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)

12467…13

Comments

  • #92
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    You don't actually understand what you initially quoted do you Soul Winner? "An infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past" - that is far from something not existing, quite the opposite, it's existence condensed to a degree that I doubt anyone can truly appreciate. A singularity is not nothing either, the name kind of gives that away.

    You are mixing up the arrival of our universe as we understand it with an actual creation of something from nothing, an easy mistake to make given how basic physics is taught, but you, like Craig, should strive to understand the matter rather than blindly disagreeing with it because it goes against your current world view.


  • #93
    token56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,669 ✭✭✭token56


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    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.

    What exactly do you define "eternal in nature" to be? Eternal with respect to what?

    The concept of eternity only makes sense to use because we experience and have an understanding of what time means for us and this universe. But this may mean nothing for something outside our universe.

    Edit: Nevermind I think I am mixing the concepts of eternal and sempiternal.


  • #94
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    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.

    I agree. Real science is not and should not be agenda driven. It should be a following of the facts to wherever they lead and let the chips fall where they may. If science happens to support a particular worldview then those holding to an apposing worldview cannot contest that it if they are willing to use Science when if happens to agree with their own worldview. Oh to live in a perfect world :pac:


  • #95
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    For the moment, and for the sake of argument I'm going to park the caused vs. uncaused bit of the argument because it is not the construction of the premises that bothers me, rather the conclusions drawn from the idea that a cause exists.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    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.

    Agree.


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Which means that the cause is not subject to the laws that govern the our universe and that it exists apart from time and space,

    Agree, except for the highlighted portion.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    ...which means that it is eternal in nature.

    This is the step too far. Just taking one of the cosmogonical theories about the origin of the universe for a second, the cyclic universe model, this theory suggests that the universe exists as an oscillation between big bang and big crunch. This would indicate that the Big Bang which occurred 13.75 billion years ago was just an inherent characteristic of a universe which has always existed. We even have experimental evidence to support this theory as I have already posted and which is given a more detailed treatment in Roger Penrose's book Cycles of Time. Now I'm not saying that this is what probably or definitely happened, it's just one possibility with supporting evidence. It does however, rule out the idea of a 'must' scenario where someone, like WLC concludes that the cause of the universe 'must' be God.


  • #96
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    Soul Winner, just wondering, why are you so insistent that the big bang is the goddunnit moment? Evidently you already have decided based upon evidence not to take genesis literally, so why stop now? There are a number of theories as to where our universe came from, none of them remotely proven, but all with some basis in science, and a logical argument to back them up, why not even listen? Why does your creation moment have to be within humanities current understanding? After all to date the creation moment has always been placed at the edge of understanding, until humanity grew to understand more, and religion had to change its parameters...

    As a believer, why do you need something to point to as a case for there being a god?

    If I recall my bible properly you are meant to have blind faith no? Not be looking for proof. 'Do not test the lord your god'?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I agree. Real science is not and should not be agenda driven. It should be a following of the facts to wherever they lead and let the chips fall where they may. If science happens to support a particular worldview then those holding to an apposing worldview cannot contest that it if they are willing to use Science when if happens to agree with their own worldview. Oh to live in a perfect world :pac:
    Perhaps you can explain this to your creationist co-believers?


  • #98
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    wonderfulname wrote: »

    If I recall my bible properly you are meant to have blind faith no?

    Is that a joke? I would ask were such a notion came from but it seems rather prevalent on the internetz.

    Christians are not meant to have blind faith.


  • #99
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Fanny Cradock wrote:
    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?

    I just finished listening to the debate.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wascB0xunig

    Despite a false start, Krauss does discuss the issue of what it means to say something comes from nothing.

    At 1:00:00 Krauss begins to discuss physical nothingness, and how, according to Quantum Mechanics, we cannot actually have absolute nothingness. He first talks about the well-established quantum fluctuations of particles. At 1:00:55, he starts discussing the natural extension of this idea, of nothingness of quantum gravity, where universes instead of particles are fluctuations. Craig misinterprets this as a reference to the Valenkin model, and starts to discuss that model at 1:12:06. The Valenkin model posits quantum mechanics embedded in spacetime. Krauss corrects him at 1:19:20 by emphasising that the Hawking model does not involve quantum fluctuations in an infinitely dense spacetime, but rather quantum fluctuations that produce spacetime itself. Craig then, confusingly, references the Hawking model at 1:27:24 by mentioning the non-vanishing quantum wavefunction, as evidence that quantum nothingness is not actual nothingness, a position that refutes his proposition that the universe came from absolute nothingness. Lawrence pulls him up on this at 1:33:33, and explains that the wavefunction expresses the probability of the universe emerging from quantum "nothingness".

    I would again stress that the quantum fluctuations of universes is conjecture, but it stems from the well-established quantum fluctuations of particles. The universe, after all, was once the size of a particle.

    [edit]- Here is what Lawrence, post-debate, had to say on the issue of the beginning of the universe.

    "Actually the issue of the beginning of the Universe is the only truly interesting question worth discussing here. A host of scientific arguments need to be discussed here, and there is no doubt the question of chicken and egg is a vexing one for cosmologists as well as theologians. However, let me make a few points here: (1) All things that begin may have a cause, even if the cause is rather obscure and purposeless. However, what is important to note is that every known physical effect whose cause we understand has a physical cause. There is no reason therefore to assume the same will not be true of our universe itself. (2) There are no arguments that our universe need be unique and not derived from something pre-existing, or even eternal. Indeed, the Ekpyrotic Universe promoted by Turok and Steinhardt, which I don’t find compelling, argues for potentially eternal periods of expansion and contraction. Craig doesn’t understand the physics. (2) I continued to try and explain that quantum gravity may imply that space and time themselves are created at the moment of the big bang. This is a rather remarkable statement if true. But if it is true, in the absence of time itself, how one can ascribe arguments based on causality is unclear at best."


  • #100
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    You don't actually understand what you initially quoted do you Soul Winner? "An infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past" - that is far from something not existing, quite the opposite, it's existence condensed to a degree that I doubt anyone can truly appreciate. A singularity is not nothing either, the name kind of gives that away.

    You are mixing up the arrival of our universe as we understand it with an actual creation of something from nothing, an easy mistake to make given how basic physics is taught, but you, like Craig, should strive to understand the matter rather than blindly disagreeing with it because it goes against your current world view.

    You're right, I don't understand what a singularity is. And as the laws of physics break down the closer in time we get to it then we cannot explain it in any terms where we might understand it. If the singularity always existed until it blew up and expanded then there is no such thing as time because we are simply part of an eternal singularity that has always existed. Did it always exist though and how can we know that?

    Even if it did always exist that doesn't mean that the universe as we know it always existed. Only the potential for the universe always existed. Because if the subsequent fundamental forces of nature namely gravitational, electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces, which came about as a result of this explosion didn't have the values that they have, then a different kind of universe would have resulted. One that maybe wouldn't contain galaxies, stars or planets and so forth, one which could not support life as we know it.

    How does a singularity which has infinite density but zero volume come into existence? A singularity that has the potential to expand into many billions of different types of universes most of which could not support life as we know it yet settles on expanding into a very rare type of universe that not only supports basic life forms but supports advanced life forms also? I am not saying that this provides proof that God exists but like Craig it is a pretty good reason to think that He does.


  • #101
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    Fanny Craddock:Then what is it based on? Maybe blind faith was a loaded phrase to use but faith by it's very nature is blind, you cannot prove anything you believe, you just believe, and from my understanding of the bible, and that of anyone else I have ever discussed it with, that is how it is supposed to be.

    The Temptation of Christ as quoted above even tells you not to seek to test what you have put your faith in, faith is a huge topic in the bible, in this very manner, have faith in the lord your God, the righteous shall live by faith, God would have us to have faith in him etc etc

    O you of little faith Fanny :p


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Perhaps you can explain this to your creationist co-believers?

    The same thing should be explained to some atheistic scientists as well. Creationists are not the only folks that have an agenda.

    Just read the following:

    "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."     Professor Richard Lewontin in Billions and billions of demons.


  • #103
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    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.

    It is textbook physics. The wiki paragraph you quoted explicitly says general relativity breaks down, and that we cannot extrapolate to the "beginning" of the universe.
    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.

    No scientist is claiming it is an ex nihilo event in the classical sense of nothing.
    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.

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

    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.

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

    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?

    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.

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

    Firstly, I have no idea what the "rolling eyes" reference is about.

    Secondly, the entire point of my post was to stress that scientists don't assert that the universe came from true nothingness. Instead, they postulate a vacuum of topologies and geometries, which is not the same as true nothingness. You say, because it is not true nothingness, that it is back to the drawing board? Why? The metaphysical commitment of a universe coming from true nothingness is not one held by scientists. True nothingness is rejected by scientists.


  • #104
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    Fanny Craddock:Then what is it based on? Maybe blind faith was a loaded phrase to use but faith by it's very nature is blind, you cannot prove anything you believe, you just believe, and from my understanding of the bible, and that of anyone else I have ever discussed it with, that is how it is supposed to be.

    The Temptation of Christ as quoted above even tells you not to seek to test what you have put your faith in, faith is a huge topic in the bible, in this very manner, have faith in the lord your God, the righteous shall live by faith, God would have us to have faith in him etc etc

    O you of little faith Fanny :p

    This is all really off topic. But perhaps you should familiarise yourself with what what proof means when it's not use as part of a more common understanding. I've never claimed that I can offer proof for God's existence. We could get into the finer points of epistemology at this stage but I gather that neither of us are qualified to do such a thing.

    The faith mentioned in the Bible is from the Greek pistis, which means trust in the reliability of something or someone. If it helps you to understand the position of Christianity better then you might find it useful to substitute faith with trust. Christians trust that the evidence laid out before them is worthy of their trust. See more here.

    I find it ironic that you are scatting of faith (which incidentally we all practice each and every day) and yet your own understanding of what faith means is cobbled together from a position of admitted ignorance. What you have described departs significantly from what the the authors of the NT understood that it can itself be considered blind faith position. Now if you think that there is no evidence that could possibly even begin to lead you to believing in God and trusting in him then that is fine. It's not like I haven't encountered such presuppositions before.

    You are wrong on one other thing, wonderfulname. I have plenty of faith and I exercise it on a daily basis. I have trust in my family, in my friends, in the reliability of information I am currently in no position to analyse, in myself and in God. I don't think I'll say anything more on this topic.


  • #105
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    You seem to operate under the assumption that because something is probabilistic that it is uncaused.

    I'm operating under the assumption that the guy from Fermilab knows what an example of an uncaused event is :D

    I didn't pluck this example out of thin air, this is a commonly given example of where quantum physics breaks the notions of causality.

    I'm not an expert in quantum mechanics, but you seem to be focusing on the process of how it happens, not the process that causes it to happen.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    What is certain is that they will both decay given sufficient time. Rephrasing it - the probability of radioactive decay happening is 1.

    Given a enough time. There is nothing that causes this to happen. Two identical atoms will start to decay at different points, with no cause making this happen other than random quantum fluctuations.

    As Wikipedia puts it

    Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e., random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a given atom will decay.[1] However, the chance that a given atom will decay is constant over time, so that given a large number of identical atoms (nuclides), the decay rate for the collection is predictable to the extent allowed by the law of large numbers.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Observation.

    We have never observed anything outside this universe.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    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.
    See above
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Again, we know why decay happens. The events that triggers decay is when the wave function exceeds the potential barrier.

    Is that event caused by anything? Does anything cause this to happen?
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    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.

    It is illogical to assume that something which might be right is with nothing to support that claim

    Craig is using this assumption as an axiom for the rest of his assumptions.
    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 probably shouldn't have called it 5 Reasons to Believe God Exists then :D


  • #106
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    raah! wrote: »
    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.

    I would prefer to ask you since you were the one making the statement...


  • #107
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    Fanny, I never mentioned proof now did I? Context is everything, trust and faith in your family is not the same as trust and faith in a deity, I'm not questioning your faith or indeed faith in general, I'm questioning why it is necessary to pick out the big bang and say "God!", surely your faith means that it doesn't matter in the slightest, that you "know" god is somewhere at the end of the chain so arguing baselessly as to where that end is is absolutely pointless?

    If I were a person of faith you would take that query for what it was, but no, because I'm not it has to be an attack that needs arguing against...

    And I wasn't saying you have no faith, It was a play on the well worn biblical passage, a joke, did the smilie not clue you in on that? I suspect it did to be honest and you're just up on your high horse for the craic of it.


  • #108
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    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.

    A - All observed instances of intelligence are made up of smaller component parts working together to produce this intelligence. These component parts existed before the intelligent they produce. It is in fact impossible to think of intelligence produced not by this process.

    B - God is supposed to be intelligent.

    C - God is supposed to not be made of component parts.

    D - God existed first, not any simpler component parts.

    Conclusion - If it more plausible then to suppose that God does not exist than to suppose he does, given A.

    Agreed?

    Let me guess, you can not take observations from this universe and apply them to God, God exists outside of our universe and is not bound to any rules or conclusion based on what we observe in this universe...
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    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?

    No one has concluded it was un-caused, but if we could demonstrate that was the case then it would be knowledge.

    Knowledge is not useless just because it doesn't help the case for God :rolleyes:
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    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.

    What ever we do will not change reality. Science is a produces of discovery, not creation. Whether we decide the universe has a cause or not won't make a blind bit of difference to whether it actually does.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    You already gave an example of this and Fanny and I have pointed out to you that there was a cause.

    And I gave you a link to a very nice man in Fermilabs explaining that it isn't.

    Are you simply ignoring that?
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    No, because they never actually address his points never mind refute them.
    All they do is address his points, over and over. Just like you and me.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Take the problem of evil for example. What is evil if God doesn't exist?

    The same thing it is if he does exist, a human classification of actions or people we find morally repugnant.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    How do we define evil in a universe where God doesn't exist?

    Ask the thousands of cultures who were defining evil before the Abrahamic religions had even been invented.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    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.

    In a universe where God doesn't exist evil would be exactly the same as in one where he does exist, a human classification of actions or people they find morally repugnant.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    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.

    Their loss. I would wonder how many of them found it satisfactory to waste time debating Craig.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    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.

    Nothing causes this to happen. Thus, uncaused event. As already explained.


  • #109
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Soul Winner wrote:
    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.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I agree. Real science is not and should not be agenda driven. It should be a following of the facts to wherever they lead and let the chips fall where they may. If science happens to support a particular worldview then those holding to an apposing worldview cannot contest that it if they are willing to use Science when if happens to agree with their own worldview.

    Oh the irony. Science should not be agenda drive but we should start from the premise that the universe was caused. It is just a coincidence that this premise fits nicely into the religious notion of a created universe. :rolleyes:


  • #110
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Regarding the exchange between Wicknight and Fanny Cradock: We have to be careful when we talk about causality in quantum mechanics. Radioactive decay is caused insofar as it is a consequence of unstable nuclei. But the instance of an unstable nuclei decaying after X amount of time, as opposed to remaining as it is, is random*.

    Similarly, the universe would be caused by a vacuum field, but the excitation of this field, producing universes, would be spontaneous and random. Ultimately, the moral of the story is "universe" may be a misnomer, as there may be physical relations that are beyond space and time, that are responsible for space and time. We can accept that the universe had a beginning, but we don't need to insist it was due to something non-physical.

    ---

    *Interpretations of quantum mechanics which postulate a dynamical "collapse" of quantum systems upon observations, postulate truly random processes. I.e. When we observe the decay, the quantum system collapses into a random state of decayed and "non-decayed" nuclei. It is common, however, to interpret this kind of randomness as due to the entanglement between the observer and the observed, in a process known as decoherence. This process is technically deterministic, but involves so many degrees of freedom that the outcome appears random. This framework is generally a more natural framework for QM (It is the framework I use).


  • #111
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    Fanny, I never mentioned proof now did I?

    You did mention proof. Reread the last post you addressed to me.
    wonderfulname wrote: »
    Context is everything, trust and faith in your family is not the same as trust and faith in a deity, I'm not questioning your faith or indeed faith in general, I'm questioning why it is necessary to pick out the big bang and say "God!", surely your faith means that it doesn't matter in the slightest, that you "know" god is somewhere at the end of the chain so arguing baselessly as to where that end is is absolutely pointless?

    I never said that trusting my family is the same as trusting God. I also never claimed that trusting my family was the same as trusting myself.

    I'm sorry but I don't really understand the rest of your post. I haven't said the Big Bang = God. I'm perfectly happy to insert quantum vacuums or whatever in there. What I'm saying - and I guess that I agree with Craig up to a point - is that God remains the uncaused cause of it all. It's hardly pointless of me to defend this position if I believe it to be true.
    wonderfulname wrote: »
    If I were a person of faith you would take that query for what it was, but no, because I'm not it has to be an attack that needs arguing against...

    How would you know what I would do in such a situation? It seems to me that you are operating off faith.

    The term blind faith is a largely pejorative term because implies ignorance or credulity. Read the link I provided in my last post to find out a little more about what Richard Dawkins says about it. Then read your posts.

    If my response was take as an insult then I'm sorry about that. Perhaps I was too strong in my defence. However, you admitted that you were speaking from a degree of ignorance, and if I think you are wrong in you assertions then it is perfectly reasonable to accuse you of exercising blind faith when you haven't bothered to examine the position for yourself. I'll apologise for my harsh phrased words but I stand by the rest.
    wonderfulname wrote: »
    And I wasn't saying you have no faith, It was a play on the well worn biblical passage, a joke, did the smilie not clue you in on that? I suspect it did to be honest and you're just up on your high horse for the craic of it.

    I realised that you were joking. But I'm strange in that the presence of a smiley doesn't automatically mean I find something funny. The point I am trying to make, wonderfulname, is that all of us exercise faith in our live. Even a free-thinking rationalist like yourself.

    If you actually want to understand the position a little better then watch the Lennox video. As a professor of mathematics at Oxford he has something interesting to say even if you don't agree with him.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Morbert wrote: »
    Regarding the exchange between Wicknight and Fanny Cradock: We have to be careful when we talk about causality in quantum mechanics. Radioactive decay is caused insofar as it is a consequence of unstable nuclei. But the instance of an unstable nuclei decaying after X amount of time, as opposed to remaining as it is, is random*.

    I thought I had said as much?
    Morbert wrote: »
    Similarly, the universe would be caused by a vacuum field, but the excitation of this field, producing universes, would be spontaneous and random. Ultimately, the moral of the story is "universe" may be a misnomer, as there may be physical relations that are beyond space and time, that are responsible for space and time. We can accept that the universe had a beginning, but we don't need to insist it was due to something non-physical.

    That's fine. I don't say that the science says it must be God. I'm saying that as a Christian I can choose to believe that God is the creator of it all. Similarly, an atheist like yourself can happily state that it's turtles all the way down for I care. Only one is true and that's what makes metaphysics so interesting.

    BTW, in defence of some of the stick Soul Winner is getting for the whole nothing angle, I don't think that headlines like this help.


  • #113
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    The same thing should be explained to some atheistic scientists as well. Creationists are not the only folks that have an agenda.
    Just in case you are not aware, 99.99% of scientists have no agenda other than to figure out how things work. It's possible that some combine figuring out how things work with trying to banish gods from explanations of how the universe works.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Just read the following:
    Marvellous. If only I could find a single quote from a religious person arguing for mysticism...where oh where would I find such a thing...


  • #114
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    I found this analysis of the various cosmological arguments to be very enlightening. It's by Edward Fesser, a Christian philosopher who has a flare for writing. It's a long read so I recommend using this handy application called readability. It converts the text on any website to larger font, increases screen width and gets rid of all the nasty flash banners etc. Just hit the download button and in a couple of seconds you are up and running. It's really lightweight and it wont impact your computer or any of your browser settings.


  • #115
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I found this analysis of the various cosmological arguments to be very enlightening. It's by Edward Fesser, a Christian philosopher who has a flare for writing. It's a long read so I recommend using this handy application called readability. It converts the text on any website to larger font, increases screen width and gets rid of all the nasty flash banners etc. Just hit the download button and in a couple of seconds you are up and running. It's really lightweight and it wont impact your computer or any of your browser settings.

    From reading some of his posts he really doesn't like New Atheists does he :D


  • #116
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I found this analysis of the various cosmological arguments to be very enlightening. It's by Edward Fesser, a Christian philosopher who has a flare for writing. It's a long read so I recommend using this handy application called readability. It converts the text on any website to larger font, increases screen width and gets rid of all the nasty flash banners etc. Just hit the download button and in a couple of seconds you are up and running. It's really lightweight and it wont impact your computer or any of your browser settings.

    Thanks for the link Fanny, reading it now, very interesting. And thanks for the readability thingy, excellent little browser add-on, will use it all the time.


  • #117
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    From reading some of his posts he really doesn't like New Atheists does he :D

    Of course he does, he just doesn't like some of the clap trap they come out with :pac:


  • #118
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I found this analysis of the various cosmological arguments to be very enlightening. It's by Edward Fesser, a Christian philosopher who has a flare for writing. It's a long read so I recommend using this handy application called readability. It converts the text on any website to larger font, increases screen width and gets rid of all the nasty flash banners etc. Just hit the download button and in a couple of seconds you are up and running. It's really lightweight and it wont impact your computer or any of your browser settings.

    Philosophy of mind, an instant sign to ignore.


  • #119
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    From reading some of his posts he really doesn't like New Atheists does he :D

    He certainly doesn't have time for a few of them in particular. It not unusual when you consider that he was an atheist himself at one time.

    I would like to read The Last Superstition because he goes into much more detail about the various formulations of the cosmological argument but it is sadly out of print.


  • #120
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    He certainly doesn't have time for a few of them in particular. It not unusual when you consider that he was an atheist himself at one time.

    I would like to read The Last Superstition because he goes into much more detail about the various formulations of the cosmological argument but it is sadly out of print.

    You can but it second hand here


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Philosophy of mind, an instant sign to ignore.

    I don't think the cosmological argument has anything to do with philosophy of the mind.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement