Refusing to debate WLC (and the cosmological argument)

Zombrex · 23-10-2011 11:01PM

philologos wrote: »

That's nonsense Zombrex. I could easily defend the cosmological argument to you on this thread right now as much as it was argued by Thomas Aquinas, Moses Maimonides or anyone else in the medieval period.

Let me show you how that goes

Philologos - Everything that is created has a creator

Zombrex - Er you don't know that is true thus you cannot assert it as logically consistent

Philologos - I do know it, it is common sense and logical

Zombrex - Only in relation to human experience in a sub-set of nature

Philologos - I do know it, it is common sense and logical

Zombrex - Quantum mechanics has already shown the error in assuming the universal nature of common sense experience.

Philologos - I do know it, it is common sense and logical.

And so on ....

Just like Craig you refuse to tackle the actual objections and instead stick dogidly to the script, repeating the same argument over and over. In fact on the A&A we are still having this argument, you are asserting the same axoims and the same refutations are being put to you with no response. I can see why Craig appeals to you so much.

philologos · 23-10-2011 11:04PM

If you can demonstrate to me exactly why I am wrong, I'm up for hearing. If you can't then you can't.

I'm thankful for the assurance that the existence of Jesus Christ is reasonable and that God has made this clear to us through revelation and through Creation. If you wish to object, object with an argument and I'll listen.

Turtwig · 23-10-2011 11:08PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you? I missed that. All I see is people calling Dawkins a chicken for not debating him.

Even if not debating Craig is absolutely the right thing to do I think the Chicken label is still accurate.

Btw, I've just skimmed through this thread but it seems to be just Philos, so can we get some clarity? Philos on a scale of one to ten how strong would you rate Craig's reliability on these areas of science.

Biology.
Physics .
Probability.
Cosmology.

(Just assume you were to use his explanations and descriptions to teach someone the concepts involved.)

philologos · 23-10-2011 11:19PM

Based on what I heard Craig say on Saturday I think he was bang on in respect to Dawkins' objections to the traditional arguments for God's existence. Dawkins hasn't flattened these arguments to the ground in any respect.

The only mention of physics that came into it was that Craig felt that invoking a multiverse to explain the universe doesn't actually help. He argued that given Ockham's Razor that it would be more sensible to believe that the universe was created by a simple being such as God (simple in so far as that God is a purely immaterial mind) than multiple complex universes which in turn would require a cause.

I thought that reasonable. As for other objections you'd have to run by what issues you have with Craigs take on science as I'm not much aware as to what you're talking about.

Zombrex · 24-10-2011 12:49AM

philologos wrote: »

If you can demonstrate to me exactly why I am wrong, I'm up for hearing. If you can't then you can't.

This is the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. How can you sit there and say argument have not been flattened and then come up with this nonsense.

You are "wrong" because you are asserting an axiom that you do not know to be true. It is that simple.

It might be true, but you have idea of that is the case or not. The assert that it is true is based on your experience of being a mid-sized object of neither extreme cold nor heat on a mid-size rock in a particular speck of the universe. Or in other words this is based on experience of a tiny corner of our universe let alone anything before or outside our universe.

Dawkins did a similar thing and rightly got called up on it when he said all intelligence is made up of smaller non-intelligent parts working to form this intelligence thus we can infer that God as described by Christians most likely doesn't exist since God is defined as both intelligent but not made of parts. (this is a difference argument than complex vs simple btw)

It was pointed out to him that this is drawing on experience inside our universe, and limited one at that. It might be the case but one cannot draw that conclusion about all facets of reality. We simply don't know this to be the case.

You can never disprove what Dawkins said but equally there is no reason to assert it as an axiom of nature, as Christians delighted in pointing out him.

Yet as happens so so so much with Christian apologetics this perfectly reasoned argument is thrown out the window when it comes to supporting Christian beliefs.

philologos wrote: »

I'm thankful for the assurance that the existence of Jesus Christ is reasonable and that God has made this clear to us through revelation and through Creation. If you wish to object, object with an argument and I'll listen.

The existence of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the argument that all things that start are created and that all created things have a creator. If you are going to go back to direct revelation to support your arguments (Well the Bible says its true) you might as well not bother.

philologos · 24-10-2011 07:00AM

You're twisting what I've actually said now.

I'm not asking you to disprove God. What I am asking you to do is give me a good reason why I should abandon the logic of causation for the sake of atheism? - That's a valid question. In so far as you've not done this, the arguments haven't been flattened in the slightest.

The argument you're referring to seems to the the Boeing 747 gambit about God's simplicity, and simply put God is simple in so far as he is a timeless, incorporeal, immaterial mind. In nature God is simple. If the cause of the universe cannot be contained in the universe (which is logical), then it must be true that the properties that are typical of entities within the universe needn't apply such as space and time. As such the idea of a Creator immediately tells us these two things about Him.

Turtwig · 24-10-2011 07:02AM

philologos wrote: »

You're twisting what I've actually said now.

I'm not asking you to disprove God. What I am asking you to do is give me a good reason why I should abandon the logic of causation for the sake of atheism? - That's a valid question.

Iirc, Hume explained this (well obviously not atheism, but for abandoning whatever), but I'm still in need of my morning coffee.

philologos · 24-10-2011 07:06AM

Hume explained the point for? - I've studied David Hume, so if you can explain what exactly you're speaking of I can go and look it up.

Zombrex · 24-10-2011 08:15AM

philologos wrote: »

You're twisting what I've actually said now.

I'm not asking you to disprove God. What I am asking you to do is give me a good reason why I should abandon the logic of causation for the sake of atheism? - That's a valid question. In so far as you've not done this, the arguments haven't been flattened in the slightest.

I have done this repeatably, you have simply ignored this. Let me state again

You are "wrong" because you are asserting an axiom that you do not know to be true. It is that simple.

philologos wrote: »

If the cause of the universe cannot be contained in the universe (which is logical), then it must be true that the properties that are typical of entities within the universe needn't apply such as space and time.

Properties that are typical of entities within the universe needn't apply such as (drum roll please) causality. You don't need the first bit about "cannot be contained in the universe", that is unnecessary and unrelated, the cause of the universe could still be contained within the universe and the second bit could still apply (hence the "typical of entities", we observe the universe to act like this most of the time but we have no idea if that holds universally)

So you are wrong, in exactly the same way Dawkins was wrong. There. Explained. Please stop ignoring this response (particularly since it was given to you years ago, and given to Craig in 1979)

Morbert · 24-10-2011 03:47PM

This article, written by the Physicists Lawrence Krauss, is a good example of why debating Craig is a silly thing to do.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/612104-dealing-with-william-lane-craig

"Unfortunately any effort I made to show nuance and actually explain facts was systematically distorted in Craig’s continual effort to demonstrate how high school syllogisms apparently demonstrated definitive evidence for God."

"The problem is that using mathematical probabilities in this [bayesian] fashion ONLY makes sense if you have a well defined probability measure, and if one can check that the conclusions one draws are not sensitive to one’s priors. He did not explain this at all, nor do I think he understood it when I tried to explain it to him. For the rest of the evening Craig simply proceeded to spout his claimed evidence, and then proceeded to state that each gave him a greater than 50% belief in God. The whole purpose of the mathematical nonsense at the beginning was to give some kind of scientific credibility to a discussion which was anything but. It was disingenuous smoke and mirrors."

"While it is also true that if it [cosmological constant] were much larger, galaxies would not form, and therefore life forms that survive on solar power would not be likely to form with any significant abundance in the universe, I also explained that if the Cosmological Constant were in fact zero, which is what most theorists had predicted in advance, the conditions for life would be, if anything, more favorable, for the development and persistence of life in the cosmos. Finally, even if some parameters in our currently incomplete model of the universe do appear fine tuned for human life to be possible, (a) we have no idea if other values would allow other non-human-like intelligent life forms to evolve, since we have no understanding of the locus of all possible intelligent life forms."

"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."

"If time begins at the big bang, then we will have to re-explore what we mean by causality, just as the fact that electrons can be in two places at the same time doing two different things at the same time as long as we are not measuring them is completely nonsensical, but true, and has required rethinking what we mean by particles. Similar arguments by the way imply that we often need to rethink what we actually mean by ‘nothing’, from empty space, to the absence of space itself."

Philologos: He could be the most accomplished philosopher of religion out there. If he does not undestand physics, he should not be basing arguments on physics.

Zombrex · 24-10-2011 04:35PM

Morbert wrote: »

Philologos: He could be the most accomplished philosopher of religion out there. If he does not undestand physics, he should not be basing arguments on physics.

That is the thing though, the arguments put to him (such as causality having no meaning without space time, or the forces of nature actually being more favorable for life if they were different) are not complex difficult physical theories.

You really have to wonder what it means to be an accomplished philosopher of religion if Craig can't, or refuses to, understand these quite simple concepts. Its not rocket science or even quantum mechanics.

Can anyone become an accomplished philosopher of religion? What standards of philosophy are there in that speciality?

Or is it a case that in fact Craig is not accomplished at all, just well known and widely promoted?

philologos · 24-10-2011 06:26PM

I think Craig would be open to considering arguments against the logical principle of causation if they were made well. I would be also.

Morbert · 24-10-2011 07:39PM

philologos wrote: »

I think Craig would be open to considering arguments against the logical principle of causation if they were made well. I would be also.

You (and Craig) need to focus on the physics. The physics the physics the physics. Modern physics says spacetime is a dynamical variable, and therefore subject to quantum laws at the small scale. The universe could be a quantum excitation, where space and time are "caused" by a timeless quantum process, analogous to the process that "causes" the creation of mass and energy in quantum field theory, the most successfully tested scientific theory out there. Or the big bang could simply be a boundary, an artefact of our understanding of spacetime boundaries.

Craig explicitly relies on the entirely erroneous assumption that scientists have demonstrated that nothing physical could have caused the big bang. This is as valid as me making an impeccable argument against Christianity based on the premise that the Bible says Jesus was a hamster.

philologos · 24-10-2011 09:38PM

Morbert wrote: »

Craig explicitly relies on the entirely erroneous assumption that scientists have demonstrated that nothing physical could have caused the big bang. This is as valid as me making an impeccable argument against Christianity based on the premise that the Bible says Jesus was a hamster.

I don't think so. I think his issue is that postulating a multiverse to explain the current one is a violation of Ockham's Razor. It doesn't solve the problem in a sense in that one could very reasonable ask what caused the multiverse which brought this universe into existence into existence.

I'm happy to consider anything if the logic can be explained to me clearly.

Morbert · 24-10-2011 10:13PM

philologos wrote: »

I don't think so. I think his issue is that postulating a multiverse to explain the current one is a violation of Ockham's Razor. It doesn't solve the problem in a sense in that one could very reasonable ask what caused the multiverse which brought this universe into existence into existence.

I'm happy to consider anything if the logic can be explained to me clearly.

The "multiverse" in this context is simply the summing over spacetime topologies. This "summing over histories" is done all the time in quantum mechanics, the only difference here is the dynamical variable involved in the summing is the gravitational field/spacetime. You don't have to attach any ontological significance to this summing. Just interpret it as a handy computational method.

What you should take from it, though, is that there is a physical principle or form that can be loosely described as the "cause" of time and space. This principle, in turn, does not need a cause in the same sense that God would not need a cause. It is not embedded in space or time, but is instead responsible for it.

And to anticipate your reply. Yes, there are problems with this approach. On a practical level, summing over all possible topologies is generally an intractable problem due to the many topologies. All the supercomputers in the world would not be enough for all but the simplest toy models. Quantum mechanics suggests this quantization approach, but by no means confirms it. But all that needs to be understood is that it is in no way supported by physics that space and time must have had a supernatural cause..

Zombrex · 24-10-2011 11:53PM

philologos wrote: »

I don't think so. I think his issue is that postulating a multiverse to explain the current one is a violation of Ockham's Razor. It doesn't solve the problem in a sense in that one could very reasonable ask what caused the multiverse which brought this universe into existence into existence.

Who says anything caused the multi-verse to come into existences.

The universe has a finite age, no one knows what the multiverse is let alone whether it had a beginning or not or even if such a concept holds (any more than God had a beginning).

Craig, and yourself, are not reaching God as a conclusion from studying the physics, you are trying to find some where to insert God into the physics.

Saying the multiverse doesn't solve the problem only makes sense if the problem is how the heck to get God into an explanation for the universe.

This kind of nonsense is exactly why Dawkins doesn't debate someone like Craig.

philologos · 25-10-2011 07:17AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Who says anything caused the multi-verse to come into existences.

Logic does. I've said I'm quite happy to listen to any alternatives. The reason why Craig rejects an infinite multiverse is largely to do with this paper which states that Inflationary Spacetimes are Incomplete in Past Directions. I need a reason for which I could accept a godless infinite cause to the universe, or a reason as to why it is infinite before I would assume that it is.

Zombrex wrote: »

The universe has a finite age, no one knows what the multiverse is let alone whether it had a beginning or not or even if such a concept holds (any more than God had a beginning).

Claiming not to know doesn't mean that we assume infinity.

Zombrex wrote: »

Craig, and yourself, are not reaching God as a conclusion from studying the physics, you are trying to find some where to insert God into the physics.

Not at all. I'm basing my position on that all finite things have a cause. There's no need to wedge anything into the physics. I don't believe in a God of the gaps, I believe in a God of the whole show. An infinite immaterial cause is necessary for this universe to exist.

It seems by positing a multiverse which could be the case, one is just bringing the line of questioning one step further. It doesn't particularly hurt the case for there being a Creator.

Zombrex wrote: »

Saying the multiverse doesn't solve the problem only makes sense if the problem is how the heck to get God into an explanation for the universe.

Not at all. This is an absurd retort to what's been said. What is being done is to find an ultimate explanation to the universe. To claim that there isn't one is nonsensical. To claim that there was a multiverse without any form of cause defies what is reasonable unless you can provide good backup for why you believe such.

Zombrex wrote: »

This kind of nonsense is exactly why Dawkins doesn't debate someone like Craig.

Nonsense. His philosophical arguments have been heavily challenged by Craig and others. As a result if he is intellectually honest he should debate them.

There's nothing nonsense than saying that A cannot cause A, or that B must precede A, or that all finite things require a cause. That's reasonable, and logical. I've not seen a good reason as to why I should abandon these the second that people advocate for atheism.

marienbad · 25-10-2011 12:32PM

philologos you say ''I need a reason for which I could accept a godless infinite cause to the universe, or a reason why it is infinite before I would assume it''

Now I am already finding the science in this thread of mind boggling difficulty so I have to take a lot a face value from those that do.

But that being said are you not saying really- I cannot accept the infinite cause posited by the scientific crowd without reason so I will posit my own (without reason)and I will not accept theirs is infinite without reason but not apply that to my own theory ?

It seems to me that your argument as to God being the cause boils down to the old Sherlock Holmes one- when you have eliminated the impossible,whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

But science dos'nt proceed that way , does it ?

Zombrex · 25-10-2011 05:19PM

philologos wrote: »

Logic does.

What "logic"?

philologos wrote: »

I've said I'm quite happy to listen to any alternatives.

Alternative to what, you simply rejected something because it doesn't allow for your silly logic for the existence of God.

Give me a reason why the multiverse would have be itself created.

philologos wrote: »

The reason why Craig rejects an infinite multiverse is largely to do with this paper which states that Inflationary Spacetimes are Incomplete in Past Directions.

Can you explain why Craig rejects an infinite multiverse based on that paper since that paper doesn't rule out an infinite multiverse?

philologos wrote: »

Claiming not to know doesn't mean that we assume infinity.

We don't have to assume anything. You have to assume creation in order for your logic to work. We don't know is a perfectly reasonable answer but it blows your cosmological argument out of the water because it requires the establishment of logical axioms.

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. I'm basing my position on that all finite things have a cause. There's no need to wedge anything into the physics.

You are wedging a finite multiverse into the physics.

philologos wrote: »

It seems by positing a multiverse which could be the case, one is just bringing the line of questioning one step further. It doesn't particularly hurt the case for there being a Creator.

If the multiverse is not finite then it is not created. Thus no creator.

Don't get me wrong I've no doubt that you guys will be fine with that you will just make up another reason to suppose God exists. But you completely lose the cosmological argument.

philologos wrote: »

Not at all. This is an absurd retort to what's been said. What is being done is to find an ultimate explanation to the universe. To claim that there isn't one is nonsensical.

Who is claiming there isn't one. I'm saying the multiverse might have created the universe (if such a concept even applies) and you are saying but that doesn't answer the question. It does answer the question, your problem is that it doesn't give you the answer you want.

You need some where to put God in, and any answer that doesn't allow for this will be unsatisfactory to you not because it isn't an explanation but because it isn't an explanation with God in it.

philologos wrote: »

To claim that there was a multiverse without any form of cause defies what is reasonable

But a god without any form of cause doesn't?

Again you display your bias. You have zero trouble with a timeless God but you reject an infinite multiverse because it doesn't allow for God, not because it is is unreasonable.

philologos wrote: »

Nonsense. His philosophical arguments have been heavily challenged by Craig and others. As a result if he is intellectually honest he should debate them.

You aren't being intellectually honest here Phil and I'm seriously questioning what the point of debating you when you come up with nonsense such as a non-causes multiverse is unreasonable but a non-caused god isn't.

And you have only been doing this for a few years. Craig has been doing this intellectual dishonesty since before I was born. No wonder Dawkins doesn't want to debate him.

philologos · 25-10-2011 05:39PM

marienbad wrote: »

It seems to me that your argument as to God being the cause boils down to the old Sherlock Holmes one- when you have eliminated the impossible,whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

You've understood it wrong if that is what you are drawing from it. It is not improbable that the universe must be caused. It's sensible and logical.

marienbad wrote: »

But science dos'nt proceed that way , does it ?

I'm referring to the necessity of causation, so make of that whatever you will.

Zombrex, to shorten this down this is what I'm going to say: I'm still confused as to how you're coming to the conclusion that the cosmological argument has been blown out of the water. You've still not given me a reason as to why the multiverse would be infinite rather than finite.

You complain about me assuming causation, but I am no more assuming causation than I do in any other respect in terms of logic. All finite things have an ultimate cause isn't a remarkable statement. Somehow you think it is.

Turtwig · 25-10-2011 05:41PM

philologos wrote: »

You've understood it wrong if that is what you are drawing from it. It is not improbable that the universe must be caused. It's sensible and logical. .

Logical according to whom? Sensible? Wha?

PDN · 25-10-2011 05:52PM

Zombrex wrote: »

What "logic"?

Alternative to what, you simply rejected something because it doesn't allow for your silly logic for the existence of God.

Give me a reason why the multiverse would have be itself created.

Can you explain why Craig rejects an infinite multiverse based on that paper since that paper doesn't rule out an infinite multiverse?

We don't have to assume anything. You have to assume creation in order for your logic to work. We don't know is a perfectly reasonable answer but it blows your cosmological argument out of the water because it requires the establishment of logical axioms.

You are wedging a finite multiverse into the physics.

If the multiverse is not finite then it is not created. Thus no creator.

Don't get me wrong I've no doubt that you guys will be fine with that you will just make up another reason to suppose God exists. But you completely lose the cosmological argument.

Who is claiming there isn't one. I'm saying the multiverse might have created the universe (if such a concept even applies) and you are saying but that doesn't answer the question. It does answer the question, your problem is that it doesn't give you the answer you want.

You need some where to put God in, and any answer that doesn't allow for this will be unsatisfactory to you not because it isn't an explanation but because it isn't an explanation with God in it.

But a god without any form of cause doesn't?

Again you display your bias. You have zero trouble with a timeless God but you reject an infinite multiverse because it doesn't allow for God, not because it is is unreasonable.

You aren't being intellectually honest here Phil and I'm seriously questioning what the point of debating you when you come up with nonsense such as a non-causes multiverse is unreasonable but a non-caused god isn't.

And you have only been doing this for a few years. Craig has been doing this intellectual dishonesty since before I was born. No wonder Dawkins doesn't want to debate him.

Sigh! These threads are reaching the end of their shelf lifes once the usual suspects start accusing people of intellectual dishonesty because they don't agree with their own particular point of view.

Anyone got anything fresh or original to contribute? Otherwise we may as well lock the thread rather than have more pages of atheists saying why Lane is a tit, and Christians saying why Dawkins is a tit.

marienbad · 25-10-2011 06:02PM

philologos wrote: »

You've understood it wrong if that is what you are drawing from it. It is not improbable that the universe must be caused. It's sensible and logical.

I'm referring to the necessity of causation, so make of that whatever you will.

Zombrex, to shorten this down this is what I'm going to say: I'm still confused as to how you're coming to the conclusion that the cosmological argument has been blown out of the water. You've still not given me a reason as to why the multiverse would be infinite rather than finite.

You complain about me assuming causation, but I am no more assuming causation than I do in any other respect in terms of logic. All finite things have an ultimate cause isn't a remarkable statement. Somehow you think it is.

Ok philologos , forget Sherlock then and answers the questions I asked you please.

philologos · 25-10-2011 06:22PM

The main question seems to be "Why doesn't God need a cause?"

My answer would be along the lines of what Aquinas would have argued.

Finite things require a cause.
The universe is 13.7 billion years old. Therefore it is finite. It began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Something caused that to happen. Aquinas would have said that finite entities are contingent. This means that they could exist or they couldn't exist. All finite things require a necessary cause.

If I claimed that God was a finite entity I'd agree with you. I wouldn't be playing fair.

All finite causes require an ultimate cause, which is infinite. The cause of the universe must exist outside of it as A cannot cause A, or indeed any subset of A cannot cause A. The cause of A (B) must precede A.

This means that B as the cause of A cannot exist within A or depend on A for its existence. It must exist externally to A. In existing externally to A, it is not constrained by the criteria or time or space.

That's been the traditional position within the philosophy of religion for years.

An infinite regress (That something must have caused something that must have caused something that must have caused something ad-infinitum) is illogical and isn't an alternative to creation. If there is no ultimate terminating cause it would mean that the creation would have never ended as the link of causes would be continuing back ad-infinitum. We can only say that X happened because there is an ultimate root cause.

Arguing for an intelligent cause to the universe is sensible and reasonable. It follows the requirement of causation. If I'm required to abandon this logic for any reason, I'd like a good reason as to why I should. Why should different rules apply to presenting the case for atheism as apply for presenting the case for Christianity?

marienbad · 25-10-2011 06:49PM

philologos wrote: »

The main question seems to be "Why doesn't God need a cause?"

My answer would be along the lines of what Aquinas would have argued.

Finite things require a cause.
The universe is 13.7 billion years old. Therefore it is finite. It began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Something caused that to happen. Aquinas would have said that finite entities are contingent. This means that they could exist or they couldn't exist. All finite things require a necessary cause.

If I claimed that God was a finite entity I'd agree with you. I wouldn't be playing fair.

All finite causes require an ultimate cause, which is infinite. The cause of the universe must exist outside of it as A cannot cause A, or indeed any subset of A cannot cause A. The cause of A (B) must precede A.

This means that B as the cause of A cannot exist within A or depend on A for its existence. It must exist externally to A. In existing externally to A, it is not constrained by the criteria or time or space.

That's been the traditional position within the philosophy of religion for years.

An infinite regress (That something must have caused something that must have caused something that must have caused something ad-infinitum) is illogical and isn't an alternative to creation. If there is no ultimate terminating cause it would mean that the creation would have never ended as the link of causes would be continuing back ad-infinitum. We can only say that X happened because there is an ultimate root cause.

Arguing for an intelligent cause to the universe is sensible and reasonable. It follows the requirement of causation. If I'm required to abandon this logic for any reason, I'd like a good reason as to why I should. Why should different rules apply to presenting the case for atheism as apply for presenting the case for Christianity?

Ok philologos., but when someone posits an infinite multiverse for example you demand a reason and failing to receive one plump for an infinite God. The burden of proof you demand from everone else you don't apply to yourself . And that is before we even get to which God or whose God.

As an aside can I ask why this obsession with debating scientists at all ?
the nature of faith in the certainty of the truth of something in the absence of proof, is it not ?

Morbert · 25-10-2011 06:50PM

philologos wrote: »

The main question seems to be "Why doesn't God need a cause?"

My answer would be along the lines of what Aquinas would have argued.

Finite things require a cause.
The universe is 13.7 billion years old. Therefore it is finite. It began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Something caused that to happen. Aquinas would have said that finite entities are contingent. This means that they could exist or they couldn't exist. All finite things require a necessary cause.

If I claimed that God was a finite entity I'd agree with you. I wouldn't be playing fair.

All finite causes require an ultimate cause, which is infinite. The cause of the universe must exist outside of it as A cannot cause A, or indeed any subset of A cannot cause A. The cause of A (B) must precede A.

This means that B as the cause of A cannot exist within A or depend on A for its existence. It must exist externally to A. In existing externally to A, it is not constrained by the criteria or time or space.

That's been the traditional position within the philosophy of religion for years.

An infinite regress (That something must have caused something that must have caused something that must have caused something ad-infinitum) is illogical and isn't an alternative to creation. If there is no ultimate terminating cause it would mean that the creation would have never ended as the link of causes would be continuing back ad-infinitum. We can only say that X happened because there is an ultimate root cause.

Arguing for an intelligent cause to the universe is sensible and reasonable. It follows the requirement of causation. If I'm required to abandon this logic for any reason, I'd like a good reason as to why I should. Why should different rules apply to presenting the case for atheism as apply for presenting the case for Christianity?

And the response is that, while a beginning of spacetime can be identified, the universe includes a quantum mechanical facet that is not embedded in spacetime, but instead is responsible for spacetime. This facet is timeless, and does not need a cause.

Zombrex · 25-10-2011 07:21PM

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex, to shorten this down this is what I'm going to say: I'm still confused as to how you're coming to the conclusion that the cosmological argument has been blown out of the water. You've still not given me a reason as to why the multiverse would be infinite rather than finite.

I'm not saying it is infinite rather than finite. I'm saying it can be infinite.

You are saying it cannot be infinite and thus still asserting the cosmological argument to explain the multiverse rather than the universe.

Let me ask again, why must the multiverse be finite.

philologos wrote: »

You complain about me assuming causation, but I am no more assuming causation than I do in any other respect in terms of logic.

You keep confusing the meaning of logic. Logic simply means consistent with the rules you have already established.

A cannot cause A is a rule you have asserted to be true. If it is true then the statement is logical.

But you are basing this assertion on experience, experience that does not apply outside the rules of the universe.

In fact you are more than happy with abandoning rules of this universe when it suites you. For example

Something cannot come from nothing.

This seems reasonable but if it holds mean God could not create the universe out of nothing. When that is put to a Christian they (correctly) say you cannot apply rules based on experience in this universe to an entity like God that exists outside of the rules he created.

philologos wrote: »

All finite things have an ultimate cause isn't a remarkable statement. Somehow you think it is.

How remarkable it is is irrelevant. You simply do not know if it true or not. You know based on your experience of this universe that is appears to be true in this universe.

How you think you can apply that axiom to something external to this universe is beyond me when you have no trouble not applying such rules to God himself precisely because he exists outside of this universe.

lmaopml · 25-10-2011 09:54PM

I think Craig and Dawkins are both right to a degree, and both asserting what they see as the 'most probable' within their respective fields, however making too many grandiose assertions about the effect this has on the others theory/belief.

Dawkins claims anything 'but' God into science in a fairly obtuse and self conceited manner - but forgets that the Christian God is not subject 'to' the strawman arguements or assumptions he made when giving his 'reasons' for crossing the realm into theology, and what he assumed it 'does' assert. He asserts they are NOT compatible - Science and belief, and ridicules believers - but they are.....! Neither position actually destroys or annhilates the others assertion. Like everything, they end up talking 'at' eachother and the crowd goes away believing their man 'won'..lol....

In fairness to Craig. 'The Multiverse' is still theoretical, although it's often spoke of like it's fact - ( good theory, but nonetheless in the realms of theory? No?

the universe includes a quantum mechanical facet that is not embedded in spacetime, but instead is responsible for spacetime. This facet is timeless, and does not need a cause.

My limited understanding here is that this facet while it may be one of a number of mathematical possibilities has not yet been found to 'actually' exist. That Quantum particles that interact or effect other universes in a multiverse haven't been actually found in nature. Perhaps the effects are observed in some obscure or ambiguous manner?

Time will tell as they say - and even if it does.... I still think that it's mindblowingly amazing, but nothing at all got to do with believing in God - and one doesn't 'have' to assert God into science, or indeed as Morbert mentioned use physics to rationalise a faith based statement. Christianity claims to be built on reason, but not a scientific journal on nature. The two can co-exist and imo often times compliment or excite eachother - for the good and bad - but they can co-exist in one person and not hinder the search for truth in nature..

The all too common assertion is that they 'cannot' - and THAT's the problem. Not Multiverse theory or branes or or or....Unfortunately Dawkins and Co. seem to make the assertion that they cannot, and I think very many of the people who have debated them fell down when trying to use science to describe God, when they never had to in the first place iykwim.

Hope that's understandable, I'm working and lurking at the same time.

philologos · 25-10-2011 11:03PM

marienbad wrote: »

Ok philologos., but when someone posits an infinite multiverse for example you demand a reason and failing to receive one plump for an infinite God. The burden of proof you demand from everone else you don't apply to yourself . And that is before we even get to which God or whose God.

When someone posits an infinite multiverse, I ask what reason do they have to think that the multiverse is infinite. I think that's a fair question.

I also question whether or not positing a multiverse to explain the universe is a violation of Ockham's Razor.

Occam's Razor: the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred

I also don't see any reason why I should ignore the logical position that A cannot cause itself.

I have no issue with the concept of a multiverse, but if people are going to posit it as a valid means of explaining the cause of this one I'm entitled to question them.

marienbad wrote: »

As an aside can I ask why this obsession with debating scientists at all ?
the nature of faith in the certainty of the truth of something in the absence of proof, is it not ?

This is precisely not what I am doing.

I have a huge respect for natural science as a means of discovering more about the universe. I don't personally respect atheism as an ideology. I also clearly reject disingenuous attempts by new-atheists to hijack science. There are plenty of scientists who believe in God, and plenty of scientists who don't find major difficulty between their faith and science. Indeed, in many ways they find much common ground between both.

You are assuming falsely that atheism leads to science and vice versa.

marienbad · 25-10-2011 11:19PM

philologos wrote: »

When someone posits an infinite multiverse, I ask what reason do they have to think that the multiverse is infinite. I think that's a fair question.

I also question whether or not positing a multiverse to explain the universe is a violation of Ockham's Razor.

I also don't see any reason why I should ignore the logical position that A cannot cause itself.

I have no issue with the concept of a multiverse, but if people are going to posit it as a valid means of explaining the cause of this one I'm entitled to question them.

This is precisely not what I am doing.

I have a huge respect for natural science as a means of discovering more about the universe. I don't personally respect atheism as an ideology. I also clearly reject disingenuous attempts by new-atheists to hijack science. There are plenty of scientists who believe in God, and plenty of scientists who don't find major difficulty between their faith and science. Indeed, in many ways they find much common ground between both.

You are assuming falsely that atheism leads to science and vice versa.

But you are not answering my question at all philologos, you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing -i.e how is positing an infinite multiverse any different than you positing an infinite god ? And it is you surely that is guilty of violating Occam's razor by inserting an extra link in the chain ?

My other question on debating scientists was not aimed at you personally ,just a general query. I am correct in my definition of faith am I not ? and if so why the constant quest to prove the unprovable ?

Refusing to debate WLC (and the cosmological argument)

Comments