pelfdaddy wrote:Blackadder and Metatron,

The only thing I ever contribute to this forum is the perspective of a former preacher. My ignorance of both science and formal logic are ill-concealed, and force me to aim at a broader objective. While I love coming here to read, I am unqualified to chime in very often. When I do, I am always treated with kindness and indulgence. So, while I thank you for the Orson, I am embarrassed to accept. I'll sit down now so the rest of you can actually talk this out.

pelfdaddy wrote:Those who have moved in evangelical circles are aware of the purpose of WLC's apologetics. It is the broad scope he is after, and that within his own family of brethren. It is not persuasion of skeptics that Craig aims to accomplish, but the encouragement of believers. One should ask why this is necessary. But then we know the answer; even believers know their beliefs arise out of a well of ill-defined, privately cherished reasons founded on tradition, loyalty, anecdotes, personal experience and emotion. The encroachment of empirical inquiry into that precious personal space causes great worry in the pulpit and pew alike. Craig is defending the faith of the faithful in the arena of dogma, not seeking the truth in the laboratory of hypotheses.

The reason Craig's arguments are so thoroughly structured on word games and false distinctions is because it confuses his Christian listeners into thinking that a real champion of reason is on their side. It also allows him to fling multiple assertions at his opponents, adequate rebuttals to which are beyond the time constraints of the format. He thus claims victory based on a rigid scoring system; demonstrating to atheists that formal debates are a terrible means of arriving at supportable conclusions, and demonstrating to Christians that "William Lane Craig Has Never Lost A Debate With An Atheist", which encourages them to keep on believing and to purchase his fictional non-fiction.

It should be clear that Mick and Bill Craig are both engaged in the act of playing this game. When these guys claim that science supports their beliefs, they depend upon the ignorance of most of their intended audience. When it is pointed out to them that these beliefs are unfalsifiable, they claim, "Exactly! which is why science cannot pronounce upon them". The actual state of affairs is that, if they are unfalsifiable, then science has ALREADY pronounced upon them.

The shame of all this is that the resultant smoke screen obscures the target upon which we should really be drawing this bead; that every religious organization is engaged in actively defrauding its members and the general public, that Christianity in the West is particularly culpable in its terrorizing and abusing of children, that evangelical churches are fleecing both their congregants and surrounding communities for billions of dollars while producing nothing of value. If the Roman Catholic Church (as frightfully embarrassing as is its past) were investigated as thoroughly as it ought to be for its current crimes, our planet would be shed of one more filthy encumbrance. If the claims of drug manufacturers were as well supported as those of our many churches and church leaders, they would face class-action lawsuits and their executives would be incarcerated.

Never forget: Christianity is a business.

Mick and Bill C. are merely attempting to protect the source of income that keeps these worthless shit bags afloat on their scum-covered pond of lies and coercion.

Isophocles wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
You just contradicted yourself there. First you say "every causal chain of events known to science has a primary cause". But then you admit that that QM demonstrates this is not a case, and try to handwave that away by saying "There could still be a cause that we have not yet identified."

You misread what I wrote. I said that where there exists a "causal chain of events",i.e where are there identified causes, there always exists some primary cause that explains all the subsequent and secondary causes and their effects.

In quantum mechanics, the cause of an effect is not always obvious, or may be probabilistic rather than deterministic, and so it cannot be placed in any causal chain. So what I have said is entirely consistent with both scientific observation and reason.

Apart from betraying an ignorance of the relevant science, you've just rendered invalid your first argument. If whenever we find something that is uncaused, you're just going to say "It still has a cause. You just don't know what it is yet", then it is useless to assert that everything we observe has a cause. What you're really saying is "Everything has a cause, even when there is no evidence whatsoever for that cause. Therefore, everything has a cause." IOW, you're just begging the question.

The "indeterminancy" of events at the quantum level is really only a way of saying we don't know the deterministic mechanisms or do not have the ability to identify and detect them. If we give up looking for these causes, as you suggest, then we accept the existence of magic at the atomic level and science ceases being an attempt to explain phenomena.

Isophocles wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Show that it does. Merely asserting it goes against science doesn't make it so.

Both science and logic are based on the principle that something cannot come from nothing.

Isophocles wrote:And it is a principle that has worked very well for both.

Isophocles wrote:The moment we ignore this principle is the moment when we stop looking for natural causes and rational explanations.

Isophocles wrote:If I found a penguin in my bedroom, I would look for a logical reason as to how it got there. I wouldn't just conclude it had popped into existence from nothing and leave it at that. This would be recourse to belief in magic.

Isophocles wrote:

1. This is an appeal to incredulity fallacy. Just because you can't imagine it doesn't mean it's impossible. It's like saying something as massive as an adult human being cannot have come from something as microscopic as sperm.
2. Read his book before you start about literally nothing.
3. You're still begging the question that there must be a reason for everything. Why can't certain things just be?

Krauss has frequently changed his mind.

Isophocles wrote:He refers to the quantum vacuum as a source of virtual particles, but then admits that it is not really nothing but a reservoir of energy.

Isophocles wrote:Now, he proposes that the universe did come out of literally nothing.

Isophocles wrote:He used to suppose that the laws of physics explained the origin of the universe until he realized that they would have to exist prior to the existence of the physical universe which would be absurd.

Isophocles wrote:His argument really amounts to the fact that the the sum of the positive and negative energy present in the universe equals zero, consistent with an origin from nothing.

Isophocles wrote:

Except that it doesn't. As Craig postulates a special pleading first cause. He also ignores the possibility of an infinite chain of causes.

All known causal chains of events have a first cause.

Isophocles wrote:All Craig does is say that the universe itself must have a first cause if it is established that the universe began to exist.

Isophocles wrote:He doesn't ignore the argument of the the infinite chain of causes and the idea of an eternal universe.

Isophocles wrote:He responds that it is logically absurd

Isophocles wrote:(how could we get to the present if the past is endless and goes on forever?)

Isophocles wrote:and that it doesn't actually explain the existence of causality in the series: It exists because it exists!

Isophocles wrote:

Furthermore if you claim theology shouldn't be involved that only excludes Craig not Krauss.

I don't see why atheism has to deny the existence of an uncaused first cause since this fact dos not prove theism is true.

Isophocles wrote:All it means is that the universe came into being because of a cause that preceded its existence. That is science, not theology.

Isophocles wrote:You misread what I wrote. I said that where there exists a "causal chain of events",i.e where there are identified causes, there always exists some primary cause that explains all the subsequent and secondary causes and their effects.

Thommo wrote:
Now, there's an interesting claim. Can you give me an example of a causal chain where the first cause is anything other than the big bang? Because it does seem like every cause I can think of has an antecedent cause.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Science is based on falsification and empiricism. Logic isn't based on "something cannot come from nothing".
At least admit your pulling shit from your rectum.

Isophocles wrote:

Thommo wrote:
Now, there's an interesting claim. Can you give me an example of a causal chain where the first cause is anything other than the big bang? Because it does seem like every cause I can think of has an antecedent cause.

You would be right, of course (although the Big Bang is not its own cause). But you don't need to look for antcedent causes with respect to a specific causal chain. For example, the causal chain relating to getting my car engine running involves me first turning the ignition key. A series of mechanical causes and effects then ensues. I don't need to go beyond this "first" cause in the chain in order to explain how a car engine gets going.

Isophocles wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Science is based on falsification and empiricism. Logic isn't based on "something cannot come from nothing".
At least admit your pulling shit from your rectum.

Science, in its explanatory and predictive power, is based on the immutable law of cause and effect.

Isophocles wrote: Science seeks natural explanations for natural phenomena.

Isophocles wrote:Something spontaneously coming out of nothing, for no reason, is not an explanation.

Isophocles wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
You just contradicted yourself there. First you say "every causal chain of events known to science has a primary cause". But then you admit that that QM demonstrates this is not a case, and try to handwave that away by saying "There could still be a cause that we have not yet identified."

You misread what I wrote. I said that where there exists a "causal chain of events",i.e where there are identified causes, there always exists some primary cause that explains all the subsequent and secondary causes and their effects. In quantum mechanics, the cause of an effect is not always obvious, or may be probabilistic rather than deterministic, and so it cannot be placed in any causal chain. So what I have said is entirely consistent with both scientific observation and reason.

Newmark wrote:
So if I were to say that the universe must have a cause that itself is uncaused, that would inconsistent with both scientific observation and reason, right?

Shrunk wrote:
So your argument is now "Everything has a cause, except when it doesn't have a cause. Therefore, everything has a cause"?

So the coming into existence of the universe could be one of those things that "cannot be placed in a causal chain." It seems you have no argument at all.

I think you're misunderstanding the science here. My understanding is that acausality is not just an argument from the gaps. It is a positive theory that best explains the observed data. But I'll leave that for the more astute to confirm.

Isophocles wrote:

Tero wrote:I really don't know why Craig gets all these gigs. Maybe he is the one chosen to speak eloquently? But he only ever had one argument: first cause.

Compared to Lawrence Krauss who insists that the universe did not only not have a first cause but that actually there is no cause to account for its origin. It just spontaneously popped into being from nothing. Now, which of the two positions is more logical and plausible, and which has more evidential support?

Isophocles wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Do you understand what the word possible means?
And again, he's probably talking about the current configuration of the universe.

He means that the universe did have a beginning - however far back it might have been - and that it arose from nothing without a cause.

Rumraket wrote:

Isophocles wrote:

Tero wrote:I really don't know why Craig gets all these gigs. Maybe he is the one chosen to speak eloquently? But he only ever had one argument: first cause.

Compared to Lawrence Krauss who insists that the universe did not only not have a first cause but that actually there is no cause to account for its origin. It just spontaneously popped into being from nothing. Now, which of the two positions is more logical and plausible, and which has more evidential support?

Lawrence Krauss insists no such thing, he suggests it as a hypothesis congruent with hitherto discovered facts of science. He's entirely open about it being wrong. Misrepresentation noted.

Isophocles wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Isophocles wrote:

Tero wrote:I really don't know why Craig gets all these gigs. Maybe he is the one chosen to speak eloquently? But he only ever had one argument: first cause.

Compared to Lawrence Krauss who insists that the universe did not only not have a first cause but that actually there is no cause to account for its origin. It just spontaneously popped into being from nothing. Now, which of the two positions is more logical and plausible, and which has more evidential support?

Lawrence Krauss insists no such thing, he suggests it as a hypothesis congruent with hitherto discovered facts of science. He's entirely open about it being wrong. Misrepresentation noted.

He has insisted that the universe could well have come into being from nothing without a cause and without any laws of physics.

Isophocles wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
Neither. Krauss' position, however, is supported by science, while Craig's is by theological flapdoodle. if the question is ever answered, it is almost certainly to be by a scientist, not a theologian. In fact, theologians claim to have already answered the question, yet for some reason everyone (theologians included) are waiting for the scientists to weigh in with their answer.

Krauss' position goes against both science and logic by asserting that something as massive as an entire universe

Isophocles wrote:... can arise out of literally nothing for no reason.

Isophocles wrote:The fact that every causal chain of events known to science has a primary cause

Isophocles wrote:lends credence to Craig's stance. Krauss also seems to think that the laws of quantum mechanics show that causes may not be necessary to produce effects.

Isophocles wrote: That is spurious on two grounds: Firstly, we are not always in a position to know the exact cause of an event at the quantum level given the enormous number of factors involved. That doesn't mean there is no cause.

Isophocles wrote:Secondly, the very existence of the laws of quantum mechanics is only possible if something exists since these laws describe natural phenomena at the quantum level.

Isophocles wrote:This is not a debate where theology should be involved, only science and reason.

Isophocles wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Well, maybe he's wrong, and I'm right. I just think of this as the current version. Anyway, nobody really knows what 'nothing' looks like, as no one has ever seen it.

We know of "empty space" but that is not "nothing". Absolute nothingness is devoid of space, time, matter and energy. Hence, Krauss cannot assert that a universe can spontaneously emerge out of literally nothing when there isn't any "nothing".

Teuton wrote:

Isophocles wrote:
We know of "empty space" but that is not "nothing". Absolute nothingness is devoid of space, time, matter and energy. Hence, Krauss cannot assert that a universe can spontaneously emerge out of literally nothing when there isn't any "nothing".

With regard to the physical universe as a whole, "to emerge from/out of nothing" is to be read as "not to emerge from/out of anything", because emergence is always emergence of something from/out of something. That is, the emergence of an entity presupposes a pre-existent entity. If physical reality is the whole of reality and has a temporal beginning, then one cannot consistently call its beginning the moment when it emerged or arose out of nothing. The beginning of the universe cannot even be properly called an event, because an event is a temporal transition from an earlier state of affairs to a later state of affairs, and there being nothing is not a possible state of affairs obtaining prior to there being something.