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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
. . . 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”
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
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.
Aesthetic judgments, number four, cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven.
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.
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).
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
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”
'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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
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.
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
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.
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Jerry Fletcher: What's that?
Dr. Jonas: Gravy for the brain.
Jerry Fletcher: No! Not Gravy! Nooooooo!
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
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...
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
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!
Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Comment