Refusing to debate WLC (and the cosmological argument)

philologos · 25-10-2011 11:27PM

I'm not really. I'm simply thinking to the mere fact it is reasonable to believe that the universe was created, or that it was caused. I'm also saying that given the state of the universe that it is likely that this cause was intelligent given the fine tuning that has occurred within it in order for it to be as it is.

Positing a multiverse doesn't solve the problem of Creation in any meaningful way. It brings the line of questioning back one step further. It also arguably violates Ockham's Razor which is:

the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred

I felt your question concerning scientists was disingenuous. I don't argue against natural science at all. I am arguing against what I feel to be nonsensical about atheism. I've pointed out that there are numerous Christian scientists, none of whom assume that in order for science to be correct that we must forego belief in God. Surely that is a point to be recognised.

I don't believe proof is the right word for this debate. It's not the right word for many debates as proof lies in the realm of mathematics. What we should be thinking about is how reasonable is it that X or Y is true, and what reasons do we have for saying that X or Y is true. There is no proof that my senses are reliable, but I'm fairly sure if I completely disregard my senses while I'm crossing the road that it is likely that I will be hit by a truck. Likewise in respect to my faith in God, I trust Him because He has demonstrated Himself to be trustworthy through Creation and through the Scriptures. As a result I believe and trust in Him in my daily life.

Faith involves a trust in what is reasonable. It's not blind or wholly irrational as far as I see it.

marienbad · 25-10-2011 11:49PM

philologos wrote: »

I'm not really. I'm simply thinking to the mere fact it is reasonable to believe that the universe was created, or that it was caused. I'm also saying that given the state of the universe that it is likely that this cause was intelligent given the fine tuning that has occurred within it in order for it to be as it is.

Positing a multiverse doesn't solve the problem of Creation in any meaningful way. It brings the line of questioning back one step further. It also arguably violates Ockham's Razor which is:

I felt your question concerning scientists was disingenuous. I don't argue against natural science at all. I am arguing against what I feel to be nonsensical about atheism. I've pointed out that there are numerous Christian scientists, none of whom assume that in order for science to be correct that we must forego belief in God. Surely that is a point to be recognised.

I don't believe proof is the right word for this debate. It's not the right word for many debates as proof lies in the realm of mathematics. What we should be thinking about is how reasonable is it that X or Y is true, and what reasons do we have for saying that X or Y is true. There is no proof that my senses are reliable, but I'm fairly sure if I completely disregard my senses while I'm crossing the road that it is likely that I will be hit by a truck. Likewise in respect to my faith in God, I trust Him because He has demonstrated Himself to be trustworthy through Creation and through the Scriptures. As a result I believe and trust in Him in my daily life.

Faith involves a trust in what is reasonable. It's not blind or wholly irrational as far as I see it.

You have faith , I don't (not for a long time) so what you consider is reasonable is only so because you have faith .

And because you have faith you seek to place God as the Prime Mover

And maybe I am thick or something but how can inserting something arbitrarily into the chain be seen as the simpler option ?

raah! · 25-10-2011 11:54PM

Malty_T wrote: »

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

philologos wrote: »

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.

Hume showed that there was no argument we could give (from the senses or otherwise) to support that one thing caused another. He showed there was no impression from which the idea of force of necessary connection could come from.

After Hume's bragging about "name any idea! I dare you, name an idea and I'll give you an impresssion!!" his only response to the idea of cause was that it was meaningless. After he had just spend so much time using the word and showing how causation should be understood in a way different to how it's presently understood.

In this perhaps we see the foreshadowing of logical positivism in hume. He's saying "if it hasn't come from an impression it's meaningless".

The natural response of a rationalistically inclined person (and later of Kant) however, is to say that the idea of causation is an a priori object of reason. This would be the natural response of a theist. So Hume's arguments do not compell a theist or rationalist to abandon the notion of cause, but they do impell an empiricist/materialist/whatever to do so.

lmaopml · 25-10-2011 11:59PM

In my opinion Phil is not 'inserting something' into a scientific theory. He is stating an article of faith - and his assertion can co-exist with anything that science has to say on the subject.

So no, you're not thick, just leaning towards atheism which is a seperate 'life choice' not 'creed' of science, or indeed specific to the scientific method - it's just a different life choice than a person who is a theist.

Zombrex · 26-10-2011 12:02AM

lmaopml wrote: »

In my opinion Phil is not 'inserting something' into a scientific theory. He is stating an article of faith - and his assertion can co-exist with anything that science has to say on the subject.

So no, you're not thick, just leaning towards atheism which is a seperate 'life choice' not 'creed' of science, or indeed specific to the scientific method - it's just a different life choice than a person who is a theist.

Stating that what ever causes the universe must itself have been causes is simply inserting an unsupported assertion to get back to being able to use the cosmological argument to say that caused thing must have been caused by God.

In reality we have no idea if that is true or not. But neither Craig nor Phil for that matter seem in anyway concerned with that little issue.

Going back to the central question why doesn't Dawkins debate Craig it is for reasons like this, Craig is not serious about this subject, he is just stumbling around in the dark trying to get "God did it" in there some where, anywhere and invented in the reasons to suppose this.

lmaopml · 26-10-2011 12:11AM

I don't know Craig, nor really follow him Zombrex. I'd still like to see Dawkins debate him though - some just for the heck of it, and perhaps for selfish reasons too.... As to me, anytime I see or hear Dawkins speak on theology or be obtuse on the subject of God and how he unloads his 'belief' about what people 'believe'. I feel that he is pushing himself further outside the realms of respectable behaviour to the scientific community he claims to speak for....

Not a bad thing imo

Plus, it'd be fun to watch, you never know we might hear something new and worth talking about, and lifes short -

Turtwig · 26-10-2011 12:15AM

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't know Craig, nor really follow him Zombrex. I'd still like to see Dawkins debate him though - some just for the heck of it, and perhaps for selfish reasons too.... As to me, anytime I see or hear Dawkins speak on theology or be obtuse on the subject of God and how he unloads his 'belief' about what people 'believe'. I feel that he is pushing himself further outside the realms of respectable behaviour to the scientific community he claims to speak for....

Not a bad thing imo

Plus, it'd be fun to watch, you never know we might hear something new and worth talking about, and lifes short -

But you see that's just it, there lies the crux of reason why Dawkins should never debate Craig. You'd watch it and I mean no disrespect here, but you wouldn't be able to tell when Craig is bullsh1tting about physics and biology so you'd probably be convinced by him there and then on the spot. Reality by its very nature is counter intuitive and all Dawkins will do is attempt to make approximations of it, fact and that is also pretty pathetic. So fun to watch maybe, but it would spread ignorance of reality rather than an actual constructive insight into the nature of reality. My advice :
Read a book : Fabric of the Cosmos comes highly recommended, but it needn't be that.

lmaopml · 26-10-2011 12:21AM

Malty, get a life and go read a book yourself..lol...Presumtious. I didn't know you were a mega mind scientist..;)

The day I'm convinced of anything so huge by a stupid debate between Dawkins and Craig, or that I think it's a 'terrible' thing to happen, is the day I'll go searching out a book on 'How to understand the Universe on my own and the people in it'....

marienbad · 26-10-2011 01:30AM

lmaopml wrote: »

In my opinion Phil is not 'inserting something' into a scientific theory. He is stating an article of faith - and his assertion can co-exist with anything that science has to say on the subject.

So no, you're not thick, just leaning towards atheism which is a seperate 'life choice' not 'creed' of science, or indeed specific to the scientific method - it's just a different life choice than a person who is a theist.

Correctomundo ! at last - he is stating an article of faith ! thank you very much. Which is why not debating WLC is the correct choice .

Zombrex · 26-10-2011 01:41AM

Malty_T wrote: »

But you see that's just it, there lies the crux of reason why Dawkins should never debate Craig. You'd watch it and I mean no disrespect here, but you wouldn't be able to tell when Craig is bullsh1tting about physics and biology so you'd probably be convinced by him there and then on the spot.

Exactly the point. This is how the debate would go

Craig would spout some nonsense about cosmological argument that has been refuted a gazilian times already.

Dawkins now has two options.

He can attempt to confront the argument with a repeat of one of the rebuttals to it. This is I suspect that Craig is hoping for because the rebuttals are often more complicated than the actual argument (ie explaining why causality may not apply without space time). Craig will then claim that Dawkins rebuttals do not make sense (because to Craig's supporters they don't, they are too complicated) and claim victory.

Or Dawkins can take the simpler route and not engage in Craig's nonsense at which point again Craig claims victory by claiming that Dawkins is lost for a response to his argument.

Both scenarios allow Craig to claim he debated Dawkins and bested him when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

There is an implicate assertion that comes from debating someone, that being that they and their ideas of worthy of debate. That is not the case with Craig.

philologos · 26-10-2011 07:02AM

marienbad wrote: »

You have faith , I don't (not for a long time) so what you consider is reasonable is only so because you have faith .

Nonsense. I consider it reasonable because it makes good logical sense. Much in the same way that I tend to travel on the tube because it is reasonable to believe that TFL have trained their tube drivers to follow signals.

marienbad wrote: »

And because you have faith you seek to place God as the Prime Mover

It's because the universe depends on a necessary cause, it is also because it is reasonable given the state of the universe to think that this cause is intelligent.

I welcome you to argue clearly against that position, but as far as I see it I'm only putting faith in what is reasonable probably much more the case in respect to God than in respect to the tube drivers with TFL.

marienbad wrote: »

And maybe I am thick or something but how can inserting something arbitrarily into the chain be seen as the simpler option ?

I'm not inserting anything arbitrarily in there. The need for a cause already exists. The reasons to believe that this cause share some commonalities in terms of God are reasonably clear.

Morbert · 26-10-2011 02:05PM

lmaopml wrote: »

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?

This is what has been established: When considering the evolution of a quantum system, all possible paths contribute to that evolution. If you kick a quantum ball, its evolution is not defined by a single trajectory, but by all possible trajectories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation

"It replaces the classical notion of a single, unique trajectory for a system with a sum, or functional integral, over an infinity of possible trajectories to compute a quantum amplitude."

This is the most successful scientific theory we have, capable of predicting phenomena to an accuracy of one part in a trillion (Analogous to predicting the distance from here to the moon to within a hair's width).

The universe, as you are aware, is big, so much of it can be described without having to consider quantum mechanics. But it was not always big. To understand the evolution of the universe at the big-bang scale, we would need to consider this quantum summing. General Relativity tells us spacetime is the gravitational field, so if we want to understand the early "quantum" universe, we must quantise gravity. This is where the theory becomes more difficult. We have not been able to quantise gravity, but we know that it is necessary in order to understand the early universe.

In other words, we know that facet of the universe exists, but we are not able to understand its implications and consequences yet.

marienbad · 26-10-2011 02:24PM

philologos wrote: »

Nonsense. I consider it reasonable because it makes good logical sense. Much in the same way that I tend to travel on the tube because it is reasonable to believe that TFL have trained their tube drivers to follow signals.

It's because the universe depends on a necessary cause, it is also because it is reasonable given the state of the universe to think that this cause is intelligent.

I welcome you to argue clearly against that position, but as far as I see it I'm only putting faith in what is reasonable probably much more the case in respect to God than in respect to the tube drivers with TFL.

I'm not inserting anything arbitrarily in there. The need for a cause already exists. The reasons to believe that this cause share some commonalities in terms of God are reasonably clear.

No it is not nonsense at all philologos, you just don't have an open mind on this subject quite simply because having faith does not allow for it.

That being the case you will always insert God into the equation . Your starting point is God exists therefore..... .

I am arguing clearly against your position - you will not allow yourself to see it and I fully accept that. Even you are arguing against your position and you can't see that either.

That is why it is called faith !

PDN · 26-10-2011 04:53PM

marienbad wrote: »

No it is not nonsense at all philologos, you just don't have an open mind on this subject quite simply because having faith does not allow for it.

That being the case you will always insert God into the equation . Your starting point is God exists therefore..... .

I am arguing clearly against your position - you will not allow yourself to see it and I fully accept that. Even you are arguing against your position and you can't see that either.

That is why it is called faith !

Ah, so now those who disagree with you are, by definition, closed-minded.

Sounds slightly better than accusations of intellectual dishonesty, but we've been down this path of petty name calling before.

We'll close this thread until such time as I am convinced that people are prepared to genuinely discuss the issues. But feel free to talk about it more with the wonderfully open-minded and intellectually honest residents over on the A&A Forum.

Refusing to debate WLC (and the cosmological argument)

Comments