The Kalam-ing presence of Doctor Lane Craig.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My memory is that the first premise used to be described as a self-evident truth, but this collapsed, when people started to require evidence for it.  As NS states it hits against the induction issue.  There are other problems, e.g., what is the cause of a tree?  When does something begin?  Collapse of kalam.

Yes but there is a pattern here.
Probabilistic arguments are fine....great....way to go.
Let's make a probabilistic argument of the Kalam.
Oooh no you can't do that it isnt fair.

While there is the faintest hope of something popping out of nothing we will pin our faith on that.
After all we dont want non natural occurrences to creep in.

Long live the great but invisible thing which Pops out of nothing. Down with God.

Do you guys realise what you look like?

[Stranger]

So thanks for evidence of extreme God dodging.

Laughable idiocy.

As a probabilistic argument the Kalam just knocks spots over what must be the most improbable thing ever.

Kalam is supposed to be a logical deduction but even as a probabilistic argument it's utter drivel from start to finish. I'd say the most improbable thing ever is that somebody's notion of god just happens to exist for no reason at all.

utter gobshiting and spew drawing bollocks.
If somebody states which Jeremy did that the Universe is the necessary entity then he has to demonstrate necessity.

If he stated it as a definite assertion, you're right. If, on the other hand, he suggested it as a possibility to counter the assertion that there must be something else that is necessary, then it's you who are talking bollocks for reasons I've explained before.

Have you even managed to come up with a logically coherent idea of what would make something necessary even make sense, yet? How is it even possible for something to be its own explanation?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Laughable idiocy.

Kalam is supposed to be a logical deduction but even as a probabilistic argument it's utter drivel from start to finish. I'd say the most improbable thing ever is that somebody's notion of god just happens to exist for no reason at all.

If he stated it as a definite assertion, you're right. If, on the other hand, he suggested it as a possibility to counter the assertion that there must be something else that is necessary, then it's you who are talking bollocks for reasons I've explained before.

Have you even managed to come up with a logically coherent idea of what would make something necessary even make sense, yet? How is it even possible for something to be its own explanation?

  Look Paul, you put your faith in something popping out of no where.If it preserves science and has predictive abilities then go ahead......It doesn't of course.

[Stranger]

Look Paul, you put your faith in something popping out of no where.

False.

If it preserves science and has predictive abilities then go ahead......It doesn't of course.

Incoherent nonsense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My memory is that the first premise used to be described as a self-evident truth, but this collapsed, when people started to require evidence for it.  As NS states it hits against the induction issue.  There are other problems, e.g., what is the cause of a tree?  When does something begin?  Collapse of kalam.

I'm wondering if the appearance of requiring evidence has been thoroughly investigated though to check for soundness although this is why falsification was brought in.

What is suspect here is the use of the word collapse. It sounds like hysterical hyperbole.

To be on the safe side best to stick to a probabilistic argument which Lane Craig does by appealing in part to science thus recognising falsifiability.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Laughable idiocy.

I don't think so. Consider the person who thinks they have put away God on the hope that somewhere and some strange how  at some time, something is going to pop out of nothing defying nature and the laws of nature.

Here then is wanting to eliminate God using something so improbable and so unnatural as something popping out of nothing.

Now the objection to God here is no longer on grounds of the unnatural or probability. The only thing driving the proposition of this must be fear or hatred of God.

[Stranger]

I don't think so. Consider the person who thinks they have put away God on the hope that somewhere and some strange how  at some time, something is going to pop out of nothing defying nature and the laws of nature.

Here then is wanting to eliminate God using something so improbable and so unnatural as something popping out of nothing.

Now the objection to God here is no longer on grounds of the unnatural or probability. The only thing driving the proposition of this must be fear or hatred of God.

The word "God" isn't even a well defined concept, there are multiple, incompatible versions, all of which are, by all appearances, laughable, often self-contradictory, human fantasies. There is no need whatsoever to "put them away".

And you're still pretending (or plain lying) that I think anything "popped out of nothing".

I can't fear or hate multiple absurd, contradictory fantasies, except insofar as the belief in them causes conflict, irrational thinking, and hence human suffering.

Get a grip Vlad, if you have some good reason to think any one of the many versions of "God" actually exists, then post a coherent argument for it and stop hiding behind vagueness and silly ideas of other people dodging the issue.

[Outrider]

Not specially pleading since I've not poo pooed finally the idea of the universe not having a beginning although it looks as if it had kind of a beginning.

If the universe doesn't have a beginning then Kalam falls over, because you don't need TFT to create it, surely?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the universe doesn't have a beginning then Kalam falls over, because you don't need TFT to create it, surely?

O.

The Kalam would fall over. What would the case be though if the universe does have a beginning?

And since Someone on this thread is trying to nudge us into the psychological aspect of this.....how would you feel in either scenario?

[Outrider]

The Kalam would fall over. What would the case be though if the universe does have a beginning?

Are we differentiating here between the universe and some broader reality?  If the universe, as in everything, had a beginning well then we have to start investigating what caused it and how that came about; I don't see a way out of (or a need to get out) of an infinite chain of causality backwards.

And since Someone on this thread is trying to nudge us into the psychological aspect of this.....how would you feel in either scenario?

If the universe were infinite or if it were part of an infinite chain with a defined (relative to us) start point would be an academic curiosity for me, but it wouldn't fundamentally change very much about how I see or feel about anything.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are we differentiating here between the universe and some broader reality?  If the universe, as in everything, had a beginning well then we have to start investigating what caused it and how that came about; I don't see a way out of (or a need to get out) of an infinite chain of causality backwards.

If the universe were infinite or if it were part of an infinite chain with a defined (relative to us) start point would be an academic curiosity for me, but it wouldn't fundamentally change very much about how I see or feel about anything.

O.

You are trying to get therefore something for nothing. There is no way of dressing that up.
That is unnatural. Are unnatural things valid on a science thread?
An infinitely old universe is also unfalsifiable. That too is unnatural.
If infinite why hasn’t it experienced heat death.

Real, live infinities. Possibly not. In an example you gave of a real infinity you talked of an infinite density of matter being created. Anything divided by zero is not infinity. It has another designation in maths. I think we are therefore having to look for other examples of infinity.

Neither I believe can you appeal to infinities which look as though they start but never end.

An existence beyond the universe is a)such an open idea as to incorporate almost everything and anything b) unfalsifiable.

 How do I feel about the Kalam biting the dust? The same way Christians felt when Fred Hoyle was King of the universe I suppose. The question is always at base why something and not nothing?Which is based on not wanting or accepting you can get something for nothing.

Something for nothing? To paraphrase the late, great Paul Daniels “ Now that’s magic.”

[Outrider]

You are trying to get therefore something for nothing.  There is no way of dressing that up.

I don't see that I am; if anything starts we can look to what the cause is, and it's possible that there is no ultimate cause there's simply an everlasting chain of causes and effects going back.  The other option is 'something from nothing' which you (understandably) appear to take issue with.

That is unnatural. Are unnatural things valid on a science thread?

If we don't know how it's come about how can we say whether or not it's unnatural?

An infinitely old universe is also unfalsifiable. That too is unnatural.

Those two are not synonymous. It may be unfalsifiable, it might not be, but if it were that doesn't make it unnatural.

If infinite why hasn’t it experienced heat death.

Maybe it has, repeatedly.  Maybe heat death is something that our universe can look forward to but has no impact on the broader realities in which our universe manifests.

Real, live infinities. Possibly not. In an example you gave of a real infinity you talked of an infinite density of matter being created.

Perhaps - what I actually talked about was our maths not being able to distinguish between infinite mass in an infinitessimal space and finite mass in an infinitessimal space behaving as though it were infinite mass, but regardless of that the fact that we don't currently have sufficient mathematics to resolve what might be an inaccurate depiction of the universe in no way invalidates the possibility of another model being true despite the fact that our maths struggles to adequately accommodate that either.

Anything divided by zero is not infinity. It has another designation in maths.

I think, technically, it doesn't have a designation at all, it's 'undefined'.

I think we are therefore having to look for other examples of infinity.

Until our maths is advanced enough that we can categorise and manipulate the various forms of countable and uncountable infinities, we're stuck with what we have.

Neither I believe can you appeal to infinities which look as though they start but never end.

And yet that's what our universe appears to be - 14 billion years or so old, with an endless heat death ahead of us.

An existence beyond the universe is a)such an open idea as to incorporate almost everything and anything b) unfalsifiable.

Which is why it's not put forth as a scientific hypothesis, just a counter to the idea that 'well we need to have a divine 'First Thing''.

O.

 How do I feel about the Kalam biting the dust? The same way Christians felt when Fred Hoyle was King of the universe I suppose. The question is always at base why something and not nothing?Which is based on not wanting or accepting you can get something for nothing.

Something for nothing? To paraphrase the late, great Paul Daniels “ Now that’s magic.”
[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are we differentiating here between the universe and some broader reality?  If the universe, as in everything, had a beginning well then we have to start investigating what caused it and how that came about; I don't see a way out of (or a need to get out) of an infinite chain of causality backwards.

If the universe were infinite or if it were part of an infinite chain with a defined (relative to us) start point would be an academic curiosity for me, but it wouldn't fundamentally change very much about how I see or feel about anything.

O.

And how would you feel if it was Kalam?
Or at least without the infinite chain you seem to be using as a comfort blanket?

[Outrider]

And how would you feel if it was Kalam?

That there was a conscious, self-creating creator power of some sort that decided to propogate a universe - it would lead to a raft of new questions, like why, and what was the point, it would lead to all sorts of turmoil in the world as various religions either fell or fell in line... it's such a disruptive idea it's difficult to predict how I'd react.

Or at least without the infinite chain you seem to be using as a comfort blanket?

Why would I need a comfort blanket?  You have a conception with no evidence, and try to use special pleading to keep your religious idea relevant; an infinite reality is not a comfort blanket, it's a viable possibility to show that your logical argument is flawed, but it doesn't change my day-to-day life particularly.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see that I am; if anything starts we can look to what the cause is, and it's possible that there is no ultimate cause there's simply an everlasting chain of causes and effects going back.  The other option is 'something from nothing' which you (understandably) appear to take issue with.

If we don't know how it's come about how can we say whether or not it's unnatural?

Those two are not synonymous. It may be unfalsifiable, it might not be, but if it were that doesn't make it unnatural.

Maybe it has, repeatedly.  Maybe heat death is something that our universe can look forward to but has no impact on the broader realities in which our universe manifests.

Perhaps - what I actually talked about was our maths not being able to distinguish between infinite mass in an infinitessimal space and finite mass in an infinitessimal space behaving as though it were infinite mass, but regardless of that the fact that we don't currently have sufficient mathematics to resolve what might be an inaccurate depiction of the universe in no way invalidates the possibility of another model being true despite the fact that our maths struggles to adequately accommodate that either.

I think, technically, it doesn't have a designation at all, it's 'undefined'.

Until our maths is advanced enough that we can categorise and manipulate the various forms of countable and uncountable infinities, we're stuck with what we have.

And yet that's what our universe appears to be - 14 billion years or so old, with an endless heat death ahead of us.

Which is why it's not put forth as a scientific hypothesis, just a counter to the idea that 'well we need to have a divine 'First Thing''.

O.

 How do I feel about the Kalam biting the dust? The same way Christians felt when Fred Hoyle was King of the universe I suppose. The question is always at base why something and not nothing?Which is based on not wanting or accepting you can get something for nothing.

Something for nothing? To paraphrase the late, great Paul Daniels “ Now that’s magic.”

I’m sorry but what this amounts too is very much” I am prepared to accept any improbable thing.... as long as it isn’t God.

Things are unnatural if they aren’t subject to methodological naturalism surely. Or are you saying the are natural so long as they don’t involve God?

If the latter then it just shows you have a problem with God rather than fantastically improbable, unfalsifiable, and unnatural events......as has been mentioned before.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That there was a conscious, self-creating creator power of some sort that decided to propogate a universe - it would lead to a raft of new questions, like why, and what was the point, it would lead to all sorts of turmoil in the world as various religions either fell or fell in line... it's such a disruptive idea it's difficult to predict how I'd react.

Aren’t you saying then if atheism didn’t exist. It would be necessary to invent it.
Or perhaps nearer to the mark......If God existed it would still be necessary to deny his existence?
I noticed you couldn’t bring yourself to say the word God.

[Outrider]

I’m sorry but what this amounts too is very much” I am prepared to accept any improbable thing.... as long as it isn’t God.

I've said before, and I don't mind saying it again here, I struggle to conceive of what a reality with an actual god in it would be like.  My first instinct would be to presume that there was some as-yet-undiscovered natural phenomenon at the root of anything.

Things are unnatural if they aren’t subject to methodological naturalism surely.

My counter to that is what has an impact on the material is subject to methodological naturalism, because the effects can be studied and measured.

Or are you saying the are natural so long as they don’t involve God?

That definition of 'natural' is somewhat meaningless - god, if it exists, is presumably as natural an occurence as we are.  The idea of a conscious creator of our universe is, to me, technically possible but makes no sense - what's the psychology of something that creates a universe, what's the point, why put people in that many precarious situations for so long, why abandon them... are we a lab experiment, are we a forgotten mould growing in the back of an art installation...

If the latter then it just shows you have a problem with God rather than fantastically improbable, unfalsifiable, and unnatural events......as has been mentioned before.

With the idea of a god comes the totalitarianism of believers in a divine right, which has troublesome history at best, which is the main root of my disquiet with the traditional depiction of the Abrahamic god.  The idea of a divine creator in general... if it's something that 'will's events to happen bypassing natural laws then I struggle to understand how or why that works, and if it's 'merely' an extremely accomplished scientist/engineer well then we shift the enquiry back a stage (where did that creator come from) and add in 'why didn't they pass along the science'?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've said before, and I don't mind saying it again here, I struggle to conceive of what a reality with an actual god in it would be like.

Is this because you have insufficient data for God or because you have sufficient data which renders it unimaginagable

My first instinct would be to presume that there was some as-yet-undiscovered natural phenomenon at the root of anything.

Yeh, and that probably holds until we start digging about at the root of everything then methodological materialism doesn’t seem to cut it.

That definition of 'natural' is somewhat meaningless - god, if it exists, is presumably as natural

Yeh, I’m not entirely happy with the term either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

With the idea of a god comes the totalitarianism of believers in a divine right, which has troublesome history at best, which is the main root of my disquiet with the traditional depiction of the Abrahamic god.  The idea of a divine creator in general... if it's something that 'will's events to happen bypassing natural laws then I struggle to understand how or why that works, and if it's 'merely' an extremely accomplished scientist/engineer well then we shift the enquiry back a stage (where did that creator come from) and add in 'why didn't they pass along the science'?

O.

Very interesting. Love to tackle this and maybe the moral claims of new atheists in general. Maybe on the crisis of morality thread sadly but hopefully temporarily derailed at the moment.
Funnily enough I think a totalitarian character seems to be part and parcel of the New Atheist package.

[jeremyp]

utter gobshiting and spew drawing bollocks.
If somebody states which Jeremy did that the Universe is the necessary entity then he has to demonstrate necessity.

I have not stated that the Universe is "the necessary entity". I've stated that it could be a necessary entity. Please stop lying about what I have said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have not stated that the Universe is "the necessary entity". I've stated that it could be a necessary entity. Please stop lying about what I have said.

My apologies. Care to say how it could be?

[jeremyp]

My apologies. Care to say how it could be?

A number of options have already been put forward. I suggest you review the thread.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A number of options have already been put forward. I suggest you review the thread.

My objection to those has been they just argue that the universe could have been around an infinite time. Not whether it is necessary.

To do that you would have to demonstrate what it is about the universe which is necessary.

[Nearly Sane]

My objection to those has been they just argue that the universe could have been around an infinite time. Not whether it is necessary.

To do that you would have to demonstrate what it is about the universe which is necessary.

You have to demonstrate that 'necessary' makes any sense in this context rather than assume it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have to demonstrate that 'necessary' makes any sense in this context rather than assume it.

Why just in this context? Are you not specially pleading?