Author Topic: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!  (Read 3029 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!
« Reply #35 on: March 08, 2014, 05:13:04 PM »
That the Kalam argument rests upon presmises that aren't scientifically proven. Which is a problem for WLC, as he tries to use science to prove the Kalam argument (i.e. the big bang theory).


Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!
« Reply #36 on: March 10, 2014, 02:57:06 PM »
Scheavo, I am having a hard time understanding you. I don't really get what you are trying to show when you make your points.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are saying something along the lines of "The evidence is inconclusive," or "We can't know what is outside the universe." Based on the language you use, it sounds like you think Craig is attempting to prove the existence of God with mathematically certainty (or something close to mathematical certainty). That allows you to play the skeptic and say, "Oh, we can't really know such a thing."

Craig's claim is really not that extreme. He says,

Quote
My basic claim was carefully worded and very modest: that God’s existence is significantly more probable in light of the evidence of contemporary cosmology than it would have been without it. To my mind, this is almost a no-brainer: obviously God’s existence is much more probable given the big bang and fine-tuning than it would have been in their absence! Moreover, I made it clear that I was not using God to plug up gaps in our scientific knowledge. Rather I argued that the cosmological evidence goes to support theologically neutral premises in philosophical arguments which lead to conclusions having theistic significance. Specifically, the evidence of contemporary cosmology supports the premises “The universe began to exist” and “The fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity or chance.” That’s what was at issue in the debate.

Though the Big Bang model isn't a surefire, foolproof theory, it's just more probably true than not, and thus lends support to the Kalam cosmological argument.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3504
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!
« Reply #37 on: March 10, 2014, 03:06:59 PM »
What calculations were done to determine the probabilities?  Not saying a god is not more probable then no god....just not accepting it because someone says so.  How was the probability having a god calculated?  How were the probabilities of a fine tuned universe by chance calculated?
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Online Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5589
  • Gender: Male
Re: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!
« Reply #38 on: March 10, 2014, 03:21:22 PM »
Those "probabilities" are measured by the tons of evidence behind the Big Bang Theory. There is a small possibility that it isn't 100% accurate, but it's so likely to be true, that any new theory will likely expand upon the existing Big Bang Theory. The Multiverse theory is a good example of this.

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3504
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!
« Reply #39 on: March 10, 2014, 03:25:48 PM »
Those "probabilities" are measured by the tons of evidence behind the Big Bang Theory. There is a small possibility that it isn't 100% accurate, but it's so likely to be true, that any new theory will likely expand upon the existing Big Bang Theory. The Multiverse theory is a good example of this.

Yes I know about those probabilities....what about the probabilities that there is a creator or intelligent designer that H and WLC espouse.  How are they calculated, where are the calculations?  To say the probabilities are SO much greater as to make it a "no-brainer", I would think there would be some calculations, and not just an opinion.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!
« Reply #40 on: March 10, 2014, 03:26:10 PM »
What calculations were done to determine the probabilities?  Not saying a god is not more probable then no god....just not accepting it because someone says so.  How was the probability having a god calculated?
I'm not sure how you could calculate something like that and get a specific number. That's really not how knowledge works, not even in science, with respect to anything. What is the probability that the external world I experience is real, and I am not a brain in a vat? I have no idea what the probability is, but I reasonably believe that it's pretty high.

Anyway, probability theorists sometimes use Bayes' Theorem to estimate probabilities, or to see if a particular piece of evidence supports a proposition. That's what it would be in this case - God's existence is made more likely given the evidence than it would be without the evidence.

Quote
How were the probabilities of a fine tuned universe by chance calculated?
I have no idea how, but fine-tuning experts have indeed placed probabilities on each of the constants and quantities for them being life-permitting.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3504
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!
« Reply #41 on: March 10, 2014, 03:32:56 PM »
Kind of like how it was a "no-brainer" that the world being flat was way more probable given the evidence at hand.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7230
  • You can't spell "America" without "Erica"
Re: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!
« Reply #42 on: March 10, 2014, 03:35:49 PM »
What calculations were done to determine the probabilities?  Not saying a god is not more probable then no god....just not accepting it because someone says so.  How was the probability having a god calculated?
I'm not sure how you could calculate something like that and get a specific number. That's really not how knowledge works, not even in science, with respect to anything. What is the probability that the external world I experience is real, and I am not a brain in a vat? I have no idea what the probability is, but I reasonably believe that it's pretty high.

I think your analogy is faulty.  Based on the logic used in some of the posts on this forum, I think it may actually be highly likely that there are several forum members that are simply empty vats.   I similarly have no idea what the probability is, but I reasonably believe that it's pretty high.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!
« Reply #43 on: March 10, 2014, 03:38:29 PM »
The vats don't even have anything in them?

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!
« Reply #44 on: March 10, 2014, 03:47:44 PM »
Kind of like how it was a "no-brainer" that the world being flat was way more probable given the evidence at hand.
Oh please, give me a break. That's just irrelevant. You know that we have been wrong in our past beliefs, even though at the time we were perfectly rational in believing them. Even Newtonian mechanics, which enjoyed incredible success, turned out to be false. Do you think the people living before Einstein should have stuck up their nose and said, "Bah, we don't really know Newton is right"? No, and we don't fault them for believing something which turned out to be false. And neither should you fault those who put their trust in our current best theories.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline theseoafs

  • When the lights go down in the city, and the sun shines on the bayyyyy
  • Posts: 5573
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello! My name is Elder Price
Re: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!
« Reply #45 on: March 10, 2014, 03:55:18 PM »
At the same time, it's not as if any of the research surrounding "fine-tuning" constitutes our "current best theories".  The research that's been done to determine the "probability God is real" is, at best, extremely contentious, and at worst completely orthogonal to the entire realm of mainstream science.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!
« Reply #46 on: March 10, 2014, 04:51:13 PM »
Quote
Specifically, the evidence of contemporary cosmology supports the premises “The universe began to exist” and “The fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity or chance.” That’s what was at issue in the debate.


The evidence of contemporary cosmology does nothing of the sort, and that's exactly what I've been trying to explain. The big bang theory simply marks the boundaries of the horizon we cannot see past. It does not support theological statements such as the universe began to exist, not in such a way as to support WLC.

You gotta really listen to astrophysicists when they talk about this sort of thing. They always have qualifiers and define their words in slightly different ways. When an astrophysicists says "the universe began to exist with the big bang," they are not saying the same thing as WLC when he says, "the universe began to exist."

The same words are being used, but not the same thoughts. And WLC arguments boils down to pointing at the same words, without dealing with the thoughts expressed therein.

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3247
  • Gender: Male
Re: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!
« Reply #47 on: March 10, 2014, 08:23:29 PM »
If that's what you're going to say, that there is more than our physical universe, the burden of proof is on you to supply such an alternative. Failing such an alternative, it is perfectly plausible to say the Big Bang model shows the universe began to exist.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline MinistryOfLostSouls

  • Posts: 92
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a vewy vewy nithe guy
    • A Happy Place: Inside the Film Work of Matthew Berdyck
Re: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!
« Reply #48 on: March 10, 2014, 11:33:21 PM »
Someone mentioned Richard Feynman earlier.  You should learn from Mr Feynman.  The man was a modern day Einstein.

https://youtu.be/Bgaw9qe7DEE


Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: "God and Cosmology" debate - video soon!
« Reply #49 on: March 11, 2014, 07:28:40 AM »
If that's what you're going to say, that there is more than our physical universe, the burden of proof is on you to supply such an alternative. Failing such an alternative, it is perfectly plausible to say the Big Bang model shows the universe began to exist.

I'm not sure where you're getting that out of what I said. It's like you don't remember anything past the last post I make.