He did because he was a man and nothing more. And it was his last act as a man.Quote:
Originally Posted by libernaut
Printable View
He did because he was a man and nothing more. And it was his last act as a man.Quote:
Originally Posted by libernaut
where is laidback person? its nice to talk with him.
He is long gone to rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by usman.khawar
I finished reading William Lane Craig's and Quentin Smith's Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology where Craig took the theist side and Smith the atheist side in a debate on whether the Big Bang could be used as evidence for the existence of a God.
I think Craig won the debate, but you'll have to read it for yourself.
What Craig shows, as I see it, is that the empirical evidence from science for the origin of the universe (space, time, matter, energy, quantum vacuum fluctuations, etc) 13+ billion years ago is empirical evidence for the existence of something else, outside the universe, that made a choice and that is why the universe is here today. You can call that something else God.
So my answer to the original question in this post is that no one really needs to believe in a God on a basic level. God's basic existence is made necessary by the empirical results of modern science. Belief is more appropriately applied to the various accounts of how God relates to us that individual religions provide.
A choice made outside reality? Nope, I can't think of anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I've heard Craig's arguments. I would grant Stephen Hawking's opinion a tad more weight when he states in his most recent book that God is not needed in order to explain the origin of the universe. Perhaps him and Craig should have a debate on cosmology.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Its hard to take Craig seriously when he asserts Christ's resurrection as objective historical fact and then uses that for one of his 5 main arguments for God's existence. I'm referring to his debate with Hitchens.
And in that debate he makes this grand leap from the universe being created to it being created by a personal God. He said it could only have been created from beyond time and space and that the only thing from beyond time and space which could have done it is a mind. Mind is beyond time and space now?
Most of his arguments rely on science and yet he is not a scientist. The world's most renowned cosmologist disagrees with him and yet he does not humbly defer. Something wrong there.
By the sounds of it, Craig is perhaps having an argument with himself more to the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Seems to me that there are some folks that need to start a "Why I don't believe in God" thread.
Perhaps some folks should have more faith in their fellow man.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Within the debate with Smith, Christianity does not arise. The results don't need it. All they need is that the universe had a beginning. And the results only show that something made a choice. That a choice was made is what makes it personal for Craig. As far as I'm concerned, I just need the idea of choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Although this was not directly discussed in the debate, I have no problem seeing consciousness as something generally beyond time and space. It would actually help explain near-death and shared-death experiences. If by mind you mean the brain, that would certainly be within space, but the brain is not consciousness.
It doesn't matter that Craig is not a scientist. When Hawking makes pronouncements on God's existence or not he is not acting as a scientist but as a metaphysician, which is more in Craig's field than his own. It is Hawking who should humbly defer. Hawking does come up in the debate. Smith tries to base his atheism on various pronouncements Hawking has made. I think Smith failed to make his point.
I don't have any religious affiliation that I am trying to justify with this, although I find a watered down, generic Hinduism attractive.
Hawking says in his book that the coming into being of the universe was an inevitability due to the working of physical laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I just don't like Craig. C.S. Lewis's apologetic works came off as much more persuasive to me. Craig acts like he has water-tight, bullet-proof, absolutely irrefutable arguments for God's existence. He's cocky about it and then frankly disingenuous when he claims that science supports his views when it quite simply does not. In the two hour of the debate I watched he acted more like a scientist than a philosopher, throwing around facts and figures and conclusions like he was a cosmologist and biologist rather than a theologian and philosopher.
He is lucid though. And one heck of a speaker/debater. It could be said that he "beat" Hitchens.
one point Hitchens made in the debate is that, as far as we've come scientifically, we still do not know everything. In that mystery there is room for faith, if one is so inclined.
The only room for faith is in a dunny to flush it when needs be.
If there's a God then he is a bowler of ill aim: He let loose the ball and Kerplunk! - straight into the gutter.
Foundation for a new deism?
That sounded much cleverer in my head.
I watched only the beginning of Craig's introductory comments to the Craig v. Hitchens thing on youtube (the top result of a search for that). My internet connection was acting up that night and it was already late, and so I didn't go any further. Still, after the hype about Craig, I had decided was anxious to get a dose of the debate, and ended up with just the slightest sample. It's certainly my cup of tea, though, and I'll be checking the whole thing out sometime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Craig poo-poos infinity
I have to say though, that Craig opened the debate rather weakly. He began with some unconvincing verdicts on what "infinity" and infinite time would mean to cosmology, implying it would lead to contradictions (and so there must be a creation). His arguments amount to "Hey, what is infinity minus infinity" and an appeal to conclusions reached by the famous mathematician David Hilbert, whose work is regarded as very important, but is not without criticism/rejection (even by his closest proteges). But it's enough for Craig (and I don't blame him for that), and it's handed to the audience along with assurances that (rather than being a preacher waving a Bible), he is a "professional philosopher".
The Multiverse, maybe?
Next, he (wisely) mentions the Multi-Verse theories about the origins of our universe. He is interested in pointing to the Anthropic Principle as evidence strongly suggesting a creation and creator, or at least some sort of design/plan behind existence. Looking at certain aspects of our universe, it seems "fortunate" that certain constants and laws came together so precisely--the slightest changes here or there would've made the formation of life impossible. The Multi-Verse is a popular theory among professional cosmolgists these days, and it makes the Anthropic view irrelevant. According to Multi-verse theories, conditions for life occured in our universe, as unlikely as it might seem, because it is just one of many other universes in which unfavorable conditions much more typically occur, and it's all just a matter of chance.
Craig gathers an ally
Craig attacks this notion. Rather, he latches on to some work by Roger Penrose that casts doubt on the Multiverse theory, and deploys it himself (while giving credit, of course), stating that the Multi-verse settling on the fine-tuned version of reality that we are familiar with is a lot less likely than the prospect of encountering many crazy things in this particular portion of the multi-verse. Basically, the idea that a table might suddenly appear out of nowhere is more likely than the Multiverse idea itself producing our reality, and so why aren't we seeing chairs pop up out of nowhere, or other crazy things. I might be mis-stating Penrose's position, but I'm probably as close as Craig gets, anyhow.
Multiverse proponents have their own objections to this sort of argument, if I might be so bold as to reduce Penrose's idea to the Occam's Razor objection.
Roger Penrose and cosmology
But perhaps more importantly, Roger Penrose is an atheist. (Maybe Hitchens points this out... Jeez, I might really regret posting without having watched the whole thing yet...) And, while Craig is of course free to choose what to do with whichever portion of Penrose's work he chooses, I am inclined to believe that it is at least as important to hear Penrose out on these matters, and what he thinks his work might likely imply.
Penrose believes that the universe is indeed infinite in time, with no beginning, nor an end. It isn't an ironclad conviction of his, I assume (since he is a scientist) but rather a theory that makes most sense to him. It's what he thinks is happening, but he isn't asking anyone to have "faith" in it, and he doesn't expect scripture to pile on further "reason" to believe anything. I'd have to have more explaining from him to be fully convinced of his idea (or at least more time to research it), but it is rather elegant (to begin with, certainly) if a few questions (re: knowing the fate of this universe, "bits of things to argue about") are sufficiently addressed. Frankly, I think the biggest job for him would maybe be to address them in such a way that I could understand it, but anyhow...
I'll post an excerpt from a recent interview of his. Basically, he's looking at the fact that photons have no mass, and that that means that physical dimension (I mean specifically mean "scale") means nothing in a world of photons. When we go back to the energy levels at the time of the Big Bang, the energy was greater than the equivalent mass for all of the matter, and so everything was just energy. How "big" was the "universe" at that time? Well, he's saying there wasn't a way to judge size:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...ein-quantum/13Quote:
Now, the strange idea here is that if you have nothing which has rest mass, present in the universe. If you have things like photons then they cant make a clock. And if you can't make a clock you can't measure distances either. And so you don't know how big the scale of the universe is. So the point that I am trying to make is that the universe reaches a state where all black holes evaporate away by Hawking evaporation and there is nothing left - there are bits of things to argue about here - but let's say there's nothing but photons with zero mass. They don't measure scales. Equations of Maxwell for instance are completely independent of scale - if you make them small or big it makes no difference. So I am saying that physics of that stage is insensitive to scale. And this also applies to the Big Bang because if you go back and back and back in time you will find that temperatures get greater and greater, and that means that the energy of individual particles gets greater and greater until you reach the scale at which they get even greater than the mass energy of the particle. That means the particle is effectively without mass. And everything near the Big Bang, in fact probably before the Higg's time (which the LHC is trying to explore), much earlier than that, particles are effectively without mass. If they are without mass they become insensitive to scale again. So what I am saying is that the remote future of the previous aeon will be almost indistinguishable from our Big Bang and it is simply a scale change. I will have to talk about equations in detail but the idea is that the remote future of the previous aeon will be almost indistinguishable from our big bang and then our remote future will become the big bang of the next one. There is never any collapse it just keeps going but then it loses track of how big it is - it's a funny idea but that's the idea I am trying to promote.
Here's the link, and on the next page or so of the interview he goes on to sketch out some reasons he believes this is the case (gravity is the key), but good luck understanding it precisely right away!
Anyhow, this is the guy who provides Craig with his argument against the Multi-verse (thus providing Craig with the chance to present Creation as the best option...), and we just have to decide if Penrose's thinking is the sort of thing that has merit or not, on this matter or that or both. It should be noted, I guess, that Penrose is an Atheist, but not a "positivist", and he's also in dispute over certain matters with other prominent atheists (e.g. Hawking).
Anyhow, I'm anxious to watch the rest, but I've gotten a poor initial impression of Craig just from his opening statement. (And a poor Wi-Fi connection, recently :( )
The absurdity of creationists knows no bounds.
I haven't seen the Craig v Hitchens debate, but I'll look for it.
In Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, the part about Cantor's transfinite arithmetic was relevant for two reasons: (1) Craig showed that an actual infinite cannot exist in the universe, but only a potential one, in spite of Cantor's set theory; and, (2) He argued that formally logical mathematical structures need not actually exist--logical consistency does not imply actual existence. I take that to mean that Craig is not a Platonist. This is then used to show that past time cannot be actually infinite so the universe had to have a beginning regardless of what science comes up with.
With the universe actually having a beginning based on empirical scientific evidence, one can go beyond these philosophic arguments against infinite time. The actual birth of the universe can now be dated. However, both Craig and Smith have to be careful that they describe the science justifying this correctly otherwise their opponent will jump on it. That is why they go to great pains to explain what they mean by the Big Bang and in particular the mathematical singularity using scientific evidence. If they get this evidence wrong, the other one could use that against them.
All of this science could change in the future, but based on what it is now I think it shows that the Big Bang beginning implies the existence of some other dimension where a choice was made, hence the existence of some sort of God. This forces scientists and philosophers who don't want this conclusion to scramble for an explanation that does not involve choice.
I was reading Paul Frampton's Did Time Begin? Will Time End?. He tries to argue that the Big Bang didn't happen at all. Other people will provide theories like the Multiverse which I find even more improbable than positing a God dimension, but it at least removes the all important choice which is what brings God into the picture. All of these speculations are useful because they help solidify the current theory by forcing it to provide counter-arguments and look for better empirical data.
Could be? Craig gutted Hitchens while Hitchens sweated like a pig. It really has nothing to do with who is actually right. Craig is probably the fiercest debater around right now. He could probably beat Hitchens in a debate over the contents of Hitchens's sock drawer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
For all the people who seem to be analyzing Craig's arguments presented in the debate, you need to realize those aren't Craig's complete arguments you're seeing, but rather his dumbed-down, public-friendly versions with lots of intermediate premises omitted.
There seems to me to be a leap in going from the universe having a beginning to the universe having been brought about through a choice. A big leap.
I still think the Hawking pronouncement that the universe's beginning was the inevitable result of physical laws squelches Craig's cosmological argument, but, looking past that, it seems that his assault on infinity itself undermines his own argument. If there is no infinity and the universe therefore had to have had a beginning, then, by the same logic, God Himself is not infinite and must also have had a beginning. So he is self-created? That would seem outrageously absurd.
Apply occam's razor to God and he simply disappears.
Let's see....a universe created with a purpose by an Intelligent, Powerful Creator versus something coming from nothing through billions of failed options with nothing of no intelligence driving the process. Occam's Razor seems to be pointing to the former than the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
As has been said before, God is an unnecessary hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Yes, you've said it....it just doesn't make any sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
God is just sheer nonsense that gives rise to infinite regress which a beginning in nothingness doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Gravity is a necessary hypothesis.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Besides, I don't see how chance could do anything. If it were up to chance and we started with nothing--literally nothing: no physical laws, no space, no time, no matter, no energy, no vacuum where quantum particles can pop in or out of existence--then nothing would happen. There would be no Multiverse at all, if it were up to chance. There would be nothing.
I think one would say that God is uncreated and eternal, outside any potential infinity that space or time would provide. But all one gets from this cosmology argument for the existence of God is the existence of some ground that can make a choice to say yes to the universe. For most people that is enough and they would happily label it God and let their religion fill in the details.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
No one can squelch an argument by making a pronouncement against it. An argument is squelched by showing that it doesn't make sense. So how did Hawking justify his atheism given the fact that he acknowledges that the universe had a beginning?
The ancient Greeks believed that beauty played a part in the winning of an argument. To put it simply, science has the more beautiful argument for being not a literal statement.
He said that the universe's beginning was the inevitable result of physical laws. He said that God is not needed in order to explain how the universe came to be. When a theologically oriented philosopher makes statements about cosmology that directly contradict the opinion of the world's foremost cosmologist ... doubts are raised in my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
And I honestly don't think you can have it both ways. If infinity is impossible then God cannot be infinite.
We still don't know for certain what happened yet. The experiments going on in Switzerland with the particle accelerator are going to reveal a lot more about our universe in the coming years.
In the infinite and the finite is the possibility of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
If it is just a matter of picking sides in a culture war I think Craig has the better odds of being right. At the moment, the evidence is all on his side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I don't know what this God is that is implied by the beginning of the universe. All I know is something started it outside of space and time and that involved a choice. It might be some demi-god for all I know. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it is more than a demi-god and that our consciousness is related to it somehow.
I agree that we will no doubt learn more and I'm all in favor of further experimentation and creating alternate scenarios that we could try to test. The last time I looked they hadn't found the Higgs boson so there might be some shakeup in the quantum mechanics community should they announce that it likely doesn't exist. I don't know what that would have to do with this current discussion, but a lot of our knowledge is still in flux.
What I liked about Craig's contribution is that he helped clarify some of the issues related to the question. I didn't think Smith did as good of a job with it and he seemed a bit desperate, but by participating in the discussion Smith did help Craig to clarify his position.
I don't know how you can say that all the evidence is on Craig's side when his conclusions on cosmology flatly contradict those of the world's most renowned cosmologist. I simply can't get past that.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I can't even take him seriously anyway. Arguing that Christ's resurrection can be considered objective historical fact and proof of God's existence?
It comes down to the authority of a theologian dabbling in science versus that of the world's most renowned cosmologist in addition to the overwhelming majority of the remaining cosmologists, nearly all of whom are atheists.
Its not a culture war - its science. If the science was on Craig's side then the cosmologists would be ranged alongside him as well. As it stands they are not.
I'm actually not interested in what Craig might have to say about Christianity and so far Christianity has not come up in what I have read. Nor does authority play any role in this for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
The empirical evidence that the universe had a beginning--from nothing--under 14 billion years ago is what is crucial, not someone's religious beliefs or their status in their field. An atheist faced with the Big Bang has to find an explanation for how it could have occurred by chance, not by choice. It is as simple as that. Craig, however, doesn't have to do anything but challenge any such explanation they might come up with. That is why the evidence is all on his side. Amusingly, it is evidence many atheists themselves collected and accept.
Hawking does have an alternative. As I keep saying, he can account for the universe's origin without relying on this notion of choice. I take the opinion of the world's leading cosmologist to be of greater import than that of a theologian/philosopher.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Authority is central here. On matters of medicine I would consult the doctor, not the engineer.
I think that there is something in the Bible which says in effect not to argue with a fool lest you look the fool.
It looks like we have different personalities. I don't trust authority. I don't even trust a medical doctor, although I will listen to a doctor's opinion if the need arises. There may be need for a second opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
The alternatives I'm aware of from Craig's listing are (1) the "oscillating universe", (2) the "chaotic inflationary universe" which leads to a multiverse, (3) the "vacuum fluctuation universe" and (4) the "quantum gravity universe" which I think is the one you are referring to that Hawking promotes. According to Craig, and I agree, (1), (2) and (4) all still have a universe with a beginning, and therefore need a creator God. They just move around the beginning from a Big Bang singularity to a point in a deeper past, hopefully hiding it.
(3) is the only real alternative. The claim is that there exists an eternal vacuum out of which our universe popped by chance. If that vacuum really is eternal and made no choice then our universe should have popped out long ago. Why is our universe so young? Why did the eternal vacuum wait so long?
Are there any other alternatives?
None of the four alternatives mentioned above is anything more than an opinion or speculation. None of them have any evidence like the cosmic background radiation that validates the Big Bang to support it. If any of them did, there wouldn't be four opinions. There would be only one.
To avoid choice a cosmologist needs something eternal that cannot make a choice, but which can also cause a Big Bang. Prior to the evidence for the Big Bang, a cosmologist could say the universe itself was eternal and brush the issue of beginnings aside. That is no longer possible.
I doubt anyone will argue with you about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
Personality has nothing to do with it. It comes down to whether in a scientific debate you would side with the world renowned expert or with the dilettante. Craig is first and foremost a theologian. He shouts his bias from the roof-top. It is absurd to place his scientific conclusions in the same class as Hawking`s, a man widely considered to possess one of the greatest scientific minds of all time. And you can go beyond Hawking - hardly a credible cosmologist would categorically state that the universe began by choice. My previous objections still stand(no infinite God, no mind beyond time and space) but they are not necessary to reiterate considering the plain fact that the science and scientists are against Craig on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Is it not possible that Stephen Hawking the quantum cosmologist has a better handle on cosmology than William Lain Craig the theologian/philosopher? I have a hard time even calling him a philosopher. A Christian philosopher would be more accurate. Theologian would be the most accurate. Scientific authority? I think not.
Darcy88, why are you wasting your time with the fool?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I don't think YesNo is a fool. Craig is a very persuasive individual. He's a sophist of remarkable skill. Add to this an aspect of wishful thinking and you've got the recipe for credulity.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
Why do I persist in this argument? Because Craig is emblematic of a pernicious movement that in America is attempting to have creationism taught as science in public schools. Its been rebranded as "Intelligent Design," dressed up in pseudo-scientific garb and presented to people as legitimate science.
Also, I can't stand it when people try to take the faith out of faith, when they think they can believe without making any leap. Its dishonest.
The irony is that there's nothing I'd personally like more than some compelling evidence of God's existence.