Refusing to debate WLC (and the cosmological argument)

Fanny Cradock

I'll start this thread by saying that I don't really get Craig. His arguments generally don't really move me on any meaningful level. I also worry that some people put too much weight on his ability to win debates. What if he doesn't win? Still, he is reckoned by many (Christians and non-Christians) to be one of the most effective formal debaters amongst the current crop of Christian apologists. His recent debate with Sam Harris caused quite a storm, I gather.

The reason I am positing this thread is because of the news that the President of the British Humanist association, Polly Toynbee, has withdrawn from a long scheduled and much advertised debate with Craig. This comes on the heals of the likes of A.C Grayling's slightly embarrassing slip of memory (I guess it happens to us all!) and Dawkins resolute refusal to debate him. (More on all this here.)

In recent times I've tended to shy away from formal debates because I find the format quite restricting. But what really turned me off was the post debate analysis across the internet. People tend to focus primarily on who won the debate (i.e. who was the better rhetorician or who told the best jokes) rather then on whether they as members of the audience had their preconceptions challenged in any way. With my own personal misgivings aside, surely the refusal from the brightest of Brights to debate Craig is, as the link says, a "glaring omission". Why not just debate him? Win or loose they can at least put to an end all accusations that they are running scared. It's only a debate after all; there remains a difference between wining a debate in the view of an audience and the proposition of the debate being actually true. Or perhaps I'm being naive?

Morbert

Pulling out of a debate you agreed to is bad form. But refusing to debate him is understandable.

There is a difference, as you say, between winning a debate and the position of the victor being true. The significant amount of literature refuting Craig's arguments, compared with his skill and success as a rhetorician, is testament to this. Dawkins (I am less familiar with the others) has no interest in winning debates, and refuses to debate topics like creationism that "would look good on their CV but not on mine."

Craig is not a creationist, but he tenders arguments, such as the Kalam cosmological argument, which would be instantly recognisable as absurd by theoretical physicists, but sounds plausible to people not familiar with the subject. He presents the big bang theory, for example, as a literally true theory of the creation of the universe, rather than the classical approximation of the time-evolution of the universe. He also falls into the trap of misunderstanding the unfortunately named "Real analysis" field of mathematics.

Manach

I've not heard of Mr. Craig up till the OP's initial post. My own familiarity with these subject matter debates are based on the Widdecome v Fry and the Blair v Hitchens ones. Based on BBC reporting on poll figures, a loss and a draw for the home team in post debate polling.
Thus, if it not possible to thus say which side was won a debate, ie persuading the audience that their position is the correct one, then what is the point of the earlier debates. I've read a number of Polly Toynbee's articles and books, and she does not strike me as the type to back down from any argument that she supports, so her no-show is surprising.

Zombrex

Rather than ask why not debate him isn't the question why debate him?

Craig simply recycles poor arguments that appeal to "common sense" but lack logical or rational vigour.

What would be gained by giving Craig yet another platform to simply air these same tired old arguments? He isn't addressing the issues with these arguments, he isn't coming up with anything new or insightful.

People can argue no one else is either, but with Craig he is frustratingly stubborn at ignoring responses to his arguments or attempting to address them.

What would be the point of debating him, other than to stop him and his supporters claiming that atheists are scared to debate him? Every time someone debates him it simply acts to give the impression that he has something new or insightful to add to the over all cultural debate, when in reality he doesn't. As Morbert points out atheists like Dawkins are not interested in winning debates, they are interested in expanding the cultural conversation.

Turtwig

In fairness if people continue to debate Craig then his style of "debating" could be perceived as being the most influential and pragmatic style. More and more people might start resorting to it. No matter who's side that copycat would be on I'd instantly hate that person with a passion. I hate Craig, I can't put it more bluntly than that. He does not care for rational debate all that matters to him is that he appears to be the better debater. I'll give two contrasting examples. In his book Finding Darwin's God, Ken Miller, bastardised the multiverse theory. He was duly informed of this and revised his book. Craig has been informed of his misunderstanding in physics and cosmology tonnes of times, yet he continues to publish books filled with Hogwash. He frequently appeals to utter fabricated science when debating in the public. His style of debating may wow crowds who know no better, but when someone frequently cites the same references over and over again even though they are the scientific equivalent of junk food a part of me dies inside. How many times does he need to be told? The Big Bang wasn't the creation of the universe.

Monty Burnz

A problem with these debates is that as soon as the topic becomes technical in a scientific field, the person telling porkies is at least on an even playing field with the person trying to tell the truth, if not at an advantage, as they can tell appealing 'common sense' stories rather than being bound by scientific truth that is beyond the comprehension of a lay audience.

I see it time and again here on Boards or in Irish politics where certain politicians (I'm looking at you, Joe Higgins and Rich Boy Barret) stray into areas I know a good bit about and they trot out inanities that anyone familiar with the area can see are pure horsefeathers, but to the man on the street sounds much more plausible than the argument of those sticking to reality.

philologos

William Lane Craig is a respected philosopher in the Philosophy of Religion. When I was at university during my first Philosophy of Religion course he was mentioned as a prominent figure particularly in respect to the cosmological argument.

I don't think the excuses hold up. If people genuinely thought his arguments were baseless and if people genuinely thought that he was arrogant and so on and so forth they would relish in the possibility of bringing him down to earth and settling the score.

Personally, I don't find Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens hugely convincing but I wouldn't suggest to anyone that they should decline to debate them.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

William Lane Craig is a respected philosopher in the Philosophy of Religion. When I was at university during my first Philosophy of Religion course he was mentioned as a prominent figure particularly in respect to the cosmological argument.

As Malty points out it is difficult to debate with someone who has no interest in addressing the problems with a particular argument. The issues with the cosmological argument have been pointed out to Craig many many times. He seems by and large to simply ignore him.

Which again raises the question of what purpose would further debates with him serve if he isn't going to address the issues that people have with his previous arguments.

philologos wrote: »

I don't think the excuses hold up. If people genuinely thought his arguments were baseless and if people genuinely thought that he was arrogant and so on and so forth they would relish in the possibility of bringing him down to earth and settling the score.

That has already happened. Craig is by and large a laughing stock in the atheist/skeptical community.

Again what purpose would further debates serve, other than to continue the myth that Craig is someone worth debating?

Soul Winner

I've listened to a lot of Craig debates and I think he puts forth his arguments as clearly as one could expect. The reason he keeps repeating them is because nobody ever addresses them effectively enough let alone refute them adequately. For example, in debates like: "Does God exists." He gives his five good reasons to think that God does exist. God being defined as the creator, planner, and executor of the universe and all life in it. One of these good reasons is the Kalam Cosmological argument.

The Kalam Cosmological argument simply states that:

A) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist. (According to the standard Big Bang model)

C) Therefore the universe has a cause.

What's wrong with that? Isn't the most accepted theory in astrophysics the Big Bang Theory? Doesn't that theory postulate a beginning of the universe? What better cause can you have for the universe than a supernatural cause? Supernatural being that which exist outside what we call nature? In order to refute this argument you have to come up with a different model for how it happened. Good luck with that one.

He also uses the ontological argumentation and others to support his case for the existence of God. The only atheist that has even addressed these arguments is Sam Harris but even Harris eventually gets reduced to clinging onto the negatives about religion in order to stay above water in the debate, but at least he tries to actually address Craig's five arguments which is a lot more than any of the other atheists have done including the Hitch.

Bill Graig is a formidable debater and its no wonder some atheists avoid getting into a debate with him, I don't blame them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6GuCUOyb30

Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6GuCUOyb30

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I've listened to a lot of Craig debates and I think he puts forth his arguments as clearly as one could expect. The reason he keeps repeating them is because nobody ever addresses them effectively enough let alone refute them adequately.

Sorry but that is nonsense. Craig's arguments have been refuted by both atheists and theists alike.

His assumptions that form the basis of the cosmological argument are unsupported, never mind the fact that they don't even get him to an intelligent creator or the universe, let alone God. A vibrating Higgs field or an M-theory brane collision could have caused the universe to exist for all we know, if in fact anything caused the universe to exist.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What better cause can you have for the universe than a supernatural cause? Supernatural being that which exist outside what we call nature? In order to refute this argument you have to come up with a different model for how it happened. Good luck with that one.

That is just the sort of ridiculous argument that causes people to roll their eyes at Craig rather than debate him.

What "better cause" than God? Better according to who, Christians who already believe he exists?

Monty Burnz

Soul Winner wrote: »

The Kalam Cosmological argument simply states that:

A) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist. (According to the standard Big Bang model)

C) Therefore the universe has a cause.

What's wrong with that?

A child could see what is wrong with it. Your argument is this:

A) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

A god began to exist. (According to the standard god model)

C) Therefore the god has a cause.

If you accept the argument regarding the universe, you must accept it regarding gods, right?

wonderfulname

Soul Winner wrote: »

What's wrong with that? Isn't the most accepted theory in astrophysics the Big Bang Theory? Doesn't that theory postulate a beginning of the universe?

Not in the way you are implying, this is a perfect example of the type of misunderstanding Craig relies upon. The big bang merely refers to the point in space and time from which the universe expanded, it's not nothing>boom>something, its something>expand>same something messed up and over a different area, the process is even ongoing, the universe is still expanding and cooling, and then of course you are assuming that the universe is all that exists, why?

Soul Winner wrote: »

What better cause can you have for the universe than a supernatural cause? Supernatural being that which exist outside what we call nature? In order to refute this argument you have to come up with a different model for how it happened. Good luck with that one.

This is a peculiar argument, you come up with baseless reasoning and ask others to refute it? Surely the onus is on you to prove your stance?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Bill Graig is a formidable debater and its no wonder some atheists avoid getting into a debate with him, I don't blame them.

You are mixing up debating skill with knowledge, a good debater can win arguing the motion that the world is flat.

raah!

It's a bit rich that these people who made their careers on books filled with firey rhetoric supplemented heavily by things like public speaking and public debates are now pretending to be above things like public speaking and public debates. This fellow may not be a serious academic, but neither are the likes Dawkins or Sam Harris in the areas they choose to speak publicly and debate about. Or even write books about.

Edit: I've just listened to some of that debate linked to in fanny's link there. He doesn't seem to be performing any tricks there. Those are all straight forward arguments as far as I can see, and he is rather straight forwardly pointing out to grayling that omnipotence generally meant that a deity can do anything which is logically possible.

Also he gave a rather humourous reference to the Cartesian notion of omnipotence which includes being able to do logically impossible things. That if the deity could do what was logically impossible then it could do the logically contradictory thing of being omnipotent benevolent and create a world filled with suffering. Which I found rather humourous. Furthermore, I used to (when I was ten or something) read internet articles and the like of a fellow named Keith Ward. And I remembered and interchange between Keith ward and Grayling on this very topic. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2005/02/tsunami-god-suffering-evil-grayling/

This was around the same time as the grayling debate, the time of the tsunami. One of these exchanges had to precede the other, so we have grayling first operating on a faulty conception of omnipotence as it is used by theologians, and then just doing it again. So while perhaps it is the case that Craig makes some arguments based on certain unorthodox or faulty interpretations of physical principles (I don't know anything about these), this doesn't mean all his arguments are like this, at least I cannot see any immediate problems with his arguments here.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

I've listened to a lot of Craig debates and I think he puts forth his arguments as clearly as one could expect. The reason he keeps repeating them is because nobody ever addresses them effectively enough let alone refute them adequately. For example, in debates like: "Does God exists." He gives his five good reasons to think that God does exist. God being defined as the creator, planner, and executor of the universe and all life in it. One of these good reasons is the Kalam Cosmological argument.

The Kalam Cosmological argument simply states that:

A) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist. (According to the standard Big Bang model)

C) Therefore the universe has a cause.

What's wrong with that? Isn't the most accepted theory in astrophysics the Big Bang Theory? Doesn't that theory postulate a beginning of the universe? What better cause can you have for the universe than a supernatural cause? Supernatural being that which exist outside what we call nature? In order to refute this argument you have to come up with a different model for how it happened. Good luck with that one.

As I said in my first post, we know the standard Big Bang theory is wrong. Craig knows this, and has admitted as much. He still, however, insists on an interpretation of the big bang as a literal creatio ex nihilo event.

In quantum field theory, particles are field excitations. They can spontaneously emerge from a vacuum field and, in fact, quantum mechanics tells us that a literal nothingness is physically nonsensical. This might seem strange, but quantum mechanics is the most rigorously tested scientific theory out there. Without it, we would not be able to understand superconductivity, or the data generated by particle accelerators.

So quantum mechanics gives us an understanding of dynamical variables which tells us how particles can emerge from a vacuum. Craig accepts this, but says it cannot explain the emergence of space and time itself. However, in the framework of general relativity, the geometry of space time is itself a dynamical variable. So in the same sense that particles emerge from the structure of "nothing" due to physical laws, universes themselves (i.e. Space and time) can emerge from an analogous structure. Universes, in other words, are field excitations, and this field is atemporal, existing "beyond" space and time.

One typical response is to call all this out as conjecture. The idea of a field with universe excitations is conjecture, but it is careful conjecture, based on the well established idea of fields of particle excitations (quantum field theory). Furthermore, to refute the Cosmological argument, it only needs to be possible, allowing us to reject the conclusion that the universe must have had a supernatural cause.

Another typical response to this is "Well why does this quantum nothingness exist, with physical laws, as opposed to actual nothing?". But as soon as you ask this, you are straying from the Cosmological argument, which asserts that the universe cannot have a physical cause. Thanks to quantum mechanics, we can say it is entirely possible for the universe (i.e. Our space and time) to have a physical cause. We cannot say why quantum mechanics is true, rather than false, just as we cannot say why there would be a God, rather than nothing. But we can say a physical structure beyond space and time can exist, and can be responsible for our space and time.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

That has already happened. Craig is by and large a laughing stock in the atheist/skeptical community.

When?

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

When?

Morbert already provides a good summary of the stuff Craig has been educated about but ignores.

Again can anyone explain what the point of debating him would be?

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

It's a bit rich that these people who made their careers on books filled with firey rhetoric supplemented heavily by things like public speaking and public debates are now pretending to be above things like public speaking and public debates. This fellow may not be a serious academic, but neither are the likes Dawkins or Sam Harris in the areas they choose to speak publicly and debate about. Or even write books about.

And no one is forcing anyone to debate with Dawkins or Harris if they feel it would be a waste of time, which I'm sure some Christians do feel.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

Pulling out of a debate you agreed to is bad form. But refusing to debate him is understandable.

There is a difference, as you say, between winning a debate and the position of the victor being true. The significant amount of literature refuting Craig's arguments, compared with his skill and success as a rhetorician, is testament to this. Dawkins (I am less familiar with the others) has no interest in winning debates...

I think is certainly is bad form from Toynbee, especially since tickets were already being sold. I just don't understand why someone would agree to a debate without first understanding who there opponent will be. Anyway, Stephen Law is a good replacement. I just hope he doesn't bring up his "evil god" argument.

Anyway, it's interesting to note that Dawkins and Craig have already debated - albeit obliquely in a teamed debate setting. Craig shared an amusing anecdote of a brief meeting the shared prior to the debate. I can't remember what Dawkins actual response to Craig's greeting was but Dawkins was hilariously rude to him. Speaking of hilariously rude, I will probably make an exception and listen to the Peter Atkins debate. The man just can't help himself.

All in all I would personally love to see Craig debate Dawkins just to get it over with. If Craig's arguments are refuted then all the better surely? BTW, Laurence Krauss recently debated him. As an physicist I wonder if he took Craig to task on what you claim are the glaring weaknesses in his cosmological arguments?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

A child could see what is wrong with it. Your argument is this:

A) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

A god began to exist. (According to the standard god model)

C) Therefore the god has a cause.

If you accept the argument regarding the universe, you must accept it regarding gods, right?

Not to defend Craig's argument, but I think your counter proposal is fallacious because God is by definition uncaused.

I liked John Lennox's pithy response to RD in a debate they had a few years back.

"It’s the old schoolboy question, ‘Who created God?’, I’m actually very surprised to find it as a central argument in your book because it assumes that God is created. And I’m not surprised therefore that you call the book “The God Delusion” because created gods are by definition a delusion. And if you say, ‘if there is a God you have to ask, ‘Who created God?’, that means you are reduced to thinking about created gods. Well none of us believe in created gods, and I think that argument is entirely beside the point and perhaps you should put it on your shelf marked celestial teapots, where it belongs."

Monty Burnz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not to defend Craig's argument, but I think your counter proposal is fallacious because God is by definition uncaused.

And the problem with that is if we allow some things to have 'no cause', what is the argument that excludes the universe from this category?

Fanny Cradock

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And the problem with that is if we allow some things to have 'no cause', what is the argument that excludes the universe from this category?

You must have missed the bit were I said I wasn't going to defend Craig's argument.

Two things though -

1) The claim isn't that "some things" are uncaused. The definition of God is that he, amongst other qualities, is uncaused. Now you might not think that such a being exists and that you inhabit a universe that doesn't give a toss about you and that death is final etc., etc. But if you start talking about a caused or a created god then you aren't talking about God. Capitalisation makes a difference!

2) If you think the universe was uncaused then I'm not the man to divest you of your beliefs.

Monty Burnz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You must have missed the bit were I said I wasn't going to defend Craig's argument.

So must you

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Two things though -

1) The claim isn't that "some things" are uncaused. The definition of God is that he, amongst other things, is uncaused. Now you might not think that such a being exists and that you inhabit a universe that doesn't give a toss about you and that death is final etc., etc. But if you start talking about a caused or a created god then you aren't talking about God. Capitalisation makes a difference!

But there's still an unexplained leap that omits the universe from the 'uncaused' category. And if 'God' is uncaused, why not 'gods'? Why just the one?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

2) If you think the universe was uncaused then I'm not the man to divest you of your beliefs.

Fair enough. Just pointing out the flaws in what a previous poster seemed to think was a plausible argument.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Sorry but that is nonsense. Craig's arguments have been refuted by both atheists and theists alike.

Strange that I've yet to hear any plausible refutation. I've watched many of his debates and not only were his arguments not refuted but they weren't even addressed. Ignoring arguments is not refuting them sorry Wicknight. Please show me the debates which Craig was involved in where the Kalam Cosmological argument was refuted and where he just ignored it? The opening premise of which states that: "whatever begins to exists has a cause." Do you agree with this premise? That whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause?

Wicknight wrote: »

His assumptions that form the basis of the cosmological argument are unsupported,

What assumptions?

Wicknight wrote: »

never mind the fact that they don't even get him to an intelligent creator or the universe, let alone God.

No but they do get us to a cause of the universe that is outside of what we call nature because nature itself came into existence when the universe came into existence. So whatever the cause of the universe has to be supernatural i.e outside of what we now call the natural.

Wicknight wrote: »

A vibrating Higgs field or an M-theory brane collision could have caused the universe to exist for all we know, if in fact anything caused the universe to exist.

Mumbo jumbo argumentation, as per usual. What caused the vibrating Higgs field then? Is that eternal? If so where is the evidence for that? In case you haven't heard, they haven't come across the theoretical Higgs field yet even though in order for their theories to be true it must exist. So appealing to what is at the moment a theoretical idea to explain the cause of the universe is as laughable as what you're trying (but failing) to make out Craig's arguments are.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is just the sort of ridiculous argument that causes people to roll their eyes at Craig rather than debate him.

Rolling your eyes is not winning an argument. You must engage your opponent and present facts that are supported by evidence. To refute the premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument you have to admit that not everything that begins to exist has a cause or that the universe itself didn't begin to exist. The Big Bang model when followed to its logical conclusion has to go back to nothingness. You say that subatomic particles have been observed to pop into existence apparently from nothing. When? And where was the nothing when this happened? You see doing experiments now, while we have a universe and apparently showing particles to pop in and out of existence from nothing now (while there is a universe) is not the same as when it happened before we had a universe. Before we had a universe there was absolutely nothing. Trying to replicate that now is a futile exercise because nothing doesn't exist anymore. :pac:

Wicknight wrote: »

What "better cause" than God? Better according to who, Christians who already believe he exists?

Well whatever the cause, it must be timeless (eternal), spaceless, immaterial and very powerful. You affix your Higgs field stamp in that space all you like, we'll just call it God. In any case, Craig uses this argument to do just one thing, to give a good reason to think that God exists out there somewhere. He does not present it as actual proof that there is a God, just a good reason to think there is. When science presents us with the evidence that it was in fact the Higgs field or whatever that caused the universe then it will no longer be a good reason to think that God did it. Until that happens it will remain a good reason to think that God did it and that He exists.

Fanny Cradock

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So must you

I don't believe I have defended Craig's argument. I don't know enough about physics to even begin to understand if what he says makes sense. For that matter I don't know if morbert's criticisms are valid or not.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But there's still an unexplained leap that omits the universe from the 'uncaused' category. And if 'God' is uncaused, why not 'gods'? Why just the one?

Again, if you think that the universe is uncaused good for you. Even if I was to become an atheist tomorrow I would still disagree with this conclusion. But that is besides the point, no?

The existence of other gods is unrelated to what we have been discussing. God is by definition uncreated - that's all you need to know. If you want to posit other uncreated gods then go ahead but I suggest you do so in somewhere like the spirituality forum.

Monty Burnz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you want to posit other uncreated gods then go ahead but I suggest you do so in somewhere like the spirituality forum.

It's ok, I'll leave it at that - my position doesn't require me to posit any gods at all.

Soul Winner

Monty Burnz wrote: »

A child could see what is wrong with it. Your argument is this:

A) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

A god began to exist. (According to the standard god model)

C) Therefore the god has a cause.

If you accept the argument regarding the universe, you must accept it regarding gods, right?

If God began to exist then by definition he cannot be God. That is axiomatic i.e. self evident. As Fanny has quoted John Lennox as saying; we do not believe in created Gods. Never did and never will. The God of the Bible is always described as eternal in nature. That means He always was and ever will be, which means He wasn't caused. If the Universe (everything that we know to exist in nature) began to exist, then its cause must be other than the universe. God, by definition just so happens to fall into that category and did so long before the Big Bang theory.

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

If God began to exist then by definition he cannot be God. That is axiomatic i.e. self evident. As Fanny has quoted John Lennox as saying; we do not believe in created Gods. Never did and never will. The God of the Bible is always described as eternal in nature. That means He always was and ever will be, which means He wasn't caused. If the Universe (everything that we know to exist in nature) began to exist, then its cause must be other than the universe. God, by definition just so happens to fall into that category and did so long before the Big Bang theory.

So why can't a godless reality also fit in their? When you consider the incompatibilities of the properties of the aforementioned deity along with evidence that contradicts most religious assertions, why posit it/him/her?

Fanny Cradock

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It's ok, I'll leave it at that - my position doesn't require me to posit any gods at all.

Lucky you! Your just left with infinite regress and the possibly of innumerable universes (something I don't necessarily disagree with, btw)

Monty Burnz

Soul Winner wrote: »

If God began to exist then by definition he cannot be God. That is axiomatic i.e. self evident. As Fanny has quoted John Lennox as saying; we do not believe in created Gods. Never did and never will. The God of the Bible is always described as eternal in nature. That means He always was and ever will be, which means He wasn't caused. If the Universe (everything that we know to exist in nature) began to exist, then its cause must be other than the universe. God, by definition just so happens to fall into that category and did so long before the Big Bang theory.

Having claimed that certain things can exist without a cause, can you tell me why the universe must have a cause?

Monty Burnz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Lucky you! Your just left with infinite regress and the possibly of innumerable universes (something I don't necessarily disagree with, btw)

Indeed. And I don't mind throwing my arms up in the air and saying 'we simply haven't figured it out yet' - much like we would have had to a few hundred years ago when asked about magnetism, or light, or whatever.

Fanny Cradock

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Indeed. And I don't mind throwing my arms up in the air and saying 'we simply haven't figured it out yet' - much like we would have had to a few hundred years ago when asked about magnetism, or light, or whatever.

Noting wrong with saying I don't know!

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

As I said in my first post, we know the standard Big Bang theory is wrong. Craig knows this, and has admitted as much.

The Big Bang Theory has been proven wrong? I mustn't have got the memo. And you say that Craig has admitted as much? When? Please provide links to your sources.

Morbert wrote: »

He still, however, insists on an interpretation of the big bang as a literal creatio ex nihilo event.

Well as far as we know it was an ex nihilo event. They're still trying to explain it otherwise but are having a hard time agreeing on a theory and/or providing evidence for it.

Morbert wrote: »

In quantum field theory particles are field excitations. They can spontaneously emerge from a vacuum field and, in fact, quantum mechanics tells us that a literal nothingness is physically nonsensical.

Of course it is Mobert, who is arguing that it isn't? There is no such thing as literal nothingness anymore though. But that is where the universe came from as far as we know. How did that happen? You fill in the blanks.

Morbert wrote: »

This might seem strange, but quantum mechanics is the most rigorously tested scientific theory out there. Without it, we would not be able to understand superconductivity, or the data generated by particle accelerators.

That's wonderful and all but its beside the point in here no?

Morbert wrote: »

So quantum mechanics gives us an understanding of dynamical variables which tells us how particles can emerge from a vacuum.

OK what are you implying here? Are you implying that we can equate vacuums with nothingness? You just said that: "in fact, quantum mechanics tells us that a literal nothingness is physically nonsensical." Are vacuums physically nonsensical too? If not then they are not the same as literal nothingness are they? So that being so what is the relevance of being able to show that particles can spontaneously emerge from a vacuum? Vaccums are vacuums, they exist in space and time, they are not nothingness.

Morbert wrote: »

Craig accepts this, but says it cannot explain the emergence of space and time itself.

Of course he does. Why wouldn't he? It bares no relevance to the topic whatsoever.

Morbert wrote: »

However, in the framework of general relativity, the geometry of space time is itself a dynamical variable. So in the same sense that particles emerge from the structure of "nothing" due to physical laws,

So you are implying that vacuums and nothingness are the same thing? Yet you agree that nothingness is physically nonsensical. But vacuums aren't physically nonsensical are they?

Morbert wrote: »

One typical response is to call all this out as conjecture. The idea of a field with universe excitations is conjecture, but it is careful conjecture, based on the well established idea of fields of particle excitations (quantum field theory). Furthermore, to refute the Cosmological argument, it only needs to be possible, allowing us to reject the conclusion that the universe must have had a supernatural cause.

Wow!!! From rolling eyes at Craig's argument to going to such lengths to refuting it is quite a jump in respect wouldn't you agree? From being a silly idea that is so easily refuted to having to bring quantum theory in to try and refute it is very curious indeed.

Morbert wrote: »

Another typical response to this is "Well why does this quantum nothingness exist, with physical laws, as opposed to actual nothing?". But as soon as you ask this, you are straying from the Cosmological argument, which asserts that the universe cannot have a physical cause. Thanks to quantum mechanics, we can say it is entirely possible for the universe (i.e. Our space and time) to have a physical cause. We cannot say why quantum mechanics is true, rather than false, just as we cannot say why there would be a God, rather than nothing. But we can say a physical structure beyond space and time can exist, and can be responsible for our space and time.

That is only if we equate nothingness with vacuums which we can't so its back to the drawing board Mobert old buddy :pac:

Soul Winner

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So why can't a godless reality also fit in their? When you consider the incompatibilities of the properties of the aforementioned deity along with evidence that contradicts most religious assertions, why posit it/him/her?

What incompatibilities of the properties of the aforementioned deity are you talking about?

Turtwig

I'm sorry soul, but the big bang theory only described the early expansion of the universe from a hot dense state. Anything about it being proof (or disproof) of creation ex nihilio is unwanted speculations. It's more akin to a description of how water changes from solid to a liquid.

Monty Burnz

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Having claimed that certain things can exist without a cause, can you tell me why the universe must have a cause?

I don't know whether to feel offended or pleased that Soul Winner is ignoring this point.

Soul Winner

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Having claimed that certain things can exist without a cause, can you tell me why the universe must have a cause?

I'm not telling you that the universe must have a cause, I'm telling you that according to the accepted standard model and followed to its logical conclusion there was at one point no universe whatsoever. That being so, whatever did cause it to come into existence must not be made up of the same stuff as the universe. Which said stuff is space, time, matter etc. Plus that cause is not governed by the laws of physics either because it exists wholly apart form the laws of physics, in fact that cause also caused the laws of physics. The cause is therefore timeless, i.e eternal i.e. un-caused. Vacuums exist within the universe, hence they are caused by a mechanism that is contained within the confines of the universe. They cannot be equated with the nothingness before the universe came into existence.

So this cause must have power beyond what we know to exist in nature. And the fact that we set out to understand the universe means that we assume that the universe is ineligible to begin with, if not then why do science? And the fact that the universe is intelligible means that the cause of it must also be intelligent as well as having all the aforementioned attributes. Do Higg's field have intelligence? Even if we find an overriding theory of everything we are still left with the question as to why the universe just so happens to be intelligible to observers which supposedly are just accidental by-products of its inner processes and random collisions of atoms over billions of years.

Monty Burnz

Soul Winner wrote: »

I'm not telling you that the universe must have a cause, I'm telling you that according to the accepted standard model and followed to its logical conclusion there was at one point no universe whatsoever.

I don't think that that is what the 'standard model' (?) says, as others have explained.

I'm always baffled how people with a particular ideology will agree with the bits of science that back up what they believed anyway, but throw out the products of the same science that conflict with their beliefs.

Odd, that.

Soul Winner

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm sorry soul, but the big bang theory only described the early expansion of the universe from a hot dense state. Anything about it being proof (or disproof) of creation ex nihilio is unwanted speculations. It's more akin to a description of how water changes from solid to a liquid.

Here's what John Barrow An English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, mathematician and currently Research Professor of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge says about it:

"At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."

- John Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986), page 442

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

What incompatibilities of the properties of the aforementioned deity are you talking about?

These ones.

Soul Winner

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't think that that is what the 'standard model' (?) says, as others have explained.

I'm always baffled how people with a particular ideology will agree with the bits of science that back up what they believed anyway, but throw out the products of the same science that conflict with their beliefs.

Odd, that.

And I'm always baffled at people who will point to science as the be all and end all of all truth except when its findings happen to support a particular religious viewpoint. That's odd too.

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

And I'm always baffled at people who will point to science as the be all and end all of all truth except when its findings happen to support a particular religious viewpoint. That's odd too.

But science doesn't!

Monty Burnz

Soul Winner wrote: »

Here's what John Barrow An English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, mathematician and currently Research Professor of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge says about it:

With respect, what one guy said 25 years ago (without any context) does not represent the zenith of scientific knowledge.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Strange that I've yet to hear any plausible refutation.

Thats odd, cause I've personally given you loads in the past. Perhaps your definition of "plausible" is overly selective

Soul Winner wrote: »

Please show me the debates which Craig was involved in where the Kalam Cosmological argument was refuted and where he just ignored it?

The cosmological argument has been refuted in debates and outside of debates.

For example this page at Standford summarizes the refutations, and has been live since 2004. This is just a summary, these refutations have existed since before Craig even published his book on the subject in 1979.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#4.1

Yet here in 2011 is Craig continuing to debate the same line.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4FB44609DEFDF0AC

Soul Winner wrote: »

The opening premise of which states that: "whatever begins to exists has a cause." Do you agree with this premise? That whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause?

No. We have examples of uncaused events (radioactive decay for example), and that is within the rules of this universe which wouldn't even have existed prior to the existence of this universe.

This has already been explained to you in previous threads. It has also been explained William Lane Craig.

In fact, come to think of it I've never seen the two of you in the same room together ...

Monty Burnz

Soul Winner wrote: »

And I'm always baffled at people who will point to science as the be all and end all of all truth except when its findings happen to support a particular religious viewpoint. That's odd too.

You are trying to argue that science tells us something that it doesn't. When I point that you, you try to claim I am denying science. That is argument in bad faith.

Winning Souls by misrepresentation doesn't sound like something Christ would get up to.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Plus that cause is not governed by the laws of physics either because it exists wholly apart form the laws of physics, in fact that cause also caused the laws of physics. The cause is therefore timeless, i.e eternal i.e. un-caused.

If you are just going to make stuff up what is the point of debating with you?

I can see why you are the most vocal supporter of Craig on this forum, you share so many of his personal traits :rolleyes:

token56

Soul Winner wrote: »

That being so, whatever did cause it to come into existence must not be made up of the same stuff as the universe. Which said stuff is space, time, matter etc. Plus that cause is not governed by the laws of physics either because it exists wholly apart form the laws of physics, in fact that cause also caused the laws of physics. The cause is therefore timeless, i.e eternal i.e. un-caused.

As you state, the cause, which I'm taking to be whatever started the expansion of the universe, is not governed by the law of physics as it existed before they were created. To then apply our concepts of timelessness, eternal etc to this cause is pointless as they are only useful in a world with our laws and as we know this cause is not governed by these laws. So its all a bit circular. The point is to considering the cause as timeless is pointless because our concept of timeless can't be applied to it. Maybe if we could get an understanding of the laws before expansion what we consider an eternal entity would be perfectly logically. None of this points to a logical conclusion of a God, it simply means we dont know, we dont know if the cause is "eternal", we dont know if even asking that question makes sense if we applied a different set of laws to the cause.

Soul Winner

CerebralCortex wrote: »

But science doesn't!

Well the Big Bang model supports the biblical concept of creation ex nihilo, which is why so many theoretical physicists like Hawking bend over backwards to try and explain it in such a way that avoids an absolute beginning, but he does so by being forced to introduce weird concepts like imaginary time and so forth. He does this because he knows what the implications of a beginning of the universe actually are, i.e that it was caused and as such has a causer.

Soul Winner

Monty Burnz wrote: »

With respect, what one guy said 25 years ago (without any context) does not represent the zenith of scientific knowledge.

OK, so what does represent the zenith of scientific knowledge?

Monty Burnz

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK, so what does represent the zenith of scientific knowledge?

The Bible. :rolleyes:

oldrnwisr

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK, so what does represent the zenith of scientific knowledge?

This or this or this or maybe this.

And then there's this and this and even this.

Science moves ahead at a fantastic speed and so like Monty said, presenting a quote from one scientist 25 years ago is not representative of current research and is really just an appeal to authority, a bad one.

CerebralCortex

oldrnwisr wrote: »

This or this or this or maybe this.

And then there's this and this and even this.

Science moves ahead at a fantastic speed and so like Monty said, presenting a quote from one scientist 25 years ago is not representative of current research and is really just an appeal to authority, a bad one.

Man I wish I studied physics!!

Manach

OT: Whilst science does progress at a fast past, so do all other major branches of knowledge. There is a limit to the amount of books/articles to be read within a time-period and to remain somewhat current in various fields (my own limit is about 1 book per week). So linkages to those books, which I'm sure are excellent, it is hardly a disadvantage if one has not read them.