| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2012 12:43:03 PM · #176 |
To show how shaky Dawkins' arguments are, I can rebutt one of the five rebuttals he posted (and don't you think it's a bit of cowardice to address topics that were discussed after the "debate" in a blog post where there is little opportunity for your opponent to defend your position? I do.)
I will quote Dawkins in whole:
5.Our Universe had a beginning, therefore God must have created it: Actually the issue of the beginning of the Universe is the only truly interesting question worth discussing here. A host of scientific arguments need to be discussed here, and there is no doubt the question of chicken and egg is a vexing one for cosmologists as well as theologians. However, let me make a few points here: (1) All things that begin may have a cause, even if the cause is rather obscure and purposeless. However, what is important to note is that every known physical effect whose cause we understand has a physical cause. There is no reason therefore to assume the same will not be true of our universe itself. (2) There are no arguments that our universe need be unique and not derived from something pre-existing, or even eternal. Indeed, the Ekpyrotic Universe promoted by Turok and Steinhardt, which I don̢۪t find compelling, argues for potentially eternal periods of expansion and contraction. Craig doesn̢۪t understand the physics. (3) I continued to try and explain that quantum gravity may imply that space and time themselves are created at the moment of the big bang. This is a rather remarkable statement if true. But if it is true, in the absence of time itself, how one can ascribe arguments based on causality is unclear at best.
To point 1:
"Every known physical effect whose cause we understand has a physical cause". This is true. We must understand, and Dawkins seems to allude to this in 3 (defeating himself), the term "cause", as used, can only be meaningful in the context of time. To restate in other words, "the state of the universe (or an object) is dependent on the state just prior". (Note: it doesn't matter if we think of a Newtonian or Quantum universe here. Quantum is messier, but the fundamental truth holds.) So, for every moment of time t, we know it is caused by moment t-1. We will come back to this.
To point 2:
I really don't quite get him here. To defend himself he uses a piece of evidence he discounts as "not compelling". That is nothing but eating your cake and wanting it to, no? I think he is saying that the universe could be part of something like an eternal multiverse (he uses some double negatives in the first sentence which are confusing). A truly eternal physical universe is a logical impossibility. This can be pointed out by the paradoxical nature of infinite time. If there have been an infinite number of moments in the past (jumping from one multiverse to another), how have we travelled along them to reach the present? To turn it into a direction (since time is just another dimension it may be easier to grasp), how does one travel an infinite amount of distance in one direction to reach a specific point (that is an infinite amount of distance away)? This means that logically there must be a t=0 somewhere (it could be in our universe, if it's the only one, or it could be at the beginning of some multiverse) I hope this can be grasped, but I fear it won't be.
To point 3:
He is essentially saying there may be a t=0 after all (which is good, because it's a logical necessity). BUT, this defeats #1. If we concede there is a t=0, there is no t=-1. If there is no moment "prior" to t=0, then it, by definition does not fall under the category of "things that have a cause (as used by Dawkins)".
It must be noted that this actually does not prove or disprove atheism or theism, it only destroys materialism (which asserts, basically, all things have physical causes). Still, atheism and materialism are bedfellows much more than theism and materialism (which are mutually exclusive).
I hold my breath to see if we can keep this civil. (crosses fingers) I'm open to probing questions. This is actual, real debate stuff and a productive discussion could be had.
Message edited by author 2012-04-14 12:44:05. |
|
|
|
04/14/2012 12:47:13 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
By my reading it wasn't really a debate as much as a panel discussion. I'm not good at links sometimes on the iPad, but you can watch it if you YouTube "Debate: does the universe have a purpose?" |
That was a prior discussion in Mexico, not the debate in North Carolina. BTW, shall we also assume William Craig Lane is a fool or a coward for refusing to debate John Loftus? Funny how that only seems to work one way.
Message edited by author 2012-04-14 13:34:43. |
|
|
|
04/14/2012 01:22:52 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To point 1: "Every known physical effect whose cause we understand has a physical cause." This is true. |
Very gracious of you, but whose side are you on?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To point 2: I really don't quite get him here. |
Clearly.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To defend himself he uses a piece of evidence he discounts as "not compelling". That is nothing but eating your cake and wanting it to, no? |
No. He said, "There are no arguments that our universe need be unique and not derived from something pre-existing, or even eternal." End of point. There are LOTS of hypotheses for multiple or eternal universes (you've mentioned this yourself), and I don't find every example compelling either (string theory for one), but there is nothing to say our universe HAS to be unique and/or not derived from a prior state.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A truly eternal physical universe is a logical impossibility. |
But an eternal god is logically fine?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
how does one travel an infinite amount of distance in one direction to reach a specific point (that is an infinite amount of distance away)? |
Just pick a vector and go. At any given moment you will be at a specific point an infinite amount of distance away. Let us know when you reach the end.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To point 3: If we concede there is a t=0, there is no t=-1. If there is no moment "prior" to t=0, then it, by definition does not fall under the category of "things that have a cause (as used by Dawkins)". |
You're posing a nonsensical, "What's north of north" question. One, incidentally, with the side effect of ruling out a creator as well since there could be no progression from before to after and thus no means for causality. That is nothing but having your cake and eating it, too. |
|
|
|
04/14/2012 02:24:24 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point is not whether this is a miracle or not. The point is the impossibility of proving it one way or the other definitively. |
I'm still stuck trying to understand what you mean by this. I can't grasp what possible utility this concept has for humankind. |
|
|
|
04/14/2012 02:31:41 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I can't grasp what possible utility this concept has for humankind. |
Hope in hopeless situations. Keeping your mind open to possibility of a cure in what is normally a terminal medical situation has a real and measurable effect on the outcome in medicine. Nothing is more likely to kill you than knowing you will be killed and giving up. Knowing that miracles happen, allows you the chance for survival, keeps you trying. |
|
|
|
04/14/2012 04:42:16 PM · #181 |
This is where it gets difficult to converse. Nested comments are hard. I'll bold mine just so you can see them easily. I'm just going to erase the parts where you just provide commentary and not argument.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To point 1: "Every known physical effect whose cause we understand has a physical cause." This is true. |
Very gracious of you, but whose side are you on? |
Then we can move on. This point is agreed. Every materialist (physical) effect has a cause.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To defend himself he uses a piece of evidence he discounts as "not compelling". That is nothing but eating your cake and wanting it to, no? |
No. He said, "There are no arguments that our universe need be unique and not derived from something pre-existing, or even eternal." End of point. There are LOTS of hypotheses for multiple or eternal universes (you've mentioned this yourself), and I don't find every example compelling either (string theory for one), but there is nothing to say our universe HAS to be unique and/or not derived from a prior state.[/quote]
I disagree. See the argument we are having. There IS something to say that at some point things were NOT derived from a prior state because there was no prior state. So see point #3. If point #3 is proved, then your statement is necessarily false.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A truly eternal physical universe is a logical impossibility. |
But an eternal god is logically fine?
Your objection is only valid if we think of God as a material being. The word "eternal" for God is probably not good because "eternal" usually implies spacetime (or that's the way you are thinking of it). Think of God as being "without time". That is not illogical once you free yourself from materialistic thinking. (As an example, consider the following statement. "The number 7 is without time.") The most important point is to realize that you cannot logically have a regression of materialistic events forever.
Think of some of the paradoxes if you did. You and I are immortal. You choose to blink your eyes every second. I am an overachiever and blink my eyes twice every second. As time advances I will get further and further ahead in the difference between our number of blinks, yet, because time is infinite, you and I have both blinked the same amount of times (an infinite amount). If this is reality then at any one real moment in time I am far ahead of you in blinks, but the logical conclusion that we will both blink an infinite number of times is necessarily real, paradoxical, and inescapable. We should rationally understand that infinities do not actually exist in spacetime.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
how does one travel an infinite amount of distance in one direction to reach a specific point (that is an infinite amount of distance away)? |
Just pick a vector and go. At any given moment you will be at a specific point an infinite amount of distance away. Let us know when you reach the end.
This is nonsense. See my point above.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To point 3: If we concede there is a t=0, there is no t=-1. If there is no moment "prior" to t=0, then it, by definition does not fall under the category of "things that have a cause (as used by Dawkins)". |
You're posing a nonsensical, "What's north of north" question. One, incidentally, with the side effect of ruling out a creator as well since there could be no progression from before to after and thus no means for causality. That is nothing but having your cake and eating it, too. [/quote]
Exactly. You have just proved my point. The question is only "nonsensical" within materialism. I fully agree. Outside materialism it is not nonsensical. So it only rules out a materialistic creator. It does nothing else. Now I will concede our minds have difficulty comprehending what this really means. We can only conceive of materialistic causes and events. BUT, if we must logically have a t=0, then we logically have a non-materialistic "moment" (once again words fail because that implies time). And if we have a non-materialistic moment, then we can ask "What begat that moment?" (I use the word "begat" just to imply something different than "caused" because "cause" is grounded in materialistic thinking.) So your "what is north of north" question really is rephrased as "what is the materialistic cause to the non-materialistic moment?" I agree that is nonsense, but it is also not what I am asking. I am asking "what is the non-materialistic begatting to the non-materialistic moment?"
Message edited by author 2012-04-14 16:43:14. |
|
|
|
04/14/2012 05:25:22 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is where it gets difficult to converse. Nested comments are hard. I'll bold mine just so you can see them easily. |
You just made things easier since your arguments are based upon only a few points easily debunked.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There IS something to say that at some point things were NOT derived from a prior state because there was no prior state. |
Nonsense. If there is no prior state, then there can be no AFTER state since "after" is defined by its precedent. Your own creation myth requires a prior state before creation.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[b]Your objection is only valid if we think of God as a material being. |
If at any point there is interaction with the material world, then the objection is valid. By your own agreed point every physical (material) thing has a physical (material) cause. The burden of proof is on you to show that something immaterial can have any tangible effect on the material without physical interaction and without violating this basic principle that you just agreed was true.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BUT, if we must logically have a t=0... |
We don't (Dawkin's point #2 that you admitted not understanding).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And if we have a non-materialistic moment, then we can ask "What begat that moment?" |
Again, not possible. Begat, create, start, initiate.. whatever concept you care to use, material or not, requires a progression of time to occur- a prior state and a subsequent state. T=0 is completely ruled out by the simple fact that any such description requires t. There can be no "before" the existence of "before." |
|
|
|
04/14/2012 05:56:45 PM · #183 |
I will come back to your post, but we might be able to dispense with a large portion of the argument if I understand where you stand on the following statement.
Do you hold the following statement to be true:
For every real point in spacetime there is always a real point prior to it (along the time dimension)?
If your answer is no, then we can stop the conversation about infinities. If your answer is yes, then we must continue. Please give me a "yes" or "no" answer although I'm happy to let you qualify your statement (just don't answer where it isn't clear whether it is a qualified yes or a qualified no).
I'll hit your other stuff after you answer this. |
|
|
|
04/14/2012 05:59:25 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I can't grasp what possible utility this concept has for humankind. |
Hope in hopeless situations. Keeping your mind open to possibility of a cure in what is normally a terminal medical situation has a real and measurable effect on the outcome in medicine. Nothing is more likely to kill you than knowing you will be killed and giving up. Knowing that miracles happen, allows you the chance for survival, keeps you trying. |
I was referring to this part of his statement: "the impossibility of proving it one way or the other definitively". If that's the case, why should we care about it at all?
Message edited by author 2012-04-14 18:00:55. |
|
|
|
04/14/2012 07:11:31 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you hold the following statement to be true: For every real point in spacetime there is always a real point prior to it (along the time dimension)? |
I have some big projects to finish and won't be able to continue for a while, so just start from the premise we already agree on:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
To point 1: "Every known physical effect whose cause we understand has a physical cause." This is true. |
Then we can move on. This point is agreed. Every materialist (physical) effect has a cause. |
|
|
|
|
04/14/2012 07:22:34 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Nothing is more likely to kill you than knowing you will be killed and giving up. Knowing that miracles happen, allows you the chance for survival, keeps you trying. |
...and then there are some who, through sheer determination, tenaciousness, character, a pugnacious approach to certain situation and an incredible will to live will arrive at the same conclusion.
I personally do not believe in miracles ... only scenarios which I do not fully comprehend and cannot explain.
Lack of understanding ought not be confused with something equating to a miracle.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/14/2012 09:25:56 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you hold the following statement to be true: For every real point in spacetime there is always a real point prior to it (along the time dimension)? |
I have some big projects to finish and won't be able to continue for a while, so just start from the premise we already agree on:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
To point 1: "Every known physical effect whose cause we understand has a physical cause." This is true. |
Then we can move on. This point is agreed. Every materialist (physical) effect has a cause. |
|
OK, pick it up at your leisure. But when you do, answer my question directly. I think I can see how you are trying to answer with this other statement, but the two ideas are different in important ways. You can link the two, if you want, after, but before then, let me know what you feel about the bolded statement. Is it true, false, qualified true, or qualified false? |
|
|
|
04/15/2012 01:45:05 AM · #188 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think I can see how you are trying to answer with this other statement, but the two ideas are different in important ways. |
Sure, yours is setting up more argument from ignorance by inserting extra terms like "real," "in spacetime" and "along the time dimension" so you can then venture off into things like "non-real," "outside spacetime" and "beyond time" when the only basis for believing any of those concepts are real is that we don't know they aren't (ignorance). Sorry, this bus doesn't stop in fantasyland. Every physical (material) effect has a physical (material) cause, and you'll have to start from there or rephrase without qualifiers that open the door to time machines and fairy dust as plausible explanations.
Message edited by author 2012-04-15 01:48:08. |
|
|
|
04/15/2012 01:50:51 AM · #189 |
Ok, I'll take that to mean you do believe in an infinite timeline. Since every effect is preceded by a cause and every cause is an effect of another cause, it will recede unendingly. Right?
Message edited by author 2012-04-15 02:07:20. |
|
|
|
04/15/2012 07:52:30 AM · #190 |
| great so now this thread evolved to time. Another concept humans invented to explain what they dont understand. |
|
|
|
04/15/2012 12:35:14 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
great so now this thread evolved to time. Another concept humans invented to explain what they dont understand. |
It's only fitting. DrAchoo and Scalvert are two concepts that no-one understands :D |
|
|
|
04/15/2012 02:57:59 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by mike_311:
great so now this thread evolved to time. Another concept humans invented to explain what they dont understand. |
It's only fitting. DrAchoo and Scalvert are two concepts that no-one understands :D |
Although,
one is clearly reasonable,
while the other appears to be bent
on searching for evidence beyond reason. |
|
|
|
04/15/2012 04:08:34 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by mike_311:
great so now this thread evolved to time. Another concept humans invented to explain what they dont understand. |
It's only fitting. DrAchoo and Scalvert are two concepts that no-one understands :D |
Heard this on a recent radio audience-participation show ...
Originally posted by Unidentified E-mailer:
I'm still confused, but on a higher level and about more important things. |
|
|
|
|
04/15/2012 05:07:38 PM · #194 |
Aww, don't knock it guys. The question being argued has been discussed for literally millenia. People don't ponder unimportant questions for thousands of years. I respect Shannon for defending his position (though I clearly disagree and often am frustrated at his style). It's better than just sitting on the sidelines sniping.
Materialism has been around in modern thought for a few centuries and has roots that are much older. Every worldview has its strengths and its difficulties (theism being no exception). We are discussing one of materialism's difficulties. If we define materialism as, "the philosophy that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions." (from wiki's first line, a good definition) then we are faced with one of two difficulties:
Time is eternal in a real and true sense. Real infinities lead to paradoxical problems of logic that need to be explained. Normally we would never accept the possibility of a physical infinity.
There is a point we are calling t=0. t=0 cannot be "the result of material interactions" and thus, ex vi termini, does not fit within materialism. Materialism, therefore, fails.
Message edited by author 2012-04-15 17:24:24. |
|
|
|
04/15/2012 06:21:20 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I can't grasp what possible utility this concept has for humankind. |
Hope in hopeless situations. Keeping your mind open to possibility of a cure in what is normally a terminal medical situation has a real and measurable effect on the outcome in medicine. Nothing is more likely to kill you than knowing you will be killed and giving up. Knowing that miracles happen, allows you the chance for survival, keeps you trying. |
I was referring to this part of his statement: "the impossibility of proving it one way or the other definitively". If that's the case, why should we care about it at all? |
For example, if I assert that perhaps the "miracle" baby survived because the Good Witch of the North waved her magic wand and cast a good spell over the child, and although I can't prove it, you also can't prove it's not true, so therefore we should be open to the possibility, would you take me seriously? If not, then why should we be open to the possibility that a god intervened in this case? What is so different about the intervening god concept and the good witch of the north concept, except that one is more familiar to us? And why especially should we be open to any non-science-based explanation in this case when there are other cases of this happening under similar circumstances? |
|
|
|
04/15/2012 06:22:02 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Aww, don't knock it guys. The question being argued has been discussed for literally millenia. People don't ponder unimportant questions for thousands of years. I respect Shannon for defending his position (though I clearly disagree and often am frustrated at his style). It's better than just sitting on the sidelines sniping.
Materialism has been around in modern thought for a few centuries and has roots that are much older. Every worldview has its strengths and its difficulties (theism being no exception). We are discussing one of materialism's difficulties. If we define materialism as, "the philosophy that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions." (from wiki's first line, a good definition) then we are faced with one of two difficulties:
Time is eternal in a real and true sense. Real infinities lead to paradoxical problems of logic that need to be explained. Normally we would never accept the possibility of a physical infinity.
There is a point we are calling t=0. t=0 cannot be "the result of material interactions" and thus, ex vi termini, does not fit within materialism. Materialism, therefore, fails. |
I don't think it is. :)
|
|
|
|
04/15/2012 09:21:02 PM · #197 |
| Where's the thread on what the religious can learn from atheism/secular humanism/etc.? |
|
|
|
04/15/2012 09:47:00 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Where's the thread on what the religious can learn from atheism/secular humanism/etc.? |
START one!
|
|
|
|
04/18/2012 07:56:45 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have a new hero... |
Pretty sure we've already covered this ground in rant and also noted that Dawkins DID wind up debating Craig about a year ago. Given all the hype and demand, one would expect Craig to heavily publicize the result of that encounter... unless it didn't go so well. |
I had to come back to this because it had me very confused. I finally figured it out today. I hate to tweak you on it Shannon (ok, no I don't), but you need to read your links again. The article you posted was not written by Dawkins but my Lawrence Krauss (though it is on Dawkins' website). So Richard did not, in fact, debate Lane Craig in North Carolina; Krauss did.
Message edited by author 2012-04-18 19:58:26. |
|
|
|
04/18/2012 10:46:37 PM · #200 |
I learned that nuns don't complain about gays nearly enough to please the Pope. And they're a bunch of naughty feminists who don't speak out against the ordination of women or abortion as much as they should, either.
//www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/vatican-orders-crackdown-on-american-nuns/2012/04/18/gIQANRvWRT_story.html
Never mind all that great work they've been doing for social justice and the poor. Looks like somebody's getting a ruler across the knuckles.
Now before anyone goes off about me taking a cheap shot... I'm just posting another neutral link to the actions of major players in the field. It confounds me how anyone can follow these people, given so, so many examples of this sort of thing. How can we dismiss it again and again?
From my point of view, a bunch of well-intentioned people are being disciplined for not being strident enough. How is that helpful to anyone?
|
|
