Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater

[Meow Mix]

Here you go Meow, this is way above my understanding although I do get the basic idea, my argument here is that Carol offers an alternate model not that it is correct or that it proves anything. Indeed Carol is quick to point out that he is not asserting that his model proves anything in the debate.
Spontaneous Inflation and the Origin of the Arrow of Time

Thanks for this. I'm just going to look at the abstract and conclusion with a peek at the meat to see how it affects the discussion:

We suggest that spontaneous eternal inflation can provide a natural explanation for the thermodynamic arrow of time, and discuss the underlying assumptions and consequences of this view. In the absence of inflation, we argue that systems coupled to gravity usually evolve asymptotically to the vacuum, which is the only natural state in a thermodynamic sense. In the presence of a small positive vacuum energy and an appropriate inflaton field, the de Sitter vacuum is unstable to the spontaneous onset of inflation at a higher energy scale. Starting from de Sitter, inflation can increase the total entropy of the universe without bound, creating universes similar to ours in the process. An important consequence of this picture is that inflation occurs asymptotically both forwards and backwards in time, implying a universe that is (statistically) time-symmetric on ultra-large scales.

Translation: time's arrow is given by the entropic gradient ("thermodynamic arrow of time"), without inflation, systems coupled to gravity are singular (there are singularities). With positive vacuum energy (this should be understood that the positivity comes in contrast with the potential of gravity), positive scalar manifolds with Lorentz invariance is still unstable (and given an inflaton field, it's going to blow up).

Inflation is a free lunch (as Paul Davies would say), and our universe is an expected outcome. However, there are past and future timelike geodesics that are timelike at infinity given the methodology.

Ok, so really not too far off from Vilenkin/Borde/Guth.

Let's look at the conclusion. It's couched in the Discussion section from what I can see, but this part stuck out to me:

By taking seriously the ability of spacetime to expand and dilute degrees of freedom, we claim to have shown how an arrow of time can naturally arise dynamically in the course of the evolution from a generic boundary condition. In the classification introduced in Section 2, our proposal imagines that there do not exist any maximum-entropy equilibrium states, but rather that the entropy can increase from any starting configuration. This is not, of course, sufficient; it is also necessary to imagine that the path to increasing the entropy naturally creates regions of spacetime resembling our observable universe. In the presence of a nonzero vacuum energy and an appropriate inflaton field, we suggest that thermal fluctuations from de Sitter space into eternal inflation provide precisely the correct mechanism.

This is unequivocally saying that the universe did not have an ontological beginning given the premises of the paper. If the "arrow of time" (the entropic gradient) can arise dynamically from generic boundary conditions, then we can have a "beginning" that is not an ontological beginning.

So, I guess the point of me asking to see this was to just verify that it's a good response to Craig's argument. Add another paper to the pile that says Craig has very little idea what he's talking about cosmologically.

 

[Justanatheist]

Thanks for this. I'm just going to look at the abstract and conclusion with a peek at the meat to see how it affects the discussion:



Translation: time's arrow is given by the entropic gradient ("thermodynamic arrow of time"), without inflation, systems coupled to gravity are singular (there are singularities). With positive vacuum energy (this should be understood that the positivity comes in contrast with the potential of gravity), positive scalar manifolds with Lorentz invariance is still unstable (and given an inflaton field, it's going to blow up).

Inflation is a free lunch (as Paul Davies would say), and our universe is an expected outcome. However, there are past and future timelike geodesics that are timelike at infinity given the methodology.

Ok, so really not too far off from Vilenkin/Borde/Guth.

Let's look at the conclusion. It's couched in the Discussion section from what I can see, but this part stuck out to me:



This is unequivocally saying that the universe did not have an ontological beginning given the premises of the paper. If the "arrow of time" (the entropic gradient) can arise dynamically from generic boundary conditions, then we can have a "beginning" that is not an ontological beginning.

So, I guess the point of me asking to see this was to just verify that it's a good response to Craig's argument. Add another paper to the pile that says Craig has very little idea what he's talking about cosmologically.

Thank you for that and taking the time to confirm that it is an alternate explanation. I think you have further endorsed my only real claim that Craig was out of his depth debating Cosmology with Carol.

 

[Meow Mix]

Thank you for that and taking the time to confirm that it is an alternate explanation. I think you have further endorsed my only real claim that Craig was out of his depth debating Cosmology with Carol.

I figured it was only fair to Rival to just take a look at it and summarize it. It definitely does not favor Craig, and I should stress to Rival that this isn't my bias or anything; it's literally what the paper says.

 

[Justanatheist]

I figured it was only fair to Rival to just take a look at it and summarize it. It definitely does not favor Craig, and I should stress to Rival that this isn't my bias or anything; it's literally what the paper says.

Do you mean rise?

 

[Meow Mix]

Do you mean rise?

I do mean Rise! Whoops

 

[tas8831]

It's a little strange how atheists are always demanding "proof" or at least "evidence" for the existence of God. (While aggressively dismissing the cosmological arguments that seek to treat natural reality and the order that is seemingly displays as that evidence).

'Arguments' that 'seemingly' do things when viewed uncritically are not the same thing as evidence or proof. Maybe that is why?

Craig doesn't come off so well in terms of 'evidence' or 'science' here... Sure, the cheerleaders say otherwise, but that is because they are cheerleaders for a grifter.

 

[tas8831]

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely asserting that I have said anything false doesn't make it true just because you assert it is so.

You cannot quote any specific thing I have said and then give any specific logical reason why it would be false.



You said:

You did not substantiate your claims are true. You merely asserted conclusions without basis.

You assert the following conclusions without any arguments to substantiate them:
1. Why physics doesn't need to deal with a cause related to anything Craig was arguing.
2. Why specifically there is anything wrong with Craig's view of physics that invalidates his argument.
3. Why we should believe Carol's model is actually possible as an explanation without contradicting itself.
4. Why we should believe Carroll's model doesn't actually require a beginning or cause.
5. Why we have any reason to think these models are a better explanation than what Craig is arguing for.

If Carroll truly gave logically valid answers for those questions then you should be able to extract them from the debate and relate them to us here.

You need to attach valid logical arguments to your conclusions otherwise you're just committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion.

Because if you try to pull out the specific arguments I can then show why they were not logically valid or not logically sufficient to support his conclusion.

It shows that you don't actually understand what Carroll or Craig were arguing for, or why, when you just start yanking out Carroll's conclusions without any supporting arguments attached to them - merely assuming his conclusions are true without being able to explain why we should believe they are true.

That is the reason I challenged you to demonstrated logically why any specific arguments Carroll gave refuted Craig's. Because I knew you weren't assessing the debate from an objective logical perspective that actually understood what they were saying and why.

Therefore, you had no logical basis for claiming Carroll defeated Craig in the debate. You didn't understand enough about what was being said, and didn't understand enough about how to assess the logical validity of arguments and counter arguments, to truly make an accurate assessment of the debate's outcome.

And all you do is assert Carroll did not win. What is YOR logical basis for THAT? The only way Craig "wins" is if it is "logical" that cause/effect relationships cease at an arbitrary point (that point being at the will of the deity Craig so wants to be immune from logic).

 

[Justanatheist]

And all you do is assert Carroll did not win. What is YOR logical basis for THAT? The only way Craig "wins" is if it is "logical" that cause/effect relationships cease at an arbitrary point (that point being at the will of the deity Craig so wants to be immune from logic).

I just showed where he simply wrote falsehoods about my claims by using the quote function, his logical fallacy was as imagined as the things he stated I wrote. Apparently it was just a "technicality" I never actually wrote what he claimed I wrote!

Is there not something in the christian bible about bearing false witness?

 

[Rise]

More falsehoods see above.

You have failed to meet either your burden of proof or your burden of rejoinder.
You have tacitly conceded the debate by your inability to meet the basic conditions of a debate.

 

[Meow Mix]

I will say that I do not get the impression that WLC is a "grifter." He appears to have genuine intentions and I trust that he comes to the table of discussion in good faith (as far as I've been able to tell). He may be wrong, and he may not fully understand some things about cosmology, but I'm hesitant to call him a "grifter."

 

[Justanatheist]

You have tacitly conceded the debate by your inability to meet the basic conditions of a debate.

+
Danth's Law.

If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.

I will do a recap outlining all the falsehoods and fallacies you have written when I have time, unfortunately there are so many I do not have time to show them now.

 

[Justanatheist]

I will say that I do not get the impression that WLC is a "grifter." He appears to have genuine intentions and I trust that he comes to the table of discussion in good faith (as far as I've been able to tell). He may be wrong, and he may not fully understand some things about cosmology, but I'm hesitant to call him a "grifter."

You young uns I had to look up what grifter meant

Anyway about his genuine intentions, here is a video that might make you consider his "good intentions".

 

[Rise]

+
Danth's Law.

If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.

I will do a recap outlining all the falsehoods and fallacies you have written when I have time, unfortunately there are so many I do not have time to show them now.

I did not say I won.
I said you conceded.
There's a difference.

Nor did I have to insist on anything because I gave specific reasons for why I can logically conclude that you have tacitly conceded.

The reason you have tacitly conceded is because you have effectively bowed out of the debate by refusing to meet the conditions of a debate - meeting your burden of proof and burden of rejoinder.

You can not claim to continue being in the debate when you fail to meet the conditions of debate.
If you leave the debate without proving your claim then by definition you have conceded the debate.
And you can't, by definition, prove your claim if you fail to meet your burden of proof or burden of rejoinder.

You might physically be here, still talking, but you're not debating. Because you're not meeting the qualifications of a debate which is your burden of proof and burden of rejoinder.

At that point you are no longer engaging in the process of debate but are just spewing your unsupported opinion everywhere repeatedly. You have effectively left the debate and thereby tacitly conceded it.

 

[Justanatheist]

I did not say I won.
I said you conceded.
There's a difference.

Nor did I Have to insist on anything, because I gave specific reasons for what I said.

The reason you have tacitly conceded is because you have effectively bowed out of the debate by refusing to meet the conditions of a debate - meeting your burden of proof and burden of rejoinder.

You can not claim to continue being in the debate when you fail to meet the conditions of debate.
If you leave the debate without proving your argument then by definition you have conceded the debate.

You might physically be here, still talking, but you're not debating. Because you're not meeting the qualifications of a debate which is your burden of proof and burden of rejoinder.

At that point you are no longer engaging in the process of debate but are just spewing your unsupported opinion everywhere repeatedly. You have effectively left the debate and thereby tacitly conceded it.

I am done with you, people can refer to post 194 which you have avoided and see exactly what you are.

 

[Rise]

I am done with you, people can refer to post 194 which you have avoided and see exactly what you are.

You have affirmed my conclusion was true that you are exiting the debate.
Disproving your original claim that I was supposedly wrong to note that you had effectively and functionally already exited the debate even though you were still physically present in the thread and typing words.

You have exited the debate without ever meeting your burden of proof for your specific claims that Carroll's conclusions represented a refutation of Craigs arguments. Which means you have tacitly conceded the debate.

Mentally you exited the debate several pages ago the moment you decided you didn't think you had a burden of proof to support your claims, or a burden of rejoinder to offer a counter argument to my arguments which prove my claims.

First Premise,

Everything that begins to exist has a cause

Carol explains that modern fundamental physics does not deal with "causes" it deals with mathematical models, Craig is using an old view of physics. Carol presents models that show how a universe could exist without a cause. Show where Craig actually refutes this suggestion in the debate, Craig is out of his depth using ill defined words like cause and Carol points that out.

You have failed to meet the challenge because you are giving us conclusions without arguments attached to them.

You assert that Carroll proved the following:
1. That physics doesn't need causes in models.
2. That there is a model for how a universe could exist without a cause.

You also assert:
3. That the previous two assertions refute Craig's arguments and therefore his conclusion.

But you give no specific reasons why any of your claims are true.

What is the actual logical argument behind why Carroll's model disproves Craig?
What is the actual logical argument for why you don't need a cause?
What is the actual logical argument for why these would refute Craig's position?

To merely assert "Carroll disproved Craig with his model" is the logical fallacy of argument by assertion.
You don't prove Carroll disproved Craig with his model by merely asserting he did.

You need to provide actual reasons why his model supposedly disproves Craig.

You also never responded to my reasons why you have a burden of proof to meet, which means you failed to meet your burden of rejoinder to offer a counter argument that would absolve you of the need to meet a burden of proof. So the burden of proof still rests on you, unchallenged.

Because you have exited the debate without even attempting to offer supporting arguments for the central claim that is in contention (Ie. your claim that Carroll's arguments refuted Craig in any way), and then failed to meet your burden of rejoinder to counter why I demonstrated you have a burden of proof to meet, that means you have tacitly conceded the debate.

 

[Justanatheist]

You have affirmed my conclusion was true that you are exiting the debate.
Disproving your original claim that I was supposedly wrong to suggest you were exiting the debate.

You have exited the debate without ever meeting your burden of proof for your specific claims that Carroll's conclusions represented a refutation of Craigs arguments.




You also never responded to my reasons why you have a burden of proof to meet, which means you failed to meet your burden of rejoinder to offer a counter argument that would absolve you of the need to meet a burden of proof. So the burden of proof still rests on you, unchallenged.

Because you have exited the debate without even attempting to offer supporting arguments for the central claim that is in contention (Ie. your claim that Carroll's arguments refuted Craig in any way), and then failed to meet your burden of rejoinder to counter why I demonstrated you have a burden of proof to meet, that means you have tacitly conceded the debate.

Now go to post 194 and apologise.

 

[Rise]

Now go to post 194 and apologise.

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

Your statement doesn't constitute a valid counter argument to any of the arguments in the post you are responding to.

You have demonstrated no reason why it would be relevant to refuting what I argued or disproving what I concluded is true.

 

[Justanatheist]

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

Your statement doesn't constitute a valid counter argument to any of the arguments in the post you are responding to.

You have demonstrated no reason why it would be relevant to refuting what I argued or disproving what I concluded is true.

Keep digging that hole, eventually you may look at 194 and realise how deep you are in it already. Meanwhile I and other posters will look on and laugh.

 

[Rise]

Keep digging that hole, eventually you may look at 194 and realise how deep you are in it already. Meanwhile I and other posters will look on and laugh.

Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.

Your response provides no attempt to present a logical counter argument to my arguments.
My arguments therefore stand as logically proved, unrefted by you.

 

[Justanatheist]

Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.

Your response provides no attempt to present a logical counter argument to my arguments.
My arguments therefore stand as logically proved, unrefted by you.

You have lied repeatedly and will not address post 194.