An Infinite Past?

[mattbballman31]

Before I get to another one of your ignorant posts, let me post this clarification Craig gives in his debate with Carroll, which I think passes by atheist apologists like a supersonic, light-speed laser.

First, Craig addresses what Tassman has ignorantly stated numerous times on this thread: cosmology doesn't prove God (in so many words - ). For those of you reading, expect Tass to ignore the details of what I'm saying by quoting the whole block of text and then repeating his tired claim over and over again. But for what it's worth, here goes. Craig is NOT saying the evidence of cosmology proves God's existence (let that sink in). Let's call this evidence E. Craig is saying that along with our background information (B), God's existence (G) is more probable on E/B. As Craig says, this is NOT god-of-the-gaps. E's purpose is to support a theologically/religiously neutral premise that the universe began to exist, which is a premise in Kalam, that has 'theological significance'.

Craig says:

So, to repeat, one is not employing the evidence of contemporary cosmology to prove the proposition that God exists but to support theologically neutral premises in philosophical arguments for conclusions that have theistic significance.

Craig then warns:

Too many people mistakenly equate knowledge with certainty. When they say that we do not know that the universe began to exist, what they really mean is that we are not certain that the universe began to exist. But, of course, certainty is not the relevant standard here. The question is whether (2) is more plausible in light of the evidence than its contradictory. As Professor Carroll reminds us,

And probably with a multi-verse theory in mind, or any of the other models out there (where Tass won't give any specifics, which is okay, because everyone can see how in-over-his-head he is), Craig says:

Science cannot force you to accept the beginning of the universe; you can always concoct elaborate schemes to explain away the evidence. But those schemes will not fare well in displaying the aforementioned scientific virtues.

Craig even quotes the annoying Lawrence Krauss in the 'debate' they had as saying:

I’d bet our universe had a beginning, but I am not certain of it. . . . based on the physics that I know, I’d say it is a more likely possibility.

Again, Craig reiterates in his closing remarks:

. . . I am saying that those self-contained, secular theories provide evidence for theologically neutral premises in philosophical arguments leading to a conclusion that has theistic significance—premises like “The universe began to exist”

Okay, with this in mind, let's proceed to Tass's glaringly snobbish scientism, which is on display in the first quote of his post:

Philosophy cannot ascertain new truths about nature, merely expose and reformulate the truths contained in the existing models, theories and laws of nature.

What are we to make of this strange claim, as if an alien said it? What kind of claim is this? Is this a scientific claim? Answer. THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC CLAIM.

I repeat: This is not a scientific claim. I'll get to this oblivious throat-slitting in a second. But for now, I'd like to point out why scientism is bogus, because this attitude, this obnoxious epistemological thesis, is the undergirding platform behind all of Tass's (the atheist apologist) points.

What can't science account for?
1. Moral Truths - Craig says:

Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method. You can’t show by science whether the Nazi scientists in the camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in western democracies.

2. Aesthetic Truths - Craig:

Aesthetic judgments, number four, cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven.

3. Logical/Mathematical Truths - Craig:

Logical and Mathematical Truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math, so that to try and prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

Further, in responding to this argument -

1. I know that 2+2=4.

2. We can only know truths via the scientific method.

3. 2+2=4 is not known via the scientific method.

4. Therefore, I do not know 2+2=4 (via 2-3).

5. Therefore, we can know truths apart from the scientific method (via 1, 3 analytically).

-

Randy Everist (here) is helpful:

So, why can’t we say that 2+2=4 is known through the scientific method? Simply because of two things: first, one cannot test it to find out if it is true. What if we wanted to line up two things, and then two other things, and we see we have four things? See! Not quite. For this relies on the mathematical truth it is trying to prove; that two sets of two things are equivalent to four things. This leads to the second reason: the scientific method presupposes the truths of mathematics, but it doesn’t prove them. So it’s not open to us to say that (3) is false. But if we don’t want to reject that we know 2+2=4, and if we don’t want to reject that 2+2=4 is not known through the scientific method, then the only other thing left to reject is (2), or the simple scientism. It’s just that simple!

4. Scientific Truths - The principle of induction can't be scientifically proven, yet it's assumed throughout the scientific process. Edward Feser adds:

Of its very nature, scientific investigation takes for granted such assumptions as that: there is a physical world existing independently of our minds; this world is characterized by various objective patterns and regularities; our senses are at least partially reliable sources of information about this world; there are objective laws of logic and mathematics that apply to the objective world outside our minds; our cognitive powers – of concept-formation, reasoning from premises to a conclusion, and so forth – afford us a grasp of these laws and can reliably take us from evidence derived from the senses to conclusions about the physical world; the language we use can adequately express truths about these laws and about the external world; and so on and so on.

Also Craig:

Science cannot be justified by the scientific method. Science is permeated with unprovable assumptions. For example, in the special theory of relativity. The whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points: “a” and “b.” But that strictly cannot be proven. We simply have to assume that in order for it to hold to the theory.

Craig again:

Metaphysical truths like: “There are other minds other than my own or that the external world is real, or that the past was not created five minutes ago with an appearance of age” are rational beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven.

5. Throat Slitting - I've touched on this already, but look at it more closely. What is the main thesis of scientism:

a. One can rationally accept a proposition P only if P is scientifically proven.

Can 'a' be proven scientifically? NO! Well, according to 'a', we should discard 'a'!

I'll let all this ferment.

So, once your scientism is undercut, we're wide open for philosophy to 'ascertain new truths about nature'! It doesn't just 'expose and reformulate the truths contained in the existing models, theories and laws of nature.', as shown above.

...and arrives at conclusions directly contrary to the very scientists he is quoting as the basis of his argument.

So what? Craig again:

I am saying that those self-contained, secular theories provide evidence for theologically neutral premises in philosophical arguments leading to a conclusion that has theistic significance—premises like “The universe began to exist”

Craig:

'The universe began to exist' is a religiously neutral statement which can be found in virtually any contemporary textbook on astronomy and astrophysics. It is obviously susceptible to scientific confirmation or disconfirmation on the basis of the evidence.

Craig:

So, to repeat, one is not employing the evidence of contemporary cosmology to prove the proposition that God exists but to support theologically neutral premises in philosophical arguments for conclusions that have theistic significance.

Craig:

I am simply appealing to the cosmological evidence in support of these theologically neutral premises that go to deductively imply the existence of a Creator and Designer.

If you don't see what Craig is doing, you're hopeless.

Ah, so the Kalam Cosmological argument is irrelevant. I see.

Irrelevant to Christian belief. A Christian CAN disagree with Kalam. A mechanic can prove that a Phillips screwdriver is inappropriate to a screw where you need a flat-head and still be a mechanic believing a screw needs to be removed. Even so, Craig believes that Kalam is a Phillips screwdriver appropriate to the screw.

The problem is with Craig selectively quoting just one scientist (whose conclusion he contradicts) in an attempt to justify his stated religious agenda whilst, at the same time, ignoring the many models and theorems in science that don’t suit his agenda. This is unethical and dishonest.

1. The fact that you think he quotes one scientist means you haven't read Craig at all. You've read some Q&A stuff and a debate transcript here and there without delving into his academic writings.
2. Already addressed your 'science of scientist contradicts Craig's conclusion' mantra.
3. It's not unethical and dishonest to the sufficiently informed; it's so to the atheist apologist cherry-picking a quote here and there in Q&A and debate transcripts to rhetorically manipulate the more uninformed. And if you have no malice, you're just deluded.

Also unethical and dishonest is your habit of breaking a response into one-line sound-bites (not even complete sentences) taken out of context and attempting to refute the out of context sound-bites one-by-one. Interesting that you feel the need to adopt such tactics!

Oh, good grief! Prove where/how I took something out of context. You're so rhetorically paranoid.

Really! Then explain why most religions have a creation myth and why Craig is so big on The Kalam Cosmological Argument for a first cause?

You are so clueless it's hilarious. What does this have to do with anything other than your paranoia, as an atheist apologist, about spooky agendas? Why can't we just call a spade a spade and believe he is really convinced of the Kalam argument as a philosopher, EVEN if he has a theological agenda? Why can't you attack the argument and show where it's wrong, since you have an anti-theological agenda? Great, there are agendas! Who cares! It's so boring. Talk about the arguments (I know I'm screaming into the wilderness here).

Argument from ignorance! Many scientists think they can. See below re scientific inference and predication upon existing knowledge and observation.

Whoop-de-do! Oh, the scientists have spoken. I can almost feel the goose bumps. Just more scientism. Even those philosophers of science and cosmologists I quoted ADMIT they can't because of the PHILOSOPHICAL arguments, but they're lost on you, like an anti-social nerd at a speed-dating event!

Well it does. It assumes without evidence that there is a class of being that does not have a beginning - usually assumed to be God. The problem with this is it’s ‘special pleading’. While everything in the universe is assumed to have a cause, God is free from this requirement.

Well, no it doesn't. If the Quantum Mechanics rebuttal worked, it would be settled that it's INDETERMINISTIC, when there's at least 9 other interpretations that ARE DETERMINISTIC. Deterministic means 'has a cause'.

And, the ole' special-pleading, if everything has a cause, why doesn't God, argument, is as least as old as Betrand Russell. The premise is WHATEVER BEGINS TO EXIST has cause. The fact that this argument arises in your head means you're not familiar with the Kalam literature. I think of Carl Van Loon in the movie Limitless:

And you would even think that, would only show me how unprepared you are to be on your own.

Furthermore it is based upon Classical mechanics and doesn't take into account the counter-intuitive nature of Quantum mechanics. Modern physics has discovered natural phenomena that do NOT have discernible causes, e.g. radioactive decay whereby it’s utterly impossible to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate - similarly the spontaneous generation of virtual particles which randomly appear even in complete vacuum.

Unpredictability does not equal INDETERMINISTIC. Thus, premise 1 isn't violated. I can't predict what other weird, ignorant, paranoid thing YOU'LL say, but that doesn't mean it's not determined by your deluded brain.

Oh, and is this is the same Kalam Argument you consider unimportant for Christianity?

So clueless.

Let’s look at the argument in it’s entirely rather than rely on your chopped-up version of it:

You're Jerry Fletcher in Conspiracy Theory!

Jerry Fletcher: What's that?

Dr. Jonas: Gravy for the brain.

Jerry Fletcher: No! Not Gravy! Nooooooo!

The “gaps” in science are filled in by science; the gaps in religious argumentations are ALSO filled in by science.

Argument from ignorance. Some gaps are filled by science; others by religion. Only an atheist apologist like you, with an anti-theological agenda, would think otherwise.

By acknowledging that you are in fact breaking up the quotes into sound-bites, you are admitting to taking them out of their proper context.

Jerry Fletcher:

July eighth, 1979, all the fathers of Nobel Prize winners were rounded up by United Nations military units, all right, and actually forced at gunpoint to give semen samples in little plastic jars, which are now stored below Rockefeller Center underneath the ice skating rink...

No, it means that Paul Davies doesn't have an anti-religious axe to grind even when he is agreeing with the growing majority of his fellow physicists about the universe being "just one infinitesimal component amid this vast – probably infinite – multiverse, that itself had no origin in time..."

So what? Christians can disagree about Kalam, plain and simple. Obviously, in this case, I think Craig's arguments overturn what Davies is saying. Has Davies interacted with the philosophical arguments for a universe (or multi-verse) not being past-eternal?

Oh, AND DAVIES DISAGREES WITH YOUR CONCLUSION!!!! If Craig can't use V. to prove a conclusion V. disagrees with; then YOU CAN'T USE DAVIES TO PROVE A CONCLUSION THAT DISAGREES WITH YOU!

Demanding specifics and instant comprehensive physical evidence is the wrong approach; this is not how science works. There was “no specific physical evidence” for the Higgs Boson either - even though physicists were certain it existed. But, as so often in cosmology, it was predicted and tested on the basis of multiple factors including existing knowledge, observations and inference. This is how cosmology works. It took 40 years to confirm the existence of the Higgs Boson. The same will very probably apply to Dark Matter and many other predicted cosmological entities including the multiverse.

This is the most fallacious line of reasoning I've ever read! What do you expect? Because science confirmed X, it will automatically confirm the multi-verse in the same way (!), in the same sense (!)??!! Oh, no. This is just more anti-theological prejudice from the atheist apologist with a completely unscientific FAITH that science will carry the torch of human knowledge in any which way they predict it go! I mean, listen to how dumb this sounds. Back in the day, scientists thought Newtonian physics the way to go because it confirmed this or predicted that. At some time, scientists weren't certain that Newton's physics were right. But then, they were 'proven' right. But then Einstein came along and revolutionized the physics. So, using your warped logic, we can use the progress-of-science (POS) mantra to apply to anything we want! You apply it to the multi-verse; and I'll see your bid and raise you an eventual overturning of the muti-verse theory. After all, there's no specific physical evidence of the multi-verse being wrong! This is how cosmology works. But science will progress after the multi-verse is 'confirmed'; it'll be confirmed the same way Newton's physics were confirmed. Then a muti-verse Einstein will come along and undercut all the physics that confirmed the multi-verse. I mean, you're whole line of reasoning is warped and fallacious, and predicated on the most irrational, unscientific faith I can possibly imagine.

[seer]

seer

You need to read mor of Dr. Steinhardt's work to fully understand his views on cosmology. He actually supports the possibility of a version of a cyclic cosmology for our universe, which would not be a contemporary inflation model.

Source: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf

The Cyclic Theory of the Universe

Abstract

The cyclic theory of the universe is a radical alternative to the standard big bang/inflationary scenario that offers a new approach for resolving the homogeneity, isotropy, and flatness problems and generating a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of fluctuations. The original formulation of the cyclic model was based on the picture suggested by M-theory in which the observable universe lies on a brane separated by a small gap along an extra dimension from a second brane. The cyclic model proposes that the big bang is a collision between branes that occurs at regular intervals; that each bang creates hot matter and radiation and triggers an epoch of expansion, cooling and structure formation; that there is an interbrane force responsible for drawing the branes together whose potential energy acts like dark energy when the branes are far apart; and that each cycle ends with the contraction of the extra dimension and a collision between branes – a new big bang – that initiates the next cycle. In more recent formulations, the cyclic model is realized with ordinary quantum field theory without introducing branes or extra dimensions. The key innovation common to all these models is the ekpyrotic phase, the period of ultra-slow contraction preceding the big bang. It is the ekpyrotic phase, rather than inflation, that is responsible for explaining the smoothness, flatness and large scale structure of the universe. It is also the ekpyrotic phase that generates the distinctive signatures in the spectrum of primordial gravitational waves and non-Gaussian density fluctuations that will be used to test the cyclic model in forthcoming experiments.

© Copyright Original Source

This is an example of where your selective reading of scientists gets you into trouble. Your jumping around selectively quoting Vilenkin to support an inflation universe or multiverse with a beginning, and infinite inflation, to Dr. Steinhardt, who questions the inflation models as inadequate, and proposes a possible cyclic universe that is possibly past and future infinite.

Nonsense Shuny, you did not read my link and yes Steinhardt does believe that a cyclic universe is possible (I have known that for quite a while unlike you), but that a multiverse verse makes no sense. In my link the section "Perils of Inflation" explains why the concept of a multiverse does not make sense. I did not takes anything out of context so you are fibbing again.

[seer]

The “proof is in the pudding”. There is not a shred of substantiated evidence for anything other than a material, physical universe.

And there is zero evidence that some mystical physical forces created this universe.

Even the carefully selected, out-of-context, unethically misused scientific quotes you present from physicists – first Vilenkin and now Steinhardt - to support your faith-based assumption of “therefore God…” operate on the premise of a natural explanation for the functioning of the universe(s). And very successfully too! We've come a long way from the pre-scientific pocket-sized geocentric model we had four hundred years ago.

Show me exactly Tass where I took Steinhardt out of context. Be specific please or you own me an apology.

Both the updated Cyclic model as proposed in the Steinhardt–Turok theorem and the Inflationay/Multiverse model, which is currently gaining most support, are backed by good evidence and both have their weakness and strengths. Almost certainly one or other will emerge as the established theory - namely the one which has the greatest explanatory power based upon the tested data. This is how science functions.

Your bad habit of leaping in with cherry-picked quotes from scientists, which you think discredit certain world-views and supports your own religious prejudices, is bad science and does a disservice to your own cause.

I have cherry picked nothing Tass. We were speaking of the multiverse and Steinhardt and why the multiverse is nonsensical (again read his own words). And I have known a lot longer than you or Shuny that Steinhardt supports the Cyclic Model - and that model makes more sense than the multiverse, but again there is zero physical evidence.

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Shuny, you did not read my link and yes Steinhardt does believe that a cyclic universe is possible (I have known that for quite a while unlike you), but that a multiverse verse makes no sense. In my link the section "Perils of Inflation" explains why the concept of a multiverse does not make sense. I did not takes anything out of context so you are fibbing again.

Nonsense seer. You have failed to cite Dr. Steinhardt to indicate he says the multiverse makes no sense. His article questions the inflation models, and states they need more evidence to be viable. and NOT whether they make sense or not. You go for selective misrepresentation of scientists to support a religious agenda. First you selectively cite Vilenkin to support the inflation model that has beginning, and then you selectively cite Steinhardt to support your agenda against the multiverse. Steinhardt's work questions the inflation models like the BVG, and supports a cyclic model that is possibly past and future infinite. Vilenkin supports the multiverse.

If you are not being selective concerning Steinhardt, then I assume you are supporting his possibly past and future infinite universe. The work of Steinhardt concerning his questioning inflation models and his support of the cyclic models are inseparably linked.

Which way is it seer; Vilenkin or Steinhardt?

[seer]

Nonsense seer. You have failed to cite Dr. Steinhardt to indicate he says the multiverse makes no sense.

You are being completely dishonest again Shuny, you didn't even read the Steinhardt link did you:

The islands are not all the same. The inherently random nature of quantum physics ensures that some are highly nonuniform or strongly warped. Their nonuniformity sounds like the problem of bad inflation described earlier, but the cause is different. Bad inflation occurs because the parameters controlling the shape of the potential energy curve are likely to be too large. Here nonuniformity can result from eternal inflation and random quantum fluctuations no matter what values the parameters have.To be uantitatively precise, the word “some” above should be replaced with “an infinite number of.” In an eternally inflating universe, an infinite number of islands will have properties like the ones we observe, but an infinite number will not. The true outcome of inflation was best summarized by Guth: “In an eternally inflating universe, anything that can happen will happen; in fact, it will happen an infinite number of times.”

So is our universe the exception or the rule? In an infinite collection of islands, it is hard to tell. As an analogy, suppose you have a sack containing a known finite number of quarters and pennies. If you reach in and pick a coin randomly, you can make a firm prediction about which coin you are most likely to choose. If the sack contains an infinite number of quarter and pennies, though, you cannot. To try to assess the probabilities, you sort the coins into piles. You start by putting one quarter into the pile, then one penny, then a second quarter, then a second penny, and so on. This procedure gives you the impression that there is an equal number of each denomination. But then you try a different system, first piling 10 quarters, then one penny, then 10 quarters, then another penny, and so on. Now you have the impression that there are 10 quarters for every penny.Which method of counting out the coins is right? The answer is neither. For an infinite collection of coins, there are an infinite number of ways of sorting that produce an infinite range of probabilities. So there is no legitimate way to judge which coin is more likely. By the same reasoning, there is no way to judge which kind of island is more likely in an eternally inflating universe. Now you should be disturbed. What does it mean to say that inflation makes certain predictions—that, for example, the universe is uniform or has scale-invariant fluctuations—if anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times? And if the theory does not make testable predictions, how can cosmologists claim that the theory agrees with observations, as they routinely do?

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf

If you are not being selective concerning Steinhardt, then I assume you are supporting his possibly past and future infinite universe. The work of Steinhardt concerning his questioning inflation models and his support of the cyclic models are inseparably linked.

I am not being selective Shuny, we were speaking of the inflation/multiverse model and why it probably doesn't make sense according to Steinhardt. And nothing else. Cyclic models make much more sense, but alas there is no physical evidence for those either.

So Shuny you owe me an apology for bearing false witness against me.

[Juvenal]

Before I get to another one of your ignorant posts, let me post this clarification Craig gives in his debate with Carroll, which I think passes by atheist apologists like a supersonic, light-speed laser.

First, Craig addresses what Tassman has ignorantly stated numerous times on this thread: cosmology doesn't prove God (in so many words - ). For those of you reading, expect Tass to ignore the details of what I'm saying by quoting the whole block of text and then repeating his tired claim over and over again. But for what it's worth, here goes. Craig is NOT saying the evidence of cosmology proves God's existence (let that sink in). Let's call this evidence E. Craig is saying that along with our background information (B), God's existence (G) is more probable on E/B. As Craig says, this is NOT god-of-the-gaps. E's purpose is to support a theologically/religiously neutral premise that the universe began to exist, which is a premise in Kalam, that has 'theological significance'.

Craig says:



Craig then warns:



And probably with a multi-verse theory in mind, or any of the other models out there (where Tass won't give any specifics, which is okay, because everyone can see how in-over-his-head he is), Craig says:



Craig even quotes the annoying Lawrence Krauss in the 'debate' they had as saying:



Again, Craig reiterates in his closing remarks:



Okay, with this in mind, let's proceed to Tass's glaringly snobbish scientism, which is on display in the first quote of his post:



What are we to make of this strange claim, as if an alien said it? What kind of claim is this? Is this a scientific claim? Answer. THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC CLAIM.

I repeat: This is not a scientific claim. I'll get to this oblivious throat-slitting in a second. But for now, I'd like to point out why scientism is bogus, because this attitude, this obnoxious epistemological thesis, is the undergirding platform behind all of Tass's (the atheist apologist) points.

What can't science account for?
1. Moral Truths - Craig says:
2. Aesthetic Truths - Craig:
3. Logical/Mathematical Truths - Craig:

Further, in responding to this argument -

-

Randy Everist (here) is helpful:



4. Scientific Truths - The principle of induction can't be scientifically proven, yet it's assumed throughout the scientific process. Edward Feser adds:

Also Craig:

Craig again:
5. Throat Slitting - I've touched on this already, but look at it more closely. What is the main thesis of scientism:

a. One can rationally accept a proposition P only if P is scientifically proven.

Can 'a' be proven scientifically? NO! Well, according to 'a', we should discard 'a'!

I'll let all this ferment.

So, once your scientism is undercut, we're wide open for philosophy to 'ascertain new truths about nature'! It doesn't just 'expose and reformulate the truths contained in the existing models, theories and laws of nature.', as shown above.




So what? Craig again:

Craig:

Craig:

Craig:

If you don't see what Craig is doing, you're hopeless.




Irrelevant to Christian belief. A Christian CAN disagree with Kalam. A mechanic can prove that a Phillips screwdriver is inappropriate to a screw where you need a flat-head and still be a mechanic believing a screw needs to be removed. Even so, Craig believes that Kalam is a Phillips screwdriver appropriate to the screw.



1. The fact that you think he quotes one scientist means you haven't read Craig at all. You've read some Q&A stuff and a debate transcript here and there without delving into his academic writings.
2. Already addressed your 'science of scientist contradicts Craig's conclusion' mantra.
3. It's not unethical and dishonest to the sufficiently informed; it's so to the atheist apologist cherry-picking a quote here and there in Q&A and debate transcripts to rhetorically manipulate the more uninformed. And if you have no malice, you're just deluded.



Oh, good grief! Prove where/how I took something out of context. You're so rhetorically paranoid.



You are so clueless it's hilarious. What does this have to do with anything other than your paranoia, as an atheist apologist, about spooky agendas? Why can't we just call a spade a spade and believe he is really convinced of the Kalam argument as a philosopher, EVEN if he has a theological agenda? Why can't you attack the argument and show where it's wrong, since you have an anti-theological agenda? Great, there are agendas! Who cares! It's so boring. Talk about the arguments (I know I'm screaming into the wilderness here).





Whoop-de-do! Oh, the scientists have spoken. I can almost feel the goose bumps. Just more scientism. Even those philosophers of science and cosmologists I quoted ADMIT they can't because of the PHILOSOPHICAL arguments, but they're lost on you, like an anti-social nerd at a speed-dating event!



Well, no it doesn't. If the Quantum Mechanics rebuttal worked, it would be settled that it's INDETERMINISTIC, when there's at least 9 other interpretations that ARE DETERMINISTIC. Deterministic means 'has a cause'.

And, the ole' special-pleading, if everything has a cause, why doesn't God, argument, is as least as old as Betrand Russell. The premise is WHATEVER BEGINS TO EXIST has cause. The fact that this argument arises in your head means you're not familiar with the Kalam literature. I think of Carl Van Loon in the movie Limitless:



Unpredictability does not equal INDETERMINISTIC. Thus, premise 1 isn't violated. I can't predict what other weird, ignorant, paranoid thing YOU'LL say, but that doesn't mean it's not determined by your deluded brain.



So clueless.




You're Jerry Fletcher in Conspiracy Theory!

Jerry Fletcher: What's that?

Dr. Jonas: Gravy for the brain.

Jerry Fletcher: No! Not Gravy! Nooooooo!




Argument from ignorance. Some gaps are filled by science; others by religion. Only an atheist apologist like you, with an anti-theological agenda, would think otherwise.



Jerry Fletcher:



So what? Christians can disagree about Kalam, plain and simple. Obviously, in this case, I think Craig's arguments overturn what Davies is saying. Has Davies interacted with the philosophical arguments for a universe (or multi-verse) not being past-eternal?

Oh, AND DAVIES DISAGREES WITH YOUR CONCLUSION!!!! If Craig can't use V. to prove a conclusion V. disagrees with; then YOU CAN'T USE DAVIES TO PROVE A CONCLUSION THAT DISAGREES WITH YOU!



This is the most fallacious line of reasoning I've ever read! What do you expect? Because science confirmed X, it will automatically confirm the multi-verse in the same way (!), in the same sense (!)??!! Oh, no. This is just more anti-theological prejudice from the atheist apologist with a completely unscientific FAITH that science will carry the torch of human knowledge in any which way they predict it go! I mean, listen to how dumb this sounds. Back in the day, scientists thought Newtonian physics the way to go because it confirmed this or predicted that. At some time, scientists weren't certain that Newton's physics were right. But then, they were 'proven' right. But then Einstein came along and revolutionized the physics. So, using your warped logic, we can use the progress-of-science (POS) mantra to apply to anything we want! You apply it to the multi-verse; and I'll see your bid and raise you an eventual overturning of the muti-verse theory. After all, there's no specific physical evidence of the multi-verse being wrong! This is how cosmology works. But science will progress after the multi-verse is 'confirmed'; it'll be confirmed the same way Newton's physics were confirmed. Then a muti-verse Einstein will come along and undercut all the physics that confirmed the multi-verse. I mean, you're whole line of reasoning is warped and fallacious, and predicated on the most irrational, unscientific faith I can possibly imagine.

Dude.

That's so unreadable. It's grating. And it's long. And filled with smileys. And starts out with an insult. And ends with a rant.

Why not chill out?

As ever, Jesse

[mattbballman31]

Dude.

Yes? Is this Bill or Ted?

That's so unreadable.

Okay . . . But as a Lao Tzu once said: "The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."

It's grating.

Can't help you there . . .

And it's long. And filled with smileys.

Length is due to the nature of the issue . . . . can't help you there either.

I love the emoticons! Can't help you there either.

And starts out with an insult. And ends with a rant.

But it has the nice, creamy filling of satiric dialectic!

Why not chill out?

Um, I'm fine, dude.

Sincerely yours,
mattbballman31

[Jedidiah]

Yes? Is this Bill or Ted?



Okay . . . But as a Lao Tzu once said: "The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."



Can't help you there . . .




Length is due to the nature of the issue . . . . can't help you there either.

I love the emoticons! Can't help you there either.


But it has the nice, creamy filling of satiric dialectic!



Um, I'm fine, dude.

[shunyadragon]

You are being completely dishonest again Shuny, you didn't even read the Steinhardt link did you:



http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf





I am not being selective Shuny, we were speaking of the inflation/multiverse model and why it probably doesn't make sense according to Steinhardt. And nothing else. Cyclic models make much more sense, but alas there is no physical evidence for those either.

So Shuny you owe me an apology for bearing false witness against me.

so seer you owe me and science an apology for bearing false witness against me and science. You do not believe in any of it, so what is the point of your dishonesty of selective Enron bookkeeping of scientific sources to justify a religious agenda..

[Tassman]

Before I get to another one of your ignorant posts, let me post this clarification Craig gives in his debate with Carroll, which I think passes by atheist apologists like a supersonic, light-speed laser.

First, Craig addresses what Tassman has ignorantly stated numerous times on this thread: cosmology doesn't prove God (in so many words - ). For those of you reading, expect Tass to ignore the details of what I'm saying by quoting the whole block of text and then repeating his tired claim over and over again. But for what it's worth, here goes. Craig is NOT saying the evidence of cosmology proves God's existence (let that sink in). Let's call this evidence E. Craig is saying that along with our background information (B), God's existence (G) is more probable on E/B. As Craig says, this is NOT god-of-the-gaps. E's purpose is to support a theologically/religiously neutral premise that the universe began to exist, which is a premise in Kalam, that has 'theological significance'.

Craig says:



Craig then warns:



And probably with a multi-verse theory in mind, or any of the other models out there (where Tass won't give any specifics, which is okay, because everyone can see how in-over-his-head he is), Craig says:



Craig even quotes the annoying Lawrence Krauss in the 'debate' they had as saying:



Again, Craig reiterates in his closing remarks:

Okay, with this in mind, let's proceed to Tass's glaringly snobbish scientism, which is on display in the first quote of his post:

What are we to make of this strange claim, as if an alien said it? What kind of claim is this? Is this a scientific claim? Answer. THIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC CLAIM.

I repeat: This is not a scientific claim. I'll get to this oblivious throat-slitting in a second. But for now, I'd like to point out why scientism is bogus, because this attitude, this obnoxious epistemological thesis, is the undergirding platform behind all of Tass's (the atheist apologist) points.

What can't science account for?
1. Moral Truths - Craig says:
2. Aesthetic Truths - Craig:
3. Logical/Mathematical Truths - Craig:

Further, in responding to this argument -

-

Randy Everist (here) is helpful:



4. Scientific Truths - The principle of induction can't be scientifically proven, yet it's assumed throughout the scientific process. Edward Feser adds:

Also Craig:

Craig again:
5. Throat Slitting - I've touched on this already, but look at it more closely. What is the main thesis of scientism:

a. One can rationally accept a proposition P only if P is scientifically proven.

Can 'a' be proven scientifically? NO! Well, according to 'a', we should discard 'a'!

I'll let all this ferment.

So, once your scientism is undercut, we're wide open for philosophy to 'ascertain new truths about nature'! It doesn't just 'expose and reformulate the truths contained in the existing models, theories and laws of nature.', as shown above

So what? Craig again:

Craig:

Craig:

Craig:

"I am simply appealing to the cosmological evidence in support of these theologically neutral premises that go to deductively imply the existence of a Creator and Designer".

If you don't see what Craig is doing, you're hopeless.

What Craig is doing is unethically claiming cosmological evidence (an area where he has no expertise) to deduce the existence of a Creator/Designer by arguing that, according to the BGV Theorem, inflationary models cannot go infinitely into the past and therefore nor describe the boundary condition. Well yes. But this does not mean that God can be invoked at this point as Craig seems to be implying, but because at the Planck phase when Quantum Physics takes over.

Quantum physics, according to the common interpretation, is a-causal. One cannot combine the causal physics of Classical mechanics with the a-causal properties of Quantum mechanics. The most one can say about the BGV Inflationary model, according to Carol is that it is past-incomplete and requires different physics to describe the boundary condition.

It certainly does not deductively imply (to quote Craig): "therefore God..."

Irrelevant to Christian belief. A Christian CAN disagree with Kalam. A mechanic can prove that a Phillips screwdriver is inappropriate to a screw where you need a flat-head and still be a mechanic believing a screw needs to be removed. Even so, Craig believes that Kalam is a Phillips screwdriver appropriate to the screw.

See above.

1. The fact that you think he quotes one scientist means you haven't read Craig at all. You've read some Q&A stuff and a debate transcript here and there without delving into his academic writings.
2. Already addressed your 'science of scientist contradicts Craig's conclusion' mantra.
3. It's not unethical and dishonest to the sufficiently informed; it's so to the atheist apologist cherry-picking a quote here and there in Q&A and debate transcripts to rhetorically manipulate the more uninformed. And if you have no malice, you're just deluded.

In the context of the current discussion Craig is appealing exclusively to Vilenkin and the BGV inflationary model. As well he directly refers to Vilenkin in many of his debates to support one his major arguments for the existence of God.

Oh, good grief! Prove where/how I took something out of context. You're so rhetorically paranoid.

Not paranoid! It is unethical and dishonest to break the responses of a protagonist into one-line sound-bites which are then taken out of context with an attempt to refute them one-by-one. Interesting that you feel the need to adopt such sleazy tactics!

You are so clueless it's hilarious. What does this have to do with anything other than your paranoia, as an atheist apologist, about spooky agendas? Why can't we just call a spade a spade and believe he is really convinced of the Kalam argument as a philosopher, EVEN if he has a theological agenda? Why can't you attack the argument and show where it's wrong, since you have an anti-theological agenda? Great, there are agendas! Who cares! It's so boring. Talk about the arguments (I know I'm screaming into the wilderness here).

See above re Craig and Vilenkin.

Whoop-de-do! Oh, the scientists have spoken. I can almost feel the goose bumps. Just more scientism. Even those philosophers of science and cosmologists I quoted ADMIT they can't because of the PHILOSOPHICAL arguments, but they're lost on you, like an anti-social nerd at a speed-dating event!

See above re the a-causal physics of the Planck epoch.

Well, no it doesn't. If the Quantum Mechanics rebuttal worked, it would be settled that it's INDETERMINISTIC, when there's at least 9 other interpretations that ARE DETERMINISTIC. Deterministic means 'has a cause'.

And, the ole' special-pleading, if everything has a cause, why doesn't God, argument, is as least as old as Betrand Russell. The premise is WHATEVER BEGINS TO EXIST has cause. The fact that this argument arises in your head means you're not familiar with the Kalam literature. I think of Carl Van Loon in the movie Limitless:

Unpredictability does not equal INDETERMINISTIC. Thus, premise 1 isn't violated. I can't predict what other weird, ignorant, paranoid thing YOU'LL say, but that doesn't mean it's not determined by your deluded brain.

See above.

So clueless.

Abusive ad Hominem fallacy!

You're Jerry Fletcher in Conspiracy Theory!

Jerry Fletcher: What's that?

Dr. Jonas: Gravy for the brain.

Jerry Fletcher: No! Not Gravy! Nooooooo!

Appeal to Ridicule fallacy

Argument from ignorance. Some gaps are filled by science; others by religion. Only an atheist apologist like you, with an anti-theological agenda, would think otherwise.

Nonsense! No gaps in science have ever been filled in by religion. Never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing mystical explanation. "Holy cow, Dr. Pasteur! I've examined the pancreas of a diabetic dog, and darned if it's NOT an insulin deficiency after all, but a little evil goblin dwelling inside and he seems really pissed off!"

Jerry Fletcher:



So what? Christians can disagree about Kalam, plain and simple. Obviously, in this case, I think Craig's arguments overturn what Davies is saying. Has Davies interacted with the philosophical arguments for a universe (or multi-verse) not being past-eternal?

So you think the arguments of a philosopher overturn the arguments of qualified physicists in a discussion about cosmology. Come now. Craig criticizes atheists for purportedly speaking beyond their areas of expertise, and yet here he is, a philosopher/theologian/apologist, presuming to lecture an eminent physicist on what constitutes a tenable theory of cosmology.

Oh, AND DAVIES DISAGREES WITH YOUR CONCLUSION!!!! If Craig can't use V. to prove a conclusion V. disagrees with; then YOU CAN'T USE DAVIES TO PROVE A CONCLUSION THAT DISAGREES WITH YOU!

Prof. Paul Davies, Templeton Prize Laureate.

This is the most fallacious line of reasoning I've ever read! What do you expect? Because science confirmed X, it will automatically confirm the multi-verse in the same way (!), in the same sense (!)??!! Oh, no. This is just more anti-theological prejudice from the atheist apologist with a completely unscientific FAITH that science will carry the torch of human knowledge in any which way they predict it go! I mean, listen to how dumb this sounds. Back in the day, scientists thought Newtonian physics the way to go because it confirmed this or predicted that. At some time, scientists weren't certain that Newton's physics were right. But then, they were 'proven' right. But then Einstein came along and revolutionized the physics. So, using your warped logic, we can use the progress-of-science (POS) mantra to apply to anything we want! You apply it to the multi-verse; and I'll see your bid and raise you an eventual overturning of the muti-verse theory. After all, there's no specific physical evidence of the multi-verse being wrong! This is how cosmology works. But science will progress after the multi-verse is 'confirmed'; it'll be confirmed the same way Newton's physics were confirmed. Then a muti-verse Einstein will come along and undercut all the physics that confirmed the multi-verse. I mean, you're whole line of reasoning is warped and fallacious, and predicated on the most irrational, unscientific faith I can possibly imagine.

and their supporters to cling to their irrational belief in supernatural causality. Ahem!

[Tassman]

And there is zero evidence that some mystical physical forces created this universe.



Show me exactly Tass where I took Steinhardt out of context. Be specific please or you own me an apology.





I have cherry picked nothing Tass. We were speaking of the multiverse and Steinhardt and why the multiverse is nonsensical (again read his own words). And I have known a lot longer than you or Shuny that Steinhardt supports the Cyclic Model - and that model makes more sense than the multiverse, but again there is zero physical evidence.

If you don't think that physical forces are solely responsible for the existence and functioning of the universe why do you try and support your views by citing physicists such as Vilenkin and Steinhardt who do? Their research is firmly grounded on the premise of a purely natural, material, physical universe. Who are you to second guess such eminent physicists?

[seer]

so seer you owe me and science an apology for bearing false witness against me and science. You do not believe in any of it, so what is the point of your dishonesty of selective Enron bookkeeping of scientific sources to justify a religious agenda..

Own up to your mistake Shuny, be a man and apologize. You were wrong, I did not take Steinhardt out of context. And I do not owe science an apology because what I have been saying is absolutely true - there is no physical evidence for a multiverse.

[seer]

If you don't think that physical forces are solely responsible for the existence and functioning of the universe why do you try and support your views by citing physicists such as Vilenkin and Steinhardt who do? Their research is firmly grounded on the premise of a purely natural, material, physical universe. Who are you to second guess such eminent physicists?

Tass, a scientist, especially an atheist, is going to believe that there was a physical cause for the universe. That is their bias. The point is there is no physical evidence for such a cause. And the other point is that you too owe me an apology for accusing me of taking Steinhardt out of context concerning the multiverse. I did not.

[shunyadragon]

Own up to your mistake Shuny, be a man and apologize. You were wrong, I did not take Steinhardt out of context. And I do not owe science an apology because what I have been saying is absolutely true - there is no physical evidence for a multiverse.

seer, own up to your acrid vindictive misuse of science for a religious agenda. Dr. Steinhardt considered the evidence for inflation models inadequate and needed more research, and he proposes a cyclic model of the cosmos. He does not say at any point that inflation models do not make sense, nor does he say there is no evidence for these models and theorems, that is seer's dishonest editorial nonsenses.

Your agenda becomes obvious with your statement - 'there is no physical evidence for a multiverse.' Honest 'Methodological Naturalism' should not have a religious agenda either theist nor atheist.

Again you selectively cite Dr. Steinhardt to promote your religious agenda. Do you likewise believe there is evidence for Steinhardt's cyclic possibly past/future infinite universe, which is a part of his same argument against inflation models like Vilenkin's?

[seer]

seer, own up to your acrid vindictive misuse of science for a religious agenda. Dr. Steinhardt considered the evidence for inflation models inadequate and needed more research, and he proposes a cyclic model of the cosmos. He does not say at any point that inflation models do not make sense, nor does he say there is no evidence for these models and theorems, that is seer's dishonest editorial nonsenses.

Shuny either you are stupid, and can't understand the paper and quote from Steinhardt, or you are being dishonest. He certainly does say that a multiverse with an infinite number of bubble universes does not make sense. There would be no way to predict any specific kind of universe like ours. The fact is Shuny you lied about me, I never took Steinhardt out of context and it is there for all to read.

Your agenda becomes obvious with your statement - 'there is no physical evidence for a multiverse.' Honest 'Methodological Naturalism' should not have a religious agenda either theist nor atheist.

How is stating the fact that there is no physical evidence for a multiverse bias on my part?

Again you selectively cite Dr. Steinhardt to promote your religious agenda. Do you likewise believe there is evidence for Steinhardt's cyclic possibly past/future infinite universe, which is a part of his same argument against inflation models like Vilenkin's?

What agenda did I put forward here Shuny? Where? I quoted Steinhardt to show why a multiverse does not make sense, nor could you make predictions. Steinhardt favors the cyclic model - and? There is still no physical evidence for that either.