Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An Infinite Past?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    The main issue I see here in the thread is that because Craig isn't a physicist, he can't use Vilenkin's insights (as a physicist) to support the Kalam argument. But when Vilenkin uses his insights into physics to say something philosophical (Tassman says that Vilenkin claims that on his model, 'There is a probable natural explanation.'), no one cries foul. I don't think Vilenkin does anything wrong; and neither does Craig.
    Vilenkin is not resorting to philosophy. He is expressing his professional opinions as an experienced physicist and providing possible scientific explanations - e.g. quantum tunneling or Hawking's "no boundaries" solution. In short Vilenkin remains within his field of expertise as a physicist. Craig does not remain within his field of expertise.

    What I mean is that two intelligent men can argue and make arguments. To end the discussion with just, 'Craig is not a physicist. So there!', or 'Vilenkin is not a philosopher. So there!', is just dumb to me.
    True, but that is not what’s happening.

    If Craig is wrong in his physics, show where! But if he is using physics (Vilenkin's insights) to support philosophical premises, what's the problem? If the philosophical premises are wrong, show how the physics debunks it; don't just say, 'Craig's not a physicist.' This just darkens counsel. Or if (as I think) Vilenkin is wrong in his philosophy (by saying the beginning is a 'natural' event described by quantum cosmology), I don't just say, 'Vilenkin's not a philosopher.' I'd show where he's wrong in his philosophy.
    Already shown several times how Craig fudges the science! Try reading the thread before pontificating. E.g. The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper being quoted by Craig shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe - as opposed to Dr. Craig’s version namely “any universe” - will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn't exist infinitely into the past. Craig then leaps to the unjustified conclusion based on his misreading of the paper that "therefore the universe definitely began to exist”. This is one of several misquotes Craig uses to provide “sciencey” sounding support for his religious presuppositions.

    The INFERENCE to natural vs. supernatural explanations is philosophy.
    Incorrect! Any claims of non-natural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences.

    The physics is the stuff that both Craig and Vilenkin agree on. Both agree on the crime scene, so to speak. A death took place! But if X says, 'He was murdered!', and Y says, 'It was suicide!', that doesn't mean both don't agree that someone is dead. Craig/Vilenkin agree: the physics is spot on, or at least as cutting edge as possible given the knowledge we have right now. What they disagree on is natural vs. supernatural explanations. Craig, the expert in philosophy (and to call him an apologist, while true, is annoying, because we all know his critics use it rhetorically to disparage him), infers a supernatural explanation. If the philosophical inference is invalid, show philosophically where it's invalid. If supernaturalists just debunked Vilenkin by saying, 'Oh, it's dumb that physics probably proves a natural beginning, since Vilenkin is not a philosopher, and that's a philosophical inference.', you'd experience the same annoying feeling I get when I read your hand-waving.
    Once again: Any claims of non-natural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences, NOT philosophy.

    But all this is surface level superficiality. Has anyone actually linked to or spelled out Craig's arguments for either:
    1. Why the physics doesn't need a supernatural explanation, or
    2. Why the physics doesn't automatically prove a probable natural explanation

    Reading Tassman just aggravates me. Shunya - well, I think he knows how I feel about talking with him. For example, he says Craig is just trying to shoehorn Vilenkin's physics into a 'creation from nothing' argument. Well, yea. Sort of. To say 'shoehorn' is rhetoric. I mean, the sentence is just too simplistic. That's not ALL Craig says. If he's wrong, he is at least respectably wrong. The principle of charity would have you represent his argument in all its vigor, then refute it. Otherwise, you just look like a Sophist. I get that you're saying the beginning of the universe can be explained by Quantum Cosmology; my point is that Craig addresses this. So, in his dealing with this, SHOW how he misunderstands or SHOW where he gets the physics wrong.

    And so what if Craig has an agenda! So the freak what! Please God tell me that no eminent physicists have an agenda! Krauss! lol. My point is that I don't give a crap about agendas. People with agendas can argue for truth and the other way around. Don't score dumb rhetorical points by simply saying Vilenkin is this scientific God from on high, while Craig is . . . . this Bill O' Reilly-like apologist. It's just a waste of time and dishonest.

    And then this SIMPLE reference to Hawking's Boundless Model. We get it! It exists. Deal with what Craig says about it, please! It's not like Craig is going to be like, 'Oh my God! The Boundless Model. Crap. Wow. What was I thinking? Let me pack and go home.' He KNOWS ABOUT IT. He has WRITTEN ABOUT IT. Deal with his arguments and stop just hurling elephants. If he's wrong, he's wrong. I don't care if Craig is proven wrong or not. Just SHOW where he is wrong in where he has written about it.
    Your debate is mere rhetoric. Craig nowhere identifies any physicist or cosmologist that supports his belief that a finite temporal past for the greater cosmos is a likely scenario. Quite the reverse! Certainly Vilenkin, Guth, Borg, Carroll or Hawking don’t. And, regardless of Craig’s arguments, one cannot answer scientific questions with philosophical answers as Craig is attempting to do. Both disciplines, i.e. science and philosophy, have their strengths but uncovering new knowledge is the province of science, NOT philosophy - philosophy does not have the mechanism to do so.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      I'm still curious as to what you are referring to with respect to Vilenkin being careless in his choice of words. Are you referring to ambiguity in his use of 'universe' and 'multiverse' as has been commented upon in this thread? Or other carelessness? If the latter, can you give some examples, please?
      I was referring to Vilenkin's use of "nothing" and his lack of defining how he was using the word which, in physics, has taken on greater complexity than was understood by classical philosophers.

      E.g.: "The simple idea of nothing, a concept that even toddlers can understand, proved surprisingly difficult for the scientists to pin down, with some of them questioning whether such a thing as nothing exists at all..."

      http://www.livescience.com/28132-wha...ts-debate.html
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Thanks.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          No, this is not established science by any means. No cosmologist that I’m aware of supports the notion of finite cosmos or multiverse including, as others have pointed out, the arguments in the Craig-Carroll debate which covered these models. As well, Stephen Hawking's "No boundary” model is clearly a sound multiverse model that is unbounded in time and space – as I have mentioned numerous times.
          Tass, you are so blinded by your bias you can not even admit a clear fact. The bible teaches that this universe began (it is not dealing with other possible universes or a possible multi-universe that may have bubbled this one up). And science now, years later, agrees.


          No, “the key here” - when you attempt to use science to justify your religious beliefs - is to use a word such as “nothing” the way science uses it, i.e. in the light of the counter-intuitive world of sub-atomic particles and quantum physics.
          I get it, so literally nothing means literally something. No wonder you are so messed up.



          Not so! Iin a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1992 Pope John Paul II regretted the treatment which Galileo received in the 17th century regarding his arguments for a heliocentric universe as opposed to a geocentric universe. The pope stated: “the Galileo incident to be based on a "tragic mutual miscomprehension" AND “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth…” In short, for most of Christian history geocentricism was assumed by the RCC.
          Tass, I have asked you time and time again where SCRIPTURE teaches a geocentric universe. Let me give you a hint - it doesn't. So your claim was false. But again you are so blinded by prejudice you will never admit it. You may have the last word - I'm done...
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            Thats one thing I can't wrap my head around Shunya. How is it explaind that muliple universes come into being in no time? If the Greater Cosmos produces one universe, then it must also create others. What would you call the duration between the two productions if not time?
            Time is considered an emergent quality of change by an observer in time/space relationships as things 'ie universes' emerge from entanglement in a quantum vacuum world. The observer sees change therefore the observer measures this change in terms of time. This is now considered a very fundamental nature of our physical existence in Physics and Cosmology. If there is no observe change in the matrix of space, as in our universe, there is no time. In the Quantum Vacuum that our galaxies and black holes move through there is no observed change, therefore no time.

            Source: https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/d5d3dc850933

            Entanglement is a deep and powerful link and Page and Wootters showed how it can be used to measure time. Their idea was that the way a pair of entangled particles evolve is a kind of clock that can be used to measure change.

            But the results depend on how the observation is made. One way to do this is to compare the change in the entangled particles with an external clock that is entirely independent of the universe. This is equivalent to god-like observer outside the universe measuring the evolution of the particles using an external clock.

            In this case, Page and Wootters showed that the particles would appear entirely unchanging—that time would not exist in this scenario.

            But there is another way to do it that gives a different result. This is for an observer inside the universe to compare the evolution of the particles with the rest of the universe. In this case, the internal observer would see a change and this difference in the evolution of entangled particles compared with everything else is an important a measure of time.

            This is an elegant and powerful idea. It suggests that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict.

            Of course, without experimental verification, Page and Wootter’s ideas are little more than a philosophical curiosity. And since it is never possible to have an observer outside the universe, there seemed little chance of ever testing the idea.

            © Copyright Original Source



            Even observed time within our universe is not uniform from the perspective of an observer in the universe. It has relative qualities that is only observed in a time/space continuum.

            This a very fundamental quality of Quantum Mechanics that Craig, Seer and others stuck in a Newtonian world fixated on the necessity of beginnings in 'time,' which in reality may not exist. Trying to selectively quote Vilenkin and other physicists and cosmologists to justify a religious agenda creates logical and scientific contradictions by the boat load.

            Craig in frustration stated in his debate with Carroll, '. . . some type of time must exist in a multiiverse.'

            guess what Craig, based on a fundamental principle of Quantum Mechanics the answer is no.

            More sources to follow.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-30-2014, 11:14 AM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Time is considered an emergent quality of change by an observer in time/space relationships as things 'ie universes' emerge from entanglement in a quantum vacuum world. The observer sees change therefore the observer measures this change in terms of time. This is now considered a very fundamental nature of our physical existence in Physics and Cosmology. If there is no observe change in the matrix of space, as in our universe, there is no time. In the Quantum Vacuum that our galaxies and black holes move through there is no observed change, therefore no time.
              And why must change be observed in order for that change to be considered to have occured in time? If indeed change is occuring in the greater Cosmos, ie universes sequentially emerging, then in what sense is that different from sequential change seen by an observer. For instance the quantum fluctions themselves which are thought to be the cause of inflation are changes which take place in the Greater Cosmos. How do they occur at separate times if there is no such thing as time?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Tass, you are so blinded by your bias you can not even admit a clear fact. The bible teaches that this universe began (it is not dealing with other possible universes or a possible multi-universe that may have bubbled this one up). And science now, years later, agrees.
                Seer, “you are so blinded by your” religious presuppositions, that you cannot “admit the clear fact” that none of the predicted pocket universes, including ours, “began” until the preexisting singularity inflated. ALL theories and models for our universe (and other universes) posit a preexisting singularity. Thus the inflationary beginning depended upon a preexisting condition.

                There are no scientific arguments that the beginning of each universe in time, including ours, was actually the beginning of anything; each depended upon the existence of a prior singularity which in turn depended upon the existence of the quantum vacuum which, according to cosmologists, is most likely eternal and infinite.

                I get it, so literally nothing means literally something. No wonder you are so messed up.
                No you don’t “get it” and your sarcasm is misplaced. Quantum physics adds a complexity to the concept of “nothing” which simply didn't exist in ancient times. Many physicists, e.g. Victor Stenger, are of the view that “nothing” cannot exist; that there will always be something. In short, something always exists even if it is only seemingly empty space. “There can never have been nothing”.

                “…why is there something rather than nothing? Because “something” is the more natural state of affairs and is thus more likely than nothing - more than twice as likely according to one calculation. We can infer this from the processes of nature where simple systems tend to be unstable and often spontaneously transform into more complex ones. Theoretical models such as the inflationary model of the early universe bear this out”.

                http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/why_is...r_than_nothing

                As Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek put it in a Scientific American article in 1980: “’Nothing’ is unstable.” There must be something.

                Tass, I have asked you time and time again where SCRIPTURE teaches a geocentric universe. Let me give you a hint - it doesn't. So your claim was false. But again you are so blinded by prejudice you will never admit it
                And I have said “time and again” that scripture teaches nothing about the nature of the universe except for the claim that God made it and everything in it. But it is reasonable to assume that the Judeo/Christian scriptures reflected the views of the day and those views were of a geocentric universe. You may attempt an argument from silence that scripture never actually "taught” geocentricism per se. But until recently Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant) believed that it did - to the extent that it strongly resisted arguments against geocentricism (e.g. Copernicus and Galileo) as being contrary to scripture.

                As is often the case it took science to show they were wrong.

                You may have the last word - I'm done...
                Yes, I’d say so…
                Last edited by Tassman; 05-01-2014, 02:03 AM.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Vilenkin is not resorting to philosophy. He is expressing his professional opinions as an experienced physicist and providing possible scientific explanations - e.g. quantum tunneling or Hawking's "no boundaries" solution. In short Vilenkin remains within his field of expertise as a physicist. Craig does not remain within his field of expertise.
                  It's subtle, but it's there. Scientists get away with saying, 'Philosophy sucks. It's from a bygone age. Hurray for Science!', under the guise of its very subtlety. Here's the rough edges of my train of thought on all this.

                  1. It seems like the Universe began to exist (Craig) - Religiously neutral.

                  2. Whatever begins to exist has a cause (Craig) - Religiously neutral.

                  3. The universe has a cause (Craig) - Religiously neutral.

                  4. The cause has to be personal, timeless, spaceless, powerful, etc (Craig) - THAT'S RELIGIOUS. And THAT'S philosophical inferences from the nature of the CAUSE in 3. Nothing wrong with 'going about' this, even if you can prove 'philosophically' that the inferences are invalid.

                  5. Standard Big Bang Model backs up 2 (Craig) - Religiously neutral.

                  5. No, Hartle-Hawking Model gives proper context to Big Bang Model (Vilenkin) - Religiously neutral.

                  6. Quantum Tunneling (QT) goes against 1 (Vilenkin) - Religiously neutral.

                  7. No, Hartle-Hawking model has problems for reasons X,Y, and Z (Craig) - Religiously neutral. Craig isn't a scientist, BUT he presents X,Y, and Z. X,Y and Z may be bad reasons (We haven't gotten there yet).

                  8. No, QT has problems for reasons X, Y, and Z; and it doesn't go against 1 for reasons X, Y, and Z (Craig) Religiously neutral. And same thing: X,Y and Z may be bad reasons (We haven't gotten there yet).

                  9. So, back to QT: Maybe our universe popped into being out of 'nothing' ('n': the sense the physicist gives it) via QT (Vilenkin) - Religiously neutral. I'll also say philosophically neutral SO FAR.

                  10. But can we apply 2 to the Multi-verse/Greater Cosmos (GC)? Did it have a beginning? Did GC pop into being out of 'n' via QT? (Craig) Then, reasons X, Y, and Z are given. Nothing wrong going on at all so far.

                  11. Let's call it reason Y (you're complaint): The page 127 reference: "With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (p. 176): from "Vilenkin's Cosmic Vision: A Review Essay of Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes, by Alex Vilenkin." Barring contextual complaints, is Vilenkin talking about GC or the universe? Craig article makes it about GC. He could be wrong; I'm not sure - I don't have Vilenkin's book.

                  12. But here we are folks! Tassman: What of these comments by Vilenkin?

                  a. "If God created the world, where was He before creation?" and "How could God have made the world without any raw material?" (p. 170).

                  Yea, that’s physics alright! Not philosophy or theology at all, huh? This is PHILOSOPHY! OUTSIDE OF HIS AREA OF EXPERTISE. Great questions, don't get me wrong. And there's nothing wrong with asking them. But AS A PHYSICIST, he is outside of his area of expertise! So, do I say, 'He's not a philosopher! He's not a philosopher!'? No, I read him and take what he says seriously, and if there's reasons X, Y, and Z (Craig thinks there are) that go against his PHILOSOPHICAL reasons, then I'm not persuaded.

                  13. 'n' vs NOTHING (N) - Another quote:

                  a. "And yet, the state of 'nothing' cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus 'nothing' should be subjected to these laws" (p. 181).

                  b. Right, but if GC is finite, and there's N before GC (not 'n'), then it's either ETERNAL or it popped into being out of N, not 'n', unless 'n's' go back infinitely, right? And here's where Craig's PHILOSOPHICAL puzzles against an actual infinite become relevant. Nothing wrong going on AT ALL! 'Oh, but that's philosophy, not SCIENCE!', you'd object.

                  Well, 12a is disqualified as a good question, right? 'Oh, but it's Vilenkin!' 'Um, too bad'.

                  14. THEREFORE, Vilenkin IS doing philosophy to say that the physics doesn't support God. NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS. It's just you're saying he WASN'T. Or, that he is doing PURE physics. And he ISN’T!

                  15. Interesting questions that can be raised:

                  a. Is N a waste of time to think about it?
                  b. Is 'n' the only game in town?
                  c. Are physicists disingenuous to call 'n' nothing?: since laymen will just run with it as evidence against 1?
                  d. Can there be an infinite regress of 'n's?
                  e. If not, can Craig's philosophical puzzles be applied to GC? I don't see why not.
                  f. Can 'out of nothing, nothing comes' be used if N is a meaningful concept (I don't see why not!). Keep in mind, Craig agrees that 'n' is meaningful (actual if QT happens), but that 'n' doesn't equal N.
                  g. Do physics and philosophy interface at that point? At the point when we ask can 'n' extend back infinitely, or when we ask can GC exist eternally? They have to, it seems. If not, I'd like to see why.

                  True, but that is not what’s happening.
                  Cheap jab. Do you really think Craig is twisting his mustache hatching a plan to overturn physics because of his evangelistic motives, or do you think Craig is truly trying to understand the physics, has a thorough understanding of philosophical arguments he has investigated through the greater part of his life, and that he truly believes there are good reasons to think God exists based on them?

                  I mean, come on. Let's be serious. The paranoia is annoying. Yes, he is an evangelist. Again, so what? He sincerely believes what he believes. He thinks it's true. So, telling everyone, convincing everyone he can, in the most public of forums. What's wrong with this? Everything he says and writes is out for the public to read, view, and see, to be put to the test. His stuff isn't OBVIOUSLY ridiculous; and he doesn't just tow a party line. Even Krauss came up to Craig after on of their debates and said something like, 'I thought you were a charlatan; but after talking with you, I see you really, sincerly believe this stuff.'

                  Already shown several times how Craig fudges the science! Try reading the thread before pontificating.
                  Uh, you're the one pontificating. You're the one posing as this infallible guide to the thoughts of the gods of physics, and that we're all supposed to bow down to your interpretation of their works, because I guess you're the physics-god on this forum. I mean, you're basically putting yourself above Craig in interpreting the physics. Again, nothing wrong with that, if your interpretation is good. But, to look at this trifling example you're about to give, it's so nit-picky as to be trivial, the triviality referring to your contention that Craig is just a raving, blind, idiotic buffoon when it comes to understanding any physics. So, let's take a look, shall we?

                  E.g. The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper being quoted by Craig shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe - as opposed to Dr. Craig’s version namely “any universe” - will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn't exist infinitely into the past. Craig then leaps to the unjustified conclusion based on his misreading of the paper that "therefore the universe definitely began to exist”.
                  So, Craig confused 'ALMOST any inflationary model' with 'any universe'. Tassman - the physics-god - cries foul! Anything Craig says on physics is now stupid. I won't be completely petulant and say I don't believe you. It's just that you haven't done the full job. You have to show (for me to be persuaded):

                  a. Quote the full sentence in the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (or link to the paper).
                  b. Show that the only sentence Craig could be referring to with his 'any universe' statement is the 'ALMOST all Inflationary Model' sentence.
                  c. Show that the 'any universe' sentence is speaking of this 'reach a boundary in the past' notion you're referring to. The 'any universe' sentence seems to be referring to something more rich than than JUST this. Craig says, 'any universe which has on average over its past history been in a state of expansion cannot be infinite in the past but must have a spacetime boundary.' So, it's not just about 'reaching a boundary in the past'; it's supplemented by 'being in a state of expansion' and how that it relates to 'reaching a boundary in the past'. Your shaving away the supplement is suspicious to me. I haven't read the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper, so I'm forced to take your word for it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but just provide a link so I can verify.

                  Even so, this hardly disqualifies Craig to speak on physics. He is CITING an authority, even if he accidentally misinterprets. But maybe you have more examples. Let's stick with this one for now. It's just hard for me to follow your main point: that Craig is dumb in physics. Criag is CITING Vilenkin. What YOUR doing. What we ALL have to do, since Vilenkin is the expert. All Craig is doing - all of us do - is interpreting the authority. That's why Vilenkin writes books in the first place: to communicate his findings to the public.

                  This is one of several misquotes Craig uses to provide “sciencey” sounding support for his religious presuppositions.
                  Rhetorical clap-trap. Your psychologizing is extremely aggravating. This is Bulvarism to the extreme.



                  Incorrect! Any claims of non-natural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences.

                  Once again: Any claims of non-natural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences, NOT philosophy.
                  Huh? What do you mean by non-natural? Not natural? Super-natural? Define that, please.


                  Your debate is mere rhetoric. Craig nowhere identifies any physicist or cosmologist that supports his belief that a finite temporal past for the greater cosmos is a likely scenario.
                  Hey weirdo. Physics hasn't reached this level yet. Physics as applied to GC is still in its infancy. Of course, PHYSICS has nothing to say on this yet. It's when people like you, who think SCIENCE IS KING, and philosophy is stupid, who think that because physics/cosmology can't say GC is likely to be finite, then philosophy can't say anything on it. You're sounding like one of those annoying science snobs. It's people like you that arrogantly want to sever an entire department from the universities: philosophy. Let's talk about the philosophical puzzles against the metaphysical possibility of an actual infinite. Yea, that's an elephant. But it's part of Kalam. We can apply it to GC. GC is a part of reality, no? If it is, and the puzzles are sound, GC couldn't have always been there, no matter what physics will say in the future, and no matter how annoying people like you get when you use the word 'nothing' in the 'n' sense, instead of N.

                  Quite the reverse! Certainly Vilenkin, Guth, Borg, Carroll or Hawking don’t.
                  Ask me how much I care. These guys aren't the God-given harbingers of truth, snob.

                  And, regardless of Craig’s arguments, one cannot answer scientific questions with philosophical answers as Craig is attempting to do.
                  And the snobbery is now on stage for all to see. More general rhetoric, and more running away from getting specific. I want to talk about the puzzles I noted above, and how they're mysteriously immune from having any kind of relevant to this issue, because they're not physics.

                  Both disciplines, i.e. science and philosophy, have their strengths but uncovering new knowledge is the province of science, NOT philosophy - philosophy does not have the mechanism to do so.
                  McFly? McFly? Hello? Snob. Philosophy CAN uncover new knowledge. You're wrong. And I'm going to show how you're wrong. You're my new project. You remember how Seer said you can have the last word? I'm not going to let you have the last word. We're going to hammer this out for years if I have to. You're a symbol of the snobbery in the scientific world.
                  Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                  George Horne

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                    It's subtle, but it's there. Scientists get away with saying, 'Philosophy sucks. It's from a bygone age. Hurray for Science!', under the guise of its very subtlety. Here's the rough edges of my train of thought on all this.

                    1. It seems like the Universe began to exist (Craig) - Religiously neutral.

                    2. Whatever begins to exist has a cause (Craig) - Religiously neutral.

                    3. The universe has a cause (Craig) - Religiously neutral.

                    4. The cause has to be personal, timeless, spaceless, powerful, etc (Craig) - THAT'S RELIGIOUS. And THAT'S philosophical inferences from the nature of the CAUSE in 3. Nothing wrong with 'going about' this, even if you can prove 'philosophically' that the inferences are invalid.

                    5. Standard Big Bang Model backs up 2 (Craig) - Religiously neutral.

                    5. No, Hartle-Hawking Model gives proper context to Big Bang Model (Vilenkin) - Religiously neutral.

                    6. Quantum Tunneling (QT) goes against 1 (Vilenkin) - Religiously neutral.

                    7. No, Hartle-Hawking model has problems for reasons X,Y, and Z (Craig) - Religiously neutral. Craig isn't a scientist, BUT he presents X,Y, and Z. X,Y and Z may be bad reasons (We haven't gotten there yet).

                    8. No, QT has problems for reasons X, Y, and Z; and it doesn't go against 1 for reasons X, Y, and Z (Craig) Religiously neutral. And same thing: X,Y and Z may be bad reasons (We haven't gotten there yet).

                    9. So, back to QT: Maybe our universe popped into being out of 'nothing' ('n': the sense the physicist gives it) via QT (Vilenkin) - Religiously neutral. I'll also say philosophically neutral SO FAR.

                    10. But can we apply 2 to the Multi-verse/Greater Cosmos (GC)? Did it have a beginning? Did GC pop into being out of 'n' via QT? (Craig) Then, reasons X, Y, and Z are given. Nothing wrong going on at all so far.

                    11. Let's call it reason Y (you're complaint): The page 127 reference: "With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (p. 176): from "Vilenkin's Cosmic Vision: A Review Essay of Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes, by Alex Vilenkin." Barring contextual complaints, is Vilenkin talking about GC or the universe? Craig article makes it about GC. He could be wrong; I'm not sure - I don't have Vilenkin's book.

                    12. But here we are folks! Tassman: What of these comments by Vilenkin?

                    a. "If God created the world, where was He before creation?" and "How could God have made the world without any raw material?" (p. 170).

                    Yea, that’s physics alright! Not philosophy or theology at all, huh? This is PHILOSOPHY! OUTSIDE OF HIS AREA OF EXPERTISE. Great questions, don't get me wrong. And there's nothing wrong with asking them. But AS A PHYSICIST, he is outside of his area of expertise! So, do I say, 'He's not a philosopher! He's not a philosopher!'? No, I read him and take what he says seriously, and if there's reasons X, Y, and Z (Craig thinks there are) that go against his PHILOSOPHICAL reasons, then I'm not persuaded.

                    13. 'n' vs NOTHING (N) - Another quote:

                    a. "And yet, the state of 'nothing' cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus 'nothing' should be subjected to these laws" (p. 181).

                    b. Right, but if GC is finite, and there's N before GC (not 'n'), then it's either ETERNAL or it popped into being out of N, not 'n', unless 'n's' go back infinitely, right? And here's where Craig's PHILOSOPHICAL puzzles against an actual infinite become relevant. Nothing wrong going on AT ALL! 'Oh, but that's philosophy, not SCIENCE!', you'd object.

                    Well, 12a is disqualified as a good question, right? 'Oh, but it's Vilenkin!' 'Um, too bad'.

                    14. THEREFORE, Vilenkin IS doing philosophy to say that the physics doesn't support God. NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS. It's just you're saying he WASN'T. Or, that he is doing PURE physics. And he ISN’T!

                    15. Interesting questions that can be raised:

                    a. Is N a waste of time to think about it?
                    b. Is 'n' the only game in town?
                    c. Are physicists disingenuous to call 'n' nothing?: since laymen will just run with it as evidence against 1?
                    d. Can there be an infinite regress of 'n's?
                    e. If not, can Craig's philosophical puzzles be applied to GC? I don't see why not.
                    f. Can 'out of nothing, nothing comes' be used if N is a meaningful concept (I don't see why not!). Keep in mind, Craig agrees that 'n' is meaningful (actual if QT happens), but that 'n' doesn't equal N.
                    g. Do physics and philosophy interface at that point? At the point when we ask can 'n' extend back infinitely, or when we ask can GC exist eternally? They have to, it seems. If not, I'd like to see why.



                    Cheap jab. Do you really think Craig is twisting his mustache hatching a plan to overturn physics because of his evangelistic motives, or do you think Craig is truly trying to understand the physics, has a thorough understanding of philosophical arguments he has investigated through the greater part of his life, and that he truly believes there are good reasons to think God exists based on them?

                    I mean, come on. Let's be serious. The paranoia is annoying. Yes, he is an evangelist. Again, so what? He sincerely believes what he believes. He thinks it's true. So, telling everyone, convincing everyone he can, in the most public of forums. What's wrong with this? Everything he says and writes is out for the public to read, view, and see, to be put to the test. His stuff isn't OBVIOUSLY ridiculous; and he doesn't just tow a party line. Even Krauss came up to Craig after on of their debates and said something like, 'I thought you were a charlatan; but after talking with you, I see you really, sincerly believe this stuff.'



                    Uh, you're the one pontificating. You're the one posing as this infallible guide to the thoughts of the gods of physics, and that we're all supposed to bow down to your interpretation of their works, because I guess you're the physics-god on this forum. I mean, you're basically putting yourself above Craig in interpreting the physics. Again, nothing wrong with that, if your interpretation is good. But, to look at this trifling example you're about to give, it's so nit-picky as to be trivial, the triviality referring to your contention that Craig is just a raving, blind, idiotic buffoon when it comes to understanding any physics. So, let's take a look, shall we?



                    So, Craig confused 'ALMOST any inflationary model' with 'any universe'. Tassman - the physics-god - cries foul! Anything Craig says on physics is now stupid. I won't be completely petulant and say I don't believe you. It's just that you haven't done the full job. You have to show (for me to be persuaded):

                    a. Quote the full sentence in the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (or link to the paper).
                    b. Show that the only sentence Craig could be referring to with his 'any universe' statement is the 'ALMOST all Inflationary Model' sentence.
                    c. Show that the 'any universe' sentence is speaking of this 'reach a boundary in the past' notion you're referring to. The 'any universe' sentence seems to be referring to something more rich than than JUST this. Craig says, 'any universe which has on average over its past history been in a state of expansion cannot be infinite in the past but must have a spacetime boundary.' So, it's not just about 'reaching a boundary in the past'; it's supplemented by 'being in a state of expansion' and how that it relates to 'reaching a boundary in the past'. Your shaving away the supplement is suspicious to me. I haven't read the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper, so I'm forced to take your word for it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but just provide a link so I can verify.

                    Even so, this hardly disqualifies Craig to speak on physics. He is CITING an authority, even if he accidentally misinterprets. But maybe you have more examples. Let's stick with this one for now. It's just hard for me to follow your main point: that Craig is dumb in physics. Criag is CITING Vilenkin. What YOUR doing. What we ALL have to do, since Vilenkin is the expert. All Craig is doing - all of us do - is interpreting the authority. That's why Vilenkin writes books in the first place: to communicate his findings to the public.



                    Rhetorical clap-trap. Your psychologizing is extremely aggravating. This is Bulvarism to the extreme.



                    Incorrect! Any claims of non-natural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences.



                    Huh? What do you mean by non-natural? Not natural? Super-natural? Define that, please.




                    Hey weirdo. Physics hasn't reached this level yet. Physics as applied to GC is still in its infancy. Of course, PHYSICS has nothing to say on this yet. It's when people like you, who think SCIENCE IS KING, and philosophy is stupid, who think that because physics/cosmology can't say GC is likely to be finite, then philosophy can't say anything on it. You're sounding like one of those annoying science snobs. It's people like you that arrogantly want to sever an entire department from the universities: philosophy. Let's talk about the philosophical puzzles against the metaphysical possibility of an actual infinite. Yea, that's an elephant. But it's part of Kalam. We can apply it to GC. GC is a part of reality, no? If it is, and the puzzles are sound, GC couldn't have always been there, no matter what physics will say in the future, and no matter how annoying people like you get when you use the word 'nothing' in the 'n' sense, instead of N.



                    Ask me how much I care. These guys aren't the God-given harbingers of truth, snob.



                    And the snobbery is now on stage for all to see. More general rhetoric, and more running away from getting specific. I want to talk about the puzzles I noted above, and how they're mysteriously immune from having any kind of relevant to this issue, because they're not physics.



                    McFly? McFly? Hello? Snob. Philosophy CAN uncover new knowledge. You're wrong. And I'm going to show how you're wrong. You're my new project. You remember how Seer said you can have the last word? I'm not going to let you have the last word. We're going to hammer this out for years if I have to. You're a symbol of the snobbery in the scientific world.
                    We need an amen button.

                    I chuckled when I read the last paragraph.

                    And this isn't the first time Tassman has "shaved away" something when citing Craig. I remember from the old TWeb where he quoted a deceptively (and there's no question that it was in full knowledge of what he was doing) edited passage from one of the Q&A articles on reasonablefaith.org in order to try and give the impression that Craig held to a morally deplorable position regarding, if I remember correctly, either OT slavery, or the alleged OT genocides. Unfortunately I can't find the post anymore, so you'll have to take my word for it, unless some other TWebbers also remember the incident. In any case Tassman isn't worth interacting with, and you would be better of simply having him on ignore. I'd advice you to interact with shunyadragon instead. Shuny seems to be clueless about everything he pontificates upon, but atleast he's not demonstrably dishonest. Atleast I don't think he is.
                    ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                      You remember how Seer said you can have the last word? I'm not going to let you have the last word. We're going to hammer this out for years if I have to. You're a symbol of the snobbery in the scientific world.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • And this isn't the first time Tassman has "shaved away" something when citing Craig. I remember from the old TWeb where he quoted a deceptively (and there's no question that it was in full knowledge of what he was doing) edited passage from one of the Q&A articles on reasonablefaith.org in order to try and give the impression that Craig held to a morally deplorable position regarding, if I remember correctly, either OT slavery, or the alleged OT genocides.
                        Yea, I'm mostly being funny. But because Tassman is a snob (I hope he's not), he'll get all offended and accuse me of being mean. Maybe not. I hope not. It'll be more fun, if not.

                        But Tassman probably just went with what all the NEW, annoying atheists did on that Q&A. They just got all 'foaming at the mouth' on Craig saying that it must have been just as awful for the soldiers carrying out the genocide. And their knee-jerk reaction is just, 'Oh my god! Craig is siding with the soldiers!! Oh, my!' I swear. Sometimes I feel like they have the mentality of the mob. These are the guys that condemned Socrates to drink the Hemlock!

                        Unfortunately I can't find the post anymore, so you'll have to take my word for it, unless some other TWebbers also remember the incident. In any case Tassman isn't worth interacting with, and you would be better of simply having him on ignore.
                        I know, lol. I was just being funny. I'll see what he has to say; and if it's a waste, I'll just go my separate way. I can deal with snobbery for only so long. lol.

                        I'd advice you to interact with shunyadragon instead. Shuny seems to be clueless about everything he pontificates upon, but atleast he's not demonstrably dishonest. Atleast I don't think he is. [/]
                        Uh, no. lol. Shunya is the worst person I have ever talked to on this forum, and probably the most annoying person I have ever talked to on philosophy or science. Probably a really nice guy. But, yea. No. lol. I agree: I don't think he is dishonest. I think he is a sincerely deluded person that has an inflated view of his own intelligence. A text-book case of cognitive dissonance: being ignorant and unaware of it. He brushes aside entire swaths of thought with sweeping, oversimplified statements, that are about 35.78 % on topic, all through the foggy lens of sentences riddled with grammar errors. He is what I think of when I read Sartre's: Hell is other people. lol.

                        Love ya
                        Last edited by mattbballman31; 05-01-2014, 02:09 PM.
                        Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                        George Horne

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                          Yea, I'm mostly being funny. But because Tassman is a snob (I hope he's not), he'll get all offended and accuse me of being mean. Maybe not. I hope not. It'll be more fun, if not.

                          But Tassman probably just went with what all the NEW, annoying atheists did on that Q&A. They just got all 'foaming at the mouth' on Craig saying that it must have been just as awful for the soldiers carrying out the genocide. And their knee-jerk reaction is just, 'Oh my god! Craig is siding with the soldiers!! Oh, my!' I swear. Sometimes I feel like they have the mentality of the mob. These are the guys that condemned Socrates to drink the Hemlock!



                          I know, lol. I was just being funny. I'll see what he has to say; and if it's a waste, I'll just go my separate way. I can deal with snobbery for only so long. lol.



                          Uh, no. lol. Shunya is the worst person I have ever talked to on this forum, and probably the most annoying person I have ever talked to on philosophy or science. Probably a really nice guy. But, yea. No. lol. I agree: I don't think he is dishonest. I think he is a sincerely deluded person that has an inflated view of his own intelligence. A text-book case of cognitive dissonance: being ignorant and unaware of it. He brushes aside entire swaths of thought with sweeping, oversimplified statements, that are about 35.78 % on topic, all the the foggy lens of sentences riddled with grammar errors. He is what I think of when I read Sartre's: Hell is other people. lol.

                          Love ya
                          Yeah, you're right, I don't know what I was thinking when I suggested you deal with shuny instead.
                          Last edited by JonathanL; 05-01-2014, 01:54 PM. Reason: grammar fail
                          ~Formerly known as Chrawnus~

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                            I don't think he is dishonest. I think he is a sincerely deluded person that has an inflated view of his own intelligence. A text-book case of cognitive dissonance: being ignorant and unaware of it. He brushes aside entire swaths of thought with sweeping, oversimplified statements, that are about 35.78 % on topic, all through the foggy lens of sentences riddled with grammar errors. He is what I think of when I read Sartre's: Hell is other people. lol.
                            spot on.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              And why must change be observed in order for that change to be considered to have occured in time?
                              I will get back with you on this one.

                              If indeed change is occuring in the greater Cosmos, ie universes sequentially emerging, then in what sense is that different from sequential change seen by an observer. For instance the quantum fluctions themselves which are thought to be the cause of inflation are changes which take place in the Greater Cosmos. How do they occur at separate times if there is no such thing as time?
                              First, universes do not sequentially emerge. Universes emerge individually from entanglement in a Quantum vacuum world. Change begins only with the process quantum fluctuations and entanglement formation of each universe. The sequence of events leading to formation of the singularity and then the Big Bang is likely instantaneous.

                              More in the next references.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-01-2014, 06:36 PM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                                It's subtle, but it's there. Scientists get away with saying, 'Philosophy sucks. It's from a bygone age. Hurray for Science!', under the guise of its very subtlety. Here's the rough edges of my train of thought on all this.

                                1. It seems like the Universe began to exist (Craig) - Religiously neutral.

                                2. Whatever begins to exist has a cause (Craig) - Religiously neutral.

                                3. The universe has a cause (Craig) - Religiously neutral.

                                4. The cause has to be personal, timeless, spaceless, powerful, etc (Craig) - THAT'S RELIGIOUS. And THAT'S philosophical inferences from the nature of the CAUSE in 3. Nothing wrong with 'going about' this, even if you can prove 'philosophically' that the inferences are invalid.

                                5. Standard Big Bang Model backs up 2 (Craig) - Religiously neutral.

                                5. No, Hartle-Hawking Model gives proper context to Big Bang Model (Vilenkin) - Religiously neutral.

                                6. Quantum Tunneling (QT) goes against 1 (Vilenkin) - Religiously neutral.

                                7. No, Hartle-Hawking model has problems for reasons X,Y, and Z (Craig) - Religiously neutral. Craig isn't a scientist, BUT he presents X,Y, and Z. X,Y and Z may be bad reasons (We haven't gotten there yet).

                                8. No, QT has problems for reasons X, Y, and Z; and it doesn't go against 1 for reasons X, Y, and Z (Craig) Religiously neutral. And same thing: X,Y and Z may be bad reasons (We haven't gotten there yet).

                                9. So, back to QT: Maybe our universe popped into being out of 'nothing' ('n': the sense the physicist gives it) via QT (Vilenkin) - Religiously neutral. I'll also say philosophically neutral SO FAR.

                                10. But can we apply 2 to the Multi-verse/Greater Cosmos (GC)? Did it have a beginning? Did GC pop into being out of 'n' via QT? (Craig) Then, reasons X, Y, and Z are given. Nothing wrong going on at all so far.

                                11. Let's call it reason Y (you're complaint): The page 127 reference: "With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (p. 176): from "Vilenkin's Cosmic Vision: A Review Essay of Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes, by Alex Vilenkin." Barring contextual complaints, is Vilenkin talking about GC or the universe? Craig article makes it about GC. He could be wrong; I'm not sure - I don't have Vilenkin's book.

                                12. But here we are folks! Tassman: What of these comments by Vilenkin?

                                a. "If God created the world, where was He before creation?" and "How could God have made the world without any raw material?" (p. 170).

                                Yea, that’s physics alright! Not philosophy or theology at all, huh? This is PHILOSOPHY! OUTSIDE OF HIS AREA OF EXPERTISE. Great questions, don't get me wrong. And there's nothing wrong with asking them. But AS A PHYSICIST, he is outside of his area of expertise! So, do I say, 'He's not a philosopher! He's not a philosopher!'? No, I read him and take what he says seriously, and if there's reasons X, Y, and Z (Craig thinks there are) that go against his PHILOSOPHICAL reasons, then I'm not persuaded.

                                13. 'n' vs NOTHING (N) - Another quote:

                                a. "And yet, the state of 'nothing' cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus 'nothing' should be subjected to these laws" (p. 181).

                                b. Right, but if GC is finite, and there's N before GC (not 'n'), then it's either ETERNAL or it popped into being out of N, not 'n', unless 'n's' go back infinitely, right? And here's where Craig's PHILOSOPHICAL puzzles against an actual infinite become relevant. Nothing wrong going on AT ALL! 'Oh, but that's philosophy, not SCIENCE!', you'd object.

                                Well, 12a is disqualified as a good question, right? 'Oh, but it's Vilenkin!' 'Um, too bad'.

                                14. THEREFORE, Vilenkin IS doing philosophy to say that the physics doesn't support God. NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS. It's just you're saying he WASN'T. Or, that he is doing PURE physics. And he ISN’T!

                                15. Interesting questions that can be raised:

                                a. Is N a waste of time to think about it?
                                b. Is 'n' the only game in town?
                                c. Are physicists disingenuous to call 'n' nothing?: since laymen will just run with it as evidence against 1?
                                d. Can there be an infinite regress of 'n's?
                                e. If not, can Craig's philosophical puzzles be applied to GC? I don't see why not.
                                f. Can 'out of nothing, nothing comes' be used if N is a meaningful concept (I don't see why not!). Keep in mind, Craig agrees that 'n' is meaningful (actual if QT happens), but that 'n' doesn't equal N.
                                g. Do physics and philosophy interface at that point? At the point when we ask can 'n' extend back infinitely, or when we ask can GC exist eternally? They have to, it seems. If not, I'd like to see why.
                                Pretentious gobbledygook and perilously close to a Gish Gallop!

                                The matter is straightforward: Vilenkin is a physicist arguing physics. Craig is not a physicist. Craig is a philosopher who is arguing physics, a field in which he has no expertise despite his pretensions.

                                Furthermore, Craig has a declared religious agenda as encapsulated in the Talbot School of Theology Mission Statement where he’s based: "The Bible, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, a supernaturally given revelation from God Himself…The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind…..” THIS is where Craig is coming from. He begins with his conclusions (in this instance the scripturally based doctrine of creatio ex nihilo) and attempts to fit his facts to into them.

                                Cheap jab. Do you really think Craig is twisting his mustache hatching a plan to overturn physics because of his evangelistic motives, or do you think Craig is truly trying to understand the physics, has a thorough understanding of philosophical arguments he has investigated through the greater part of his life, and that he truly believes there are good reasons to think God exists based on them?

                                I mean, come on. Let's be serious. The paranoia is annoying. Yes, he is an evangelist. Again, so what? He sincerely believes what he believes. He thinks it's true. So, telling everyone, convincing everyone he can, in the most public of forums. What's wrong with this? Everything he says and writes is out for the public to read, view, and see, to be put to the test. His stuff isn't OBVIOUSLY ridiculous; and he doesn't just tow a party line.
                                Craig is an evangelist appropriating information from an area in which he has no expertise (i.e. physics) in order to sell his product

                                So I’m paranoid as well as being a snob; I must be doing better than I thought among the blustering classes.

                                Even Krauss came up to Craig after on of their debates and said something like, 'I thought you were a charlatan; but after talking with you, I see you really, sincerly believe this stuff.'
                                Ah! So Craig is a sincere charlatan. Is this what your'e saying?

                                Uh, you're the one pontificating. You're the one posing as this infallible guide to the thoughts of the gods of physics, and that we're all supposed to bow down to your interpretation of their works, because I guess you're the physics-god on this forum. I mean, you're basically putting yourself above Craig in interpreting the physics. Again, nothing wrong with that, if your interpretation is good. But, to look at this trifling example you're about to give, it's so nit-picky as to be trivial, the triviality referring to your contention that Craig is just a raving, blind, idiotic buffoon when it comes to understanding any physics. So, let's take a look, shall we?

                                So, Craig confused 'ALMOST any inflationary model' with 'any universe'. Tassman - the physics-god - cries foul! Anything Craig says on physics is now stupid. I won't be completely petulant and say I don't believe you. It's just that you haven't done the full job. You have to show (for me to be persuaded):

                                a. Quote the full sentence in the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (or link to the paper).
                                b. Show that the only sentence Craig could be referring to with his 'any universe' statement is the 'ALMOST all Inflationary Model' sentence.
                                c. Show that the 'any universe' sentence is speaking of this 'reach a boundary in the past' notion you're referring to. The 'any universe' sentence seems to be referring to something more rich than than JUST this. Craig says, 'any universe which has on average over its past history been in a state of expansion cannot be infinite in the past but must have a spacetime boundary.' So, it's not just about 'reaching a boundary in the past'; it's supplemented by 'being in a state of expansion' and how that it relates to 'reaching a boundary in the past'. Your shaving away the supplement is suspicious to me. I haven't read the 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper, so I'm forced to take your word for it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but just provide a link so I can verify.

                                Even so, this hardly disqualifies Craig to speak on physics. He is CITING an authority, even if he accidentally misinterprets. But maybe you have more examples. Let's stick with this one for now. It's just hard for me to follow your main point: that Craig is dumb in physics. Criag is CITING Vilenkin. What YOUR doing. What we ALL have to do, since Vilenkin is the expert. All Craig is doing - all of us do - is interpreting the authority. That's why Vilenkin writes books in the first place: to communicate his findings to the public.
                                At no point have I referred to Craig as: “a raving, blind, idiotic buffoon when it comes to understanding any physics”. These are your words – as are the rest of your negative and sarcastic comments in your post.

                                The full discussion regarding Craig and Vilenkin can be found here (Argument 2) and at least has input from Vilenkin himself. It concludes: Craig’s God “is clearly not the only way out of this "dilemma." Even the scientist and science he cites disagree with him about this. Instead of the solution having to be his god, as I noted above, even if created there are natural scenarios that are plausible and due to the lack of evidence for the supernatural, the naturalistic scenario is incredibly more likely.”

                                http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2...s-for-god.html

                                Rhetorical clap-trap. Your psychologizing is extremely aggravating. This is Bulvarism to the extreme.
                                Where would you lot be without CS Lewis? Lewis explains his “Bulvarism” theory as focusing the brunt of the arguments on delivering ad hominem attacks to the opposition. But the only ad hominem attacks, "in these here parts 'y'all', are yours, not mine – I’m a model of decorum.

                                Incorrect! Any claims of non-natural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences.

                                Huh? What do you mean by non-natural? Not natural? Super-natural? Define that, please.
                                YOU define it, you used it! In your #357 you said: “The INFERENCE to natural vs. supernatural explanations is philosophy”. Define what you mean by "supernatural". Personally I prefer “non-natural” in this context.

                                Either way the point remains: Any claims of non-natural/supernatural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences, NOT philosophy.

                                Hey weirdo.
                                Charming!

                                Physics hasn't reached this level yet. Physics as applied to GC is still in its infancy. Of course, PHYSICS has nothing to say on this yet. It's when people like you, who think SCIENCE IS KING, and philosophy is stupid, who think that because physics/cosmology can't say GC is likely to be finite, then philosophy can't say anything on it. You're sounding like one of those annoying science snobs. It's people like you that arrogantly want to sever an entire department from the universities: philosophy. Let's talk about the philosophical puzzles against the metaphysical possibility of an actual infinite. Yea, that's an elephant. But it's part of Kalam. We can apply it to GC. GC is a part of reality, no? If it is, and the puzzles are sound, GC couldn't have always been there, no matter what physics will say in the future, and no matter how annoying people like you get when you use the word 'nothing' in the 'n' sense, instead of N.
                                Such a confused rant!

                                Ask me how much I care. These guys aren't the God-given harbingers of truth, snob.
                                What you care about in this context is irrelevant! If you want expertise on a subject then go to the experts, not the also-rans with an agenda.

                                And the snobbery is now on stage for all to see. More general rhetoric, and more running away from getting specific. I want to talk about the puzzles I noted above, and how they're mysteriously immune from having any kind of relevant to this issue, because they're not physics.
                                Not “mysteriously immune”, merely irrelevant. The topic is physics and it’s misappropriation by the likes of Craig.

                                McFly? McFly? Hello? Snob. Philosophy CAN uncover new knowledge. You're wrong.
                                Nope it can’t. Philosophy can only base its premises upon existing knowledge, it cannot generate new truths about nature. Only science has the methodology to do that. This explains why even a great mind like Aristotle was wrong regarding nearly every conclusion he reached about the physical universe; he had insufficient knowledge of the natural world upon which to base his arguments.

                                And I'm going to show how you're wrong. You're my new project. You remember how Seer said you can have the last word? I'm not going to let you have the last word. We're going to hammer this out for years if I have to. You're a symbol of the snobbery in the scientific world.
                                Really! I’m flattered.

                                The mods seem to appreciate your abusive ad hominem style, it must be said. Personally, I find it immature.

                                Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post



                                Uh, no. lol. Shunya is the worst person I have ever talked to on this forum, and probably the most annoying person I have ever talked to on philosophy or science. Probably a really nice guy. But, yea. No. lol. I agree: I don't think he is dishonest. I think he is a sincerely deluded person that has an inflated view of his own intelligence. A text-book case of cognitive dissonance: being ignorant and unaware of it. He brushes aside entire swaths of thought with sweeping, oversimplified statements, that are about 35.78 % on topic, all through the foggy lens of sentences riddled with grammar errors. He is what I think of when I read Sartre's: Hell is other people. lol.
                                Uh, you've only made three posts in TWeb so at what point have you talked with shunyadragon "on philosophy or science" - are you sure you’re not a JPH sock-puppet?

                                Actually, I find shunya one of the most articulate and knowledgeable debaters in these forums - despite the occasional typo's - so I guess he's been effective.
                                Last edited by Tassman; 05-02-2014, 12:28 AM.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Machinist, 01-30-2021, 10:14 AM
                                141 responses
                                932 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Machinist  
                                Working...
                                X