The ability to walk and the nature of critical thinking and what it results from are not inextricably linked. Thank god I can go on walks again, my mind blissfully free.
Lol tinman unironically trying to say science\critical thought etc is not the best method available. Actually, what the fuck IS he arguing over anyway? Please continue, this is entertaining.
On May 04 2010 05:36 Romantic wrote: Lol tinman unironically trying to say science\critical thought etc is not the best method available. Actually, what the fuck IS he arguing over anyway? Please continue, this is entertaining.
I lost him a couple of pages back myself, granted I'm not trying to hard to follow but yea.
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: [quote]
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...
You seem to know your stuff, maybe you could help me out. In so far as I understand Craig, the gist of his argument is that according to contemporary cosmology, the universe had a beginning in the big bang (when time can into being, etc.). Craig doesn't address the singularity, just the event in which our universe began to exist. The singularity itself, as I understand it, is where all known laws of nature break down, and thus cannot be studied by science since it is supranatural. As I also understand it, this "big bang" was also the cause of time, matter, space, etc. So it can be reasonable deduced that these things "began to exist" concurrently with the big bang, even if we haven't seen such a thing. This is a different thing that saying that the material universe we experience now was once everything that comprised the singularity (wouldn't a singularity envelope our universe?).
Maybe you could shed some light on that for me, and also explain how we can criticize the Kalam while maintaining scientific evidence to the contrary, when it seems to me as if we wouldn't have such evidence available to us.
I am a mathematician, not a phycisist, but I will try my best. The Big Bang is the logical consequence of the theory of an expanding universe. Since it is a fact that the universe is ever expanding, we deduce that there was a common starting point of space itself (the singularity). The problem for physics is, that close to this singularity the effects of quantum mechanics (the laws of the micro world) interact with the general theory of relativity (the laws of the macro world) to such an extent, that the mathematical results are not interpretable anymore (the laws collapse if you will). The Big Bang theory does not make a definite statement on the state of the universe before time zero however (nor even at time zero), so what physicists mean with "the universe began to exist" is "the universe - as we know it- began to exist". It does not shed any light on the question of where the energy/matter actually came from or by what it could have been caused. Since we now know that space and time is inevetibly tied together (unlike Newtonian Physics promoted), the Big Bang can be seen as the starting point of time as we perceive it. But the question of what came before it is not settled at all and we don't even know whether this would be an intelligent question to ask. There are certainly cyclic models which promote and infinite series of Big Bang events. A singularity is also not impossible to study in principle (as far as we know), but we are currently lacking a unified theory that combines quantum mechanics and relativtiy to provide the most basic tools for such a study.
The Kalam Cosmological argument (in it's syllogistic version) can be criticised, since it makes (seemingly innocent) claims about the real world. But at it's heart it's a semantic scam, which uses everyday language and layman's experience to construct a "proof" for the existence of a god. That's also why I can tear it to pieces without even leaving my chair.
First premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause However intuitive it may sound, we don't have any empirical basis to verify that. We never witnessed anything coming to existence from "nothingness" (some quantum effects aside, which seem to be "uncaused"). We cannot even logically process any cause on "nothing" to create something (if nothing was caused, there was no cause). What we see in the real world is something (that exists) causes something else (that exists) to change form to something different. The premise is without foundation and just based on a misuse of the concept "begins to exist".
Second premise: The universe began to exist. We don't know whether this is true or what "began" even means if time really did not exist beforehand (see above). The argument about "actual infinities" which WLC used in the past (don't know whether he gave up on that) is so old that even ancient greek philosophers were able to come up with answers and has been conclusively solved mathematically 200 years ago. We simply don't know whether the universe began to exist, so the premise is questionable at best.
It follows that the first conclusion that "The universe has a cause" is unfounded. We simply don't have any empirical basis to assert whether either of the two premises is actually sound. The biggest mistakes are certainly made in WLC next steps where he deduces that "God did it", but as I tried to show it's not even necessary to go that far to show that the argument is not sound in the sense that we cannot say whether it reflects reality. It therefore fails imo.
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: [quote]
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: [quote]
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...
You seem to know your stuff, maybe you could help me out. In so far as I understand Craig, the gist of his argument is that according to contemporary cosmology, the universe had a beginning in the big bang (when time can into being, etc.). Craig doesn't address the singularity, just the event in which our universe began to exist. The singularity itself, as I understand it, is where all known laws of nature break down, and thus cannot be studied by science since it is supranatural. As I also understand it, this "big bang" was also the cause of time, matter, space, etc. So it can be reasonable deduced that these things "began to exist" concurrently with the big bang, even if we haven't seen such a thing. This is a different thing that saying that the material universe we experience now was once everything that comprised the singularity (wouldn't a singularity envelope our universe?).
Maybe you could shed some light on that for me, and also explain how we can criticize the Kalam while maintaining scientific evidence to the contrary, when it seems to me as if we wouldn't have such evidence available to us.
I am a mathematician, not a phycisist, but I will try my best. The Big Bang is the logical consequence of the theory of an expanding universe. Since it is a fact that the universe is ever expanding, we deduce that there was a common starting point of space itself (the singularity). The problem for physics is, that close to this singularity the effects of quantum mechanics (the laws of the micro world) interact with the general theory of relativity (the laws of the macro world) to such an extent, that the mathematical results are not interpretable anymore (the laws collapse if you will). The Big Bang theory does not make a definite statement on the state of the universe before time zero however (nor even at time zero), so what physicists mean with "the universe began to exist" is "the universe - as we know it- began to exist". It does not shed any light on the question of where the energy/matter actually came from or by what it could have been caused. Since we now know that space and time is inevetibly tied together (unlike Newtonian Physics promoted), the Big Bang can be seen as the starting point of time as we perceive it. But the question of what came before it is not settled at all and we don't even know whether this would be an intelligent question to ask. There are certainly cyclic models which promote and infinite series of Big Bang events. A singularity is also not impossible to study in principle (as far as we know), but we are currently lacking a unified theory that combines quantum mechanics and relativtiy to provide the most basic tools for such a study.
The Kalam Cosmological argument (in it's syllogistic version) can be criticised, since it makes (seemingly innocent) claims about the real world. But at it's heart it's a semantic scam, which uses everyday language and layman's experience to construct a "proof" for the existence of a god. That's also why I can tear it to pieces without even leaving my chair.
First premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause However intuitive it may sound, we don't have any empirical basis to verify that. We never witnessed anything coming to existence from "nothingness" (some quantum effects aside, which seem to be "uncaused"). We cannot even logically process any cause on "nothing" to create something (if nothing was caused, there was no cause). What we see in the real world is something (that exists) causes something else (that exists) to change form to something different. The premise is without foundation and just based on a misuse of the concept "begins to exist".
Second premise: The universe began to exist. We don't know whether this is true or what "began" even means if time really did not exist beforehand (see above). The argument about "actual infinities" which WLC used in the past (don't know whether he gave up on that) is so old that even ancient greek philosophers were able to come up with answers and has been conclusively solved mathematically 200 years ago. We simply don't know whether the universe began to exist, so the premise is questionable at best.
It follows that the first conclusion that "The universe has a cause" is unfounded. We simply don't have any empirical basis to assert whether either of the two premises is actually sound. The biggest mistakes are certainly made in WLC next steps where he deduces that "God did it", but as I tried to show it's not even necessary to go that far to show that the argument is not sound in the sense that we cannot say whether it reflects reality. It therefore fails imo.
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. Essentially you're saying that since we have not observed what premise (1) and (2) assert, we're unjustified in asserting anything. Further, that premise (2) is controversial enough that any such appeal is downright "frowned" upon. Or in other words, we don't know either way, so we shouldn't say either way. Is that correct?
Being a determinist I believe that both a-priori philosophies and empiricist methodologies are just abstractions from the way neurons tend to hierarchically connect.
mandatory semi-related youtube video from a youtube minor
Inference works by creating hierarchies from many correlating sensory data from lower neurons to higher ones the video doesn't say this, but, I believe deduction works by creating hierarchies from... perhaps already high neurons to even higher. therefore, deduction is superior obv.
edit: to make it clear, Whether you believe "critical thinking" is bad, works, doesn't work, doesn't damn matter. Your brain is wired in such a way that you are always going to be making predictions based on available sensory data. So the debate seems a little silly to me now actually.
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: [quote]
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: [quote]
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...
You seem to know your stuff, maybe you could help me out. In so far as I understand Craig, the gist of his argument is that according to contemporary cosmology, the universe had a beginning in the big bang (when time can into being, etc.). Craig doesn't address the singularity, just the event in which our universe began to exist. The singularity itself, as I understand it, is where all known laws of nature break down, and thus cannot be studied by science since it is supranatural. As I also understand it, this "big bang" was also the cause of time, matter, space, etc. So it can be reasonable deduced that these things "began to exist" concurrently with the big bang, even if we haven't seen such a thing. This is a different thing that saying that the material universe we experience now was once everything that comprised the singularity (wouldn't a singularity envelope our universe?).
Maybe you could shed some light on that for me, and also explain how we can criticize the Kalam while maintaining scientific evidence to the contrary, when it seems to me as if we wouldn't have such evidence available to us.
I am a mathematician, not a phycisist, but I will try my best. The Big Bang is the logical consequence of the theory of an expanding universe. Since it is a fact that the universe is ever expanding, we deduce that there was a common starting point of space itself (the singularity). The problem for physics is, that close to this singularity the effects of quantum mechanics (the laws of the micro world) interact with the general theory of relativity (the laws of the macro world) to such an extent, that the mathematical results are not interpretable anymore (the laws collapse if you will). The Big Bang theory does not make a definite statement on the state of the universe before time zero however (nor even at time zero), so what physicists mean with "the universe began to exist" is "the universe - as we know it- began to exist". It does not shed any light on the question of where the energy/matter actually came from or by what it could have been caused. Since we now know that space and time is inevetibly tied together (unlike Newtonian Physics promoted), the Big Bang can be seen as the starting point of time as we perceive it. But the question of what came before it is not settled at all and we don't even know whether this would be an intelligent question to ask. There are certainly cyclic models which promote and infinite series of Big Bang events. A singularity is also not impossible to study in principle (as far as we know), but we are currently lacking a unified theory that combines quantum mechanics and relativtiy to provide the most basic tools for such a study.
The Kalam Cosmological argument (in it's syllogistic version) can be criticised, since it makes (seemingly innocent) claims about the real world. But at it's heart it's a semantic scam, which uses everyday language and layman's experience to construct a "proof" for the existence of a god. That's also why I can tear it to pieces without even leaving my chair.
First premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause However intuitive it may sound, we don't have any empirical basis to verify that. We never witnessed anything coming to existence from "nothingness" (some quantum effects aside, which seem to be "uncaused"). We cannot even logically process any cause on "nothing" to create something (if nothing was caused, there was no cause). What we see in the real world is something (that exists) causes something else (that exists) to change form to something different. The premise is without foundation and just based on a misuse of the concept "begins to exist".
Second premise: The universe began to exist. We don't know whether this is true or what "began" even means if time really did not exist beforehand (see above). The argument about "actual infinities" which WLC used in the past (don't know whether he gave up on that) is so old that even ancient greek philosophers were able to come up with answers and has been conclusively solved mathematically 200 years ago. We simply don't know whether the universe began to exist, so the premise is questionable at best.
It follows that the first conclusion that "The universe has a cause" is unfounded. We simply don't have any empirical basis to assert whether either of the two premises is actually sound. The biggest mistakes are certainly made in WLC next steps where he deduces that "God did it", but as I tried to show it's not even necessary to go that far to show that the argument is not sound in the sense that we cannot say whether it reflects reality. It therefore fails imo.
TLDR VERSION (from reading and my own investigation)
1. The Big Bang is not neccesarily "The beginning of everything", it is merely as far back in time as scientists have been able to investigate.
2. If you ask science, "How can the Big Bang be the beginning, where did it come from/what caused it?", the correct scientific response will be: "We don't know, we are still working on that, the Big Bang is as far back as we have figured out so far."
3. The question of "what caused the universe?" is not supported by observation. Nothing in the known universe has been observed to "begin", or "spring from nothing", it merely changes from a previous state. If we are to apply this observation, the logical conclusion would be that there is no reason for the universe to have acted any differently.
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: [quote]
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. [quote]
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: [quote]
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: [quote] 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...
You seem to know your stuff, maybe you could help me out. In so far as I understand Craig, the gist of his argument is that according to contemporary cosmology, the universe had a beginning in the big bang (when time can into being, etc.). Craig doesn't address the singularity, just the event in which our universe began to exist. The singularity itself, as I understand it, is where all known laws of nature break down, and thus cannot be studied by science since it is supranatural. As I also understand it, this "big bang" was also the cause of time, matter, space, etc. So it can be reasonable deduced that these things "began to exist" concurrently with the big bang, even if we haven't seen such a thing. This is a different thing that saying that the material universe we experience now was once everything that comprised the singularity (wouldn't a singularity envelope our universe?).
Maybe you could shed some light on that for me, and also explain how we can criticize the Kalam while maintaining scientific evidence to the contrary, when it seems to me as if we wouldn't have such evidence available to us.
I am a mathematician, not a phycisist, but I will try my best. The Big Bang is the logical consequence of the theory of an expanding universe. Since it is a fact that the universe is ever expanding, we deduce that there was a common starting point of space itself (the singularity). The problem for physics is, that close to this singularity the effects of quantum mechanics (the laws of the micro world) interact with the general theory of relativity (the laws of the macro world) to such an extent, that the mathematical results are not interpretable anymore (the laws collapse if you will). The Big Bang theory does not make a definite statement on the state of the universe before time zero however (nor even at time zero), so what physicists mean with "the universe began to exist" is "the universe - as we know it- began to exist". It does not shed any light on the question of where the energy/matter actually came from or by what it could have been caused. Since we now know that space and time is inevetibly tied together (unlike Newtonian Physics promoted), the Big Bang can be seen as the starting point of time as we perceive it. But the question of what came before it is not settled at all and we don't even know whether this would be an intelligent question to ask. There are certainly cyclic models which promote and infinite series of Big Bang events. A singularity is also not impossible to study in principle (as far as we know), but we are currently lacking a unified theory that combines quantum mechanics and relativtiy to provide the most basic tools for such a study.
The Kalam Cosmological argument (in it's syllogistic version) can be criticised, since it makes (seemingly innocent) claims about the real world. But at it's heart it's a semantic scam, which uses everyday language and layman's experience to construct a "proof" for the existence of a god. That's also why I can tear it to pieces without even leaving my chair.
First premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause However intuitive it may sound, we don't have any empirical basis to verify that. We never witnessed anything coming to existence from "nothingness" (some quantum effects aside, which seem to be "uncaused"). We cannot even logically process any cause on "nothing" to create something (if nothing was caused, there was no cause). What we see in the real world is something (that exists) causes something else (that exists) to change form to something different. The premise is without foundation and just based on a misuse of the concept "begins to exist".
Second premise: The universe began to exist. We don't know whether this is true or what "began" even means if time really did not exist beforehand (see above). The argument about "actual infinities" which WLC used in the past (don't know whether he gave up on that) is so old that even ancient greek philosophers were able to come up with answers and has been conclusively solved mathematically 200 years ago. We simply don't know whether the universe began to exist, so the premise is questionable at best.
It follows that the first conclusion that "The universe has a cause" is unfounded. We simply don't have any empirical basis to assert whether either of the two premises is actually sound. The biggest mistakes are certainly made in WLC next steps where he deduces that "God did it", but as I tried to show it's not even necessary to go that far to show that the argument is not sound in the sense that we cannot say whether it reflects reality. It therefore fails imo.
TLDR VERSION (from reading and my own investigation)
1. The Big Bang is not neccesarily "The beginning of everything", it is merely as far back in time as scientists have been able to investigate.
2. If you ask science, "How can the Big Bang be the beginning, where did it come from/what caused it?", the correct scientific response will be: "We don't know, we are still working on that, the Big Bang is as far back as we have figured out so far."
3. The question of "what caused the universe?" is not supported by observation. Nothing in the known universe has been observed to "begin", or "spring from nothing", it merely changes from a previous state. If we are to apply this observation, the logical conclusion would be that there is no reason for the universe to have acted any differently.
As I was going to say in my other response, but didn't... I guess that's the reason we're working within a philosophical framework
You have to think about it as the door you first picked had a 1/3 chance of being correct, while the collection of the other 2 doors had the remaining 2/3. After a door you didn't pick is revealed to not have the money, the final door inherits the total 2/3 chance. Thus, you are twice as likely to get the money if you switch doors when given the second choice.
After reading this section of your post over and over, I FINALLY GET IT. Wow...now it all makes sense to me. I was beginning to think that there was a 50% chance of TL being nuts, and a 50% chance of me needing to belong in an asylum. Damn I hate being wrong.
As a defense mechanism employed to protect my ego, I will now say that the rest of the explanations people gave me were insufficient to promote my understanding of the matter.
Perhaps people's explanations are crap....66% of the time?
Sorry dude, I sincerely was not trolling. It just took me a long time to finally understand it. I appreciated your efforts to help me, though.
Holy shit, this is something that is fucking hard to explain to other people. After it finally "clicked" in my brain, I attempted to explain it to family members and co-workers. Not a great success...
On May 03 2010 15:03 tinman wrote:give me, in plain English, one scientific reason that i should only believe things for which there is scientific evidence.
You can believe whatever you like. Science just helps quantify how much you should rely on those beliefs being true.
On May 03 2010 15:03 tinman wrote: give me, in plain English, one scientific reason that i should only believe things for which there is scientific evidence.
On May 03 2010 15:48 tinman wrote:some assumptions must be made. quit pretending that your beliefs exist in some special dimension of demonstrability.
This is not true. If the expectations engendered by the model of reality you hold are reliably met, then you know two things: that reality is coherent (it obeys logical principles) and that your model conforms with it to some degree. This information is in itself evidence that our beliefs should be evidence-based.
Actually, the original distribution of odds is still in effect.
I disagree with this. The game show host has revealed what is behind only ONE of the doors. You may have chosen one door for yourself, but it's contents have not yet been revealed.
If he opened door number 3, you can now disregard door 3. The original distribution of odds no longer apply.
Here's a way of thinking about it that helped me get it right in my head:
Imagine there are a million doors, and still only one prize. You pick a door at random, and then the host opens all but one of the other doors (999,998 of them) to show 'no prize'. So the prize is either behind the door you picked at random OR the door the host left closed. Which is more likely? Is it really a 50/50 chance that you picked the right door to begin with?
On May 04 2010 03:59 tinman wrote: did you guys know that there is an individual in this very thread who credits our ability to walk to critical thinking? i am not making this shit up.
Ah, someone did read my post; good. Hello
If you go back and take a second look, however, you'll find I don't credit our ability to walk to critical thinking. If I gave that impression, it was not intentional and I apologise.
Learning to walk - to coordinate our muscles and nerves and all the rest of it - is a process of trial and error: trying things and distinguishing what works (what produces the expected/desired result) from what doesn't. If our minds didn't make that distinction, if they didn't allow evidence to shape their model of reality, we could not learn. You've asked why we should confine ourselves to evidence-based beliefs: perhaps you should think about how well you would be able to walk right now if your subconscious had just picked a random set of muscle movements and refused to refine them in the light of feedback from reality
Trial and error is not critical thinking, though. Critical thinking is taking a step back to assess or quantify how well you know an existing or proposed mental model conforms with reality. Say someone takes a homeopathic remedy and a few days later they feel better. Instinctive trial and error reasoning tells them the remedy worked: do the same thing again next time. Critical thinking exposes the inadequacy of that single data point. More generally it highlights unsupported beliefs so they can be properly tested.
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: [quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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: [quote]
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...
You seem to know your stuff, maybe you could help me out. In so far as I understand Craig, the gist of his argument is that according to contemporary cosmology, the universe had a beginning in the big bang (when time can into being, etc.). Craig doesn't address the singularity, just the event in which our universe began to exist. The singularity itself, as I understand it, is where all known laws of nature break down, and thus cannot be studied by science since it is supranatural. As I also understand it, this "big bang" was also the cause of time, matter, space, etc. So it can be reasonable deduced that these things "began to exist" concurrently with the big bang, even if we haven't seen such a thing. This is a different thing that saying that the material universe we experience now was once everything that comprised the singularity (wouldn't a singularity envelope our universe?).
Maybe you could shed some light on that for me, and also explain how we can criticize the Kalam while maintaining scientific evidence to the contrary, when it seems to me as if we wouldn't have such evidence available to us.
I am a mathematician, not a phycisist, but I will try my best. The Big Bang is the logical consequence of the theory of an expanding universe. Since it is a fact that the universe is ever expanding, we deduce that there was a common starting point of space itself (the singularity). The problem for physics is, that close to this singularity the effects of quantum mechanics (the laws of the micro world) interact with the general theory of relativity (the laws of the macro world) to such an extent, that the mathematical results are not interpretable anymore (the laws collapse if you will). The Big Bang theory does not make a definite statement on the state of the universe before time zero however (nor even at time zero), so what physicists mean with "the universe began to exist" is "the universe - as we know it- began to exist". It does not shed any light on the question of where the energy/matter actually came from or by what it could have been caused. Since we now know that space and time is inevetibly tied together (unlike Newtonian Physics promoted), the Big Bang can be seen as the starting point of time as we perceive it. But the question of what came before it is not settled at all and we don't even know whether this would be an intelligent question to ask. There are certainly cyclic models which promote and infinite series of Big Bang events. A singularity is also not impossible to study in principle (as far as we know), but we are currently lacking a unified theory that combines quantum mechanics and relativtiy to provide the most basic tools for such a study.
The Kalam Cosmological argument (in it's syllogistic version) can be criticised, since it makes (seemingly innocent) claims about the real world. But at it's heart it's a semantic scam, which uses everyday language and layman's experience to construct a "proof" for the existence of a god. That's also why I can tear it to pieces without even leaving my chair.
First premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause However intuitive it may sound, we don't have any empirical basis to verify that. We never witnessed anything coming to existence from "nothingness" (some quantum effects aside, which seem to be "uncaused"). We cannot even logically process any cause on "nothing" to create something (if nothing was caused, there was no cause). What we see in the real world is something (that exists) causes something else (that exists) to change form to something different. The premise is without foundation and just based on a misuse of the concept "begins to exist".
Second premise: The universe began to exist. We don't know whether this is true or what "began" even means if time really did not exist beforehand (see above). The argument about "actual infinities" which WLC used in the past (don't know whether he gave up on that) is so old that even ancient greek philosophers were able to come up with answers and has been conclusively solved mathematically 200 years ago. We simply don't know whether the universe began to exist, so the premise is questionable at best.
It follows that the first conclusion that "The universe has a cause" is unfounded. We simply don't have any empirical basis to assert whether either of the two premises is actually sound. The biggest mistakes are certainly made in WLC next steps where he deduces that "God did it", but as I tried to show it's not even necessary to go that far to show that the argument is not sound in the sense that we cannot say whether it reflects reality. It therefore fails imo.
TLDR VERSION (from reading and my own investigation)
1. The Big Bang is not neccesarily "The beginning of everything", it is merely as far back in time as scientists have been able to investigate.
2. If you ask science, "How can the Big Bang be the beginning, where did it come from/what caused it?", the correct scientific response will be: "We don't know, we are still working on that, the Big Bang is as far back as we have figured out so far."
3. The question of "what caused the universe?" is not supported by observation. Nothing in the known universe has been observed to "begin", or "spring from nothing", it merely changes from a previous state. If we are to apply this observation, the logical conclusion would be that there is no reason for the universe to have acted any differently.
As I was going to say in my other response, but didn't... I guess that's the reason we're working within a philosophical framework
Sob3k summed it up perfectly imo. My main gripe with Kalam and WLC is that he presents it as a "proof" using somewhat intuitive concepts for more than a decade now and quotes "science" whenever he sees fit to further his point. Instead it would be just a matter of intellectual honesty to say that pretty much nothing we can observe in the real world can be applied to the special circumstances of a "beginning of everything", so while we might speculate, we are in no position to prove anything by now and we simply don't know (yet). What seems probable though, is that linear concepts which require time and space to exist in the first place, like cause and effect, will not be helpful or at the very least lose their meaning.
EPT
