Refusing to debate WLC (and the cosmological argument)

CerebralCortex · 15-08-2011 02:24PM

Manach wrote: »

Your definition of science is a tad wide and all encompassing. However, I'd accept there are logical substructures with history and IT to make them scientific. But logic and law seem (IMHO) have only an 'l' in common :rolleyes:

Science is wide.

Manach wrote: »

BTW: Offhand I'd recommend the excellent Open University course on Artificial intelligence: M366 Natural and artificial intelligence. Which is a mixture of Cognitive and Computer Science with some evolutionary theory thrown into the mix.

Oh thanks for the heads up. I'm actually going to be attending this course in September but every little helps.

Fanny Cradock · 15-08-2011 02:45PM

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

I would have thought that radioactive decay is a caused event. Decay is, AFAIK, caused by the differential between a high energy state at the beginning to a lower state at the end. That doesn't appear to me as uncaused - most certainly not in the sense that God is defined as uncased.

I don't understand the second part of your post. It appears to me as if you are saying that decay is possible because conditions make it possible - which is to say nothing at all. Can you explain this to me?

MrPudding · 15-08-2011 03:02PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Bill Graig is a formidable debater...

What? Like a master debater?

MrP

Soul Winner · 15-08-2011 03:31PM

Wicknight wrote: »

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

They are counter arguments Wick not refutations. Just because someone doesn't agree with a set of premises and subsequent conclusions does not mean that they have refuted them by providing their own counter arguments. But by all means please copy and paste the part where Craig's premises were shown to be false or invalid not simply disagreed with.

Wicknight wrote: »

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

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

Of course he is, he is obviously not convinced by the counter arguments either.

Wicknight wrote: »

No. We have examples of uncaused events (radioactive decay for example),

So nothing triggers the instant for that decay to occur? It just happens? There is no preliminary change going on in the subatomic particles that triggers this?

From askville.amazon.com

"What causes radioactive decay:

The root cause is in the tension between the attractive, short-range
nuclear force, and the repulsive, long-range electrostatic force. The
nuclear force is hugely attractive when nucleons are very near each other,
but drops off rapidly as the distance between nucleons increases. You can
think of the nuclear force as being active only between nearest neighbors,
and it does not make much difference whether those neighbors are neutrons
or protons. The electrostatic force is much weaker, but also much less
diminished by distance, and acts mainly between protons, pushing them apart.

If you do not have enough neutrons around, the repulsive, electrostatic
force wins out, because every proton feels repulsion from every other
proton, but only feels attraction from its nearest neighbor. On the
other hand, if you have too many neutrons, the Pauli exclusion principle
(no two particles of the same kind can have exactly the same quantum
numbers) forbids them to occupy states that protons would be allowed to
occupy, and so you also do not get as much nearest-neighbor attraction as
you would get with a more optimal ratio of protons to neutrons.

An unstable nucleus is one in which the ratio is off far enough that
the nucleus really cannot hold itself together, but it might not decay
immediately, because relatively stable decay products must form and
separate. This might take a long time, because the nucleus is continually
rearranging itself, and most arrangements do not correspond to the required
relatively stable decay products."

Wicknight wrote: »

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

Not very convincingly obviously.

Zombrex · 15-08-2011 03:33PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would have thought that radioactive decay is a caused event. Decay is, AFAIK, caused by the differential between a high energy state at the beginning to a lower state at the end. That doesn't appear to me as uncaused - most certainly not in the sense that God is defined as uncased.

The thing that makes radioactive decay an uncaused event is that it is spontaneous. It just happens without any known cause.

I saw known cause because it is impossible to rule out any cause. There may be a cause that we do not understand. But as far as scientists can tell nothing causes this to happen, it just does and when it does it is a random event.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can you explain this to me?

Sure.

Everything that has a beginning has a cause

is a concept that is formed based on experiencing events inside our universe, events that follow the rules of our universe. Even if we could never find any evidence that counters this claim within our universe there is still no reason to suppose it holds to events that take place when the rules of our universe do not exist.

It is thus illogical to apply this constraint to the state prior to the Big Bang, since the rule itself may not have existed.

Soul Winner · 15-08-2011 03:34PM

MrPudding wrote: »

What? Like a master debater?

MrP

No, just a formidable debater.

Soul Winner · 15-08-2011 03:43PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Sure.

Everything that has a beginning has a cause

is a concept that is formed based on experiencing events inside our universe, events that follow the rules of our universe. Even if we could never find any evidence that counters this claim within our universe there is still no reason to suppose it holds to events that take place when the rules of our universe do not exist.

It is thus illogical to apply this constraint to the state prior to the Big Bang, since the rule itself may not have existed.

So essentially what you are saying is that because we have no evidence that the law of cause and effect exists outside of the universe (even though we have plenty of evidence for it existing within the universe) that it is more plausible to assume that it doesn't exist outside the universe than that it does?

I think that because it exists within the universe it is more plausible to proceed on the assumption that it also exists outside the universe until we find evidence that it doesn't.

Zombrex · 15-08-2011 03:46PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

They are counter arguments Wick not refutations.

Craig has made positive statements about how things must be. Counter arguments demonstrate that this is not the case are refutations.

For example, if the statement Whatever begins to exist has a cause is unsupportable then this is a refutation. It can't be unsupportable and still be right.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Of course he is, he is obviously not convinced by the counter arguments either.

Of course he isn't, that is the point. Nothing would convince Craig he is in error because he is not interested in the actual arguments, he is only interested in pretending he has a rational basis for his faith in God.

Remember the original question, why don't atheists such as Dawkins debate with Craig. They don't debate with him because it is pointless. He doesn't care about the correctness of his position.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So nothing triggers the instant for that decay to occur? It just happens? There is no preliminary change going on in the subatomic particles that triggers this?

Yes, as far as scientists know.

The decay is random, but the probability of it taking place depends on the nuclear force (but not on the force going astray in any way, though). It depends on the force acting like it is supposed to.

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/forceastray.html

Soul Winner wrote: »

"What causes radioactive decay:

That explains how the decay happens, not what causes it to happen.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Not very convincingly obviously.

One has to be open to being convinced, obviously.

Craig clearly isn't. So again what is the point in debating with him?

Zombrex · 15-08-2011 03:54PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

So essentially what you are saying is that because we have no evidence that the law of cause and effect exists outside of the universe (even though we have plenty of evidence for it existing within the universe) that it is more plausible to assume that it doesn't exist outside the universe than that it does?

You don't need to assume it does or doesn't. Stop assuming things would be my first advice to you, particularly if you are only assuming things to reach a particular conclusion based on your religious beliefs.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think that because it exists within the universe it is more plausible to proceed on the assumption that it also exists outside the universe until we find evidence that it doesn't.

Well that is a bit stupid of you, but if you wish to proceed that way go ahead.

Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously or be all that interested in debating such a concept with you. Being silly and then expecting people to respect this silliness is, well, silly. That is true whether you are Craig or yourself, though again I've never seen you both in the same room so I'm starting to have my suspicions.

raah! · 15-08-2011 03:57PM

I'd imagine there's the same point in debating Craig as there is to debate the majority of people who would not let their inability to respond to something said in a debate change their position on the matter. Unless their thought on the subject was so shallow so as to be refuted by one point.

So far all that has been pointed out was that the Cosmological argument is wrong. It's not fair to say that Craig doesn't ever use any good arguments. For example he clearly relies quite heavily on Alvin Plantinga's work. It might be the case that his own arguments aren't as good. Likewise, there are many arguments of Dawkins which are very wrong which I'm sure he kept using. The one about "God's Complexity" which you were defending some time ago on this forum for example. Another example is Sam Harris just keeps repeating the same nonsense about science determining moral values, even though he knows much of it has been refuted in many places many times. So you seem him being much more careful when he says it. He says it and then quickly runs away from the statement. He nevertheless says everytime anyone ever sees him.

And if he really is engaged in these tricks, and saying things so contrary to scientific orthodoxy, then one need only point out where the tricks occur and respond with "this is not scientifically orthodox" and "that is not an outdated or unreliable citation" if he says things about physics which are untrue.

Soul Winner · 15-08-2011 04:08PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Craig has made positive statements about how things must be. Counter arguments demonstrate that this is not the case are refutations.

For example, if the statement Whatever begins to exist has a cause is unsupportable then this is a refutation. It can't be unsupportable and still be right.

It is supported though, that is the point. Cause and effect is widely observable in the universe. The universe did not exist at one point and now it exists. It is more plausible to assume it had a cause (all be it not the kind of cause we are used to observing within the universe) than it is to assume it just came into existence un-caused. If we start on the premise that it was un-caused then science stops in its tracks, as there is no need for anymore inquiry on the matter because what is the point in finding out anymore about how the universe came into being if we've already concluded that it was un-caused? However if we start on the premise that it had a cause and try to find out what that cause was, be it God or not, then science is able to continue, be ye religiously minded about it or not.

Wicknight wrote: »

Remember the original question, why don't atheists such as Dawkins debate with Craig. They don't debate with him because it is pointless. He doesn't care about the correctness of his position.

List of atheists that have debated with William Lane Craig:

Peter Atkins
Christopher Hitchens
Frank Zindle
Anthony Flew (when he was an atheist)
Richard Carrier (twice I think)
Richard Dawkins (yes even Richard Dawkins)
Michael Shermer
Sam Harris

I could name more but the my point is that these guys seem to think there is a point in debating with him.

Wicknight wrote: »

The decay is random, but the probability of it taking place depends on the nuclear force (but not on the force going astray in any way, though). It depends on the force acting like it is supposed to.

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/forceastray.html

It depends on the force acting like its supposed to? So if the force doesn't act like it is supposed to then decay won't happen right? That means that the cause for the decay is dependent on what way the force acts.

Wicknight wrote: »

That explains how the decay happens, not what causes it to happen.

Decay happening is decay happening, i.e. protons turning into neutrons etc etc.. If the force did not act the way it is supposed to act then this decay would not happen. Which means that the force is the determinant factor in why decay happens in the first place. What determines an even to take place is the cause of that event. Now the question moves to this: What causes the force to act in this way?

wonderfulname · 15-08-2011 04:13PM

raah! - such is the nature of debate, it's a pretty pointless medium outside of politics because the focus is to win, not to inform.

Zombrex · 15-08-2011 04:14PM

raah! wrote: »

I'd imagine there's the same point in debating Craig as there is to debate the majority of people who would not let their inability to respond to something said in a debate change their position on the matter.

Which is?

Fanny Cradock · 15-08-2011 04:16PM

Wicknight wrote: »

The thing that makes radioactive decay an uncaused event is that it is spontaneous. It just happens without any known cause.

But we do know what the cause is. I've outlined it above to the best of my knowledge (see below for more). There are forces acting on a nucleus that cause it to decay and also prevent it from decaying.

Wicknight wrote: »

I saw known cause because it is impossible to rule out any cause. There may be a cause that we do not understand. But as far as scientists can tell nothing causes this to happen, it just does and when it does it is a random event.

But even it we didn't know the cause it doesn't mean that it is uncaused. But perhaps you are suggesting that protons and neutrons tunnelling out of a nucleus is a purely a random/ probabilistic event? My understanding - which is obviously somebody else's - is that it such events are down to the wave function extending beyond the potential barrier which leads to decay. Two things are interacting there. Decay isn't an uncaused event by any stretch. Indeed, in time all radioactive nuclei will decay. It's the time differential that is the question, not the cause. But perhaps the physicists out there can confirm this.

Wicknight wrote: »

Sure.

Everything that has a beginning has a cause

is a concept that is formed based on experiencing events inside our universe, events that follow the rules of our universe. Even if we could never find any evidence that counters this claim within our universe there is still no reason to suppose it holds to events that take place when the rules of our universe do not exist.

It is thus illogical to apply this constraint to the state prior to the Big Bang, since the rule itself may not have existed.

Very Kantian of you. But I don't see why it is illogical to apply our knowledge in such ways. Perhaps there is more substance to your argument - but the only justification you have included for this axiom is that a certain "rule" may not have existed. That's speculative. It might have existed. It may not be preferable given your metaphysical leanings (and let's not beat about the bush; we are talking metaphysics here) but I don't see why that is any different to saying "I like chocolate ice-cream, you like vanilla".

Unfortunately you are left with an infinite regress. On a personal level that is something that I don't find particularly logical or satisfying, but then again I would.

Zombrex · 15-08-2011 04:19PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

It is supported though, that is the point.

It is not supported. We can't even demonstrate it holds for this universe, let alone any other reality.

We have examples of uncaused events in this universe.

Soul Winner wrote: »

List of atheists that have debated with William Lane Craig:

Peter Atkins
Christopher Hitchens
Frank Zindle
Anthony Flew (when he was an atheist)
Richard Carrier (twice I think)
Richard Dawkins (yes even Richard Dawkins)
Michael Shermer
Sam Harris

And can you name a point that Craig has conceded or updated after debating with all of them?

Cause his arguments seem to be the same as they were in 1979. So unless Craig has a perfect argument that none of those atheists have managed to find any holes in, he is simply ignoring refutations of his points.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It depends on the force acting like its supposed to? So if the force doesn't act like it is supposed to then decay won't happen right? That means that the cause for the decay is dependent on what way the force acts.

The probability of it happening depends on that force.

Do you understand the role probability plays in quantum physics (you should be given the amount of time we have discussed it)

CerebralCortex · 15-08-2011 04:22PM

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not supported. We can't even demonstrate it holds for this universe, let alone any other reality.

We have examples of uncaused events in this universe.

And can you name a point that Craig has conceded or updated after debating with all of them?

Cause his arguments seem to be the same as they were in 1979. So unless Craig has a perfect argument that none of those atheists have managed to find any holes in, he is simply ignoring refutations of his points.

The probability of it happening depends on that force.

Do you understand the role probability plays in quantum physics (you should be given the amount of time we have discussed it)

I don't?

Zombrex · 15-08-2011 04:28PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But we do know what the cause is. I've outlined it above to the best of my knowledge (see below for more). There are forces acting on a nucleus that cause it to decay and also prevent it from decaying.

And these forces could just as easy not cause it to decay. Whether this happens or not is random, based on quantum fluctuations.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But even it we didn't know the cause it doesn't mean that it is uncaused.

It doesn't. But it appears to be.

So the question becomes on what basis do we support the proposition that everything that begins has a cause. How do we say this is true?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But perhaps you are suggesting that protons and neutrons tunnelling out of a nucleus is a purely a random/ probabilistic event? My understanding - which is obviously somebody else's - is that it such events are down to the wave function extending beyond the potential barrier which leads to decay. This isn't an uncaused even by any stretch. Indeed, in time all radioactive nuclei will decay. It's the time differential that is the question, not the cause. But perhaps the physicists out there can confirm this.

The decay will happen with no event triggering it to happen. It will simply happen. This is an uncaused event.

Or to put it another way, there is nothing we can observe before it happens to know that it is about to happen. We cannot see the event that triggers the decay because there is no event that triggers the decay. It will just happen.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But I don't see why it is illogical to apply our knowledge in such ways.

Well you should given how many times you have told me I can't use my own experience to judge what it is or isn't like for God, an eternal being that exists outside of our own space time

Same principle applies. We have no reason to suppose that the rules we observe in this universe apply when the rules of this universe have not even been formed.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps there is more substance to your argument - but the only justification you have included for this axiom is that a certain "rule" may not have existed. That's speculative. It might have existed.

Of course it is speculative, that is the point. We don't know

I'm not claiming causality didn't apply or that God didn't make the Big Bang, but equally Craig's assumptions have no bearing.

Craig is making a positive assertion about reality that he then bases further assumptions on.

If he can't support the very first assumption then what is the point of the other ones that build upon it. It is pure speculation, nothing more.

Zombrex · 15-08-2011 04:31PM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I don't?

At the quantum level you cannot know if something will or won't happen, just the probability that it might happen. Whether it actually happens or not is random.

Decay may or may not happen. This is not determined by anything (as far as we can tell and quite a bit of research has been done into this). Nothing causes it to happen. We can't say Well X just happened so now we know decay will start. or Decay just happened therefore X happened before that to trigger it

raah! · 15-08-2011 04:42PM

wonderfulname wrote: »

raah! - such is the nature of debate, it's a pretty pointless medium outside of politics because the focus is to win, not to inform.

I agree , though the internet forum discussion is no way immune to this malady. My point was that I found it rather hypocritical for these people who have been playing their sophistical tricks on the audience for all these years are now taking offense to Craig's ones. Though I agree, if it is true that this cosmological argument is based on a faulty physics, then he should not use it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is?

Perhaps you could ask Richard Dawkins what the point in spending so much time speaking with full on young earth creationists on channel 4 is and then you may get some inkling. You could ask him how it is that he's "not interested in winning debates" when he's been in so many in the past.

CerebralCortex · 15-08-2011 04:43PM

Wicknight wrote: »

At the quantum level you cannot know if something will or won't happen, just the probability that it might happen. Whether it actually happens or not is random.

I get it. It must make probability distributions very difficult, if not useless or is it that you only have probability distributions in trying to predict behaviour? Or am I asking the wrong questions?

Wicknight wrote: »

Decay may or may not happen. This is not determined by anything (as far as we can tell and quite a bit of research has been done into this). Nothing causes it to happen. We can't say Well X just happened so now we know decay will start. or Decay just happened therefore X happened before that to trigger it

Right, gotcha. It's times like this uploading would be very useful a la The Matrix. I almost feel cheated in life because I've no grasp of QM.

Soul Winner · 15-08-2011 04:45PM

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not supported. We can't even demonstrate it holds for this universe, let alone any other reality.

Let me reiterate: Cause and effect is widely observable in the universe. The universe did not exist at one point and now it exists. It is more plausible to assume it had a cause (all be it not the kind of cause we are used to observing within the universe) than it is to assume it just came into existence un-caused. If we start on the premise that it was un-caused then science stops in its tracks, as there is no need for anymore inquiry on the matter because what is the point in finding out anymore about how the universe came into being if we've already concluded that it was un-caused? However if we start on the premise that it had a cause and try to find out what that cause was, be it God or not, then science is able to continue, be ye religiously minded about it or not.

Wicknight wrote: »

We have examples of uncaused events in this universe.

You already gave an example of this and Fanny and I have pointed out to you that there was a cause. As in the case of the example you gave it is how the force acts that determines whether decay occurs or not.

Wicknight wrote: »

And can you name a point that Craig has conceded or updated after debating with all of them?

No, because they never actually address his points never mind refute them. For the most part they would just talk about all the negative things that religion causes and use those as proof that God doesn't and cannot exist which he easily refutes. Take the problem of evil for example. What is evil if God doesn't exist? How do we define evil in a universe where God doesn't exist? The fact that there is evil proves that God exists because in a universe where God didn't exist evil (no matter how we define it) would just be another part of the natural order of things, if there was any order at all in such a universe. So for someone who doesn't believe that God exists to use evil to prove it is just showing his ignorance on the subject because such a person should expect the universe in which he finds himself to be whatever way it just happens to be.

But you are getting away from your own point which was the futility of debating with Craig. These guys didn't nor would they now agree with you.

Wicknight wrote: »

Cause his arguments seem to be the same as they were in 1979. So unless Craig has a perfect argument that none of those atheists have managed to find any holes in, he is simply ignoring refutations of his points.

His arguments don't have to be perfect they just have to be sound and solid and when you have that then why would you change?

Wicknight wrote: »

The probability of it happening depends on that force.

Do you understand the role probability plays in quantum physics (you should be given the amount of time we have discussed it)

Now who is being silly? If the probability of it happening depends on the force then the actuality of it happening also depends on the force, which means that the force is still the under girding influence for the decaying to occur i.e. it is the cause.

oldrnwisr · 15-08-2011 04:51PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

The universe did not exist at one point and now it exists.

Can you back up this statement with some evidence please?

Monty Burnz · 15-08-2011 05:00PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Let me reiterate: Cause and effect is widely observable in the universe. The universe did not exist at one point and now it exists. It is more plausible to assume it had a cause (all be it not the kind of cause we are used to observing within the universe) than it is to assume it just came into existence un-caused.

Another way to characterise your argument would be to imagine being inside a box where the outside surface of everything in the box is painted white, and to extrapolate that the the outside of the box (which you cannot see) is also painted white.

Soul Winner · 15-08-2011 05:03PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Can you back up this statement with some evidence please?

Do you want me to provide you with evidence for when the universe did not exist? Bit of a toughy that. I can only point you to what theoretical physicists generally agree on and that is:

From Wiki:

"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang", but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself, which can be considered the "birth" of our Universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the Universe has a calculated age of 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years."

Monty Burnz · 15-08-2011 05:06PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do you want me to provide you with evidence for when the universe did not exist? Bit of a toughy that. I can only point you to what theoretical physicists generally agree on and that is:

From Wiki:

"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang", but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself, which can be considered the "birth" of our Universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the Universe has a calculated age of 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years."

So - no evidence at all then? Just a point where the most fundamental rules break down - but not the rules of causality that you appeal to?

oldrnwisr · 15-08-2011 05:29PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do you want me to provide you with evidence for when the universe did not exist? Bit of a toughy that. I can only point you to what theoretical physicists generally agree on and that is:

From Wiki:

"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang", but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself, which can be considered the "birth" of our Universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the Universe has a calculated age of 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years."

Maybe in your hurry to cut + paste from Wikipedia you missed this bit:

According to the theory, the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly (a "Big Bang"). As there is little consensus among physicists about the origins of the universe, the Big Bang theory explains only that such a rapid expansion caused the young universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state.

Nowhere in your quote, though is there anything which supports your contention that the universe did not exist. The furthest back in time that we can go currently is Planck time, which is 1.35x10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. This is the point at which gravity begins to differentiate from the other fundamental forces. This is followed by the separation of the strong force at approximately 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang. This marks the start of the inflationary period which occurred between 10^-36 and 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang. Then you have the quark-antiquark period between 10^-32 seconds and 10^-5 seconds and so on.

The point is that our understanding of the laws of physics breaks down at Planck time after the Big Bang. We cannot determine what happened before that time and the only statement we can make is that the initial condition of the universe was a hot dense energy state. This does not mean that the universe did not exist.

Once we begin to speculate about the nature of the universe before the big bang, we move from cosmology to cosmogony. There are several competing theories as to what preceded the current universe, the most well-founded of which are explained in detail in Brian Greene's book Hidden Reality.

Fanny Cradock · 15-08-2011 05:33PM

Wicknight wrote: »

And these forces could just as easy not cause it to decay. Whether this happens or not is random, based on quantum fluctuations.

You seem to operate under the assumption that because something is probabilistic that it is uncaused. This is simply wrong. We know why decay happens - this is because one force is greater than another. The question is why one atom decays at a different rate than the other. What is certain is that they will both decay given sufficient time. Rephrasing it - the probability of radioactive decay happening is 1.

Wicknight wrote: »

So the question becomes on what basis do we support the proposition that everything that begins has a cause. How do we say this is true?

Observation. But I'll grant you that there may well be something in the universe that is uncaused. But radioactive decay doesn't appear to be it.

Wicknight wrote: »

The decay will happen with no event triggering it to happen. It will simply happen. This is an uncaused event.

Again, we know why decay happens. The events that triggers decay is when the wave function exceeds the potential barrier. If my understanding is off then you have to argue against what I wrote on the proceeding line. Otherwise we are going around in circles.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well you should given how many times you have told me I can't use my own experience to judge what it is or isn't like for God, an eternal being that exists outside of our own space time

In my largess I'll assuming for a moment that I did say such a thing; it's still not a relevant response to what I wrote. I'm not asking for a finite mind (you) to explain a infinite mind (God). I may as well ask you to count to infinity in the next 20 minutes.

I'm asking what special knowledge gives you confidence that it is illogical to posit that a certain rule may have existed only as the universe was created? You might be right, of course, but I don't see how the counter-claim, which also might be correct, illogical.

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course it is speculative, that is the point. We don't know

I'm not claiming causality didn't apply or that God didn't make the Big Bang, but equally Craig's assumptions have no bearing.

Craig is making a positive assertion about reality that he then bases further assumptions on.

If he can't support the very first assumption then what is the point of the other ones that build upon it. It is pure speculation, nothing more.

I'm still not defending Craig's position. I really don't know if it is correct or not. I was asking you to explain to me about the uncaused events that you claimed exist.

It's not a sound argument to dismiss Craig on the basis that he making a positive assertions on the back of a speculative topic. (That happens in science all the time.) Even if one accepts that there are no uncaused events in the universe (and I'll admit that this is an "if" because Russell's Teapot says so) I would think that the options are limited. Either there is an uncaused cause outside the universe (we can call this God if we wish) or the universe itself is an uncaused cause (and quantum vacuums are part of the universe). The latter - Craig's reasoning - isn't nearly strong enough to base your belief in the God of Christianity upon. That's probably why I don't get Craig. But in fairness to him I don't think he advances the argument as a reason to believe in the Christian God.

Soul Winner · 15-08-2011 05:44PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So - no evidence at all then? Just a point where the most fundamental rules break down - but not the rules of causality that you appeal to?

I've equally no reason to suppose that the rules of causality did or didn't exist. I suppose its actually more reasonable to assume that they didn't given that nothing at all existed except the cause that brought the universe into existence if indeed there was a cause.

All we know is that the universe as we know it didn't exist and that the laws of physics which govern our universe didn't exist but that now we are first hand witnesses that the universe does exist and that the question naturally arises in us as to how that can be. It is not an unreasonable question is it?

The answer to it is either it was caused by something or it wasn't caused by anything. If it was caused by something then that something cannot be part of the universe and cannot be governed by the laws of physics because that cause preceded these effects.

If it was un-caused then we might as well all go home because if that can happen i.e. everything coming from nothing, then anything can happen now that everything is here.

Monty Burnz · 15-08-2011 05:53PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

If it was un-caused then we might as well all go home because if that can happen i.e. everything coming from nothing, then anything can happen now that everything is here.

This is one of those points where science and religion part ways. Science is not investigating the universe to prove a position that it holds a priori, it is investigation for its own sake.

Soul Winner · 15-08-2011 06:01PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But in fairness to him I don't think he advances the argument as a reason to believe in the Christian God.

He doesn't use it as a basis for believing in the God of Christianity. He uses it as one of his good reasons to think that God exists. God being defined as the planner, creator and sustainer of the universe and all life in it. If there is a cause for the universe then it logically follows that this cause cannot be part of the universe in the same way that planets and stars are part of it. Which means that the cause is not subject to the laws that govern the universe and that it exists apart from time and space, which means that it is eternal in nature.

Craig also presents good reasons for believing that the God Christianity exists.

Refusing to debate WLC (and the cosmological argument)

Comments