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)
Comments
-
I'm not slagging him off for wearing camp clothes. And while he certainly does maintain a taste in jumpers that would make Gyles Brandreth weep, I was actually propounding the mildest of witticisms. Engaging in a bit of WC-class form-over-content, if you will. And I'm happy you enjoyed it, even if brieflySoul Winner wrote: »Slagging someone off because to you they wear camp clothes
I've already refuted his rubbishy, sophistic arguments in previous threads and I've neither the time nor the interest in rehashing them.Soul Winner wrote: »is not refuting their arguments
Most of WC's palpable nonsense is benignly silly. Though I have to say it's sad to see a man of his moderate intelligence devoting his life to the propagation of a series of silly arguments which he's honed to the point that I believe he may, in addition to many of his listeners, have finally managed to fool himself.
No, I find interacting, even at a distance, with WC distasteful because of the witless end where his sophistry leads. Specifically, on this page of his website, he writes concerning the Canaanite genocide:
WC's moral reasoning leads him to conclude that dead kids, cut to pieces with swords, are winners and the soldiers who executed them are victims?WC wrote:The destruction was to be complete: every man, woman, and child was to be killed. The book of Joshua tells the story of Israel’s carrying out God’s command in city after city throughout Canaan. [...] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.
Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.
So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.
I'll restrain my contempt for such a thought and simply say, nah, the man's a fruitcake(*) Perhaps that's why nobody wants to debate him any more.
(*) Obviously not meant in the American sense of the word "fruit".0 -
-
-
There is a general metaphysical form of the Cosmological argument which essentially boils down to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. That is a question that science can't answer. But it is equally valid to ask the question "Why is there a God rather than nothing?" The reason the more specific forms of the cosmological argument have become popular is because they make the distinction between the universe and God by asserting the universe needs a reason to exist, but that God doesn't need a reason.
The universe, like God, is not obliged to fit any metaphysical criteria we might construct. In fact, the question might not even make sense. To repeat the physicist Richard Feynman, when you ask a "why" question, you have to be in a framework where you allow something to be true, otherwise you are perpetually asking why.
That is one of my favourite little snippets of Feynman.:)
0 -
I'm not slagging him off for wearing camp clothes. And while he certainly does maintain a taste in jumpers that would make Gyles Brandreth weep, I was actually propounding the mildest of witticisms. Engaging in a bit of WC-class form-over-content, if you will. And I'm happy you enjoyed it, even if briefly
I still sport bruises on my ribs which I obtained as result of laughing that much.I've already refuted his rubbishy, sophistic arguments in previous threads and I've neither the time nor the interest in rehashing them
If you are not prepared to re-hash your arguments then what are you doing posting in here in the first place? Unless you're prepared to stay OT then I suggest you stay out of it altogether.Most of WC's palpable nonsense is benignly silly. Though I have to say it's sad to see a man of his moderate intelligence devoting his life to the propagation of a series of silly arguments which he's honed to the point that I believe he may, in addition to many of his listeners, have finally managed to fool himself.
That's not a refutation either. Not liking something doesn't make it unsound or false. Of course he believes what he is saying. Its up to you to show us how he is wrong. So unless you are prepared to do that then stay out of it.No, I find interacting, even at a distance, with WC distasteful because of the witless end where his sophistry leads. Specifically, on this page of his website, he writes concerning the Canaanite genocide:WC's moral reasoning leads him to conclude that dead kids, cut to pieces with swords, are winners and the soldiers who executed them are victims?
I'll restrain my contempt for such a thought and simply say, nah, the man's a fruitcake(*) Perhaps that's why nobody wants to debate him any more.
But they do want to debate him. There's just some that won't and they never use the above as their reason either. If that's how WLC feels about what happened in an Old Testament story then he is entitled to that. I don't agree with him either but that's beside the point and getting away from what we are discussing here.0 -
Advertisement
-
That is one of my favourite little snippets of Feynman.:)
"I don't know", would have been a better answer.0 -
-
-
To be fair, SW believes in evolution he just calls it Intelligent Design.
I believe that evolution happens I just don't believe that Darwinian evolution explains everything in the way that most evolutionist think. For instance I was watching a documentary last night on Animal Planet about flightless birds in Australia and the explanation they gave for why the Kiwi lays the largest eggs in proportion to its body size is because at one time it was a much bigger bird that evolved to a smaller size but its eggs stayed the same size. Now that might satisfy your average evolutionist on the street but if your going to explain something in natural terms then you'd have to come with something better than that no? That might be how it happened but its too much of an all encompassing explanation to expect everyone to just flatly accept as the best one without asking more questions about it. But I submit that on the other side of the coin, if it was Intelligently Designed then you have to ask the question as to why the designer made it so which is a different proposition altogether. My point is though that just because someone doesn't accept the Darwinian explanation for something doesn't mean that they are closed minded or stupid or insane as some would like to think. But we are getting way OT now...0 -
Except for the fact that he explains quite simply from 5:15 to 5:45 "what the feeling" is between magnets. Of course if the interviewer hadn't asked such a childish question in the first place then Feynman wouldn't have to have spent the first five minutes explaining exactly how the retarded the question was.
So why call it one of your favorite snippets from him?
0 -
Advertisement
-
Soul Winner wrote: »So why call it one of your favorite snippets from him?
Because it's a great example of why questions about "why" something happens are dangerous and that you need to possess a framework for understanding the answer if you're going to ask why. Also it shows how something which on the surface of it can appear a simple question like why aunt minnie is in the hospital can become more and more complex if you keep asking why.0 -
Ewww, miaow!Soul Winner wrote: »If you are not prepared to re-hash your arguments then what are you doing posting in here in the first place? Unless you're prepared to stay OT then I suggest you stay out of it altogether.
Actually, I was responding to Fanny's original query as to why people might be avoiding WC, rather than rehashing any of my previous deconstructions of his silly Kaboom Cosmological Arguments. And to clarify the former, well, perhaps some don't want to debate him because they believe that him and his opinions are nuts, others perhaps because they bear in mind that he's great at "winning" sophistical debates against non-sophistical debaters (actually, that's usually quite easy), some more perhaps because they're too busy doing productive things. And so on. Do recall that while there are a very large number of people who are prepared to speak up for religion in debates -- heavens, there are entire schools and universities whose sole purpose is to train such people -- there are far fewer prepared and able to play the other side.
Christopher Hitchens would be good against WC (have they debated before? I don't know). Both are excellent orators and the debate would be an enjoyable fisticuff-fest, and, well, that's splendid fun as far as it goes. But the rest of the current crop of non-sophistic public atheists? I'd advise them to avoid WC for the same reason that I'd advise most people to avoid debating creationists.
As oldrnwisr has already pointed out, he explains this quite clearly just after 5:00. If you're interested in hearing somebody admit when they don't know something then fast forward to 7:05.Soul Winner wrote: »"I don't know", would have been a better answer.
BTW, it's also interesting to compare WC's sophistical style of debate with Feynmann's Socratic approach to discussion.0 -
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »I believe that evolution happens I just don't believe that Darwinian evolution explains everything in the way that most evolutionist think. For instance I was watching a documentary last night on Animal Planet about flightless birds in Australia and the explanation they gave for why the Kiwi lays the largest eggs in proportion to its body size is because at one time it was a much bigger bird that evolved to a smaller size but its eggs stayed the same size. Now that might satisfy your average evolutionist on the street but if your going to explain something in natural terms then you'd have to come with something better than that no? That might be how it happened but its too much of an all encompassing explanation to expect everyone to just flatly accept as the best one without asking more questions about it. But I submit that on the other side of the coin, if it was Intelligently Designed then you have to ask the question as to why the designer made it so which is a different proposition altogether. My point is though that just because someone doesn't accept the Darwinian explanation for something doesn't mean that they are closed minded or stupid or insane as some would like to think. But we are getting way OT now...
Using an example from a tv documentary to knock or criticise a scientific theory isn't really a good idea. Usually the explanations are dumbed down,cut and edited due to time constraints and viewership rating. So why not take your skepticism a little further and ask a zoologist or one of the advisors involved in producing the show? I'm not a biologist so I don't know if that explanation is right or wrong, but I do agree with you that it's a weak one. 0 -
-
I don't see why he would waste his time talking to mere scientists when he could simply go straight to the ultimate authority - the Bible.Using an example from a tv documentary to knock or criticise a scientific theory isn't really a good idea. Usually the explanations are dumbed down,cut and edited due to time constraints and viewership rating. So why not take your skepticism a little further and ask a zoologist or one of the advisors involved in producing the show? I'm not a biologist so I don't know if that explanation is right or wrong, but I do agree with you that it's a weak one.0 -
-
-
Ewww, miaow!
Actually, I was responding to Fanny's original query as to why people might be avoiding WC, rather than rehashing any of my previous deconstructions of his silly Kaboom Cosmological Arguments.
Point taken and appreciated. So it is I who is the one that is off topic here
And to clarify the former, well, perhaps some don't want to debate him because they believe that him and his opinions are nuts, others perhaps because they bear in mind that he's great at "winning" sophistical debates against non-sophistical debaters (actually, that's usually quite easy), some more perhaps because they're too busy doing productive things. And so on. Do recall that while there are a very large number of people who are prepared to speak up for religion in debates -- heavens, there are entire schools and universities whose sole purpose is to train such people -- there are far fewer prepared and able to play the other side.
If you really think someone is nuts then I agree don't debate with them. If you just think that their ideas about certain topics are nuts then surely that is the only reason that you would debate them. What other reasons are there for debating with someone unless you think that they are wrong, mistaken or even nutty in a particular area of thought?Christopher Hitchens would be good against WC (have they debated before? I don't know). Both are excellent orators and the debate would be an enjoyable fisticuff-fest, and, well, that's splendid fun as far as it goes. But the rest of the current crop of non-sophistic public atheists? I'd advise them to avoid WC for the same reason that I'd advise most people to avoid debating creationists.
Yes they have debated before and like so many before him the Hitch doesn't even address his 5 good reasons for thinking that God exists never mind tare them down and in their place erect good reasons to think He doesn't exist. He, like all the others before him just point out all the negatives aspects of religion and uses those as his reasons for disbelief. But in saying that, even the Hitch knowing that Craig admitted in his writings that, no matter how much evidence might be presented to disprove God's existence he would still believe God exists because of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, even this admission would not dissuade Christopher Hitchens from debating with Craig although the Hitch openly admits during the debate that he knew this about Craig before the debate. That's why I like Hitch. He doesn't back out of a fight because he thinks his opponents has some nutty ideas, he does what anyone who regularly partakes in public debates would do, he locks horns with his opponent. Well done Htich, your my favorite of the new atheists and your also very funny, I'd say we'd have a great laugh over some beers Hope you get well soon.As oldrnwisr has already pointed out, he explains this quite clearly just after 5:00. If you're interested in hearing somebody admit when they don't know something then fast forward to 7:05.
It would have been better if it came at 00:43 :pac: Plus when you listen back, the interviewer asks the why question only once preceded by several what is it, and what's going on type questions, but then he rephrases the why question to form a how question, which I'm sure Mr. Feynman was quite capable of answering, so why he went down the rabbit hole of why I don't know, maybe he wanted to make a point or something, sadly the point was irrelevant to the original question that was asked which was a simple what, how type question.BTW, it's also interesting to compare WC's sophistical style of debate with Feynmann's Socratic approach to discussion.
I agree, that is interesting.0 -
Advertisement
-
For the same reason that WC debates -- to win supporters for his cause, to make people who are already supporters feel good about the cause etc, etc. This is the kind of "me-me-me" debate that I referred to up above; it can be fun to listen to, but not to be taken seriously as a means of establishing genuine truth (as opposed to popularity-based truth, such as those of religions), as Fanny is correct to point out in the OP.Soul Winner wrote: »What other reasons are there for debating with someone unless you think that they are wrong, mistaken or even nutty in a particular area of thought?
So what?Soul Winner wrote: »like so many before him the Hitch doesn't even address his 5 good reasons for thinking that God exists never mind tare them down and in their place erect good reasons to think He doesn't exist.
WC's not in this for any kind of honest, dialectic discussion as you seem to think. On the contrary, he's in this for the reasons I gave above and Hitch is quite right to play the debate in whatever way he wants. That's why he's exactly the right kind of person to put up against WC: he understands the sophistical style that WC uses, and uses it back at him.
Yes, the interviewer was confused and asked a jumble of different questions all more or less at the same time. Being a Socratic type, Feynman correctly wanted to know exactly what on earth the guy was trying to find out. That's the honest, dialectic approach to discussion -- in this case, a clarification of the question, followed up a thoughtful, clear answer.Soul Winner wrote: »It would have been better if it came at 00:43 :pac: Plus when you listen back, the interviewer asks the why question only once preceded by several what is it, and what's going on type questions, but then he rephrases the why question to form a how question, which I'm sure Mr. Feynman was quite capable of answering, so why he went down the rabbit hole of why I don't know, maybe he wanted to make a point or something, sadly the point was irrelevant to the original question that was asked which was a simple what, how type question.0 -
-
-
-
Using an example from a tv documentary to knock or criticise a scientific theory isn't really a good idea. Usually the explanations are dumbed down,cut and edited due to time constraints and viewership rating. So why not take your skepticism a little further and ask a zoologist or one of the advisors involved in producing the show? I'm not a biologist so I don't know if that explanation is right or wrong, but I do agree with you that it's a weak one.
I think they don't actually know why, which is fine. Its only when they try to fit it into the Darwinian view of things that it starts sounding silly. But heck even silly things can be true I suppose. As for the accreditation of the folks making these documentaries. I'm not sure, but considering the amount of times they said evolution and Darwin during the documentary I suspect they are working within the confines of their conventional educational spheres and at least moderately expert in their field.0 -
Classically speaking, "nothing" is interpreted as a state zero energy and momentum.
Nothing cannot be interpreted as anything because nothing is nothing not something.Quantum mechanics tells us that a state with zero energy and momentum must fluctuate.
A state with zero energy and momentum is something not nothing.It might sound incredulous, but it is the most carefully and successfully tested theory we have.
Yes but you are not stating with nothing, you are starting with something.Its level of predictive success is equivalent to predicting the distance from the earth to the moon to within a hair's width.
Even if we grant that - and I do once we agree that they do not start with nothing - then if we extrapolate the amount of distances from the earth to the moon there are in the entire universe and multiply that number by the same distance as the thickness of a human hair then we are could be talking millions if not billions of miles no? Is that an accurate way to predict backward in time the history ad evolution of our universe?What Hawking showed was that this principle can be extended to spacetime itself. I.e. A universe can emerge from a zero-three geometry, or "nothing", because it fluctuates.
Again, a zero-three geometry is not nothing. Its a zero-three geometry. I can just see you in my mind snapping your pencil because I don't accept someone else's definition of what nothing isA common objection to this interpretation is that, according to quantum physics, a state of zero energy and momentum, and in Hawking's case, zero time and space, is not "nothing" as it is a state that possesses a quantum structure responsible for exhibiting these fluctuations. This is a perfectly valid objection,
Brilliant, maybe you're not snapping your pencil after all.but it means the Kalam cosmological argument breaks down. www.Philosophyofreligion.info presents the Kalam cosmological argument as
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.
Proposition (4) no longer holds. As, if there is a timeless, spaceless quantum structure capable of producing universes with space and time, then there is no compulsion to insist God caused the universe.
I don't hold, - neither does WLC afaik - that proposition 4 logically follows either. What should be put in there is something that is not of the universe as we know it. Something unimaginably powerful, and intelligent and personal. Why powerful? OK you try creating a universe from nothing. Why intelligent? Because the universe is intelligible i.e. able to be understood by intelligent minds. Why personal? Because there is no necessity for a universe, i.e in the absence of anything at all viz. nothing, there is no law that says there must be a universe, which means that the agent responsible for bringing the universe into being (whatever that may be) made a free choice to do so and only personal agents (as far we know) are capable of such free choices.
But even saying all that, you can't define nothing as something you want it to be and then build on that. Nothing is nothing, or rather nothing isn't anything, would be a more accurate description if such a thing (which its not) as nothing could be described.
Nothing = no thing, i.e. no zero-three geometry as a thing, no zero-space as a thing and no zero-time as a thing. NO THING. Its not even an absence of everything, its even less than that. In fact nothing just isn't. To define nothing, makes it something, which it is not.0 -
You completely missed the point of the entire piece. He was highlighting the questioner's (and most people's) framework of the force pushing the magnets being weird and in need of explanation, but the interaction between your chair and your hand being accepted. He was saying, in physics, the deeper thing is the force between the magnets, and from that force, we get everyday experiences we normally take for granted.
I'm not saying he wasn't correct in what he was saying, I'm mearley pointing out that he didn't address nor answer the interviewer's question i.e. what is going on when you push magnets togther etc... Why does it happen was not what he was asking, listen to it again. I know he does ask why but then he corrects himself and asks how. Feynman was answering a question he wasn't asked. That could have been down to him mishearing the question as he seems to scratch his eye when it was being asked which may have distrascted him. Had he answered the question he was asked it would have sounded something like this:
0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Even if we grant that - and I do once we agree that they do not start with nothing - then if we extrapolate the amount of distances from the earth to the moon there are in the entire universe and multiply that number by the same distance as the thickness of a human hair then we are could be talking millions if not billions of miles no? Is that an accurate way to predict backward in time the history ad evolution of our universe?
It's an analogy to highlight the accuracy of quantum field theory, how vacuum fluctuations, as weird as they sound, are supported by scientific evidence. But incidentally, measuring any property of the universe to one part in a trillionth would indeed be very accurate. Especially if the emergent universe in question, the universe immediately after the big bang, is less than the diameter of an atom.Brilliant, maybe you're not snapping your pencil after all.
I have expressed my unease with the use of the word "nothing" before.I don't hold, - neither does WLC afaik - that proposition 4 logically follows either. What should be put in there is something that is not of the universe as we know it. Something unimaginably powerful, and intelligent and personal. Why powerful? OK you try creating a universe from nothing. Why intelligent? Because the universe is intelligible i.e. able to be understood by intelligent minds. Why personal? Because there is no necessity for a universe, i.e in the absence of anything at all viz. nothing, there is no law that says there must be a universe, which means that the agent responsible for bringing the universe into being (whatever that may be) made a free choice to do so and only personal agents (as far we know) are capable of such free choices.
It could be argued that quantum fluctuations that can give rise to universes are "powerful", but they are by no means intelligent or personal, or capable of "choosing".0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Feynman is still simply raising the important issue of framework people use when asking questions. I.e. We ask how magnets repel, but take for granted how a chair exerts a force on our hands.
I didn't know Feynman was a philosopher as well as a physicist. He was asked the question as a physicist right? Was the interviewer expecting a philosophic answer or a scientific answer? I think the latter. Why Feynman insisted on answering the guy philosophically I don't know. I think Feynman maybe thought that the guy was trying to catch him out and decided to venture down the philosophical route in an attempt to out smart the guy. Anyway if we are allowed to adhere to something that someone said even though it was outside of their field of expertise 20 plus years ago then why can I not adhere to what John Barrow said as quoted in an earlier post? See below: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:
"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
To which one reply went as follows:Monty Burnz wrote: »With respect, what one guy said 25 years ago (without any context) does not represent the zenith of scientific knowledge.
I quoted a guy who actually specializes in the subject he was talking about but because it was 25 or whatever years ago it seemingly doesn't hold true today for some reason even though Hawking et al still submit to it in principle (although they try to define it as something first), and yet when Feynman speaks (even though if it is in a area that is not his field) we should all sit up and take notice. 0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PXY4A_muMcThis discussion has been closed.
Advertisement