40 replies to this topic

[Lister]

For those unaware, the Kalam argument was re-popularized by the apologist and heavyweight debater William Lane Craig. Most of the above comments have been answered in one way or another (satisfactory or not) in his writings and debates.

Shadowhawk, have you read The Fallacy of Fine Tuning by Stenger, which includes his critique of Craig's (mis)use of the BGV theorem?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe begin to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
5. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
6. Therefore, it is due to design.

Saying someone disagrees with this reasoning says nothing about its truth. So? The KALAM has long been debated. Let me expand the argument to include a designer. So if you want to avoid the conclusions of these arguments, you must reject at least one of their premises as false. So I invite you to tell me: which premise do you reject and why? Don’t hide behind insults; engage the arguments. We have has so many verbal attacks here that real discussion is impossible. Thanks for your civility.

The BIRDE GUTH VILENKIN THEOREM wad something I mentioned earlier The origin of the universe is confirmed by philosophical arguments and scientific evidence.

There cannot be an actual infinite number of past events, because mathematical operations like subtraction and division cannot be applied to actual infinities. There are other reasons but I won’t go there unless someone else does.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) proof shows that every universe that expands must have a space-time boundary in the past. That means that no expanding universe, no matter what the model, can be eternal into the past. When one thinks about it, I think this goes for movement in general. This has a unrecognized impact on the Origin of life as well but I am getting off topic.

I have not read the article by Stenger but here is a recent debate with Craig. Very good point on the BGV .

Quoted from a commenter "Matt" on World Press:
http://debunkingwlc....-guth-vilenkin/

Science is provisional–so of course the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin theorem doesn’t prove that the universe had a beginning, but it does show that it’s more plausible than our universe having no beginning.

So Shadow I can push this all the way back to line 2:

2. The universe begin to exist.

We don't know that. It's plausible but we still don't know. We still need to figure that out and we need a much more solid foundation to press further into the debate.

If however we accept 2, 3, and 4 for arguments sake I would still have issue with 5. Why dismiss physical necessity and chance? Ok you’re arguing from a theological standpoint however what are their reasons for outright dismissing physical necessity and chance?

[DukeNukem]

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) proof shows that every universe that expands must have a space-time boundary in the past. That means that no expanding universe, no matter what the model, can be eternal into the past. When one thinks about it, I think this goes for movement in general. This has a unrecognized impact on the Origin of life as well but I am getting off topic.

This misses the idea that our universe may just be a local universe. For example, at one time we thought our galaxy might be the extent of our universe. And if you believe ancient primitive texts like the Bible, then you were taught that near-Earth was the entire universe, and those shiny sparkles we now call stars were considered to be in the local sky.

There might be infinite number of other universes, going endlessly back in "time."

(Note that even the concept of time might be imaginary, with no fundamental reality other than being a human perception.)

Edited by DukeNukem, 21 May 2013 - 10:32 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Don’t hide behind insults; engage the arguments.

Not sure if you're talking to me, but I meant no insult to anyone in this thread or the two outside people I mentioned.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) proof shows that every universe that expands must have a space-time boundary in the past. That means that no expanding universe, no matter what the model, can be eternal into the past.

The "expanding, on average" point is pretty much the issue of conflict as it doesn't account for other alternatives. On WLC's own site, it is brought up that the BGV theorem is not quite as powerful as WLC makes it out to be in debates. It would be interesting to read his Kalam essay in the Blackwell companion.

I am sorry, I did not make it clear. I was not speaking of you at all.

Would you care to share the other alternatives? I stated earlier that movement of any kind may have some of the force of the BGV. Interesting..

[shadowhawk]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe begin to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
5. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
6. Therefore, it is due to design.

Lister:
Science is provisional–so of course the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin theorem doesn’t prove that the universe had a beginning, but it does show that it’s more plausible than our universe having no beginning.

So Shadow I can push this all the way back to line 2:

2. The universe begin to exist.

We don't know that. It's plausible but we still don't know. We still need to figure that out and we need a much more solid foundation to press further into the debate.

If however we accept 2, 3, and 4 for arguments sake I would still have issue with 5. Why dismiss physical necessity and chance? Ok you’re arguing from a theological standpoint however what are their reasons for outright dismissing physical necessity and chance?

1. Tell me anything in the universe, that you know of ,that did not begin to exist.
2. Would the BGV be proof of anything in your view and what?
3. It is a logical fallacy to appeal to a make believe future discovery to defeat the implications of something we have evidence for now. When does this kind of reasoning ever end? Someday they may prove you wrong.
4 To defeat 5, you would have to show that physical necessity or chance could produce the fine tuning of the universe and all that is in it. See the Design topic for the argument.

[shadowhawk]

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) proof shows that every universe that expands must have a space-time boundary in the past. That means that no expanding universe, no matter what the model, can be eternal into the past. When one thinks about it, I think this goes for movement in general. This has a unrecognized impact on the Origin of life as well but I am getting off topic.

This misses the idea that our universe may just be a local universe. For example, at one time we thought our galaxy might be the extent of our universe. And if you believe ancient primitive texts like the Bible, then you were taught that near-Earth was the entire universe, and those shiny sparkles we now call stars were considered to be in the local sky.

There might be infinite number of other universes, going endlessly back in "time."

(Note that even the concept of time might be imaginary, with no fundamental reality other than being a human perception.)

Nothing you have said has anything to do with the BGV therm. So what if ancient man had all kinds of false ideas. It wasn’t just Christians that had it wrong and it isn’t just ancients. One hundred years from now they will be laughing at you too, or do you think you will escape obsolescence?

There “might be” ...you name it. Time “might be,” imaginary. It might not be. What time is it? Those ancients were so dumb, especially the Christians.. There was never an atheist who believed the world was flat. I think a good book on the history of science is in order here.

As for the bible and science, I would be happy to discuss it but it would be off topic here. Let me briefly recommend a couple of sources.

http://www.amazon.co...=john c collins

http://www.amazon.co...=john c. lennox

[Lister]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe begin to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
5. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
6. Therefore, it is due to design.

1. Tell me anything in the universe, that you know of ,that did not begin to exist.
2. Would the BGV be proof of anything in your view and what?
3. It is a logical fallacy to appeal to a make believe future discovery to defeat the implications of something we have evidence for now. When does this kind of reasoning ever end? Someday they may prove you wrong.
4 To defeat 5, you would have to show that physical necessity or chance could produce the fine tuning of the universe and all that is in it. See the Design topic for the argument.

1. No proof of something is not proof in of itself. We've said this over and over have we not? Perhaps you disagree? Explain your reasoning. Once you’ve eliminated all possibilities what you are left with is the truth? When we’re talking about extremely broad unknowns that logic is WRONG because we don’t have all the possibilities.

2. BGV is proof that we have theories; that we are thinking things; that we are capable of rational thought. But it is not proof; it is a path to a potential destination; not the destination itself. It is not a cherry pie it is a bunch of ingredients. You cannot eat speculation shadow.

3. Lack of Evidence is not Evidence. You cannot build a Steel building using your lack of wood as materials. Just because we don't know what's in the room that doesn't mean our lack of knowledge proves there's a chair in it! Just because SOME people have eliminated all other possible explanations that they can think of for the beginning of the universe that doesn't mean we've found an answer! It means we've found a lack of answer! That is not an answer! It is a LACK of answer. LACK! *Bangs head on desk*

4. NO! To prove 5 I would have to know everything in the universe. To defeat 5 I only have to ask you if you know everything in the universe and get a "no" as a response.

I’ll say it again for you shadow just because I truly believe that deep down in your heart you believe everything you say.

The only thing we can know for certain is that there is much that we do not know.

[shadowhawk]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe begin to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
5. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
6. Therefore, it is due to design.

1. Tell me anything in the universe, that you know of ,that did not begin to exist.
2. Would the BGV be proof of anything in your view and what?
3. It is a logical fallacy to appeal to a make believe future discovery to defeat the implications of something we have evidence for now. When does this kind of reasoning ever end? Someday they may prove you wrong.
4 To defeat 5, you would have to show that physical necessity or chance could produce the fine tuning of the universe and all that is in it. See the Design topic for the argument.

1. No proof of something is not proof in of itself. We've said this over and over have we not? Perhaps you disagree? Explain your reasoning. Once you’ve eliminated all possibilities what you are left with is the truth? When we’re talking about extremely broad unknowns that logic is WRONG because we don’t have all the possibilities.

2. BGV is proof that we have theories; that we are thinking things; that we are capable of rational thought. But it is not proof; it is a path to a potential destination; not the destination itself. It is not a cherry pie it is a bunch of ingredients. You cannot eat speculation shadow.

3. Lack of Evidence is not Evidence. You cannot build a Steel building using your lack of wood as materials. Just because we don't know what's in the room that doesn't mean our lack of knowledge proves there's a chair in it! Just because SOME people have eliminated all other possible explanations that they can think of for the beginning of the universe that doesn't mean we've found an answer! It means we've found a lack of answer! That is not an answer! It is a LACK of answer. LACK! *Bangs head on desk*

4. NO! To prove 5 I would have to know everything in the universe. To defeat 5 I only have to ask you if you know everything in the universe and get a "no" as a response.

I’ll say it again for you shadow just because I truly believe that deep down in your heart you believe everything you say.

The only thing we can know for certain is that there is much that we do not know.

1. I asked you to name something that did not begin to exist. You didn’t. My evidence if things that begin to exist is the entire cosmos, that is proof for the KALAM. Read the argument again. Name something.

2. The BGV is a scientific theory that says expanding things have a beginning of expansion, not proof of the existence of theories. Where did that come from? It is quite simple. I even supplied a video of the scientist explaining it..

3. I can’t follow anything of your argument here. It appears we have gone from a logical fallacy to complete irrelevance. What do your arguments mean? Premise 3 follows from one and two.

4. To defeat 5, all you would have to show is that physical necessity or chance could produce the fine tuning of the universe and all that is in it. Since according to your reasoning you can never know everything, you can never defeat this or any other argument. Yet you continue to argue as if you know something. Don’t you see the contradictions in this?

This reminds me if the logical impossibility of agnosticism.. Perhaps this discussion between us has run its course.

[Lister]

1. I asked you to name something that did not begin to exist. You didn’t. My evidence if things that begin to exist is the entire cosmos, that is proof for the KALAM. Read the argument again. Name something.

2. The BGV is a scientific theory that says expanding things have a beginning of expansion, not proof of the existence of theories. Where did that come from? It is quite simple. I even supplied a video of the scientist explaining it..

3. I can’t follow anything of your argument here. It appears we have gone from a logical fallacy to complete irrelevance. What do your arguments mean? Premise 3 follows from one and two.

4. To defeat 5, all you would have to show is that physical necessity or chance could produce the fine tuning of the universe and all that is in it. Since according to your reasoning you can never know everything, you can never defeat this or any other argument. Yet you continue to argue as if you know something. Don’t you see the contradictions in this?

This reminds me if the logical impossibility of agnosticism.. Perhaps this discussion between us has run its course.

Essentially I (and others) feel you have it backwards. “The Burden of Proof.”

Normally:

• The universe looks to have a beginning
• This is because reversing the movement of the universe seems to bring everything to a single point
• That single point may be the start
• If this is the start we can theorize that the universe must have a beginning

From there you have significant work to come anywhere near a proof of a creator’s involvement. When you obtain that theory through hard work, if you want it validated by peers you need to present it and then defending it accordingly. You have to prove your own theory. The work is on your shoulders. You cannot ask them why it can’t be possible because it’s your theory. Instead of asking why it can’t be possible you should be presenting why it can’t be possible. The burden of proof is on the theorists, not the audience.

But for shadow this is how it goes:

• The universe began according to other peoples theories which must be true
• As the universe began it must have either started randomly, by necessity, or created
• The first two don’t work thus
• The universe was created by a creator

And then if anyone challenges you on any those points instead of addressing those points you FORCE the burden of proof on them. I’m assuming you do this because it’s some sort of war and you feel you have to fight to keep your views alive? This is why people call you a troll. You want instant gratification. And honestly your desire to force through your theories makes it challenging to deny their claims of trolling.

Essentially you appear to have no desire to defend your own theories. Either through quoting other theorists or through forcing the burden of proof on others you refuse to address anything.

Shadow basic philosophy for you as you are constantly getting it wrong:

You can't just say: “My view is that P.”

You must say something like: “My view is that P. I believe this because…”

or: “I find that the following considerations...provide a convincing argument for P.”

Similarly, don't just say: “Descartes says that Q.”

Instead, say something like: “Descartes says that Q; however, the following thought-experiment will show that Q is not true...”

or: “Descartes says that Q. I find this claim plausible, for the following reasons...”

Read and Reread Shadow because you’re totally screwing up on this stuff and its super basic.
http://www.jimpryor....es/writing.html

Edited by Lister, 22 May 2013 - 05:26 AM.

[shadowhawk]

lister: Normally:

The universe looks to have a beginning
This is because reversing the movement of the universe seems to bring everything to a single point
That single point may be the start
If this is the start we can theorize that the universe must have a beginning

From there you have significant work to come anywhere near a proof of a creator’s involvement. When you obtain that theory through hard work, if you want it validated by peers you need to present it and then defending it accordingly. You have to prove your own theory. The work is on your shoulders. You cannot ask them why it can’t be possible because it’s your theory. Instead of asking why it can’t be possible you should be presenting why it can’t be possible. The burden of proof is on the theorists, not the audience.

But for shadow this is how it goes:

The universe began according to other peoples theories which must be true
As the universe began it must have either started randomly, by necessity, or created
The first two don’t work thus
The universe was created by a creator

Of corse this is a logical fallacy, a characture, straw man of what I said. I argued none of this. Total nonsense, reconstruct, of what I said.. I never mentioned God in my logic. If you want to discuss this with me than be honest enough to represent what I really said. This is why I think our discussion has run its course.

And then you finish off with a whole list of ad hominim attacks on me and the claim I “FORCED,” the burden of proof on you. Are we in the same discussion?

Then you set up another stray man where I supposedly have a fake discussion about Descartes and logic. Please!!!

Here again is what I really said and I would like to get back to the topic:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe begin to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
5. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
6. Therefore, it is due to design.

[mikeinnaples]

Here again is what I really said and I would like to get back to the topic:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe begin to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
5. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
6. Therefore, it is due to design.

You changed your argument again, but you still didn't change the flaw in it. #2 is not a fact and cannot be used as a basis for argument. Your house of cards tumbles down because of that. Even if you were to somehow make it to #5 logically, it is also not based on any fact that can be proven.

The universe may have always existed in some form, thus it would not have a cause. This would mean that there is no fine tuning by design, it simply *is*.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 22 May 2013 - 07:54 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Here again is what I really said and I would like to get back to the topic:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe begin to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
5. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
6. Therefore, it is due to design.

You changed your argument again, but you still didn't change the flaw in it. #2 is not a fact and cannot be used as a basis for argument. Your house of cards tumbles down because of that. Even if you were to somehow make it to #5 logically, it is also not based on any fact that can be proven.

The universe may have always existed in some form, thus it would not have a cause. This would mean that there is no fine tuning by design, it simply *is*.

Premise 2 says the universe begin to exist. Do you know anything in the universe, that did not begin to exist? Everything we know about the universe begin to exist.. What, in the universe did not begin to exist? You give absolutely no reason that number 2 is false. Defeating a premise is not done by pronouncement as you have done. Because nothing can be proven absolutely, every argument and proof has some doubt. Just because there is nothing like absolute proof for anything, that does not mean there are no proofs or that we know nothing.. What is your proof there is no proof? Atheists scream when you ask them for proof, http://www.longecity...sm/#entry501885
I have given some proofs, where are yours?

Are you saying that everything that has always existed needs no cause.?

For you a video on doubt.

Edited by shadowhawk, 22 May 2013 - 10:27 PM.