his scorn. Hume's ideas reached their zenith in the early 20th Century in the form of logical positivism.

Logical positivism was essentially philosophy remade in the image of science, and at its core was the verification principle, which allowed only empirical data and analytic statements of logic, which is to say statements that are true by definition such as “bachelors are not married.” Everything else was considered nonsense. The word “God” was thought to be incoherent.

Consider:

_The clarification or logical analysis advocated by positivism is two-sided. Its*destructive*task was the use of the so-called verifiability principle to eliminate metaphysics. According to that principle, a statement is meaningful only when either true by definition or verifiable through experience. (So there is no synthetic apriori. See*Kant, Metaphysics, section 2, and*A Priori and A Posteriori.) The positivists placed mathematics and logic within the true-by-definition (or analytic apriori) category, and science and most normal talk in the category of verifiable-through-experience (or synthetic aposteriori). All else was deemed meaningless. That fate befell metaphysical statements and finds its most famous illustration in Carnap’s attack (1931) on Heidegger’s ‘What is Metaphysics?’ It was the fate, too, of ethical and aesthetic statements. Hence the non-cognitivist meta-ethics (see Ethics, section 1) that some positivists developed._ 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/con-meta/ 

It's hard to imagine a more fearsome intellectual edifice than that belonging to logical positivism. Nearly every titan of early 20th Century philosophy was, at least peripherally, connected. The advances of science were impossible to deny. At last, humanity could see the way forward. Science and positivism would draw us inevitably toward truth. Or so we thought, with typically modernist certainty.

As it turned out, the most fundamental feature of positivism was its most problematic. The verification principle was essentially a ban on metaphysics, yet, ironically, it was, itself, a metaphysical statement. If we were to say “We must rely on science as the primary mechanism of determining truth,” the most telling aspect of the statement would be that it wasn't scientific. If we were to say “Philosophy must give way to science” we'd have to notice that the statement, itself, was an instance of philosophy presiding over science. The statement “synthetic statements of logic are nonsensical” is itself a synthetic statement!

Consider:

_Positivism had its problems and its detractors. The believer in ‘special philosophical pronouncements’ will think that positivism decapitates philosophy (compare section 4.a below, on Husserl). Moreover, positivism*itself*seemingly involved at least one ‘special’ – read: metaphysical – pronouncement, namely, the verifiability principle. Further, there is reason to distrust the very idea of providing strict criteria for nonsense (see Glendinning 2001). Further yet, the idea of an*ideal logical language*was attacked as unachievable, incoherent, and/or – when used as a means to certify philosophical truth – circular (Copi 1949). There were doubts, too, about whether positivism really ‘served life’. (1) Might positivism’s narrow notion of fact prevent it from comprehending the real nature of society? (Critical Theory leveled that objection. See O’Neill and Uebel 2004.) (2) Might positivism involve a disastrous reduction of politics to the discovery of technical solutions to depoliticized ends? (This objection owes again to Critical Theory, but also to others. See Galison 1990 and O’Neill 2003.)

Positivism retained some coherence as a movement or doctrine until the late 1960s, even though the Nazis – with whom the positivists clashed – forced the Circle into exile. In fact, that exile helped to spread the positivist creed. But, not long after the Second World War, the ascendancy that positivism had acquired in Anglophone philosophy began to diminish._ 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/con-meta/ 

The truth was that positivism was a shambles and always had been. By now everyone understood that Hume's attack on metaphysics was, itself, metaphysical, his attack on induction, itself, inductive. All the empiricists were doing, it transpired, was sawing the legs off the chair they were standing on.

So how does this relate to our conversation?

As I see it there are only a few possibilities for your assertion, all which of are, unfortunately, doomed.

1. You can pretend that the Kalam “absolutely relies on the principle of causality to hold outside the universe as well as inside it.” But you end up in a straw man fallacy since not only does the Kalam NOT rely on such categories, but it doesn't even mention them.
2. You can demonstrate the metaphysical necessity for the category “things outside the universe” and justify experientially how things within it cannot adhere to our notions of causality (otherwise you are left with begging the question).
3. You can propose a requirement that any investigation into the nature of things ought to adhere to such and such methodologies while using only the methodologies prescribed to justify the proposition, which is to say you'll need to use empiricism to justify empiricism, or science to justify science, and considering that neither method can usually produce the types of answers you're groping after, the outlook is dim.

“Okay, okay,” you might be saying. “But doesn't the Kalam technically require that our knowledge of things inside the universe hold outside it?” That is, of course, implicit in the Kalam. But there's no reason to think otherwise unless you can make an unequivocal argument that demonstrates the impossibility, which is precisely what you tried to do in the statement I quoted. And you failed completely—not because you're stupid, but because the project is doomed from the start.

But isn't it possible that chairs in the Dimension of Weird do NOT taste like cherries?

Of course, that's true, but it's also possible that elephants are going to fall out of the sky on top of your car, that right now a car full of clowns carrying tubas is racing toward your house and that an alien race of self-aware canines will tomorrow invade Earth. We're just not concerned with what's possible, but rather with what's LIKELY.

The Kalam's first premise is based on all our experience, and that leads us to believe that some cause precipitates the becoming of things. To try and overturn this statement REQUIRES sufficient experiential evidence to the contrary. 

1. You can't state that some arbitrary point might or might not change how things work because it's not a proper objection and results in begging the question.
2. You can't state that beyond the universe cause doesn't hold as a meaningful mechanism because it's a ludicrous statement that contradicts the entirety of our experience and has zero experiential justification.
3. You can't prohibit the types of reasoning that the Kalam uses because to do so would require the same type of reasoning.

The Kalam uses our understanding of what is and extrapolates from that just like science does. If you think that cause cannot be a mechanism outside our universe, then you must state that and defend it logically and experientially against the totality of our knowledge. You see, when you say such a thing (as you actually did), you make a claim more audacious than anything the Kalam asserts and you assume a monstrous explanatory burden that no one can bear.

But the real truth is you're simply not ready for this discussion—not because you're stupid or because you're necessarily wrong, but because you seem to have no idea how to go about making reasonable statements and assembling them into a reasonable arguments. You're trying to grapple with some of the weightiest problems in philosophy without so much as an acquaintance with logic. It's a bit like trying to compete in the NFL without ever having held a football.

I have NOT treated your arguments unfairly—primarily because you haven't been making any. You seem to think that using a bunch of non-committal language makes it difficult for me to pin you to any statement, which is true. But the result of this is that you fail to ever state anything of consequence to the conversation. So, for instance, you end up talking about how you didn't understand Craig, and absolutely no relevant conclusion can be made, or you say these wishy-washy unimportant things like “This may or may not be true” from which, again, no relevant conclusion can be made. And when finally you actually draw a conclusion and I address it, you get mad because I'm not addressing all the other errors.

You see, I'm SUPPOSED to find the fulcrum upon which your argument rests and address it, not simply to refute it, but to understand what you're trying to say. You have this strange idea everything you say needs to be accompanied by loads of unimportant obfuscation. It is a virtue that I am able to sort through that stuff and find the essence of the point. It's not being dishonest.

What IS being dishonest is when you say Craig is equivocating, then can't prove it, deny you ever said it, then say he's equivocating again, and then just ignore the whole thing. You say you just said it “seemed” that way, as though softening the language changes the nature of the statement. You seem to be a thief. You seem to be a murderer. “Seems” doesn't soften the accusation.

You said somewhere else that these sorts of discussions are “word games.” And I think that's the root of the problem. You seem to be conducting yourself as though it were simply a word game. You seem to think a mountain of bologna can be ignored if it's hidden behind some non-committal language. And, frankly, you're just wrong. My guess is that you have zero acquaintance with logic, have gathered 
most of your ideas about this subject from popular literature and are a touch narcissistic. The result is that you vigorously but ignorantly try to push some point that isn't even a point and then, when it becomes apparent that you're wrong, you try to lawyer your way out of it because the only thing you're really committed to is being right. And, frankly, that's the worst possible characteristic for any interlocutor. We must all be persuadable. We must all consent to changing our minds. Otherwise, we end up making asses of ourselves.

Of course, it's true that I can be a jerk and not at all charitable in a conversation, and that certainly doesn't help things. If this conversation is to be more than simply a nasty confrontation then I need to try to be more conciliatory and you need to be willing to concede when it is proper. I think you might want to stop trying to refute everything I say since it seems apparent that you aren't quite capable of assembling your thoughts in the form of a proper refutation. Let me just ask you: is it possible that I am right—not about the existence of God, but about the particularities of the conversation? Is it likely?

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Perhaps part of the problem is with the word "causality". The wikipedia article on Aristotles Four Causes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes) says this:
> _"Cause" might be better translated as "explanatory conditions and factors"._


But now we're just into word games, YesNo. "Explanatory conditions and factors" is incredibly vague, and hardly "explains" how these "explanatory conditions and factors" are discovered, determined, etc. That was part of the value of modern science, in working out a method for figuring out causes that weren't just vague "explanations of conditions and factors." "Explanations of conditions and factors" would allow Phlogiston to be as good an explanation of fire as would oxygen. 

I can't stress you read that article enough, because at this point we need to squash the notion of causality as being equivalent with fake causality and, again, bringing up the Ancient Greeks in the context of a debate on an argument that relies on modern science is silly. We have learned some things about how things work in the past several thousand years. 




> The Kalam argument, based on scientific evidence for the second premise, is telling us that there is an efficient cause (aka explanation) for the universe. Why are you not willing to "surrender to the truth as quickly as you can" as Yudkowsky suggests?


If you read that Yudkowsky article I posted above, you'll see why. Fake explanations (which I feel the Kalam is) is not sufficient evidence to surrender my beliefs (there is a whole series of posts on Lesswrong about how much evidence is enough, what is real evidence, etc.). 




> Thanks for the discussions.


Thank you as well. At least we've been able to avoid hostility, unlike another certain poster. 




> I don't think the failure of determinism at the quantum level implies a failure of classical causality at the quantum level, but it is something you have got me thinking about.


Well, I'm not ready to completely betray classical causality yet myself, but I'm merely saying that there is a strong reason to doubt it.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Stunt, 

You keep doing this, but what you're doing is cloaking a whole lot of nothing (ha!) in a whole lot of words. There's not a word of what you wrote in all of your multiplicity of examples and explanations and historical context that I do not understand, and a lot of which I've already addressed within this thread. I can't help but feeling like you don't even read what I write. 

For about the tenth time in this debate, I'm going to pare everything you say down to the modicum that's actually relevant. 




> 1. You can't state that some arbitrary point might or might not change how things work because it's not a proper objection and results in begging the question.


We already know that things as we observe and experience and know them on the macro level are not how things work on the micro level. This is not begging a question, but a statement of fact. That Craig always uses examples from the macro level of our understanding, our "metaphysical intuitions," is very deceptive and dishonest. 




> 2. You can't state that beyond the universe cause doesn't hold as a meaningful mechanism because it's a ludicrous statement that contradicts the entirety of our experience and has zero experiential justification.


Virtual particles are experiential justification. The knowledge that there was a point without spacetime is experiential justification because everything we know about causality is limited to spacetime. You can not name a cause we know of that is not understood because of predictions made withing spacetime, nor can you name a single cause we know of outside of spacetime. That spacetime is a barrier to our knowledge, and therefor should be a barrier to how far we extrapolate our knowledge, is hardly a radical or unreasonable notion. 




> 3. You can't prohibit the types of reasoning that the Kalam uses because to do so would require the same type of reasoning.


I'm not trying to prohibit anything. All I'm trying to do is show that its premises are clearly contained within a certain system (our material universe and spacetime) and that there are already things that exists in modern science that challenge those terms. That causality is in question is something that's existed ever since the beginning of QM, and that you think I'm somehow "unreasonable" for wanting to limit causality to spacetime seems to show more of your ignorance of modern science than my ignorance of logic and philosophy. 




> The Kalam uses our understanding of what is and extrapolates from that just like science does.


 :FRlol:  No it doesn't. It cherry-picks conclusions and ignores all others that disagree with those conclusions and often misstates (or elides) parts of the conclusions that it does use. The BGV theory that Craig loves to parott doesn't even say what he says it says. He always says that it proves the universe has a beginning, but what he leaves out is that all it really says is that our universe had a beginning to its expansion. It says nothing of an ultimate beginning. Does Craig ever mention this? I wonder why? 

What's more, The Kalam doesn't use any of its "understanding" to make hypotheses, theories, or tests that seek to explain that current understanding, so it most certainly isn't "just like science". It's nothing but Phlogiston (see my link/response to YesNo).

----------


## stuntpickle

> Stunt, 
> 
> You keep doing this, but what you're doing is cloaking a whole lot of nothing (ha!) in a whole lot of words. There's not a word of what you wrote in all of your multiplicity of examples and explanations and historical context that I do not understand, and a lot of which I've already addressed within this thread. I can't help but feeling like you don't even read what I write. 
> 
> For about the tenth time in this debate, I'm going to pare everything you say down to the modicum that's actually relevant. 
> 
> We already know that things as we observe and experience and know them on the macro level are not how things work on the micro level. This is not begging a question, but a statement of fact. That Craig always uses examples from the macro level of our understanding, our "metaphysical intuitions," is very deceptive and dishonest. 
> 
> Virtual particles are experiential justification. The knowledge that there was a point without spacetime is experiential justification because everything we know about causality is limited to spacetime. You can not name a cause we know of that is not understood because of predictions made withing spacetime, nor can you name a single cause we know of outside of spacetime. That spacetime is a barrier to our knowledge, and therefor should be a barrier to how far we extrapolate our knowledge, is hardly a radical or unreasonable notion. 
> ...


Never mind. I'll just go back to embarrassing you by pointing out all your sophomoric fallacies.

It's not like you're capable of understanding anything anyway.

I'll probably start with your hilarious "there's no causality in quantum mechanics, like in deterministic physics." I've never seen a better demonstration that someone has no clue about what he's saying since the most obvious thing is that there is no causality in deterministic physics. But you probably already knew that, right?

Embarrass you later.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> "there's no causality in quantum mechanics, like in deterministic physics."


If you're going to actually address an argument, make sure you get the quote right: "That causality is in question is something that's existed ever since the beginning of QM"

I've repeated essentially the same thing countless times: QM challenges our notions of classic, deterministic causality." Not there is "no causality in QM" or even that "there is no deterministic causality." QM has some deterministic interpretations, but, as I already addressed early, that they are deterministic doesn't really ease our doubt about classic causality, especially when even something like decoerhence (which explains why there is an appearance of a wavefunction collapse) can't even be measured. So, even there, where is the causality in the wake of no predictions? 

FWIW, I mostly side with decoherence and Many-Worlds, which are both deterministic interpretations, but that the exact nature of causality is still dubious within them is undeniable.

Most of your post was just about how such fence-sitting is a no-no in philosophy. Again, I don't really care. That classic causality in QM and outside the universe is either true or not true is not to say we must be settled on the matter ourselves when the matter is not settled. I'll take Hume's "wait and see approach." In the meantime, I can assume causality holds at the level at which I experience life (which may just be an illusion created by my inability to see things working on the quantum level), and reserve any further judgments until I hear from the people that actually do this for a living (meaning, people other than Craig).

----------


## stuntpickle

> We already know that things as we observe and experience and know them on the macro level are not how things work on the micro level. This is not begging a question, but a statement of fact. That Craig always uses examples from the macro level of our understanding, our "metaphysical intuitions," is very deceptive and dishonest. 
> 
> Virtual particles are experiential justification. The knowledge that there was a point without spacetime is experiential justification because everything we know about causality is limited to spacetime. You can not name a cause we know of that is not understood because of predictions made withing spacetime, nor can you name a single cause we know of outside of spacetime. That spacetime is a barrier to our knowledge, and therefor should be a barrier to how far we extrapolate our knowledge, is hardly a radical or unreasonable notion.


Your whole theory that Quantum Mechanics undermines causality sounds culled straight from the pages of a mass market easy-reader. The truth is we simply don't know, but it's also true that most theories propose some causelike mechanisms for quantum phenomena, from typical deterministic mechanisms to retro-causality. And trying to equate disagreement between Relativity and quantum mechanics to an absence of cause is dangerously close to another equivocation.

Consider:

_It is sometimes suggested that quantum theory allows for substantial changes out of and into nothing, such as the creation and annihilation of pairs of virtual particles, which by implication would not involve the survival of anything throughout either event. In reply, it must be pointed out (assuming that quantum theory is correct for the purpose of argument) that the quantum vacuum out of which and into which such particle pairs emerge and vanish is not a literal nothing. For instance, Barrow and Tipler say: “It is, of course, somewhat inappropriate to call the origin of a bubble Universe in a fluctuation of the vacuum ‘creation ex nihilo’, for the quantum mechanical vacuum state has a rich structure which resides in a previously existing substratum of space-time, either Minkowski or de Sitter space-time.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 441; cited in W.L. Craig and Q. Smith, Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), p. 155.) The cause of virtual particles may be indeterministic (licensed by the Uncertainty Principle), but there is still a physical cause consisting of the set of physically necessary and sufficient conditions for the particles’ existence, including the persisting space-time structure itself. To say that nothing survives the emergence or vanishing of virtual particles is to read more into QM than is actually licensed by the theory. The quantum vacuum is not a genuine void._ 

Google will not allow the redirect to a PDF, but you can find the beginning of the same article here:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...47699020223887

Consider:

_Do virtual particles contradict relativity or causality?.....

This "superluminal" propagation had better not transmit any information if we are to retain the principle of causality.

I'll give a plausibility argument that it doesn't in the context of a thought experiment. Let's try to send information faster than light with a virtual particle.

Suppose that you and I make repeated measurements of a quantum field at distant locations. The electromagnetic field is sort of a complicated thing, so I'll use the example of a field with just one component, and call it F. To make things even simpler, we'll assume that there are no "charged" sources of the F field or real F particles initially. This means that our F measurements should fluctuate quantum- mechanically around an average value of zero. You measure F (really, an average value of F over some small region) at one place, and I measure it a little while later at a place far away. We do this over and over, and wait a long time between the repetitions, just to be safe...

After a large number of repeated field measurements we compare notes. We discover that our results are not independent; the F values are correlated with each other—even though each individual set of measurements just fluctuates around zero, the fluctuations are not completely independent. This is because of the propagation of virtual quanta of the F field, represented by the diagonal lines. It happens even if the virtual particle has to go faster than light.

However, this correlation transmits no information. Neither of us has any control over the results we get, and each set of results looks completely random until we compare notes (this is just like the resolution of the famous EPR "paradox").

You can do things to fields other than measure them. Might you still be able to send a signal? Suppose that you attempt, by some series of actions, to send information to me by means of the virtual particle. If we look at this from the perspective of someone moving to the right at a high enough speed, special relativity says that in that reference frame, the effect is going the other way_

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...particles.html


Well there goes your whole silly argument about virtual particles contradicting causality. The problem, I suspect, is that your whole understanding of these issues depends upon popular literature. The thing you obviously don't understand is that all popular literature about physics consists of half-truths by necessity. When you start reading a science text concerned with causality, you know you're either in junior high, reading Newton or reading popular science since "cause" isn't now a properly scientific term. "Cause" is a philosophical figuration to describe the intelligible interactions of things. Science presumes some notion of causality without the need to reference it. You can read an entire college physics text without ever encountering the word "cause". That's not because "causality" doesn't exist or isn't applicable, but rather because it's not within the purview of science since it isn't a precise observable mechanism just like "nothing" isn't. Likewise, if you're reading a science text about "nothing", you're probably reading Krauss's abysmal polemic that was panned by the New York Times, driving Krauss to brink of a foam-flecked fit that required Daniel Dennet to reproach him and Krauss to write an apology in _Scientific American_ that was strangely enough just as offensive and stupid as the reason for which he had to write it.

This will give you some info on the stuff leading up to Krauss's apology:

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.c...cist-with.html

Some interesting bits in which Krauss basically admits the fraud:

_Andersen points out: “it sounds like you’re arguing that ‘nothing’ is really a quantum vacuum, and that a quantum vacuum is unstable in such a way as to make the production of matter and space inevitable. But a quantum vacuum has properties. For one, it is subject to the equations of quantum field theory. Why should we think of it as nothing?” Maybe it was just me, but at this point in my mind’s eye I saw Krauss engaging in a more and more frantic exercise of handwaving, retracting and qualifying: “I don’t think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing [so why the book’s title?]; physics has shown how plausible physical mechanisms might cause this to happen. ... I don’t really give a damn about what ‘nothing’ means to philosophers; I care about the ‘nothing’ of reality. And if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff [a nothing full of stuff? Fascinating], then I’ll go with that.”

But, insists Andersen, “when I read the title of your book, I read it as ‘questions about origins are over.’” To which Krauss responds: “Well, if that hook gets you into the book that’s great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim. ... If I’d just titled the book ‘A Marvelous Universe,’ not as many people would have been attracted to it.”_

Also the part of the review in question, written incidentally by a person with a PhD in theoretical physics, that got Krauss so mad:

_The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields... they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story._




> No it doesn't. It cherry-picks conclusions and ignores all others that disagree with those conclusions and often misstates (or elides) parts of the conclusions that it does use. The BGV theory that Craig loves to parott doesn't even say what he says it says. He always says that it proves the universe has a beginning, but what he leaves out is that all it really says is that our universe had a beginning to its expansion. It says nothing of an ultimate beginning. Does Craig ever mention this? I wonder why?


The Kalam doesn't cherry-pick conclusions. It makes one. But we already know you don't know how a syllogism functions or what metaphysics is or how fallacies work or how to construct a proper statement, the most rudimentary constituent of logic, or that quantum theory DOES, in fact, make predictions and involve causal elements. When finally you try to actually organize your thoughts into an argument, you fly face-first into the most banal and conventional example of what not to do in an argument. Yet you know all this stuff already. You've got it all figured out. Some yahoo who doesn't know what makes an argument valid has come to the determination that a PhD philosopher's argument is bad. 

I'll alert the media.




> Most of your post was just about how such fence-sitting is a no-no in philosophy. Again, I don't really care. That classic causality in QM and outside the universe is either true or not true is not to say we must be settled on the matter ourselves when the matter is not settled. I'll take Hume's "wait and see approach." In the meantime, I can assume causality holds at the level at which I experience life (which may just be an illusion created by my inability to see things working on the quantum level), and reserve any further judgments until I hear from the people that actually do this for a living (meaning, people other than Craig).



My point was NOT that "fence-sitting was a no-no", but rather that you couldn't just fence-sit and then cry that I wasn't addressing your arguments since fence-sitting generally precludes you from having made any. You're basically mentioning some silly irrelevancy and then crying about me not taking it seriously. My point wasn't that you weren't committing, but rather that your entire approach was IRRATIONAL and filled with errors of thought.





> That classic causality in QM and outside the universe is either true or not true is not to say we must be settled on the matter ourselves when the matter is not settled. I'll take Hume's "wait and see approach." In the meantime, I can assume causality holds at the level at which I experience life (which may just be an illusion created by my inability to see things working on the quantum level), and reserve any further judgments until I hear from the people that actually do this for a living (meaning, people other than Craig).


1. We don't know precisely how or even if causality applies at the quantum level.
.....
Therefore, "The Kalam is useless."

Consider:

_Appeal to Ignorance
The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also called “Argument from Ignorance.”_

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoIgnorance

BTW, if you had properly understood the post you would understand that the wait-and-see approach is not something that can be reasonably recommended.

----------


## YesNo

> BTW, you might find the following interesting, YesNo.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg_95wZZFr4
> 
> Yes, that's atheist Roger Penrose (of Hawking-Penrose fame) really giving the skinny on some of the issues we're discussing.


That was an interesting video. 

One of the things it reminded me of is the unverifiability of many of the "theories" which means they are speculations. It will be hard to see another universe in the multi-verse. It might be possible to falsify or restrict in some way what that multi-verse, if it exists, has to be. 

The multi-verse is only being considered because atheists need an unconscious cause of our universe now that we all know it had a beginning. These atheists are indirectly verifying the soundness of the Kalam argument. They know they have to come up with some kind of God. They just want it to be an unconscious God.

----------


## YesNo

> But now we're just into word games, YesNo. "Explanatory conditions and factors" is incredibly vague, and hardly "explains" how these "explanatory conditions and factors" are discovered, determined, etc. That was part of the value of modern science, in working out a method for figuring out causes that weren't just vague "explanations of conditions and factors." "Explanations of conditions and factors" would allow Phlogiston to be as good an explanation of fire as would oxygen.
> 
> I can't stress you read that article enough, because at this point we need to squash the *notion of causality* as being equivalent with *fake causality* and, again, bringing up the Ancient Greeks in the context of a debate on an argument that relies on modern science is silly. We have learned some things about how things work in the past several thousand years.


I've read some of the pages on the LessWrong site as you suggested. I find them interesting, especially the one on hindsight bias: http://lesswrong.com/lw/il/hindsight_bias/

Now that we know that the universe had a beginning, the multi-verse could be viewed as a fake explanation based on hindsight bias used to justify an atheistic belief system. It is much like Phlogiston.

Causality is not the same as fake causality. I don't think Yudkowsky is recommending that causality itself be eliminated. Or is he somewhere? It seems to me he is opposed to jumping to conclusions about what might be an explanation for something.

----------


## Polednice

I'm late to the argument, but in response to the OP (ignore me if this has already all come up):

1-3 make logical sense, but our view of the cosmos, while impressive, is too incomplete for us to definitively place our universe in this causal picture. Thus, this cannot be a proof.

4 and 5 are _extremely_, even laughably convenient. I could accept that the first cause must be uncaused, but from what argument, exactly, do we derive that it must be personal? Why immaterial, timeless, spaceless? That part of the argument was clearly forged from pre-existing notions of theism to make it a certainty that the theistic God is the answer to the question. It's very poor.

----------


## YesNo

> I'm late to the argument, but in response to the OP (ignore me if this has already all come up):
> 
> 1-3 make logical sense, but our view of the cosmos, while impressive, is too incomplete for us to definitively place our universe in this causal picture. Thus, this cannot be a proof.


I think it is only 1-3 that are really under consideration here. That would be the Kalam argument.



> 4 and 5 are _extremely_, even laughably convenient. I could accept that the first cause must be uncaused, but from what argument, exactly, do we derive that it must be personal? Why immaterial, timeless, spaceless? That part of the argument was clearly forged from pre-existing notions of theism to make it a certainty that the theistic God is the answer to the question. It's very poor.


I don't understand the "personal" part either, but I think the criteria should be whether that cause was "conscious" or not. In order words, did something make a choice?

The "immaterial, timeless, spaceless" comes from the idea that the universe's beginning included not only the beginning of all matter and energy but also the beginning of space and time. So this would place the cause outside the universe as well as space and time. That would make it immaterial, timeless and spaceless.

One thing I've been looking at is the idea of a deterministic efficient cause (or explanation). If there is no matter and time, then a deterministic cause is not possible. I think this may have been what MorpheusSandman was referring to when he could not accept causality outside space and time. If he means a deterministic causality, I think, I would agree. That doesn't eliminate other types of causes that are not deterministic. This just emphasizes the role that a conscious choice had in the process.

----------


## Polednice

> I don't understand the "personal" part either, but I think the criteria should be whether that cause was "conscious" or not. In order words, did something make a choice?


I think Craig would take it to an irrational further step, as the most common meaning of "personal" when referring to a deity is that it cares about human life and potentially intervenes in it. I could consider a _deistic_ argument - of a conscious being that created the universe (though I still think it's an unnecessary and pointless idea) - but a theistic, personal one is absolutely ludicrous. There is no sane way of reconciling that kind of personal god with the history of the world as we know it so far.

----------


## YesNo

I think the only thing we can get from the Kalam argument is that some cause created the universe. Because there was nothing there to ground a determinisitic explanation, there was a choice involved. That's all one gets. 

Craig has other arguments that try to lead to a Christian God. Some Muslim people who argue the same thing, would try to lead to Allah. A deistic position is perhaps the bare minimum one would need. I suspect if there was a deistic God, it goes further than that, but that goes beyond the Kalam.

----------


## KillCarneyKlans

> mal4mac
> Is anyone reading all this? I'm not. I think a forum discussion should involve the give and take of argument, not someone standing up and giving a long lecture. Why not make *one* substantial point KCK, and let the argument roll on... oops three posts in a row, time to eat my own words, I'll stop there....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9_(number)
If an odd perfect number is of the form 36k + 9, it has at least nine distinct prime factors.[12]
12. ^ Eyob Delele Yirdaw, "Proving Touchard's Theorem from Euler's Form" ArXiv preprint. 

http://www.setterfield.org/Dodwell_Manuscript_1.html
There are no other external forces acting on the earth to produce any additional change in the obliquity of the Ecliptic; but the question may still be asked whether there are internal conditions in the earth itself which may affect its movement. If there were an irregularity in the internal distribution of the earth's mass, causing a displacement of the center of gravity from the exact center of the earth's figure, would this produce any change in the obliquity? 

In such a case, the "axis of figure" of the earth would not correspond exactly with the earth's "axis of revolution," and there could be an inclination of one to the other. An oscillation would then be produced, but it would not be an oscillation of the obliquity, but one of a different kind, viz., an "Eulerian Nutation." 

http://www.setterfield.org/Dodwell_Manuscript_2.html
There is thus no room for any other harmonic movement of the earth’s axis. We are, in fact, limited to these forces, because a movement of any appreciable magnitude, due to internal changes within the earth, or to any difference between the centre of gravity of the earth and its centre of figure, would at once become apparent as an “Eulerian” oscillation, as already pointed out. It would be observable as a “variation of latitude,” and not as a change in the earth’s axial inclination. We have seen that this variation of latitude does, in fact, exist at the present time, but only on an exceedingly minute scale. 

http://www.setterfield.org/Dodwell conclusion.html
In the years he took to research the measurements of the obliquity of the eclipitic, or tilt of the earth's axis, going back in time as far as possible, he found undeniable evidence that something happened to the tilt of the earth's axis in 2345 B.C. [Probable origin of Sumero-Chaldean Flood myth, 1400 BC Joshua, 700 BC The Dial of Ahaz, significant, too] The measurements actually taken differed from Newcomb's curve of the mathematically figured obliquity (based on current earth movement) to a greater and greater degree the further back he looked. Thinking this might be due to early astronomical error, he checked each of these measurements for necessary corrections regarding parallax the semi-diameter of the sun and then against one another. The latitude at which the observations were made is inherent in the data. 

[Dodswell] studied some of the ancient temple/observatories. Their orientation towards summer and winter solstices were also 'off' by the amount the ancient observations showed. His conclusion, and the conclusion we find we also must draw, is that there was a sudden change in the tilt of the axis of the earth in or about 2345 B.C. Interestingly, this appears to correlate exactly with a number of disruptions of cultures in the world: it appears to have initiated the First Intermediate Period in Egypt. 

[Euler's law and Sacred Spiral and Ulam Circle forms collide here, to show that even in (precession of the equinoxes), the Earth was distrubed in it's path around the sun by celestial forces producing this oscillation ... Also more than likely it could be found in the collision produced by our universe with a parallel one recently discovered, that I've already mentioned for some apparent reason]
[You or I ... mal4mac, both have the right to post as long ... as we obey the rules ... I think the stuff I point out is relevant ... whether you can predict it or understand it or not]




> OrphanPip


© 1993-2003 ENCARTA Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
The [Scopes] trial received worldwide publicity and was conducted in a circus like atmosphere. The press dubbed it the Monkey Trial because, according to popular belief, evolution meant that humans were descended from monkeys. 

A slighty dated PocketWiki article [Wikipedia / Evolution and reproduction; Religious disputes] states: 

The Creation-Evolution controversy itself originated in Europe and North America in the late 18th century, when geological discoveries indicated that the earth is much older than was suggested by the Judeo-Christian Bible ... [This last part of this is a total and complete lie, I show you why in a second] ... The controversy became political in the United States of America when public schools began teaching the scientific theory [of evolution in schools. ] 

© 1993-2003 ENCARTA Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
The [Scopes] trial received worldwide publicity and was conducted in a circus like atmosphere. The press dubbed it the Monkey Trial because, according to popular belief, evolution meant that humans were descended from monkeys. 

[In the Scopes Trail Bryan was asked by Darrow "Was the earth created in 6 literal days" after this question was asked, and obviously answered, the trail conviened pre-maturely, the next day, without the other side being addressed, some 5 days later William Jennings Bryan died] 

http://www.themonkeytrial.com/
Not all fundamentalists, therefore, held to a 6-day creation and Bryan himself, as it turns out, did not believe in a literal 6-day creation (!). (See more discussion of Bryan’s testimony during the trial regarding his view of creation and the age of the earth below.) ... An analysis of the trial transcript, further, eveals that Bryan’s answers were reasonable, intelligent, and often very witty. Darrow, on the other hand, lost his temper, insulted Bryan repeatedly, and asked questions for which there were obviously no known answers. [Which circus?]

In the same PocketWiki article [Wikipedia / Evolution and reproduction; Religious disputes] : 

[Dawkins in "The God Delusion"] (arguing probabilities ,,, juxtaposed) ... holds out hope for a cosmological equivalent to Darwinism that would explain why the universe exists in all its amazing complexity. He uses the argument from improbability, for which he introduced the term "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit", to argue that "God almost certainly does not exist": However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747. [or the improbability of life spontaneous appearing?] 

The "Boeing 747" reference alludes to a statement reportedly made by Fred Hoyle: the "probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrap-yard would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747." . Dawkins objects to this argument on the grounds that it is made "...by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about natural selection". [NS is no longer relavant in this context] A common theme in Dawkins' books is that natural selection, not chance, is responsible for the evolution of life, and that the apparent improbability of life's complexity does not imply evidence of design or a designer. [or unknowns?]

Dawkins concludes the chapter by arguing that his "Ultimate 747" gambit is a very serious argument against the existence of God, and that he has yet to hear "a theologian give a convincing answer despite numerous opportunities and invitations to do so." . [Please invite Meyers, if you will then] Dawkins reports that Dan Dennett, calls it "an unrebuttable refutation" dating back two centuries. [2 centuries? Ok, I won't go there Rabbi]

[This analogy is totally void of substance now ... that bio-info that had to pre-exist the process of evolution has been found in the cosmological constant ... I could spend rapturous hours picking apart these analogies ... but this is just a fight between two personalities, agenda's, paradigm's, magisterium who employ false legal agruments such as poisoning the well, moving the goal posts, substituting one thing for another, etc ...]

Creationists, notably Kent Hovind, have made a living debating scientists regarding creationism (intelligent design) and evolution. [Since you mentioned] Eugenie Scott of the National Centre for Science Education, claimed debates are not the sort of arena to promote science to creationists. Scott claims, "Evolution is not on trial in the world of science," and "the topic of the discussion should not be the scientific legitimacy of evolution." Rather the issue should be on the lack of evidence in creationism. Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould took public stances against appearing to give legitimacy to creationism by debating its proponents. Stephen Jay Gould noted during the McLean v. Arkansas trial:

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact — which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"

[You can't prove or disprove God, any more than you can solve PI ... you can prove that certain basic features of the Biblical text ... appear to describe the bio-info and cosmological constants in relevant correlated detail that defy the probabilities, though]

----------


## YesNo

> [Dawkins in "The God Delusion"] (arguing probabilities ,,, juxtaposed) ... holds out hope for a cosmological equivalent to Darwinism that would explain why the universe exists in all its amazing complexity. He uses the argument from improbability, for which he introduced the term "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit", to argue that "God almost certainly does not exist": However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747. [or the improbability of life spontaneous appearing?] 
> 
> The "Boeing 747" reference alludes to a statement reportedly made by Fred Hoyle: the "*probability of life originating on earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane sweeping through a scrap-yard would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.*" . Dawkins objects to this argument on the grounds that it is made "...by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about natural selection". [NS is no longer relavant in this context] A common theme in Dawkins' books is that natural selection, not chance, is responsible for the evolution of life, and that the apparent improbability of life's complexity does not imply evidence of design or a designer. [or unknowns?]


Although it is somewhat off-topic, one of the things your posts have made me wonder is what is the likelihood of life occurring by chance alone or evolving by chance mutations alone.

I don't know how one would calculate that, however, I think this can be calculated. As we find other planets with life in the universe, we can test whether the null hypothesis is correct that life originated by chance.

----------


## Polednice

> Although it is somewhat off-topic, one of the things your posts have made me wonder is what is the likelihood of life occurring by chance alone or evolving by chance mutations alone.
> 
> I don't know how one would calculate that, however, I think this can be calculated. As we find other planets with life in the universe, we can test whether the null hypothesis is correct that life originated by chance.


I think it will take far too long to find life on other planets unless we get lucky in our own solar system - even then, the sample size will be small. What we need to do is discover a chemical reaction similar to those occurring in the early earth which can result in the creation of a self-replicating molecule. "By chance" really means by chemistry.

----------


## KillCarneyKlans

Well It may depend on who you talk to ... and what formula's and numbers you employ ... The interstellar distances maybe to great to overcome ... [seeding maybe possible] ... I heard someone say we could go to the moon and collect bio-info from Earth's past located on the moon in micro-particles blown into the atmosphere and transmitted to it by gravity ... Anyways here's a rounded view of some idea's ... This may also involve agruments from poor design, which may or may not be applicable ... depending on your type of belief system. [These are just excerpts for stuff I have ... but I hope this can move the ARG forward ... I'm sure you'll come up with more detailed stuff ... I'll be in the background] 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy
According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving was about one-in-1040000. He commented:

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.

which is a reflection of his stance reported elsewhere:

Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?[4] 

Hoyle's Fallacy is rejected by evolutionary biologists,[3] since, as the late John Maynard Smith pointed out, "no biologist imagines that complex structures arise in a single step."[5] The modern evolutionary synthesis explains how complex cellular structures evolved by analysing the intermediate steps required for precellular life. It is these intermediate steps that are omitted in creationist arguments, which is the cause of their over-estimating of the improbability of the entire process.[1]

Hoyle's argument is a mainstay of creationist, intelligent design, orthogenetic and other criticisms of evolution. It has been labeled a fallacy by Richard Dawkins in his two books The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable.[1] Dawkins argues that the existence of God, who under theistic uses of Hoyle's argument is implicitly responsible for the origin of life, defies probability far more than does the spontaneous origin of life even given Hoyle's assumptions, with Dawkins detailing his counter-argument in The God Delusion, describing God as the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.

1. ^ a b c d e f g Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations – An explanation at the TalkOrigins Archive by Ian Musgrave Last Update: December 21, 1998
3. ^ a b c d e Derek Gatherer, The Open Biology Journal, 2008, 1, 9–20, Finite Universe of Discourse: The Systems Biology of Walter Elsasser (1904–1991)
4. ^ Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), ISBN 0-7181-2298-4 
5. ^ a b John Maynard Smith, The Problems of Biology, p.49. (1986), ISBN 0-19-289198-7, "What is wrong with it? Essentially, it is that no biologist imagines that complex structures arise in a single step." 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
The Fermi paradox (Fermi's paradox or Fermi-paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations ... The equation was formulated by Dr. Frank Drake in 1961, a decade after the objections raised by Enrico Fermi, in an attempt to find a systematic means to evaluate the numerous probabilities involved in alien life. The speculative equation factors in: the rate of star formation in the galaxy; the fraction of stars with planets and the number per star that are habitable; the fraction of those planets which develop life, the fraction of intelligent life, and the further fraction of detectable technological intelligent life; and finally the length of time such civilizations are detectable. The fundamental problem is that the last four terms (fraction of planets with life, odds life becomes intelligent, odds intelligent life becomes detectable, and detectable lifetime of civilizations) are completely unknown. We have only one example, rendering statistical estimates impossible, and even the example we have is subject to a strong anthropic bias. 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
[The Drake equation which is closely related to the Fermi paradox is] used to estimate the number of detectable extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. It is used in the field of Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (SETI). The equation was devised by Frank Drake, Emeritus Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz ... states:


where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop techs that releases detectable signs of existence
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space 

Considerable disagreement on the values of most of these parameters exists, but the values used by Drake and his colleagues in 1961 were: 

R* = 10/year (10 stars formed per year, on the average over the life of the galaxy)
fp = 0.5 (half of all stars formed will have planets)
ne = 2 (stars with planets will have 2 planets capable of developing life)
fl = 1 (100% of these planets will develop life)
fi = 0.01 (1% of which will be intelligent life)
fc = 0.01 (1% of which will be able to communicate)
L = 10,000 years (which will last 10,000 years)

Drake's values give N = 10 × 0.5 × 2 × 1 × 0.01 × 0.01 × 10,000 = 10. 

Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, stated in a 2003 lecture at Caltech:

The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless ... 


http://www.science20.com/news_releas...h_like_planets 
The Mathematical Probability Of Life On Other Earth-Like Planets - April 16th 2008 

Infinity was invented to account for the possibility that in a never-ending universe, anything can happen. Life on other Earth-like planets, for example, is possible in an infinite universe, but not probable, according to a scientist from the University of East Anglia.

The mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low because of the time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining life span of the Earth. Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and this process might be governed by a small number of very difficult evolutionary steps. 

According to Prof Watson a limit to evolution is the habitability of Earth, and any other Earth-like planets, which will end as the sun brightens. Solar models predict that the brightness of the sun is increasing, while temperature models suggest that because of this the future life span of Earth will be ‘only’ about another billion years, a short time compared to the four billion years since life first appeared on the planet.

“The Earth’s biosphere is now in its old age and this has implications for our understanding of the likelihood of complex life and intelligence arising on any given planet,” said Prof Watson. “At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life. [Although Enceledus is showing signs of it for example] ... the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed.”

“Complex life is separated from the simplest life forms by several very unlikely steps and therefore will be much less common. Intelligence is one step further, so it is much less common still,” said Prof Watson. His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years. Each step is independent of the other and can only take place after the previous steps in the sequence have occurred. 


http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life 
Creationists often claim that the chances of a modern enzyme forming by random means are astronomically small, and therefore the chances of a complete bacterium (which is composed of hundreds or thousands of such enzymes & proteins) is so near to impossible that it would never happen in the 13 billion years or so since the universe took shape.

The main problem with this argument is that it assumes abiogenesis (the initial formation of life from simpler molecules) was a totally random process. It also assumes that in order for abiogenesis to be successful, a complete microbe would have had to form spontaneously. In fact, the same non-random forces which propel biological evolution also propelled abiogenesis. Specifically, Natural Selection. 

If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case. Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all. 


http://www.science20.com/stars_plane...d_begin_chance 
Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance By Dave Deamer, April 30th 2009 

Proponents of intelligent design believe that the components of life are so complex that they could not possibly have been produced by an evolutionary process. To bolster their argument, they calculate the odds that a specific protein might assemble by chance in the prebiotic environment. The odds against such a chance assembly are so astronomically immense that a protein required for life to begin could not possibly have assembled by chance on the early Earth. Therefore, the argument goes, life must have been designed. 

It is not my purpose to argue against this belief, but the intelligent design argument uses a statistical tool of science -- a probability calculation -- to make a point, so I will use another tool of science, which is to propose an alternative hypothesis and test it ... For the purposes of today’s column I will go through the probability calculation that a specific ribozyme might assemble by chance. Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe. 

[this rest of the article is very good ... I'm omitting alot of detail]

http://www.icr.org/article/4348/
Chemistry by Chance: A Formula for Non-Life by Charles McCombs, Ph.D. * 

Can random chemical "accidents" produce the building blocks of life? The following eight obstacles in chemistry ensure that life by chance is untenable. 

1. The Problem of Unreactivity
2. The Problem of Ionization
3. The Problem of Mass Action
4. The Problem of Reactivity
5. The Problem of Selectivity
6. The Problem of Solubility
7. The Problem of Sugar 
8. The Problem of Chirality

The chemical control needed for the formation of a specific sequence in a polymer chain is just not possible through random chance. The synthesis of proteins and DNA/RNA in the laboratory requires the chemist to control the reaction conditions, to thoroughly understand the reactivity and selectivity of each component, and to carefully control the order of addition of the components as the chain is building in size. The successful formation of proteins and DNA/RNA in some imaginary primordial soup would require the same level of control as in the laboratory, but that level of control is not possible without a specific chemical controller. Any one of these eight problems could prevent the evolutionary process from forming the chemicals vital for life.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...e-chakrabarti/
Now that astronomers know where to look for Galaxy X, they should be able to find it, especially if they conduct the search in dust-penetrating infrared light, Chakrabarti said.

"Say you're looking for a car with very dim headlights, in the fog," she said. "If you know approximately where to look, you would have a better chance of finding it." Chakrabarti hopes to do some looking herself within the next few months and is seeking to secure time at a large infrared telescope. Even if Galaxy X isn't confirmed, she said, her findings will still shed new light on a shady subject. The absence of X would mean there's some other oddity out there throwing off the calculations—perhaps an unexpected distribution pattern of the halo of dark matter thought to surround the Milky Way. "We still stand to learn something very fundamental," she said. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe 
As such the conditional probability of observing a universe that is fine-tuned to support intelligent life is 1. This observation is known as the anthropic principle and is particularly relevant if the creation of the universe was probabilistic or if multiple universes with a variety of properties exist (see below).

Effectively, the multiverse evolves as a universal wavefunction. If the big bang that created our mutliverse created an ensemble of multiverses, the wave function of the ensemble would be entangled in this sense. The least controversial category of multiverse in Tegmark's scheme is Level I, which describes distant space-time events "in our own universe". If space is infinite, or sufficiently large and uniform, identical instances of the history of Earth's entire Hubble volume occur every so often, simply by chance. Tegmark calculated our nearest so-called doppelgänger, is 1010115 meters away from us (a double exponential function larger than a googolplex).[75][76] In principle, it would be impossible to scientifically verify an identical Hubble volume. However, it does follow as a fairly straightforward consequence from otherwise unrelated scientific observations and theories. Tegmark suggests that statistical analysis exploiting the anthropic principle provides an opportunity to test multiverse theories in some cases. 

75. ^ Tegmark M. (2003). "Parallel universes. Not just a staple of science fiction, other universes are a direct implication of cosmological observations". Scientific American 288 (5): 40–51. PMID 12701329. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...llel-universes. 
76. ^ Max Tegmark (2003). "Parallel Universes". In "Science and Ultimate Reality: from Quantum to Cosmos", honoring John Wheeler's 90th birthday. J. D. Barrow, P.C.W. Davies, & C.L. Harper eds. Cambridge University Press (2003): 2131. arXiv:astro-ph/0302131. Bibcode 2003astro.ph..2131T. 
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...rch/26.44.html
Math and theology have had a long and checkered relationship ... in 1744, John Wesley confessed: "I am convinced, from many experiments, I could not study either mathematics, arithmetic, or algebra … without being a deist, if not an atheist." Three numbers in particular suggest evidence for God's existence. They are 1/1010123, 10162, and eπi. 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...rch/26.44.html
The first recent number that points to God [infinity or improbablity] is 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 123. This number comes from astronomy. Oxford professor Roger Penrose discusses it in his book The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind. It derives from a formula by Jacob Beckenstein and Stephen Hawking and describes the chances of our universe being created at random ...

----------


## YesNo

> I think it will take far too long to find life on other planets unless we get lucky in our own solar system - even then, the sample size will be small. What we need to do is discover a chemical reaction similar to those occurring in the early earth which can result in the creation of a self-replicating molecule. "By chance" really means by chemistry.


I understand that life needs three things: (1) an energy source, (2) a fluid to move in and (3) the right molecules. These have been found on Mars and NASA's _Curiosity_ is heading there now to look for life: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html

So life might be found in the solar system this year. 

I understand there are moons of Jupiter and Saturn that have the conditions for life as well.  In this case the energy comes from gravitation.

So given that, what does it mean for life to start by chance alone? My suspicion based on some of the things that I've read from KillCarneyKlan's posts is that this happening should be so rare that our planet should be the only one with life. I don't know. But if that is the case, finding microscopic life on Mars should be the end to the chance argument.

----------


## Polednice

> I understand that life needs three things: (1) an energy source, (2) a fluid to move in and (3) the right molecules. These have been found on Mars and NASA's _Curiosity_ is heading there now to look for life: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html
> 
> So life might be found in the solar system this year. 
> 
> I understand there are moons of Jupiter and Saturn that have the conditions for life as well. In this case the energy comes from gravitation.
> 
> So given that, what does it mean for life to start by chance alone? My suspicion based on some of the things that I've read from KillCarneyKlan's posts is that this happening should be so rare that our planet should be the only one with life. I don't know. But if that is the case, finding microscopic life on Mars should be the end to the chance argument.


I particularly love Saturn's moon, Enceladus - I hope we can find something there!

I think the argument that life is a one-off is one that we can't seriously entertain. I mean, that seems to me to fall into the line of other anthropocentric mistakes we've made - i.e. the earth was at the centre of the universe, no? Well our solar system is then. No? Well our galaxy is then. No? Well we're still the only life-forms.

I just don't think it's conceivable. Finding self-aware life-forms will be a hell of a task, but I'd bet anything on finding microbial life.

On reflection, I think terms like life arising "by chance" is actually a very subtle way of hiding a value judgement in the statement. Because life is viewed as important, chance is considered demeaning and so is only employed as ridicule. If you look at this mechanistically, it's really as ridiculous as saying, "given a load of hydrogen atoms, what's the possibility that a _star_ would form _by chance_?" *scoff scoff* - it's not chance, it's a natural consequence of physical laws.

----------


## YesNo

I think we agree, Polednice, on the prospects of finding life on other planets than Earth in the solar system. 

My only point with this is that I don't like using chance as an explanation. Chance is good for modeling, but in the case of life (microbial at least), what are the odds that it arose by chance? I don't know, but I suspect KillCarneyKlans is right that it is very unlikely. 

However, I suspect life didn't start by chance and finding microbial life on Mars would mean that biologists would need to come up with a more interesting cause. At the moment, chance is OK, since Earth is the only planet where we know microbial life exists. Perhaps we just got lucky, but if Mars also got lucky and probably Enceladus as well, that would force one to look for an explanation other than chance.

Saying chance caused something is no better than saying some God caused something. I have an agenda when I claim this: if a deterministic cause cannot be found, we should look for a non-deterministic cause. This leads us back to the Kalam argument. There is no known deterministic cause for the universe to come into being, but there still needs to be a cause.

----------

