On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Though you must acknowledge that the certainty of your proof is in relation to that which is under question (an Aristotelian observation, if I remember correctly). A mathematical proof is going to be more certain that most metaphysical proofs, by their very definitions. Requiring (or demanding) scientific evidence for any and all arguments is, I think, either an oversimplification of considerations, or plainly incorrect. I think it's also incorrect to demand the same level of proof for different concepts, depending on the discipline. Keep in mind what I've said above; that which has a multiplicity of truths (scientific, philosophical, etc.) is going to have stronger evidence going for it. However, the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the viability of a thing.
A deistic god, for instances, might possibly exist even if all we had were philosophical and theological arguments for its (his, her?) existence. A Jewish / Christian / Muslim god might like wise exist (and this sort of god is more easily disproved than a deistic one). These aren't the same questions as asking mathematical questions, and it's not the same as asking a biological, astronomical, etc. questions. The problem starts when you bring in the word "fact"--how are you defining it? Is a metaphysical fact the same as a mathematical, or biological, or cosmological fact? Or are we in some way equivocating between the different uses of "fact"? Most theistic arguments I'm aware of don't argue that they are fact, but argue that they are the "best possible explanation" given the available evidence. They are interpretations of facts.
And besides, I don't see how it can be asserted that to have a "fact" one must have scientific evidence (aside from this simply being an arbitrary set of criteria).
Ok. If something is unknown(which means people couldn't find repeatable, mathemathical or any kind of observable evidence=scientific evidence) isn't it better to leave it as unknown and say "we don't know yet", instead of filling the gap with not even theories but fiction? The video never ever said that it is impossible for there to be a god or it is wrong to make any kind of theory about this. It is easily confirmable that scientific evidence > all because of its creating the exactly needed progress to the issues. So that i think needing any level of scientific evidence combined with its philosophical idea behind it is not absurd at all.
Please understand what I'm saying. Scientific evidence is good, mathematical evidence is better, but these two evidences aren't the only two in existence. There are many ways to discover truth. Scientific evidence isn't a default "I've proven my point"--it can be wrong, just as any evidence can be wrong. Until that evidence is examined, you don't know.
I think we are having the problem here. I think that other than scientific evidence, all the things solved and considered as "truth" based on assumptions. Thats why i say that all other evidence types "must" be supported by scientific evidence to find the exact truth. For example morals are explained with philosophy is completely relativistic. The thing you call truth in some place and some time may not be truth in 1000 years ago different place and may be exactly opposite. Of course scientific evidence may be wrong but as you say it can be examined if it is wrong or not and then we can reach the "law" of universe about that problem which can be considered as fact. I claim that every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real. And if you still think that i think wrong give me example so that i'll have easier time to understand you.
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Though you must acknowledge that the certainty of your proof is in relation to that which is under question (an Aristotelian observation, if I remember correctly). A mathematical proof is going to be more certain that most metaphysical proofs, by their very definitions. Requiring (or demanding) scientific evidence for any and all arguments is, I think, either an oversimplification of considerations, or plainly incorrect. I think it's also incorrect to demand the same level of proof for different concepts, depending on the discipline. Keep in mind what I've said above; that which has a multiplicity of truths (scientific, philosophical, etc.) is going to have stronger evidence going for it. However, the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the viability of a thing.
A deistic god, for instances, might possibly exist even if all we had were philosophical and theological arguments for its (his, her?) existence. A Jewish / Christian / Muslim god might like wise exist (and this sort of god is more easily disproved than a deistic one). These aren't the same questions as asking mathematical questions, and it's not the same as asking a biological, astronomical, etc. questions. The problem starts when you bring in the word "fact"--how are you defining it? Is a metaphysical fact the same as a mathematical, or biological, or cosmological fact? Or are we in some way equivocating between the different uses of "fact"? Most theistic arguments I'm aware of don't argue that they are fact, but argue that they are the "best possible explanation" given the available evidence. They are interpretations of facts.
And besides, I don't see how it can be asserted that to have a "fact" one must have scientific evidence (aside from this simply being an arbitrary set of criteria).
Ok. If something is unknown(which means people couldn't find repeatable, mathemathical or any kind of observable evidence=scientific evidence) isn't it better to leave it as unknown and say "we don't know yet", instead of filling the gap with not even theories but fiction? The video never ever said that it is impossible for there to be a god or it is wrong to make any kind of theory about this. It is easily confirmable that scientific evidence > all because of its creating the exactly needed progress to the issues. So that i think needing any level of scientific evidence combined with its philosophical idea behind it is not absurd at all.
Please understand what I'm saying. Scientific evidence is good, mathematical evidence is better, but these two evidences aren't the only two in existence. There are many ways to discover truth. Scientific evidence isn't a default "I've proven my point"--it can be wrong, just as any evidence can be wrong. Until that evidence is examined, you don't know.
I think we are having the problem here. I think that other than scientific evidence, all the things solved and considered as "truth" based on assumptions. Thats why i say that all other evidence types "must" be supported by scientific evidence to find the exact truth. For example morals are explained with philosophy is completely relativistic. The thing you call truth in some place and some time may not be truth in 1000 years ago different place and may be exactly opposite. Of course scientific evidence may be wrong but as you say it can be examined if it is wrong or not and then we can reach the "law" of universe about that problem which can be considered as fact. I claim that every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real. And if you still think that i think wrong give me example so that i'll have easier time to understand you.
Aren't you just defining "exact truth" in a convenient way such that only scientific evidence can determine what is "exact truth" and what is assumption? On what basis?
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Though you must acknowledge that the certainty of your proof is in relation to that which is under question (an Aristotelian observation, if I remember correctly). A mathematical proof is going to be more certain that most metaphysical proofs, by their very definitions. Requiring (or demanding) scientific evidence for any and all arguments is, I think, either an oversimplification of considerations, or plainly incorrect. I think it's also incorrect to demand the same level of proof for different concepts, depending on the discipline. Keep in mind what I've said above; that which has a multiplicity of truths (scientific, philosophical, etc.) is going to have stronger evidence going for it. However, the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the viability of a thing.
A deistic god, for instances, might possibly exist even if all we had were philosophical and theological arguments for its (his, her?) existence. A Jewish / Christian / Muslim god might like wise exist (and this sort of god is more easily disproved than a deistic one). These aren't the same questions as asking mathematical questions, and it's not the same as asking a biological, astronomical, etc. questions. The problem starts when you bring in the word "fact"--how are you defining it? Is a metaphysical fact the same as a mathematical, or biological, or cosmological fact? Or are we in some way equivocating between the different uses of "fact"? Most theistic arguments I'm aware of don't argue that they are fact, but argue that they are the "best possible explanation" given the available evidence. They are interpretations of facts.
And besides, I don't see how it can be asserted that to have a "fact" one must have scientific evidence (aside from this simply being an arbitrary set of criteria).
Ok. If something is unknown(which means people couldn't find repeatable, mathemathical or any kind of observable evidence=scientific evidence) isn't it better to leave it as unknown and say "we don't know yet", instead of filling the gap with not even theories but fiction? The video never ever said that it is impossible for there to be a god or it is wrong to make any kind of theory about this. It is easily confirmable that scientific evidence > all because of its creating the exactly needed progress to the issues. So that i think needing any level of scientific evidence combined with its philosophical idea behind it is not absurd at all.
Please understand what I'm saying. Scientific evidence is good, mathematical evidence is better, but these two evidences aren't the only two in existence. There are many ways to discover truth. Scientific evidence isn't a default "I've proven my point"--it can be wrong, just as any evidence can be wrong. Until that evidence is examined, you don't know.
I think we are having the problem here. I think that other than scientific evidence, all the things solved and considered as "truth" based on assumptions. Thats why i say that all other evidence types "must" be supported by scientific evidence to find the exact truth. For example morals are explained with philosophy is completely relativistic. The thing you call truth in some place and some time may not be truth in 1000 years ago different place and may be exactly opposite. Of course scientific evidence may be wrong but as you say it can be examined if it is wrong or not and then we can reach the "law" of universe about that problem which can be considered as fact. I claim that every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real. And if you still think that i think wrong give me example so that i'll have easier time to understand you.
First of all I want to say that I agree with almost everything you've said here, which is nice As for my example, I'll use you. Can you provide scientific evidence that "every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real"? In other words, where is your scientific evidence for that statement?
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Many people with theistic beliefs don't get tangled up in pursuing doomed arguments like these, they know they can't prove gods with logic and have no need to do so. They realize their beliefs are personal and that others are entitled to different wievs.
Is this bashing ? I don't think so.
I think the last thing you quoted hits the nail on the head. I've always felt that these debates are pointless, since religion (when practiced properly IMO, and speaking from my experience with Christianity) is so intrinsically personal.
Nobody ever gets convinced of the presence or reality of God through logical arguments, but if someone has developed that personal relationship and seen their own life completely change as a result, no amount of logical argument is going to take that away.
The problem is when people practice religion outwardly but don't allow their characters to be changed... then you have crooked people doing crooked things in the name of good (inquisition, crusades, 9/11, etc).
I'll post this video again, what you do is black and white thinking.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean to say that people can't be converted, just that people who are either atheist or have a personal relationship with God won't be converted by logic.
Christians who are only Christians because they were raised that way can be converted by logical arguments, but I was specifically thinking of only the two above groups when I wrote the previous post.
And I know someone is going to highlight the personal relationship thing and call that out for being ridiculous, so let me just say that it's not something I have and I'm not totally convinced either. But I've seen enough people completely turn their lives around and become completely different (better) people because of that. If it's not God, there's a really interesting psychological answer for it somewhere because there's definitely something there. But that's not my point.
I think that if someone gets "better" with faith and it is enough for them, they should keep doing it. But it is not enough for me. Things doesn't get real because you believe them or make you feel better. Things might be real or be real in different way or may not be real. Furthermore illusions can make life seem better or make it feel "easier" to handle things. Even this part of faith doesn't make it real.
It would be nicer of him if he looked at it both-ways. Theists wanting atheists to belive, but also the sillyness in atheists wanting theists to not belive But i do agree that being critical aswell as open-minded is a good thing to promote. It's also very important to remember being tolerant and accepting being wrong (wich is open-mindedness). Although the funniest arguments i had with my friend are those when they refuse to look evidence in the eye ^__^
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Though you must acknowledge that the certainty of your proof is in relation to that which is under question (an Aristotelian observation, if I remember correctly). A mathematical proof is going to be more certain that most metaphysical proofs, by their very definitions. Requiring (or demanding) scientific evidence for any and all arguments is, I think, either an oversimplification of considerations, or plainly incorrect. I think it's also incorrect to demand the same level of proof for different concepts, depending on the discipline. Keep in mind what I've said above; that which has a multiplicity of truths (scientific, philosophical, etc.) is going to have stronger evidence going for it. However, the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the viability of a thing.
A deistic god, for instances, might possibly exist even if all we had were philosophical and theological arguments for its (his, her?) existence. A Jewish / Christian / Muslim god might like wise exist (and this sort of god is more easily disproved than a deistic one). These aren't the same questions as asking mathematical questions, and it's not the same as asking a biological, astronomical, etc. questions. The problem starts when you bring in the word "fact"--how are you defining it? Is a metaphysical fact the same as a mathematical, or biological, or cosmological fact? Or are we in some way equivocating between the different uses of "fact"? Most theistic arguments I'm aware of don't argue that they are fact, but argue that they are the "best possible explanation" given the available evidence. They are interpretations of facts.
And besides, I don't see how it can be asserted that to have a "fact" one must have scientific evidence (aside from this simply being an arbitrary set of criteria).
Ok. If something is unknown(which means people couldn't find repeatable, mathemathical or any kind of observable evidence=scientific evidence) isn't it better to leave it as unknown and say "we don't know yet", instead of filling the gap with not even theories but fiction? The video never ever said that it is impossible for there to be a god or it is wrong to make any kind of theory about this. It is easily confirmable that scientific evidence > all because of its creating the exactly needed progress to the issues. So that i think needing any level of scientific evidence combined with its philosophical idea behind it is not absurd at all.
Please understand what I'm saying. Scientific evidence is good, mathematical evidence is better, but these two evidences aren't the only two in existence. There are many ways to discover truth. Scientific evidence isn't a default "I've proven my point"--it can be wrong, just as any evidence can be wrong. Until that evidence is examined, you don't know.
I think we are having the problem here. I think that other than scientific evidence, all the things solved and considered as "truth" based on assumptions. Thats why i say that all other evidence types "must" be supported by scientific evidence to find the exact truth. For example morals are explained with philosophy is completely relativistic. The thing you call truth in some place and some time may not be truth in 1000 years ago different place and may be exactly opposite. Of course scientific evidence may be wrong but as you say it can be examined if it is wrong or not and then we can reach the "law" of universe about that problem which can be considered as fact. I claim that every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real. And if you still think that i think wrong give me example so that i'll have easier time to understand you.
First of all I want to say that I agree with almost everything you've said here, which is nice As for my example, I'll use you. Can you provide scientific evidence that "every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real"? In other words, where is your scientific evidence for that statement?
I use history of science and other branches as evidence. But let me point out something. Something may be real but we haven't supported it with scientific evidence yet. It just means the proposition is real but we don't know it. Thats why there is no need to acknowledge it as "truth" yet. Which means you can believe it to be real. If those questions have had answered there would be no need for faith. Thats why faith always has a use over people unless you decide to call unknown as unknown. I hope i made my point.
On May 04 2010 00:35 Aelfric wrote: I think that if someone gets "better" with faith and it is enough for them, they should keep doing it. But it is not enough for me. Things doesn't get real because you believe them or make you feel better. Things might be real or be real in different way or may not be real. Furthermore illusions can make life seem better or make it feel "easier" to handle things. Even this part of faith doesn't make it real.
Let me introduce placebo effects into the discussion. People believe they have a positive effect and therefor they have a positive effect. Scientific evidence points out that they have no effect, when viewed outside of the context of the human mind (just the standard bodily functions not affected by 'consciousness' ways that is the placebo effect). When the placebo effect is taken into account in the scientific study, placebo medicine can be factually verified to be effective. One could perform this same reasoning for the belief in deities (or a single deity). The positive effect of such belief might be difficult to establish as it is difficult to measure a person's belief with the almighty objective 'sensor'. That is no proof that a deity exists nor that one does not exist. If, however, a person defines a certain God to be real in the sense that it makes them feel better in certain circumstances, I have a hard time to go against that (as a concept at least, not in any physically-real way). (Darn, internet at home is broken until friday, I wish I could keep a closer eye on this discussion as it develops)
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
I disagree that atheism/agnosticism is an ignorant view. I was stating that video 3 is inaccurate in depicting religious people as mean-spirited in debates, when in nearly every religious argument I've seen the atheist(s) come across as much more mean and hostile.
This also addresses the poster above you -
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have).
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
As for Craig's arguments, if you believe that you can show all of them are weak, then you're either John Loftus, one of the brightest philosophers I've never heard of (and should organize a debate with Craig, he's getting old, after all!), or simply mistaken. I like organizing things according to trilemmas.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside. You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Science is very good at explaining physical processes, and it is horrible at explaining purpose and intention (especially among human agents)
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion.
This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos?
I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this:
If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact.
I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says:
Though you must acknowledge that the certainty of your proof is in relation to that which is under question (an Aristotelian observation, if I remember correctly). A mathematical proof is going to be more certain that most metaphysical proofs, by their very definitions. Requiring (or demanding) scientific evidence for any and all arguments is, I think, either an oversimplification of considerations, or plainly incorrect. I think it's also incorrect to demand the same level of proof for different concepts, depending on the discipline. Keep in mind what I've said above; that which has a multiplicity of truths (scientific, philosophical, etc.) is going to have stronger evidence going for it. However, the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the viability of a thing.
A deistic god, for instances, might possibly exist even if all we had were philosophical and theological arguments for its (his, her?) existence. A Jewish / Christian / Muslim god might like wise exist (and this sort of god is more easily disproved than a deistic one). These aren't the same questions as asking mathematical questions, and it's not the same as asking a biological, astronomical, etc. questions. The problem starts when you bring in the word "fact"--how are you defining it? Is a metaphysical fact the same as a mathematical, or biological, or cosmological fact? Or are we in some way equivocating between the different uses of "fact"? Most theistic arguments I'm aware of don't argue that they are fact, but argue that they are the "best possible explanation" given the available evidence. They are interpretations of facts.
And besides, I don't see how it can be asserted that to have a "fact" one must have scientific evidence (aside from this simply being an arbitrary set of criteria).
Ok. If something is unknown(which means people couldn't find repeatable, mathemathical or any kind of observable evidence=scientific evidence) isn't it better to leave it as unknown and say "we don't know yet", instead of filling the gap with not even theories but fiction? The video never ever said that it is impossible for there to be a god or it is wrong to make any kind of theory about this. It is easily confirmable that scientific evidence > all because of its creating the exactly needed progress to the issues. So that i think needing any level of scientific evidence combined with its philosophical idea behind it is not absurd at all.
Please understand what I'm saying. Scientific evidence is good, mathematical evidence is better, but these two evidences aren't the only two in existence. There are many ways to discover truth. Scientific evidence isn't a default "I've proven my point"--it can be wrong, just as any evidence can be wrong. Until that evidence is examined, you don't know.
I think we are having the problem here. I think that other than scientific evidence, all the things solved and considered as "truth" based on assumptions. Thats why i say that all other evidence types "must" be supported by scientific evidence to find the exact truth. For example morals are explained with philosophy is completely relativistic. The thing you call truth in some place and some time may not be truth in 1000 years ago different place and may be exactly opposite. Of course scientific evidence may be wrong but as you say it can be examined if it is wrong or not and then we can reach the "law" of universe about that problem which can be considered as fact. I claim that every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real. And if you still think that i think wrong give me example so that i'll have easier time to understand you.
First of all I want to say that I agree with almost everything you've said here, which is nice As for my example, I'll use you. Can you provide scientific evidence that "every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real"? In other words, where is your scientific evidence for that statement?
I use history of science and other branches as evidence. But let me point out something. Something may be real but we haven't supported it with scientific evidence yet. It just means the proposition is real but we don't know it. Thats why there is no need to acknowledge it as "truth" yet. Which means you can believe it to be real. If those questions have had answered there would be no need for faith. Thats why faith always has a use over people unless you decide to call unknown as unknown. I hope i made my point.
I understand what you're saying, however, the history of science "and other branches" is not itself scientific evidence, you're making a philosophical appeal, not a scientific one. Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, however, you appear to be making the same sort of claims that the Logical Positivists of a few decades ago made. There are a number of reasons this philosophy, or way of doing science, went out of "style," and one of them was because the question that I'm asking you can be afforded no answer.
I do think that if something is truth, it should be acknowledge as truth even in lieu of scientific evidence, but that's a small point and I don't really wish to focus on it. How this relates to faith? That depends. As I said in a previous post, how we define "faith" is greatly dependent on which side of the Enlightenment we were born on. Faith in the classical sense is based in and on evidences towards a conclusion (especially in the Christian world, among classical and medieval philosophers. Case in point the Apostle Paul, who was constantly appealing to the resurrection). Faith in the "modern" sense is more properly called "blind faith," or what I prefer to call it, "delusional (belief)".
I understand the point you are making, I'm not quite sure you understand me.
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I meant that atheists/agnostics are ignorant or have an ignorant view. I meant that the people who claim to be atheist/agnostics are just as often ignorant or naive as religious people can be. Neither view is inherently ignorant or naive.
A common example of this that I see is when an atheist/agnostic tells a religious person that they are ignorant because science indicates a god does not exist under the facade of using only evidence based reasoning. To me, that viewpoint is equally as flawed as religious people who argue with others that their god/religion is the correct one because no one can ever prove that a god does not exist either.
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have).
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 13:50 Severedevil wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
On May 03 2010 21:49 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:38 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:33 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:27 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:13 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 11:47 Lixler wrote: [quote]
If someone was arguing that, they would certainly be ignorant (of science's system of logic). But in a properly executed argument (the agnostic version of this), one would only have to point out that any theist with a consistent logical system would have to accept the existence of any number of wacky things. So while God isn't "proven" false, it is the default stance to not accept that he is real.
Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have).
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 13:50 Severedevil wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
I don't know how something can begin to exist without having a cause, I don't need to know an alternative in order to state that the first premise is an assumption. Either way its a safe assumption based on our grasp of reality so I have no problem making it, I just wanted to point out that maybe when you're trying to prove something, its hard to do so convincingly when you start off with an assumption. But anyway, moving on to Big Bang cosmology, basically it states that there was a singularity, and that singularity expanded into the universe. So we could just end the whole arguement there and say that was the cause for the universe. But I'm guessing you would then say that you're referring to the cause of that singularity, in which case I have to point out that the Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity began to exist at any point, and some views actually state the opposite.
On May 03 2010 16:47 jalstar wrote: Case 1: If you stay, you win. If you switch, you lose.
Case 2: If you stay, you lose. If you switch, you win.
If the host eliminates a door at random, you have a 1/3 chance of winning by staying, a 1/3 chance of winning by switching, and a 1/3 chance that you lose either way
Regarding the underlined, you state that its 1/3. 1/3??!??!?!!?!?!? How is that always in my best interest to switch? According to the movie and the videos, it is supposed to now be a 66% of winning if I switch...yet, you claim it's 1/3.
Case 1 - Win or lose. 50/50
Case 2 - Win or lose. 50/50
If the host eliminates a door, you do not have 3 doors. You have 2 doors. The prize is in one of those remaining TWO doors, not three.
The mere fact that you have 2 case scenarios helps further reinforce my point.
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
On May 03 2010 21:49 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:38 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:33 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:27 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:13 Gnosis wrote: [quote]
Depending on the predominant world view of the culture / civilization you find yourself living in (and brought up in). Historically, belief in god or gods has been the default view. In many parts of the world, it still is. Our culture is different (or at least, "Western" culture), in that we're heavily influenced by naturalism, materialism (not the greedy sort), etc. In the milieu we find ourselves in, then disbelief in god or gods is the default. Or at least according to your wording. I think it would be more appropriate to say that agnosticism (or "soft" atheism) is the default. We end up speaking in terms of, "I think it's probable that..." Of course, this depends on what you mean by "accept". The difficulty is coming to a conclusion whereby one can say that this view is correct, and that view isn't. If we're speaking in terms of the theistic belief (especially supernatural entities), then this conclusion, it seems to me, would not be reached on the basis of science, but philosophy (esp. metaphysics), theology, etc.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that theists with a consistent logical system would have to accept "any number of wacky things"? Not to become fixated on the point, but what "wacky things" did you have in mind? There are a lot of belief systems which, if improperly looked at (i.e. one does not accept the presuppositions of the belief system, which may be valid, even if rejected by such-and-such a person), may seem "wacky". I personally find it wacky that Sartre believed in nihilism and then espoused the ideals of human love (as many others have).
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 13:50 Severedevil wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 04 2010 01:53 daz wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:19 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
I don't know how something can begin to exist without having a cause, I don't need to know an alternative in order to state that the first premise is an assumption. Either way its a safe assumption based on our grasp of reality so I have no problem making it, I just wanted to point out that maybe when you're trying to prove something, its hard to do so convincingly when you start off with an assumption. But anyway, moving on to Big Bang cosmology, basically it states that there was a singularity, and that singularity expanded into the universe. So we could just end the whole arguement there and say that was the cause for the universe. But I'm guessing you would then say that you're referring to the cause of that singularity, in which case I have to point out that the Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity began to exist at any point, and some views actually state the opposite.
It's a fairly strong assumption, then, unless you have an example of something that began to exist, and didn't have a cause. Otherwise yes, it's a safe assumption (much like the "assumption" that all men die). The question of the origin of the big bang is quite an interesting one
On May 03 2010 18:11 Badjas wrote: Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though
Walking is learned by observation, and by trial and error. We do not 'evolve' the ability to walk if we lie in a crib with our eyes closed.
On May 03 2010 21:49 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:38 Lixler wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:33 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:27 Lixler wrote: [quote]
By default I didn't mean to imply anything cultural, just logical. You're right though, "atheism" as a positive claim that God does not exist isn't the default, agnosticism is.
I mean, if one is satisfied by the logic that "You can't disprove God, therefore he exists" then one should, logically, be satisfied by the logic "You can't disprove spaghetti monsters, therefore they exist." (If you'll excuse my juvenile example) Now, if there were some argument that separated deities from other mystical things, then certainly belief in them would be somewhat justified, but I'm not aware of any sound arguments for that, especially when one tries to establish qualities for God.
Why is it the default position, logically? Again, we could come back to world view and each show how are relative positions are the "default, logical" position. How are you separating your logic from your world view? Consider the differences between modern and classical logic, esp. with the developments in mathematical logic, parconsistent logic, etc. What I'm getting at is that even in an "agnostic" view of logic, you're still bringing in a sufficient number of beliefs such that you will presuppose a particular conclusion.
I don't know of any serious theist who is satisfied with the logic presented above.
The "default" would, almost by definition, be a blank slate that doesn't confirm or deny a deity (this is the default for any proposition). Other presuppositions, etc. would have to come after, and unless they necessitated a God, one would still have no reason to positively accept his existence.
I don't either, but I don't know of any serious theist who would get into an ontological debate with the average atheist
A proposition, yes, but logic itself? I think you're confusing the two. Logic comprehends propositions, nice vice-versa. I think the presence of propositions, ipso facto, remove any "agnostic" features of logic. You might approach a syllogism objectively, but does this also mean that you approach it agnostically? Honestly, I'm not sure.
Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion.
On May 03 2010 12:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: One does not prove a god exists. Only idiots actually claim they have proof.
What religious people do is believe without proof.
What atheists do is tell them that they are wrong for believing without proof and acting obnoxiously about it.
That's what the videos are about People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.
Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there.
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent.
Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant.
On May 03 2010 13:50 Severedevil wrote:
On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote:
On May 03 2010 12:42 Gnosis wrote: I certainly would not say that the faith of William Lane Craig is "belief without proof".
I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof.
This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process.
Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh...
EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad.
EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be.
Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal.
I briefly looked up the Kalam, not sure how it's relevant, but wiki said it contained as one of its principles "God is an absolute unity, and no attribute can be ascribed to Him" which is self-contradictory, as 'absolute unity' and 'inability to ascribe attributes to Him" are attributes that it ascribed to him.
It's popular for religion to contradict itself and then pretend those contradictions are somehow 'deep' - can all-powerful God make a rock he can't move? Yes, and he can then move it herp derp - but a self-contradicting philosophy is false.
If the Kalam you refer to doesn't take such a principle, please share.
I'm referring to the Kalam cosmological argument (which is by itself argued by WLC). It would not include the above. That is a problem you would need to take up with Islamic theologians, philosophers, apologetics, etc.
You're conflating the idea of a public contest of rhetoric with legitimate discourse.
An honest thinker does not offer trivially flawed arguments. I do not need to sift through all the intellectual dishonesty Craig spews in attempt to find a gem of coherency hiding within, any more than I need to search through a steaming pile of shit on the off-chance there's a delicious sandwich hidden inside.You imply there's a sandwich. Then fish it out, please. I'd like to see.
But don't act surprised when Craig's debate opponents are left speechless by a wagon full of shit.
[Note that I have employed rhetoric for emphasis. Stripping that rhetoric... I checked that Craig is intellectually dishonest (repeatedly in his recorded debates), and conclude that an intellectually honest scholar is more likely to offer truth and therefore more worth my time to investigate.]
Then like Socrates to the Sophists I ask you, answer the question? If you don't want to, I'm not going to push the point, I'm not really in the mood for debating. However if you are going to say something, and I ask you what you see wrong, then I would expect a little more than "you look for it".
The best way to predict and understand human behavior is to study the behavior of a variety of humans and look for patterns. That's science - if you disagree, what method do you think is more effective? And how do you show that method is more effective except by comparing its predictions against reality, i.e. the scientific method?
I could likewise claim that science is very bad at explaining how sheep entrails predict our lives, and that soothsaying is a better tool...
I'm not referring to human behavior, but to intention. Science might conclude, for instance, that dear mum has baked me a cake because it's my birthday, but is this necessarily the case? No. We're still stuck examining behaviors as distinct from intentions.
On May 04 2010 01:53 daz wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:19 Gnosis wrote:
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him...
The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome?
I found this on wiki so my apologies if it's not the same arguement you were referring to:
William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Ok so starting off the first point is an assumption that has not been proven, but since that would be too easy we'll just ignore it and move on. So, the universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. Well at some point that cause began to exist, so it must also have had a cause. Or maybe that cause existed forever? But if we're acknowleding that its possible for something to have always existed and not had a beginnng, why do we assume that the universe began at some point and didn't always exist forever? And even if we ignore that, and say that there was some original cause, who is to say that original cause is some kind of god? Why not the Big Bang? Why not the flying spaghetti monster, or little green men, or any one of an infinite number of possibilities? Couldn't that have been the cause for the universe?
Yes, that is the argument
The only alternative I can see to premise (1) is that something began to exist which didn't have a cause, but how does something begin to exist without a case? Did it pop out of nothing? Is it possible you've confused this with the statement, "whatever exists has a cause"? Big Bang cosmology is the reason we're "assuming" that the universe had a beginning.
I don't know how something can begin to exist without having a cause, I don't need to know an alternative in order to state that the first premise is an assumption. Either way its a safe assumption based on our grasp of reality so I have no problem making it, I just wanted to point out that maybe when you're trying to prove something, its hard to do so convincingly when you start off with an assumption. But anyway, moving on to Big Bang cosmology, basically it states that there was a singularity, and that singularity expanded into the universe. So we could just end the whole arguement there and say that was the cause for the universe. But I'm guessing you would then say that you're referring to the cause of that singularity, in which case I have to point out that the Big Bang theory does not say that the singularity began to exist at any point, and some views actually state the opposite.
It's a fairly strong assumption, then, unless you have an example of something that began to exist, and didn't have a cause. Otherwise yes, it's a safe assumption (much like the "assumption" that all men die). The question of the origin of the big bang is quite an interesting one
Sorry, to interfere in your discussion, but the Kalam cosmological argument has been debunked, so many times, it's not even funny. And if WLC would be honest, he would just admit it and move on.
It basically contains fallacies in every single premise (and not only the most obvious ill "leap" towards a god or personal agent as WLC calls it). Fact is, we hardly have evidence that ANYTHING ever came into existence, at least in the sense Kalam implies (except for some weird quantum effects). What we mean with "coming into existence" in everyday talk is that mattter or energy changes form or configuration and becomes another macro entity. The "stuff" everything is made of was already there since the Big Bang. Therefore, there is simply is no grounds to say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause", since as far as we are concerned we never actually witnessed something beginning to exist in this sense (and if it happens at the quantum level we could not observe any cause). The way WLC treats infinities just demonstrates a very limited understanding of math and it frustrates me that he apparently never takes up a book to read up on that, in spite of it being pointed out to him wherever he goes ... Kalam really holds no water...
Please note: I haven't watched all the videos, only the first one, and a bit of the second. neither have I taken the time to read the entire thread, only a few excerpts. I just will like to point out what I see on the issue.
His basic points are correct. Reason has a good place in this world, and I have nothing against it. However, he then seems to turn on his heel, and instantly start saying that religious believers are stupid and use no reason. I believe he is rather missing the point.
Yes, reason is useful, but it is not always applicable. Take, for example, the death of Abraham Lincoln. While we have numerous accounts of it's happening, there is no scientific/reasonable evidence that we can use to prove it. The event has no testability or repeatability, and we will never be able to prove that it did or didn't happening.
Personally, I don't doubt that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, but I'm using this as an example to show the shortfalls of science or critical thinking. It can only be used to test certain things, and on all other things we need at least a small amount of "faith."
It's the same with religion and atheism, or evolution and divine creation. While certain viewpoints may have more justifiability than others, they are simply beyond the realm of complete critical thinking. Whether someone believes in a deity or not, they need faith.
I hope I have made myself understandable without commiting any critical flaws
On May 03 2010 16:47 jalstar wrote: Case 1: If you stay, you win. If you switch, you lose.
Case 2: If you stay, you lose. If you switch, you win.
If the host eliminates a door at random, you have a 1/3 chance of winning by staying, a 1/3 chance of winning by switching, and a 1/3 chance that you lose either way
Regarding the underlined, you state that its 1/3. 1/3??!??!?!!?!?!? How is that always in my best interest to switch? According to the movie and the videos, it is supposed to now be a 66% of winning if I switch...yet, you claim it's 1/3.
Case 1 - Win or lose. 50/50
Case 2 - Win or lose. 50/50
If the host eliminates a door, you do not have 3 doors. You have 2 doors. The prize is in one of those remaining TWO doors, not three.
The mere fact that you have 2 case scenarios helps further reinforce my point.
No it doesn't. That's what these "puzzles" are all about. We tend to give two alternatives an equal probability, but that's a fallacy. You misunderstood the last part of jalstar's post. What he wanted to say was. If the host opened a door randomly, then switching or staying would be the same. But since the host opens a door systematically, i.e. he always opens a "losing" door, you can take advantage of this. You can also put it like this: If you always switch, your "game" becomes essentially "not finding" the car with your first guess. If you manage that, then the host will open the other losing door and by switching you will inevetibly find the car. Since "not finding the car" with your first pick is easier (2 out of 3), switching is beneficial.
On May 03 2010 16:47 jalstar wrote: Case 1: If you stay, you win. If you switch, you lose.
Case 2: If you stay, you lose. If you switch, you win.
If the host eliminates a door at random, you have a 1/3 chance of winning by staying, a 1/3 chance of winning by switching, and a 1/3 chance that you lose either way
Regarding the underlined, you state that its 1/3. 1/3??!??!?!!?!?!? How is that always in my best interest to switch? According to the movie and the videos, it is supposed to now be a 66% of winning if I switch...yet, you claim it's 1/3.
Case 1 - Win or lose. 50/50
Case 2 - Win or lose. 50/50
If the host eliminates a door, you do not have 3 doors. You have 2 doors. The prize is in one of those remaining TWO doors, not three.
The mere fact that you have 2 case scenarios helps further reinforce my point.
Consider instead 100 doors. If you choose one and the host eliminates the rest except one, do you still think it's 50/50? There are two doors, not 100 right?
EPT
As for my example, I'll use you. Can you provide scientific evidence that "every kind of evidence must be supported by scientific evidence to get real"? In other words, where is your scientific evidence for that statement?
