Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Refusing to debate WLC (and the cosmological argument)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
Oh and I HATE the notion that believing the world is flat is stupid or irrational. Yeah we have pictures, but really when one works out the math and just about everything else they usually get an Earth with a curvature of zero. (Well very close to it).
A curvature of close to zero when extrapolated far enough will produce a curve. Oh this is a new thread waiting to happen.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
That is not what you argued though. If you had said that John Barrow's quote was in line with the scientific understanding of 1986 then I would have said fair enough. What you actually argued was:Soul Winner wrote:So do you admit then that it would be OK for us to take John Barrow's (being an expert in the field and all) assessment of the universe - when there was no universe - as a valid assessment of the facts as we know them even today?
All that changed was JB's assessment of what nothing actually is, and that's based on the work of Hawking and Penrose etc. He has moved from a position of assuming a nothingness state to an uncertainty. That's not exactly progress is it? But you were right to point out that he had changed his position and that I maybe should have came up to speed on what he said 11 years ago instead which was 14 years after what I quoted.So you argued that Barrow's 25 year old comment is still reflective of modern cosmological thinking which is demonstrably false and has been pointed out to you by multiple posters on multiple occasions.
Just because nothing isn't what it used to be (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) doesn't mean that Barrow wasn't right in his earlier assessment about the universe. All he is saying now is that it is unlikely to be the case based on current understanding. But our current understanding is not positing any more substance to the debate in fairness.As I have already said, the scientific consensus represents our best understanding of cosmology today. If you have evidence, other than out-dated opinion to challenge said consensus, then present it. Otherwise, if you can demonstrate how current consensus on the early universe supports your arguments, present that.
And what is our best understanding of cosmology today? What is the general consensus today? That nothing isn't what it used to be?I don't preclude a supernatural explanation. However, I don't care to offer any explanation or assertion without evidence to back it up. The only thing that the initial premises of the cosmological argument demonstrate is that the universe has a cause. The argument about what that cause might be is a different one entirely.
I agree which is why the God hypothesis has as much (nay more) validity as any other. God by definition falls into the the category of a timeless and powerful entity better than fields with zero energy.You're making a very poor God of the Gaps argument here. Because science doesn't have an answer for some phenomenon doesn't mean that you can assert, without evidence, that a God did it.
Isn't something out of nothing evidence enough for a miraculous creator? Instead of looking in the universe for evidence of a creator why not look at the universe as being the evidence?By the way, you're right, if "God must have done it" cannot be used as an explanation, then neither can "it must have been a natural cause". The only honest answer is I don't know.
Cool
Based on what? We can't know anything before Planck time currently so again you're making baseless assumptions about the nature of the cause of the universe. Why must it be timeless or powerful?
For a cause to to bring time into existence the cause must exist outside time i.e. be timeless. Powerful because it took a lot of power to create the universe.Once again, in the absence of any explanation, naturalistic or otherwise you can't just assert an explanation without evidence to back it up.
Yes you can it just won't be accepted in a scientific journal as an adequate explanation. All anyone needs to know about the universe is that the cause of it must be timeless and anyone who believes in God already believes that timelessness is one of His attributes.No, no, no.
First of all, not only has that argument nothing to do with science but neither is it relevant to this topic. But since you raised it, no we cannot be historically sure that a person called Jesus actually existed and there is almost no evidence for the resurrection. The gospels are not contempraneous accounts and not meaningful as eyewitness evidence. Even the resurrection story in Mark is a later addition. The only thing that could be called an eyewitness account is the testimony of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 listing appearances of Jesus after the resurrection. The thing is though, most mainstream Christians don't pay any heed to the Book of Mormon for which there is far more eyewitness testimony (some of which is included as an appendix) than for the resurrection. So what physical evidence of the resurrection do you have?
Well now that we are on this then it is worth pointing out Craig's reason why he thinks there are good historical reasons for believing that Jesus lived, was crucified and rose again, they are as follows:
Plus read thisYes he does. Here.
Where???
Quantum fluctuations are a stochastic process though. So what evidence do you have to show that it must be free choice over a random event?
Where is your evidence that it was a quantum fluctuation?Nobody is saying that it came from nothing and this has already been explained to you several times. For clarity, we cannot determine in what form the universe existed or if it existed before Planck time. Simples.
So why is Hawking calling it nothing?0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Nothing isn't anything though. As soon as you define it as something then it becomes something and it is no longer nothing. If Hawking considers a field with zero energy to be nothing, then why call it a field with zero energy? Just call it nothing.
Because Hawkings considers (I'm guessing) a field at zero energy to be nothing because he doesn't consider an energy field without energy to be a "thing". There is nothing there, the values are all zero. So how is there a "thing" there.
Its like calling empty space a "thing" rather than saying there is nothing there. That depends on whether you consider the empty space itself to be a thing.
It is certainly philosophically possible to do that, but there is no right or wrong answer. It just comes down to definitions. So long as your definitions are consistent that is the important bit.Soul Winner wrote: »I reject Hawking's definition of nothing because by definition nothing isn't anything.
That's fine. But it then becomes pointless to go Look! Look! All these smart scientists say the universe came out of nothing. :P
They don't say that in relation to the definition of "nothing" that you are using.Soul Winner wrote: »The question we probably should be asking is: Does nothing really exist? If there is a such thing as nothing then nothing doesn't exist. I think I'll use that last sentence my sig :pac:
Out of curiosity do you believe it is logically possible for God to make the universe out of nothing? Or do you believe God must have made the universe out of something that already existed, even if that something was himself or his own essence (ie something that already existed).0 -
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Just because nothing isn't what it used to be (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) doesn't mean that Barrow wasn't right in his earlier assessment about the universe.
No it doesn't mean that, but if you're going to claim that Barrow was correct in his earlier assessment then you'd better have something to back it up.Soul Winner wrote: »And what is our best understanding of cosmology today? What is the general consensus today? That nothing isn't what it used to be?
As has been posted already the current best understanding of cosmology is that the universe expanded from a hot, dense energy state 13.75 +/- 0.11 billion years ago. I could keep going into the current best values for the various cosmological parameters, like the Hubble constant but I don't think it's going to advance the discussion any so what else do you want to know?Soul Winner wrote: »I agree which is why the God hypothesis has as much (nay more) validity as any other. God by definition falls into the the category of a timeless and powerful entity better than fields with zero energy.
Care to back up the bold sections with some evidence please?Soul Winner wrote: »Isn't something out of nothing evidence enough for a miraculous creator? Instead of looking in the universe for evidence of a creator why not look at the universe as being the evidence?
It might be if somebody here was arguing that or if we knew that something actually came from nothing.
So now you're saying that the fact there is a universe at all is evidence for a creator? What you're smoking I'll take some.Soul Winner wrote: »For a cause to to bring time into existence the cause must exist outside time i.e. be timeless.
It must exist outside our space-time. It doesn't follow that it must exist outside any space-time.Soul Winner wrote: »Powerful because it took a lot of power to create the universe.
Based on what evidence?Soul Winner wrote: »Yes you can it just won't be accepted in a scientific journal as an adequate explanation.
OK, you shouldn't assert anything without evidence. Not only will it not be accepted by a journal, it's not likely to be accepted by anyone sane. There's no difference between a claim without evidence and a fiction or a lie. Besides as Hitch has noted, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.Soul Winner wrote: »Well now that we are on this then it is worth pointing out Craig's reason why he thinks there are good historical reasons for believing that Jesus lived, was crucified and rose again, they are as follows:
Thanks for the videos and the link. I can't say that I find Craig's argument convincing in the slightest. But that's for another day and another thread. This one in fact.Soul Winner wrote: »Where???
I'm not repeating myself. Read my last post.Soul Winner wrote: »Where is your evidence that it was a quantum fluctuation?
I didn't say that it definitely was a quantum fluctuation. You, on the other hand claimed that the cause must have freely chosen to create the universe. I responded by saying that it is impossible to differentiate between a free choice and a random event, so a quantum fluctuation is just as plausible an explanation as your God.Soul Winner wrote: »So why is Hawking calling it nothing?
I'm sure that somebody at some point has explained the difference to you between cosmogony and cosmology. As I have said, there are many cosmogonical theories out there, most of which do not suggest a nothing. Nobody here is championing a particular cosmogonical theory as the truth, that I can see.0 -
-
It is the incorrect models that start from absolute nothing. The big bang theory, as a working model, does not start from any creation event, and only deals with the expansion and long-term evolution of the universe.
If we don't know how the universe got going then how can you say that there are incorrect models? Surely any theory is as good as another theory at this point? But in a sense its just like the origin of life theories? We know how it developed we just don't' know how it got started.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_map
It is a rescaling the preserves the null-cone structure of the universe.
For example: In the distant future, the universe will only consist of massless particles travelling at the speed of light (assuming black-holes evaporate, which we have good reason to believe they do). This "very boring era" will stretch on for eternity, as the temperature of the universe cools to zero, and the density approaches zero. But if you are travelling at the speed of light, an eternity is no different from an instant. Time, as a scale of duration, is physically meaningless. The big big bang may simply be the infinite future of a previous universe.
ThanksInterestingly enough, this in one of the few hypotheses in early-universe cosmology that has the potential to be tested with todays experimental capabilities. (Paper). But I am not arguing that it is definitely true. I am instead arguing that an infinite past cannot be ruled out by philosophical thought experiments alone.
Maybe not but they do a pretty good jobHawking has defined "nothingness" as no matter,energy, space, or time. I.e. Not only is there an absence of matter and energy, there is an absence of space and time.
That sounds more like nothing alright.No. There is only evidence that such a physical thing is consistent and possible. But that is all that is needed to argue against the inferences of the cosmological argument.
You could use it to argue against it alright but it hardly refutes it. But what is the evidence that such a thing is consistent and possible? If there is no evidence for the thing itself then surely anything that can show it to be consistent and possible is just theoretical.0 -
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »The current understanding is that they don't know beyond a certain point.
Yes, our understanding of the laws of physics breaks down at Planck time (1x10^-43 seconds) after the Big Bang. Before that, the four fundamental forces were unified so we cannot accurately describe anything before that point.Soul Winner wrote: »How can you have evidence for this? Common sense tells me that God is the best explanation so until science can show that my common sense is mistaken then I'm sticking with it.
Common sense is not a reason. It's just an appeal to experience. This should explain more clearly:
Thanks to Malty for the link.Soul Winner wrote: »Hawking is:
"Speaking to a sold out crowd at the Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture, Hawking said yesterday (March 13 2007) that he now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing. He said more work is needed to prove this but we have time because 'Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end."
More here
OK. Fine. I will happily admit that I don't have the same understanding of cosmology as Professor Hawking. If, however, you feel that he's wrong about some point then you can tell him so yourself here:
S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.ukSoul Winner wrote: »No that was not what I said. I said: Instead of looking inside the universe for evidence of a creator why not look at the universe as evidence for a creator? Care to answer it now?
So are you saying that the universe itself is evidence of a creator? Are you channeling Ray Comfort or something?
"Creation is 100% scientific proof there was a creator"Soul Winner wrote: »You're assuming there are other space times.
No I'm not assuming that there are. I'm saying that it's possible that there are, given current physics. The possibility of other space-times automatically invalidates your assertion that it must be timeless.Soul Winner wrote: »Do you doubt that power was involved in the expansion of the universe?
Yes. Until you can demonstrate why.Soul Winner wrote: »We can do that? Cool. So we can dismiss all of the origin of life and origin of the universe theories if that's the case.
Well if you're an idiot you can dismiss whatever you want. Clearly you don't understand the scientific term "theory". A theory is explanatory. It is built on evidence. Within the context of this discussion, take Penrose's CCC theory which Morbert has posted about. This theory has already been supported by evidence colllected by the WMAP. It is not an assertion without evidence.Soul Winner wrote: »I did and still cannot find where Craig says that the cause of the universe MUST be God given premise 1 and 2 of the Kalam Cosmological argument.
Here.Given the truth of premisses (1) and (2), it logically follows that (3) the universe has a cause of its existence. In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator.Soul Winner wrote: »If He exists then He's your God too. Anyway if the universe came from nothing as Hawking believes then it either popped into existence un-caused or it was caused by something and I submit that the only possible cause was God, a super natural entity which transcends space and time.
First of all you haven't demonstrated that the universe cannot be uncaused.
Secondly, you haven't provided any evidence why, if the universe had a cause, that it had to be an intelligent entity.
There are so many problems with your brazen assumption above that it would take too long to go into all of them in detail, but here's a concise summary from Dan Barker on the main problem:The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty[2], but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.” As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Yes, our understanding of the laws of physics breaks down at Planck time (1x10^-43 seconds) after the Big Bang. Before that, the four fundamental forces were unified so we cannot accurately describe anything before that point.
I know, so using natural laws to explaining how it came about is futile, because there were no laws of nature.Common sense is not a reason. It's just an appeal to experience. This should explain more clearly:
Thanks to Malty for the link.
As I pointed out to Wick above, the Christian world view was at adds with Aristotelian logic right from the start. 'A' can be 'A' and not 'A' at the same time. In any case, are we supposed to abandon our common sense intuition because we have found it to be unreliable as means of getting to the absolute truth about things? When Copernicus discovered that the earth was not the center of the universe he did it by using observation and from that observation concluded that (if anything) it was the sun that was the center. When did he abandon common sense? Was what glaringly obvious to everyone else wasn't so obvious to him so he had to delve deeper to get to the truth and what he came up with changed science eventually, but at no point did he abandon common sense when he drew his conclusions, in fact, in order to draw his conclusion he appealed to common sense. The reason his ideas were rejected was because of the predominant world view of the time which seen any deviation form the norm as heretical. But what was the norm at the time was not a Biblical idea but an Aristotelian idea.OK. Fine. I will happily admit that I don't have the same understanding of cosmology as Professor Hawking. If, however, you feel that he's wrong about some point then you can tell him so yourself here:
S.W.Hawking@damtp.cam.ac.uk
I'm not saying he is wrong about his theories (who am I to do that?). I'm just saying that what he defines as nothing cannot be nothing because it is something. But if what he describes really is nothing then he believes that the universe popped into existence from nothing and by nothing and like I said to Wick, that requires as much faith (nay more) to believe than believing a Supernatural God did it.So are you saying that the universe itself is evidence of a creator?
Yes to me it is, why not? To me this is a good reason to think that a God exists and that is why Craig uses it, he doesn't use it as proof that a God exists.Are you channeling Ray Comfort or something?
Never heard of him nor am I interested enough to Google his name."Creation is 100% scientific proof there was a creator"
I never said it was scientific proof. For me everything points to it coming from nothing and to me the best explanation for that is supernatural agency. Again, remember we are talking about Craig's use of this in his debates. He uses to to give the listener a good reason to think that a God exists and it is up to his opponent to tear down this argument and in its place propose a better argument or explanation. If he can't do that then it will remain a good reason to think that a a God exists.No I'm not assuming that there are. I'm saying that it's possible that there are, given current physics. The possibility of other space-times automatically invalidates your assertion that it must be timeless.
If its theoretically possible that there are other space times then it also theoretically possible that there is a God.Yes. Until you can demonstrate why.
You want me to demonstrate why I think that power was involved to bring this universe into existence? Are you serious?Well if you're an idiot you can dismiss whatever you want. Clearly you don't understand the scientific term "theory". A theory is explanatory. It is built on evidence. Within the context of this discussion, take Penrose's CCC theory which Morbert has posted about. This theory has already been supported by evidence colllected by the WMAP. It is not an assertion without evidence.
I didn't read Penrose's theory yet, care to break it down for me in layman's terms?Here.William Lane Craig wrote:Given the truth of premisses (1) and (2), it logically follows that (3) the universe has a cause of its existence. In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator.
Now contrast that with what you you quoted Craig as saying:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause, and that cause must be God.
That is not what Craig said in the actually quote is it? He said: "In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator"
This glaring omission speaks volumes.First of all you haven't demonstrated that the universe cannot be uncaused.
I never said I couldSecondly, you haven't provided any evidence why, if the universe had a cause, that it had to be an intelligent entity.
You're just not reading these posts are you?There are so many problems with your brazen assumption above that it would take too long to go into all of them in detail, but here's a concise summary from Dan Barker on the main problem:
OK let us read it and see:Dan Barker wrote:The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty
Why not? And empty of what?Dan Barker wrote:[2],but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God.
Why?Dan Barker wrote:If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator,
How does that logically follow.Dan Barker wrote:and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.”
Talk about abandoning all rationality and common sense. This guy is good. Where dig you did him up? If God exists -God by definition being the creator of the universe, the originator of space and time matter and energy - Then He obviously exists independent of the stuff He freely chooses to create. What if God is just a mind, every think of that?Dan Barker wrote:As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument
Only if you do the verbal gymnastics that this guys is doing.Dan Barker wrote:that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question.
How about dealing with the argument properly first?0 -
We know the models are incorrect because they do not incorporate quantum gravity (because a working theory of quantum gravity does not exist yet.). And what little we do know about quantum gravity is not pointing towards absolute nothingness.
Then what is it pointing towards?But even zero energy, matter, space and time is not strictly nothing, as it is a fluctuating state that, under the Hartle-Hawking model, can give rise to the universe.
So its not nothing. Thanks.The argument would no longer be compelling. I.e. The kalam cosmological argument is effectively the logical inference of a supernatural creator from what we know about the universe.
Correct.The counter-argument removes the inference of a supernatural creator.
What is the counter argument? Is all of science in agreement with the Hawking/Hartle model? Is this now the accepted model? Even if it is listen to what Craig says about it:We can still suppose one as an explanation, but it isn't logically necessary. That is what I consider to be a refutation.
I think the above YT vid explains clearly enough that this is not the case.As for the evidence. Quantum field theory posits similar events. Particles are spontaneously created and destroyed from a state of zero energy and momentum.
Which you admit above is not nothing in the classical sense anyway?As mentioned earlier, quantum field theory is the most successfully tested scientific theory, able to predict quantities with an accuracy of up to one part in a trillion. What hawking is extending this principle of quantum field theory to gravity, where space and time are dynamical. I.e. It is established that particles can arise from zero mass and energy, and by the same principle, spacetime manifolds can arise from zero space and time.
Again which is not nothing. If the universe began to exist then the boundary between its existence and non existence was nothing. As soon as you start to have something that began to exist then that is the point of the beginning of the that thing, in the case of the universe prior to that there is nothing, in fact there is no prior to that. As Craig has pointed out, this is also supported by the Hawking/Hartle model.0 -
-
-
-
The simplest way that I can phrase it is that the universe exists as a series of infinite cycles with the infinite future of one universe becoming the big bang of another.
You can read more here:
Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
or buy the book:
Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe
or read Penrose's original outline here:
BEFORE THE BIG BANG:AN OUTRAGEOUS NEW PERSPECTIVE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PARTICLE PHYSICS
As I said previously Penrose has already collected experimental evidence from WMAP data which confirms a prediction of CCC.
The preprint is here and the final paper is here.
Morbert has already posted extensively about this and provides a clear and concise explanation here:
.
*Unofficial Layman friendly seal of approval*
*Unofficial Layman friendly seal of approval*
I assume the thanks is already in the mail oldrnwisr.:p
One hour of your time is all it requires Soul. If that's too much then just watch the last 25 ish minutes or so.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYdzUYyIKMM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JONNGtDtbU8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYjnL2PqUg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXTd1lvZF3Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OutKE3tyG94
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement