|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Sept 1, 2013 9:28:48 GMT 5
The last problem I have with this whole argument is that it commits the God of Gaps fallacy.
Quite frankly while I have watched a lot of William Lane Craig's debates, and I am surprised that no one has really brought this issue up yet.
After WLC concludes that the universe does have a cause, he makes a mind-blowing leap of faith that this cause must be a personal creator.
Now ask yourself this; is there any good evidence that:
1. A mind can exist outside of a human body?
2. A spiritual entity can effect space and time?
3. An unembodied being can transcend space and time?
4. This being can be powerful enough to create an entire universe?
The answers to each and every one of those questions is no. There's absolutely no evidence nor basis to believe that the cause of the universe could have been a personal creator, other than typical God of the gaps reasoning.
Therefore, how does the "unembodied mind" not commit the God of gaps fallacy?
God of Gaps, defined by Wikipedia:
"God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence."
To give you an example;
Centuries ago, there were the Vikings. They did not understand the nature of weather, such as thunder and lightning. Because they could not come up with any better explanation, they filled in the gaps of knowledge, and created a God of Thunder, Thor, who is their "cause" of Thunder.
Today, there are Christians (and other theists). They do not understand the nature of the universe, and how it all came to exist. Because they cannot come up with any better explanation, they fill up the gaps of knowledge, and create an almighty and omnipotent God, Christ, who is their "cause" of the universe.
The comparison is parallel.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 1, 2013 14:11:41 GMT 5
Craigs counterargument is that we have no evidence that space is not discrete. A good counter argument for that would be: We have no evidence against an un-embodied mind either. Then challenge him to play with the burden of proof fallacy.  He made the claim, so the burden of proof rests with him. |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Sept 1, 2013 14:28:31 GMT 5
Craigs counterargument is that we have no evidence that space is not discrete. A good counter argument for that would be: We have no evidence against an un-embodied mind either. Then challenge him to play with the burden of proof fallacy. But he is submitig his argument as evidence in the very moment (poorly thought through handwaving shit that it is). |
|
|
|
Post by Vodmeister on Sept 2, 2013 7:50:17 GMT 5
Check this video out;
This guy totally destroys Craig and his arguments, he went into everything from definitions, to philosophy, and to science and logic, to prove that Craig's KLA is just a matter of biased circular reasoning.
The video is educational and easy to follow, I recommend anyone interested theology, philosophy, or science to check it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Sept 6, 2013 2:38:00 GMT 5
God is everything & nothing like Sithis. Problem solved  (this is an inside joke) |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Sept 6, 2013 3:04:39 GMT 5
On a serious note I find the bashing of god kinda stupid be it in it's favor or not for 3 reasons. I shall first give an overview.
1. Humans when we create logic put them in categories. You discover a four legged creature, you put it in the category "Animal." Therefore if I blatantly say "This creature is not an animal" then it is false because humans have universally decided that a four legged creature is under the term "animal". I believe this same principle works with Religion as well. We as humans have put all beliefs and faiths under the term religion. Therefore those that disagree are called "atheist" or something similar because they demand proof of the object in question and that it matches their "definition" as well as their peers which in turn, are humans as well.
2. Humans as a species are hypocritical & un open to change, we believe in stuff we have experienced "proof" of, while ignoring 9/10 the anecdotal reports of the "unnatural." Example? No one gave a crap about pluto until they one day said "Pluto is not a planet." After that statement, people line the streets with "keep Pluto a planet" banners despite the fact Pluto never crossed their minds before that change. Pluto was put under the term "Planet." When one day they decide to pull Pluto out of that classification, an uprising happens. It's like me walking into a mega millions animal station and saying "Wild dogs & bush dogs are not canines because they have trenchant heel." An uprising worldwide will happen should scientists agree. Humans do not like change. We constantly complain about how something is true or not, yet when the reverse happens everyone gets pissed.
3. The lack of natural proof of existence for or against something - Humans can talk and communicate above amd beyond average. Therefore we take our thinking as law. If a scientist finds a new species and names it "my B****". We as humans accept it as a fact that unknown animal is "my B****." Despite it in reality, having no natural name before humans discovered it. It was just a random creature being described using the humans definition of words & colors etc. We accept our word as law because it fits our created logic. What was the name of tyrannosaurus 65 million years ago? What was the name of earth doing it's initial creation? Better yet, what was the name or definition of anything before humans came into existence?
My point - We as humans live in a society molded by us. What we say is law in our eyes.The very first people that supposedly saw jesus put all that under the term and definition of Religion. Atheist are those that oppose that term. But ask yourself this, when the universe was created did the term "Religion" have any thing to do with it? No. Because that term or better yet the word for that term (if you want to talk techy) didn't exist. Neither did the term "God". It's all simply stuff created by humans for communication. Just because atheist call the term "Religion" false from lack thereof proof does not make their case law because humans weren't even thought about at the creation of time & space. Nor was Religion as we believe or anything else humans created. Just because we don't believe something does not deny the fact that a higher power may exist. Would it be different if the term god were to be put under the category "food"? Therefore I find religious debates for or against gods a complete waste of humans limited time living. We are not arguing reality. We are arguing the reality we as a species created. The term "everything is an illusion" has merit. Especially here. Hell this whole post is an illusion to the humans illusion because the words describing this post didn't exist a million years ago.
You guys are wasting your time. At least, in my view through our illusionary lifestyle you are.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Sept 6, 2013 5:26:43 GMT 5
On a serious note I find the bashing of god kinda stupid be it in it's favor or not for 3 reasons. I shall first give an overview. 1. Humans when we create logic put them in categories. You discover a four legged creature, you put it in the category "Animal." Therefore if I blatantly say "This creature is not an animal" then it is false because humans have universally decided that a four legged creature is under the term "animal". I believe this same principle works with Religion as well. We as humans have put all beliefs and faiths under the term religion. Therefore those that disagree are called "atheist" or something similar because they demand proof of the object in question and that it matches their "definition" as well as their peers which in turn, are humans as well. Hm, the definition of Religion as totality of beliefs of a person seems nconsistent with actual word usage. A more precise defiition would be along the line: Religion: A set of traditions and practices that are set out to connect the person to a transcendent reality, which t the person is ontologically fundamental. I disagree that atheist demand proof. I am an atheist and I do not demand proof because I am quite certain that the traditional definitions of god are incoherent and belief in such a entity is about as meaningful as beliefs about the color of an individual iron atom. Aint no light that small. Your example seems not to be an example for the thesis as the question about Pluto's classification is not an evidential one. In general people demand proof of uncertain assumptions, because they have learned that unquestionably accepting them leads to massive self delusions. I myself am a Baysian and my views on the matter are more complicated and hard to outlie in a single forum post. To readers interested I recommend two sources: "Probability theory and the logic of science" - probably hard An intuitive exlanation of Bayes theorem: yudkowsky.net/rational/bayesYour argument seems to be a complete non sequitur. Afaik the origin of the universe and the lack of language back then and the veracity of religions are very seperate questions. I profoundly disagree. If an entity like Yaweh exists it would have wide reaching consequences about almost all fields of academis (euroscientists, cosmologists, historians, medicine etc) and there would be a number of immediate questions regarding my own behavir, as well as updates in my beliefs of the consequences of actions such as: Are moral laws divine? How am I to behave to not be tortured forever i a sea of fire? If my soul is immortal, does that mean that my death is without major consequence? Especially the last one is quite interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Sept 6, 2013 5:46:44 GMT 5
On a serious note I find the bashing of god kinda stupid be it in it's favor or not for 3 reasons. I shall first give an overview. 1. Humans when we create logic put them in categories. You discover a four legged creature, you put it in the category "Animal." Therefore if I blatantly say "This creature is not an animal" then it is false because humans have universally decided that a four legged creature is under the term "animal". I believe this same principle works with Religion as well. We as humans have put all beliefs and faiths under the term religion. Therefore those that disagree are called "atheist" or something similar because they demand proof of the object in question and that it matches their "definition" as well as their peers which in turn, are humans as well. Hm, the definition of Religion as totality of beliefs of a person seems nconsistent with actual word usage. A more precise defiition would be along the line: Religion: A set of traditions and practices that are set out to connect the person to a transcendent reality, which t the person is ontologically fundamental. I disagree that atheist demand proof. I am an atheist and I do not demand proof because I am quite certain that the traditional definitions of god are incoherent and belief in such a entity is about as meaningful as beliefs about the color of an individual iron atom. Aint no light that small. Your example seems not to be an example for the thesis as the question about Pluto's classification is not an evidential one. In general people demand proof of uncertain assumptions, because they have learned that unquestionably accepting them leads to massive self delusions. I myself am a Baysian and my views on the matter are more complicated and hard to outlie in a single forum post. To readers interested I recommend two sources: "Probability theory and the logic of science" - probably hard An intuitive exlanation of Bayes theorem: yudkowsky.net/rational/bayesYour argument seems to be a complete non sequitur. Afaik the origin of the universe and the lack of language back then and the veracity of religions are very seperate questions. I profoundly disagree. If an entity like Yaweh exists it would have wide reaching consequences about almost all fields of academis (euroscientists, cosmologists, historians, medicine etc) and there would be a number of immediate questions regarding my own behavir, as well as updates in my beliefs of the consequences of actions such as: Are moral laws divine? How am I to behave to not be tortured forever i a sea of fire? If my soul is immortal, does that mean that my death is without major consequence? Especially the last one is quite interesting. Coherent. For the record I don't care whether we have a soul or not. Matter of fact I don't even know what a soul is or if I should believe it or not. I guess you could say I'm neutral on this religion debate . My point points to illusion and the unknown. During the creation of the universe, religion, words emotions and everything we humans have created through "communication" didn't exist. I don't believe in a "God" because the term god did not exist during the beginning of all things. Neither did the term "atheist". I understand physics like fusion and stuff always existed. What I'm saying is humans have created through communication "words to identify" what they can and cannot see. I find it a waste of time. Seriously do you really give a damn the guy next to you believes in a "God".? Or are you really just trying to force your view of the term on him? I don't give a damn if your an atheist, Christian or whatever. I don't mind it cause it is not bothering my life. People that argue over beliefs show they really have nothing better to do at the moment. The society we created didn't exist at the beginning. So why are we arguing what we don't know anything about? It's like me telling you that air is everywhere and you asking me to show the air to you. Just my two cents. Just like this debate... whether you agree from here on out is your business not mine. I normally only debate for entertainment.... hell just typing this opened my eyes that all my debates so far are illusions. But I'm done here unless I take interest again. |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Sept 6, 2013 6:00:02 GMT 5
My point points to illusion and the unknown. During the creation of the universe, religion, words emotions and everything we humans have created through "communication" didn't exist. I don't believe in a "God" because the term god did not exist during the beginning of all things. Neither did the term "atheist". I understand physics like fusion and stuff always existed. What I'm saying is humans have created through communication "words to identify" what they can and cannot see. I find it a waste of time. Seriously do you really give a damn the guy next to you believes in a "God".? Or are you really just trying to force your view of the term on him? I really care if people believe nonsense. I think the belief in certain entites has been actively detrimental. For example if you believe in the doctrine of eternal jihad, you might blow yourself up. And in the end I think that people with different beliefs about this topic are just wrong - and I am a person who cares about truth. The thing is, I know with reasonable certainty that the major world religions are nonsense. I am not arguing abut something I know nothig about. |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Sept 6, 2013 6:07:08 GMT 5
My point points to illusion and the unknown. During the creation of the universe, religion, words emotions and everything we humans have created through "communication" didn't exist. I don't believe in a "God" because the term god did not exist during the beginning of all things. Neither did the term "atheist". I understand physics like fusion and stuff always existed. What I'm saying is humans have created through communication "words to identify" what they can and cannot see. I find it a waste of time. Seriously do you really give a damn the guy next to you believes in a "God".? Or are you really just trying to force your view of the term on him? I really care if people believe nonsense. I think the belief in certain entites has been actively detrimental. For example if you believe in the doctrine of eternal jihad, you might blow yourself up. And in the end I think that people with different beliefs about this topic are just wrong - and I am a person who cares about truth. The thing is, I know with reasonable certainty that the major world religions are nonsense. I am not arguing abut something I know nothig about. I understand your stance much better now. I guess it comes down to how you view it. I unlike you wouldn't care if someone blows themselves up in the name of a god. Let that illusion of god carry them to death. However, you said you know with "reasonable certainty" religion is nonsensical. It sounds to me you yourself aren't even 100% confident in your stance. |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Sept 6, 2013 6:18:27 GMT 5
I really care if people believe nonsense. I think the belief in certain entites has been actively detrimental. For example if you believe in the doctrine of eternal jihad, you might blow yourself up. And in the end I think that people with different beliefs about this topic are just wrong - and I am a person who cares about truth. The thing is, I know with reasonable certainty that the major world religions are nonsense. I am not arguing abut something I know nothig about. I understand your stance much better now. I guess it comes down to how you view it. I unlike you wouldn't care if someone blows themselves up in the name of a god. Let that illusion of god carry them to death. However, you said you know with "reasonable certainty" religion is nonsensical. It sounds to me you yourself aren't even 100% confident in your stance. I am not 100% confident about any stance. Example 1: I assig an incredibly small probability to the proposition: 2+2 is not 4 It could be that I misremembered and miscalculated it every time and typed false numbers in the calculator every time etcetera. But the probability of this being true is vanishingly small, less than 1 in a million. Example 2: I assign a very small probability that the specimen FMNH PR 2081 ("Sue") weighed less than 2 tonnes. less than 1% given the size of the remains. But it could still be that our restorations are massively flawed and that density was much lower than believed before. My stance about the gods of classic monotheism is in between the two examples. I think they are less likely than the propostion about Sue, but more likely than "2+2 is not 4" |
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Sept 6, 2013 6:22:01 GMT 5
I understand your stance much better now. I guess it comes down to how you view it. I unlike you wouldn't care if someone blows themselves up in the name of a god. Let that illusion of god carry them to death. However, you said you know with "reasonable certainty" religion is nonsensical. It sounds to me you yourself aren't even 100% confident in your stance. I am not 100% confident about any stance. Example 1: I assig an incredibly small probability to the proposition: 2+2 is not 4 It could be that I misremembered and miscalculated it every time and typed false numbers in the calculator every time etcetera. But the probability of this being true is vanishingly small, less than 1 in a million. Example 2: I assign a very small probability that the specimen FMNH PR 2081 ("Sue") weighed less than 2 tonnes. less than 1% given the size of the remains. But it could still be that our restorations are massively flawed and that density was much lower than believed before. My stance about the gods of classic monotheism is in between the two examples. I think they are less likely than the propostion about Sue, but more likely than "2+2 is not 4" Ohhhhh that explains it. Although I laughed really at the 2+2 example.... what if I'm even worse at math than originally thought  lol. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 6, 2013 19:50:56 GMT 5
My stance about the gods of classic monotheism is in between the two examples. I think they are less likely than the propostion about Sue, but more likely than "2+2 is not 4" Just out of curiousity, where is the existence of a deistic God (= a non personal God)? |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Sept 6, 2013 21:28:29 GMT 5
My stance about the gods of classic monotheism is in between the two examples. I think they are less likely than the propostion about Sue, but more likely than "2+2 is not 4" Just out of curiousity, where is the existence of a deistic God (= a non personal God)? strongly depends on the definitions. Deists have a tendency to define their gods in ways that most people would not recognize as gods. But if it is defined as timeless person, then about as probable as the classical monotheist god, a little more probable in fact as it is a broader category. |
|
wiffle
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 41
|
Post by wiffle on Sept 19, 2013 7:21:51 GMT 5
The Kalam argument is actually rather easy to disprove once you realize that it is all based on a single assumption: That the universe would need a first cause to exist.
Let us postulate that the Big Bang formed the universe and marked the beginning of space-time.
1. As the Big Bang would be the origin of space-time and the universe as we know it, there is nothing "before" the Big Bang; the universe simply always was. It would not be infinite, but it has lasted since the dawn of time and history as we know it. It did not "begin to exist", it always has existed.
2. No time=No causation. To have causation, you must have the cause at one point in time, and the effect in another. Furthermore, at no point in history does a timeless period actually exist, and certainly it would be impossible to observe. Everything simply began when time did. That's all there is.
3. Even if, for whatever reason, we still needed cause and effect in order for the universe in its expanded form to exist, there is nothing suggesting that any law applying to material in the universe must also apply to the universe itself. Look at this set of numbers: {2,4,6,8}. The rule for the numbers is 2*position in sequence. Note that the rule is not actually relevant for the set.
4. And if somehow this is still insufficient, we can see from observing our own universe that some things actually break the not-inviolable law of cause and effect. The radioactive decay of atoms is one such example.
So there it is..that's Kalam for you.
|
|
(this is an inside joke)
lol.
