Your best argument that god exists

[1robin]

The fact that you claim that your experience had anything to do with the god that you believe in doesn't convince me that it did. Believers of other religions claim similar things. Read what mystics and hindus say, for example.

It occurred to my yesterday afternoon the problem with your argumentation. Your assuming incorrect standards. Your demanding I convince you or prove something to a certainty, and when I can't you dismiss the argument. This is incorrect because that was not the standard my claims are made to. Someone asked for an argument for God. I gave one that has only a handful of candidates that meet what it necessitates.

Faith and historical claims are never made to certainties. They are made to the best explanation. When we have hundreds of millions of claims to being born again just as the bible predicts the best explanation is that the bible was correct. I have read what mystics, Hindus, Seeks, the Bahia, hypnotists, drug cults, Gnostics, etc..... claim. I used to ask most of my opponents in debates about their experiences. Who knows what the ratio is but I my decades long experience would suggest that for every person of any other faith and philosophy that claims a supernatural experience there are over 100 Christians who do.
People in forums usually show up pre-convinced. I do not expect to convince you. It takes a process with many lines of reasoning to adopt faith. I am only attempting to provide a few of those lines of reasoning. No one here concedes anything by the most benign premises.

Not just the god that the philosophers mention.

Not just him what?

The fact that you are presenting evidence that has been presented before and that a lot of people still don't believe in such a god make it insufficient. It is not about quantity, it is about quality.

It has convinced more people than any other single belief system. It is by far the most persuasive. It's the only faith that has a significant presence in every country on earth and has convinced hordes of the greatest minds in history. And did so despite being persecuted by nations and empires. However these are arguments from popularity and are not that important.

Jesus' ressurection is not established as an historical fact. It is not on any credible history book. So, how can you reasonably expect me to treat it as good evidence for your claim ?

I did not say it was. I gave 5 pieces of evidence that NT historians agree are facts which make the belief that he rose from death the best explanation of them. Again your simply moving the goal posts all over the place. I expect you to at least treat the historical claims most historians agree with as evidence. My job is to give evidence, it is not what you do with it.

Ponder about this for a moment. You have said that Allah is different from the christian god because it requires different things from his followers and because Jesus is not his avatar. A god that created the Earth and humans in a particular way, that caused a worldwide flood, that caused a sequence of plagues on Egypt, etc. must then be a remarkably different god from a god that did not.

Avatar is a bad description of Christ. Instead of trying to explain the trinity I will just leave it there. I pondered it but what now? Yes a God who actually did X and a God who actually did not do X are not the same God.

I suggest you read again what you have said about Allah and how it is different from the god you believe in. On Orthodox Judaism, Jesus is not God's son, God didn't pay your debt, and belief alone is not said to be sufficient to go to heavens. You mentioned these as relevant factors to establish they are different gods. According to your standards, you and that author don't believe in the same god.

I know exactly what your trying to do, but to counter it would require a dozen posts and is unnecessary. Let's instead short circuit this.

1. I believe in the God of the old testament.
2. That Jewish scientist believes in the God of the OT.
3. Even if they are two different Gods then they would still be consistent with my argument. I said only a handful of God concepts meet the requirements of sufficient causation. If different they would both be included. However the Biblical God would still prevail as best explanation because of the additional evidence the NT has that the OT does not.

And BTW I included Allah as a candidate for creation, but I deny him based of sufficiency of evidence.

{quote]I was saying that the christian god has more characteristics than necessary to create the universe. There is no unique 'perfect match', since a lot of other gods could fit in just as nicely ( or even better ). [/quote] Almost all God's throughout history are derivatives of nature. Look at the Egyptian theology, the Greek, the Roman. They were created God's and the universe was primary.

Let me cut the chase: The reason why this generic god matches the christian god is no mere accident, nor a major finding. The reason behind that is simple: those philosophers either influenced our understanding of god ( and christianity ) or were influenced by christianity itself.

I made a mistake here yesterday. I thought you were referring to the cosmological argument, but you were discussing the greatest being concept. My comments were out of context. Anselm may have been the first to invent the greatest being argument, I do not know. My point is that secular philosophers use the greatest conceivable being as a generic God for considering him in argumentation.

You are not making a comparison between concepts that never had contact with each other.

I miss understood your argument but this still might be the case only not so emphatic and one I cannot demonstrate.

And I remain unconvinced by evidence presented so far.

I spent a lifetime as a child in church with this exact attitude, only to end up disbelieving in God, or if he existed hating him, and I resented anyone talking to me about him. Yet look what happened to me. You never know what state of mind you might be in some day and recall something I or others have said. You have to have an open heart and most of us keep our pretty well guarded. The context was an argument for God, it was not proof of God that convinces someone. BTW what happened to all my historical claims? You did not comment on a single one or take up a single challenge.

 

[Shad]

I am sure Aquinas has forgotten more about soundness than both of us combined.

1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed or could cease to) exists.
2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.

Aquinas used outdated Aristotle causality which no one uses anymore. You are citing an outdated argument.

1. Only an assumption based on induction not deduction.
2. Say it is uncaused is not an explanation. You can not prove it was so it is just an assertion. Likewise I could claim the same of the singularity thus God is an unnecessary assumption which explains nothing.
3. Assertion only, there is no evidence supporting this view unlike the evidence supporting uncaused virtual particles in QM.
4. Assertion
5. Assertion
6. Assertion

The argument is not sound and inductive based. It can be dismissed for being unsound.

And I know William Lane Craig understands soundness:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
4. Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent).

I have even seen every step of this argument with it's philosophical justification given, but it is a hard thing to search for. If I find it I will post it.

1. Unsound due to virtual particles in QM
2. True but only applies to the universe not the singularity it came from. Hence it is not a true start but a change in form.
3. Unsound due to the singularity which a form of universe.
4. God of the Gaps.

Unsound and fallacious argument. Craig has no expertise in physics, Carrol proved this in his debate.

Is that why it is still a respected theory after 3000 years of scrutiny. When given in the dozens of the debates where I have seen it used the professional atheist philosopher does not dismiss it as bad. Half simply admit they have no counter claim, the other have only attempt to show it less than certain and then to equate less than certainty with meaningless.

Respected by who is what matters. No physicist uses this argument so the relevant field in question has nothing to say about it, heck it avoids it. It is respected by only the religious certainly not in philosophy. The respect is only gained since it is confirmation bias.

I did not ignore anything. I copied the entire text from the link. I am not responsible for quoting it's parent article, then the parents parent article, then everything ever said by anyone on any point of the article. I left the counter argument in place. That is all anyone could ask. I am tired of debating this trivial point of order, as it is not true, uses non-existent standards, and does not matter. Pick on the argument not how it was presented.

Considering the whole article only agreed on one point, the universe begin, then you either did not read it or did not understand it. You are responsible for citing a source accurately otherwise the citation becomes a strawman which is a great tool Craig uses to cover his ignorance.

Your simply re-asking for proof of a faith based position. You cannot prove anything beyond the fact we think. Everything has an element of faith. If you deny faith (especially of the one who holds the faith position) you wipe out all claims to knowledge of any kind in the process. It is like you found a guy you did not like in Bahrain and to kill him you nuked the whole world. This argument comes in many forms if you deny it is deductive then try Swinburne's:

You just said it was a theory which by definition is not a faith based view. Which is it? IF faith based then it is not a theory, if a theory then it is not faith based.

Richard Swinburne contends that the cosmological argument is not deductively valid; if it were so, “it would be incoherent to assert that a complex physical universe exists and that God does not” (1979, 119). Rather, he develops an inductive cosmological argument that appeals to the inference to the best explanation. Swinburne distinguishes between two varieties of inductive arguments: those that show that the conclusion is more probable than not (what he terms a correct P-inductive argument) and those that further increase the probability of the conclusion (what he terms a correct C-inductive argument). In The Existence of God he presents a cosmological argument that he claims falls in the category of C-inductive arguments. However, this argument is part of a larger, cumulative case for a P-inductive argument for God's existence.
Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Read you sources and think about this. Swinburne just said the exact thing I said about Aquinas. You are citing sources due to confirmation bias but your sources contradictt each other.... Swinburne makes a mistake in his first sentence. We have evidences for the universe, we have no evidence of God.... The first premise of his argument fails to test and prove substance dualism thus the premise is unsound, the rest of his argument collapses after this alone.

You just provided a source that refuted Aquinas and Craig....

I am not arguing to certainty, I am arguing to best explanation.

It fails to be the best since the cause is not explained, attributes are just piled on to God by inference from the universe rather than by observation. Thus the argument is unsound and can not be by definition the best. Piling attitudes on to something does not make it exist. Proof of logic is fallacious and refuted by Hume centuries ago.

Since no event ever observed lacks a cause, to assume that you know of one that does violates your own standard for certainty. My argument is consistent with every observation ever made, your inconsistent with it. To argue that you know of one exception (which you have no way of knowing) that counters trillions that are consistent is not the simplest answer. Positing a cause for this case which is consistent with every known observation is consistent. And a disembodied mind is the simplest cause possible.

QM refuted this awhile ago. It is also inductive based on observation of other objects not the object in question. Problem of induction and non-observation as covered by Popper.

Talking about outside of time is not a physics issue, it is a philosophical issue which Carroll is unqualified to debate. However Carroll is the best debater on the non-theist side I know of. Craig is well published, has many degrees, sits on college boards, and is a research professor, and in his opponents own words "the philosopher who puts the fear of God" into an atheist. I think it was Harris who said that. I have also heard more than one say that their upcoming debate with Craig caused a flood of e-mails expressing hope they did not blow it that no other debater ever produced. Your dismissal of Craig says more about you than him. IMO the only living scholar more potent than Craig is Zacharias but Ravi does not debate.

Hilarious. Time is part of the universe, physics is the study of the mechanics of the universe thus also studies time. Special pleading considering you and Craig uses physics as the basis of your arguments until physics not longer works for the argument. Then suddenly time is not about physics. When Craig sits on a board of physicists then I will care what he has to say about physics, he does not have such credentials. Craig is easy to dismissed since he argues points due to his ignorance which Carrol exposed in the debate.




Ho

wever bad you think arguments about beings outside of time are, your counter claim was far worse.

So far you:
1. Have pointed out an incorrect and meaningless point of order about quoting parent articles.
2. Appealed to the occurrence of a thing which has never been observed and which contradicts every observed event.
3. And summarily dismissed scholars without cause.

This is not a debate it is having a word fit.

1. Is not meaning less since it is a counter-argument against your supporting arguments... You cited it yet now want to ignore it's contents. Hilarious bait and switch
2. Which you have done for God, special pleading and a strawman as pointed out above
3. I dismissed Craig since he uses supporting arguments from a field he has been show to be ignorant of.

So pointing out errors is a word fit. Maybe make a few less mistakes and read what you cite. Your defense is post hoc rationalization and projection, nothing more.

 

[1robin]

Not at all. It's been established that our universe originated from the BB, whose origin may lay in the transformation of a previous state of being; a previous universe of some kind, or an expression of a meta-universe, or one of the iterations of the ongoing reincarnations of previous universes.

That is not even possible. For quantum fluctuations to have produced the universe would imply a natural infinity which is impossible, an infinite regression of cause and effect which is incoherent, and it would also mean the universe should either be infinitely old or have never come into being. The BB theory does not include a cause, and the BGVT is a more modern and robust theory consistent with the BBT and suggests nothing pre-existed the universe.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

The BGVT was designed to be very robust in order to hold true regardless of all counter theories like oscillating universes, infinite regression, cosmic eggs, and an eternal universe which is what your proposing. Your simply saying the universe is eternal but existed in a different form at one time.

So what? The notion that the earth is flat was the standard model for hundreds and hundreds of years.

But unlike the cosmological argument it was quickly overturned. In fact a spherical earth was a major view point of cultures through out recorded history, the bible certainly suggests is was spherical.

Irrelevant.
Pulling god as the cause of the universe out of the black hat is no more justified than pulling out Turtles All The Way Down as its construction. Your assertion that it must have been a god of some sort because we have yet to identify a physical cause of the universe is hardly persuasive. Just so you know.

God is not pulled out of a hat, however multiple universes and quantum fluctuations is.

Creation ex nihilo goes all the way back to Plato, and the evidence that it is the fact just keeps piling up. Since nothing contains no nature or natural law then nature is not an explanation for the universe. That only leaves three possibilities that we have any reason to consider.

1. Abstract concepts like numbers. Yet these do not stand in causal relationships with anything. The number 7 never created anything.
2. The nothing it's self. Nothing literally means no-thing. Nothing has no causal potential of any kind.
3. Something beyond nature. Which has certain characteristics.

Those characteristics exactly match the description of God given by men who lived thousands of years before they could know what characteristics needed to be faked to create a lie.

God is not pulled out of a hat. He is by far the best explanation of that evidence.

 

[Koldo]

It occurred to my yesterday afternoon the problem with your argumentation. Your assuming incorrect standards. Your demanding I convince you or prove something to a certainty, and when I can't you dismiss the argument. This is incorrect because that was not the standard my claims are made to. Someone asked for an argument for God. I gave one that has only a handful of candidates that meet what it necessitates.

Faith and historical claims are never made to certainties. They are made to the best explanation. When we have hundreds of millions of claims to being born again just as the bible predicts the best explanation is that the bible was correct. I have read what mystics, Hindus, Seeks, the Bahia, hypnotists, drug cults, Gnostics, etc..... claim. I used to ask most of my opponents in debates about their experiences. Who knows what the ratio is but I my decades long experience would suggest that for every person of any other faith and philosophy that claims a supernatural experience there are over 100 Christians who do.
People in forums usually show up pre-convinced. I do not expect to convince you. It takes a process with many lines of reasoning to adopt faith. I am only attempting to provide a few of those lines of reasoning. No one here concedes anything by the most benign premises.

The first post on this topic says: Identify your god and convince us that it exists.

That's the standard.

Not just him what?

Not just him that could be omnipotent.

It has convinced more people than any other single belief system. It is by far the most persuasive. It's the only faith that has a significant presence in every country on earth and has convinced hordes of the greatest minds in history. And did so despite being persecuted by nations and empires. However these are arguments from popularity and are not that important.

I did not say it was. I gave 5 pieces of evidence that NT historians agree are facts which make the belief that he rose from death the best explanation of them. Again your simply moving the goal posts all over the place. I expect you to at least treat the historical claims most historians agree with as evidence. My job is to give evidence, it is not what you do with it.

The claim that Christianity was accepted across the world because of its intelectual arguments is rather absurd. Do you honestly believe in that ? A simple history research should explain how Christianity spread out of Europe.

Regarding Jesus, the belief that he rose from death is not the best explanation. Otherwise, historians would stand by it without a dispute and every one of them would be a christian.

Avatar is a bad description of Christ. Instead of trying to explain the trinity I will just leave it there. I pondered it but what now? Yes a God who actually did X and a God who actually did not do X are not the same God.

I know exactly what your trying to do, but to counter it would require a dozen posts and is unnecessary. Let's instead short circuit this.

1. I believe in the God of the old testament.
2. That Jewish scientist believes in the God of the OT.
3. Even if they are two different Gods then they would still be consistent with my argument. I said only a handful of God concepts meet the requirements of sufficient causation. If different they would both be included. However the Biblical God would still prevail as best explanation because of the additional evidence the NT has that the OT does not.

And BTW I included Allah as a candidate for creation, but I deny him based of sufficiency of evidence.

In which case I can't accept material from an Orthodox Jew. Any argument he brings up is an argument for his god, and not yours. If you agree on any particular point he makes you are free to quote it up though.

Almost all God's throughout history are derivatives of nature. Look at the Egyptian theology, the Greek, the Roman. They were created God's and the universe was primary.

Take into consideration all possible gods that could fit in. Not just the ones we have stories about.

I made a mistake here yesterday. I thought you were referring to the cosmological argument, but you were discussing the greatest being concept. My comments were out of context. Anselm may have been the first to invent the greatest being argument, I do not know. My point is that secular philosophers use the greatest conceivable being as a generic God for considering him in argumentation.

I miss understood your argument but this still might be the case only not so emphatic and one I cannot demonstrate.

My point still stands regardless: These philosophers either influenced our understanding of Christianity or were influenced by it.

I spent a lifetime as a child in church with this exact attitude, only to end up disbelieving in God, or if he existed hating him, and I resented anyone talking to me about him. Yet look what happened to me. You never know what state of mind you might be in some day and recall something I or others have said. You have to have an open heart and most of us keep our pretty well guarded. The context was an argument for God, it was not proof of God that convinces someone. BTW what happened to all my historical claims? You did not comment on a single one or take up a single challenge.

You may some day become an atheist too... or a muslim.... or... who knows ?

 

[1robin]

Well, at least we agree on something. I also cried when I watched the Passion of Christ and I will never watch it again. But probably for reasons different from yours. It just bored me to tears.

I would hate to see what would shock you.

And like less boring Monty Python would say: at least Cruxifictions take place in the open air

I liked the life of Bryan but I lost a lot of respect when they debated some Catholic bishops. I would have respected them if they had said they were simply making fun of the story, but that is not what they said, they said something about trying to offer other possibilities (as if they were giving a serious alternate history of the events). I still love them but I no longer respect them. I paraphrased them but you can find it on utube.

I am sure that cruxifitions are very painful. But I am sure that Jesus was not the first to feel that. But He was the first to know that all this will not end in death, or at least in definitive death. So, from a psychological point of view, He must have had an edge. Everybody would be readier to submit to pain if they knew with absolute certainty that they will come back as the airborne Master of the Universe after a couple of days, instead of vanishing and rotting in a grave after that ordeal.

This is another false optimality argument. To claim something failed a standard you must first give the standard. By any rational standard what he experienced is one the extreme end of the scale. It is virtually universally either denied that it took place or viewed as horrific suffering. How much suffering do you demand?

So, my question is: why do you guys insist in saying that Jesus died for our sins? It would be more precise to say that He took a couple of days off, for our sins. Don't you think?

No excruciating would be the word that I and language it's self adopted from just the physical suffering, the separation from perfect love is not describable in human language. The closest I could get is to point you to George Foreman's description of going to hell when he collapsed in his dressing room and his is one of the mildest.

So, still unimpressed, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

At this point what impresses you would be something so indescribably horrible I would prefer not knowing about it.

 

[1robin]

Let me skip the Vilenkin theorem for the moment, for the sake of focus. We have already been through that, and if you want to resume it, let me know. We can go through the details of the theorem, the inflationary and relativistic premises, his book and all that, in a separate thread, if you wish.

Actually I was surprised you responded at all to my cosmological argument since we have been through it before. I can even tell you what your counter argument will be. I could have the debate with myself if I was bored enough.

And for what concern the block universe, I propose you read S. Carroll, B. Greene, L. Smolin, P. Davies and others. I think there is a cool youtube video of B. Greene about the subject. I think He uses the analogy of the Universe as a loaf of bread, or something like that. Again, let me know if you are really interested.

Ok, I like Sean Caroll and I have seen his theory of the history of the universe and it looks more like two out of phase AC traces. I saw no blacks. However since I like him if you give me a link to his take on block universes I will read or watch it.

Now. Back to DRUG, the Dumb Random Universes Generator. I would not bother researching it, since I just made it up. It is amazing how easy it is to make up metaphysical explanations about reality.

Nice acronym work. I knew I held you in high regard despite the last few posts for some reason. I have not thought about it but I think there is a conflict between a universe that contains our level of sophistication and a dumb God. Even listening to Atheistic biologists you will hear them constantly referring to how well this or that was designed. They talk about the sophistication of biology with a reverence that reminds my of a verse:

New Living Translation
They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

Keep in mind that was written long before evolution was even a word or science.

Your rebuttal, is not a rebuttal. True, we have no evidence of other universes except this one. But we have no evidence of conscious beings living outside this universe, either. So, I do not see how your explanation can be superior, unless you think that special pleading is an argument.

We have arguments that make it a virtual necessity. We have hundreds of millions of reports to the miraculous. How ever poor you rate the evidence it still exists and none exists for your counter explanations. If there is no evidence for the supernatural why does the majority of the population (even among the greatest minds of history) believe in a higher power. It is the opposite extreme for either of your explanations.

So, how is DRUG not a viable, unconscious and necessary explanation of reality? What does your conscious first cause has, that DRUG does not have?

I thought you just said not to bother thinking about it and I haven't. One good reason though is the fact I know you just invented that concept to answer a specific set of requirements. I do not know that the biblical authors made up Yahweh and they had no idea what the questions were that needed to be answered to produce a believable lie to a 20th century philosopher. So Yahweh is the better explanation even after investing less than 3 minutes of thought.

As that little girl in true grit suggested. We should not bother entertaining purely hypotheticals, the world as it is, is vexing enough.

 

[1robin]

Aquinas used outdated Aristotle causality which no one uses anymore. You are citing an outdated argument.

1. Only an assumption based on induction not deduction.
2. Say it is uncaused is not an explanation. You can not prove it was so it is just an assertion. Likewise I could claim the same of the singularity thus God is an unnecessary assumption which explains nothing.
3. Assertion only, there is no evidence supporting this view unlike the evidence supporting uncaused virtual particles in QM.
4. Assertion
5. Assertion
6. Assertion

The argument is not sound and inductive based. It can be dismissed for being unsound.



1. Unsound due to virtual particles in QM
2. True but only applies to the universe not the singularity it came from. Hence it is not a true start but a change in form.
3. Unsound due to the singularity which a form of universe.
4. God of the Gaps.

Unsound and fallacious argument. Craig has no expertise in physics, Carrol proved this in his debate.



Respected by who is what matters. No physicist uses this argument so the relevant field in question has nothing to say about it, heck it avoids it. It is respected by only the religious certainly not in philosophy. The respect is only gained since it is confirmation bias.



Considering the whole article only agreed on one point, the universe begin, then you either did not read it or did not understand it. You are responsible for citing a source accurately otherwise the citation becomes a strawman which is a great tool Craig uses to cover his ignorance.



You just said it was a theory which by definition is not a faith based view. Which is it? IF faith based then it is not a theory, if a theory then it is not faith based.



Read you sources and think about this. Swinburne just said the exact thing I said about Aquinas. You are citing sources due to confirmation bias but your sources contradictt each other.... Swinburne makes a mistake in his first sentence. We have evidences for the universe, we have no evidence of God.... The first premise of his argument fails to test and prove substance dualism thus the premise is unsound, the rest of his argument collapses after this alone.

You just provided a source that refuted Aquinas and Craig....



It fails to be the best since the cause is not explained, attributes are just piled on to God by inference from the universe rather than by observation. Thus the argument is unsound and can not be by definition the best. Piling attitudes on to something does not make it exist. Proof of logic is fallacious and refuted by Hume centuries ago.





QM refuted this awhile ago. It is also inductive based on observation of other objects not the object in question. Problem of induction and non-observation as covered by Popper.





Hilarious. Time is part of the universe, physics is the study of the mechanics of the universe thus also studies time. Special pleading considering you and Craig uses physics as the basis of your arguments until physics not longer works for the argument. Then suddenly time is not about physics. When Craig sits on a board of physicists then I will care what he has to say about physics, he does not have such credentials. Craig is easy to dismissed since he argues points due to his ignorance which Carrol exposed in the debate.




Ho

1. Is not meaning less since it is a counter-argument against your supporting arguments... You cited it yet now want to ignore it's contents. Hilarious bait and switch
2. Which you have done for God, special pleading and a strawman as pointed out above
3. I dismissed Craig since he uses supporting arguments from a field he has been show to be ignorant of.

So pointing out errors is a word fit. Maybe make a few less mistakes and read what you cite. Your defense is post hoc rationalization and projection, nothing more.

I think this entire post except one spot was the same argument. That the cosmological argument is not intellectually permissible (rational). Instead of going home to get my book where every step in it is justified using accepted philosophical justifications I will instead give you a link to Craig himself contending with several modern and famous scholars trying to write off the argument the same way you are. Since it is more in depth that I can quote and he by far the more qualified source I will give you the link.
In Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith


I do not accept arguments from age or popularity. Something old can be just as right as something new can be just as wrong despite the age. Philosophy is not like cosmology. We do not get bigger telescopes over time.

The one exception you mentioned was that since time is natural it is in the domain of physics then you claim stands. That would be true if we were talking about space time. We weren't. I was talking about things independent of time or domains of time not related to space. Philosophy is the discipline that best applies there.

 

[Skwim]

That is not even possible. For quantum fluctuations to have produced the universe would imply a natural infinity which is impossible, an infinite regression of cause and effect which is incoherent, and it would also mean the universe should either be infinitely old or have never come into being.

And quantum fluctuations are a necessary component of any of the possibilities because ___________ fill in the blank______________ .

The BB theory does not include a cause, and the BGVT is a more modern and robust theory consistent with the BBT and suggests nothing pre-existed the universe.

That's because it only deals with a particular type of universe.

The BGVT was designed to be very robust in order to hold true regardless of all counter theories like oscillating universes, infinite regression, cosmic eggs, and an eternal universe which is what your proposing. Your simply saying the universe is eternal but existed in a different form at one time.

Not at all. Please reread my post.

God is not pulled out of a hat, however multiple universes and quantum fluctuations is.

Multiple universes and quantum fluctuations are merely proposed possibilities. Leibniz's "necessary being" is an unequivocal assertion.

Creation ex nihilo goes all the way back to Plato, and the evidence that it is the fact just keeps piling up. Since nothing contains no nature or natural law then nature is not an explanation for the universe.

Prove there was nothing before the universe, or there is nothing aside from our universe from which our universe derived its existence. In as much as you can't, your "nothing" statement is a hollow assertion, and all that follows here, irrelevant.

God is not pulled out of a hat. He is by far the best explanation of that evidence.

I'd say "You've got to be kidding," but I know you're not. God is nothing more than a convenient device put into play to hold one's set of beliefs together. You've been told that god created everything (except himself of course. He came from . . . . . . . err, never mind. ) and you're obligated/need to believe it. But because its validity rests in faith, and faith alone, don't expect it to carry any weight. I prefer to admit we don't know rather than embrace a concept rooted in folklore. A concept whose character rests on pure say-so.

 

[Shad]

I think this entire post except one spot was the same argument. That the cosmological argument is not intellectually permissible (rational). Instead of going home to get my book where every step in it is justified using accepted philosophical justifications I will instead give you a link to Craig himself contending with several modern and famous scholars trying to write off the argument the same way you are. Since it is more in depth that I can quote and he by far the more qualified source I will give you the link.
In Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith


I do not accept arguments from age or popularity. Something old can be just as right as something new can be just as wrong despite the age. Philosophy is not like cosmology. We do not get bigger telescopes over time.

The one exception you mentioned was that since time is natural it is in the domain of physics then you claim stands. That would be true if we were talking about space time. We weren't. I was talking about things independent of time or domains of time not related to space. Philosophy is the discipline that best applies there.

You accept arguments of confirmation bias hence you cite outdated, fallacious and/or unsound ones.

Actually by using examples of causes of other objects you are using space-time. By shifting part of your argument from space-time to God-time it makes the argument a non sequitur and treats "time" in the form of a equivocation fallacy. The argument collapses as Carrol points out.

You are making a cosmological argument, hence it is about cosmology.. It does not matter if it philosophical as it going into a field of physics by definition. This shows how far out of touch you and Craig are when it comes to the terms used. Look up words before you use them so you do not use the words incorrectly.

Also Craig jumps around from time-space to timeless, which contradicts God-time, then flips back to God-time. All this is just post hoc rationalization and a abuse of fallacious reasoning and terms to recover his refuted argument. He is just as guilty for his abuse of terms as he labels Oppy is while invoking special pleading to render the his mistake immune from criticism. His relience on defeaters is a facade to ignore his burden of soundness of his arguments. This flies with people that have no education in philosophy, it fails for those that do. Craig thinks soundness need not apply to him, he is wrong.

 

[1robin]

The first post on this topic says: Identify your god and convince us that it exists.

I responded to the threads title not the first post. I think clicking on a thread (at least the way I do it) takes you to the last post and you never see the first one. Regardless I do not accept any burden of your being convinced because I have no control over that. That does explain why you have been suggesting I have that burden though.

That's the standard.

If I am required to convert you over the internet then I never would have posted anything. That's an absurd standard. If your being convinced is the goal here then your welcome to not respond further as I will not argue to that end. My job is:

New International Version
But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

That is the only goal I acknowledge. I may fall short in some ways but I am satisfied if I feel I have given it my best shot. Convincing is not a factor.

Not just him that could be omnipotent.

There are two parts to this evaluation.
1. Things that we have reason to believe may exist. It may be weak evidence but we must have some reason to consider it to begin with. We cannot investigate infinite numbers of hypotheticals.
2. Then we must pick from the things we have some reason to suspect exist, as to which one is the best explanation.

Your God X fails the first requirement.

The claim that Christianity was accepted across the world because of its intelectual arguments is rather absurd. Do you honestly believe in that ? A simple history research should explain how Christianity spread out of Europe.

I did not say that, I agree with you. It was not philosophy that convinced the masses (though it was probably a factor in the better educated persons faith). I imagine it was less intellectual things that led to faith. The accuracy with which the bible accounts for the reality we find our selves in, the character of much of Christianity, charities for example), the historical validity of the bible, the great moral works of the faith. For me it was the character of one girl, and one former drug dealer now preacher, and my own guilt that finally made me give up my fighting with faith and give it a real chance. Anyway any number of factors can lead to a person actually looking a faith without bias. However what happens next is usually similar. Reading the word with an open heart you miraculously find it more and more convincing, leading to the conclusions you are justly condemned, asking for forgiveness and being born again. Jesus described it as many roads (or a wide road) but only one gate. There are many ways of getting to faith but only one way of getting to God.

Now keep in mind there are two groups referring to themselves as Christians. One group that gave intellectual consent to a historical proposition either willingly, by coercion, or by force. Then a second group who was born again as Jesus said in John we must. Theologians differentiate between simple faith and saving faith.

Regarding Jesus, the belief that he rose from death is not the best explanation. Otherwise, historians would stand by it without a dispute and every one of them would be a Christian.

That is not a historical conclusion. We have the facts (at least as certain as history can make them) that I gave. At that point historians are done but we still need an explanation. If you want you can give me what you think is a better explanation for a missing body and since I am familiar with most I will show how it is not the best explanation. Historians studying a miracle is like using a ruler to weigh something. Since I think this would be a more meaningful debate let me make some more comments about it.

Keep in mind the claims a majority of NT historians agreed are true.

1. He appeared in history claiming to be divine, and that he would rise from the dead.
2. He was crucified by Rome.
3. His tomb was sealed and guarded but days later found empty.
4. That even his enemies claimed to have spoke with him after death.
5. That the man in the best position to know that absolute fact of the matter alienated their families, their nation, and endured the wrath of the greatest empire on earth, and received no world gain and spent a lifetime claiming he rose from death.

Now you must come up with a better explanation than mine.

Also note that countless historians do accept his resurrection but it is not accessible in a historical context. That is why it takes faith.

In which case I can't accept material from an Orthodox Jew. Any argument he brings up is an argument for his god, and not yours. If you agree on any particular point he makes you are free to quote it up though.

This is like trying to get a client off that you know is guilty by a procedural technicality but since I am lazy that is fine with me.

Take into consideration all possible gods that could fit in. Not just the ones we have stories about.

I cannot consider an infinite number of hypotheticals. That is silly. They do not do that in any courtroom on earth.

My point still stands regardless: These philosophers either influenced our understanding of Christianity or were influenced by it.

I am not sure what that means. Of course people influence each other. My calculus teacher influenced me as to the fundamental definition of a limit, and it is no less true or rational.

You may some day become an atheist too... or a muslim.... or... who knows ?

If my interpretation of the bible is correct I do not think that possible, but that is a theological proposition not an argument.

BTW before I was a Christian I checked into everything, from pain killers, astral projection, pantheism, hypnotism, Islam, astrology, etc.... you name it I tried it. Nothing worked for me but drugs and Christ, but the drugs also came with a cost greater than the gain.

 

[muhammadsultan.pk]

There can be thousands of arguments that there must be one creater of this universe but you can never prove with arguments that the creater actually exist. The journey from "must exist" to "actually exist" can only be travelled if he (God) himself tell you that he is there.
Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (IslamAhmadiyya - Ahmadiyya Muslim Community - Al Islam Online - Official Website is the only religious community who can help you to travel through this journey.

 

[1robin]

And quantum fluctuations are a necessary component of any of the possibilities because ___________ fill in the blank______________ .

I am not saying they are. You said the BB came from some prior state of affairs. The only hypothetical prior state of affairs I have ever heard a physicist theorize is quantum fluctuation. I was pointing out why it would not work. If you have invented some unique prior state of affair that produced the universe then describe it and we can see if it is plausible.

That's because it only deals with a particular type of universe.

Yeah, the one and only universe we have any evidence of existing.

Not at all. Please reread my post.

The word universe means "everything" in a natural context.

Universe: all existing matter and space considered as a whole.

Now if your going to suggest that everything came from something (that is not God) your going to have to explain what it is so it can be evaluated. Basically I am asking "So if God did not do it, who or what did" and you responding with "something". I can't evaluate "something" and that is not a counter argument.

Multiple universes and quantum fluctuations are merely proposed possibilities. Leibniz's "necessary being" is an unequivocal assertion.

Yes, multiple universes are a fantasy (which btw even if true still has the same problem), and the other is an inductive argument.

Prove there was nothing before the universe, or there is nothing aside from our universe from which our universe derived its existence. In as much as you can't, your "nothing" statement is a hollow assertion, and all that follows here, irrelevant.

There you go with that prove stuff again. I argue to the best explanation. However here are some of the arguments.

The first philosophical argument:

1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

Thermodynamic argument:
if given enough time the universe will reach heat death, then why is it not in a state of heat death now, if it has existed forever, from eternity? If the universe did not begin to exist, then it should now be in a state of equilibrium. Like a ticking clock, it should by now have run down.

Richard Schlegel, "Time and Thermodynamics," in The Voices of Time, ed. J.T. Fraser (London: Penguin, 1948), p. 511.

A second deductive argument:

The second deductive argument may be formulated as follows:

1. The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.

2. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.

3. Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.

A deduction from expansion:

If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of space-time, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of space-time itself

P. C. W. Davies, "Space-time Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser
Read more: Creatio ex nihilo: A Critique of the Mormon Doctrine of Creation | Reasonable Faith or Philosophical and Scientific Pointers to Creatio ex Nihilo by William Lane Craig JASA 32 (March 1980): 5-13

That is at least a start.

I'd say "You've got to be kidding," but I know you're not. God is nothing more than a convenient device put into play to hold one's set of beliefs together. You've been told that god created everything (except himself of course. He came from . . . . . . . err, never mind. ) and you're obligated/need to believe it. But because its validity rests in faith, and faith alone, don't expect it to carry any weight. I prefer to admit we don't know rather than embrace a concept rooted in folklore. A concept whose character rests on pure say-so.

I am not going to acknowledge your historical revisionism as a claim to certain knowledge. Claims to certain knowledge hold the burden of proof but this is so absurd I will not even request it.

 

[1robin]

You accept arguments of confirmation bias hence you cite outdated, fallacious and/or unsound ones.

Actually by using examples of causes of other objects you are using space-time. By shifting part of your argument from space-time to God-time it makes the argument a non sequitur and treats "time" in the form of a equivocation fallacy. The argument collapses as Carrol points out.

You are making a cosmological argument, hence it is about cosmology.. It does not matter if it philosophical as it going into a field of physics by definition. This shows how far out of touch you and Craig are when it comes to the terms used. Look up words before you use them so you do not use the words incorrectly.

Also Craig jumps around from time-space to timeless, which contradicts God-time, then flips back to God-time. All this is just post hoc rationalization and a abuse of fallacious reasoning and terms to recover his refuted argument. He is just as guilty for his abuse of terms as he labels Oppy is while invoking special pleading to render the his mistake immune from criticism. His relience on defeaters is a facade to ignore his burden of soundness of his arguments. This flies with people that have no education in philosophy, it fails for those that do. Craig thinks soundness need not apply to him, he is wrong.

I have already explained that discussing "time" before space time is an issue our languages handle clumsily. Craig admits this all the time. It is no different than an atheistic evolutionary biologist referring to something being so marvelously designed of an atheistic cosmologist referring to an event as miraculous (both I have heard them do countless times). I, unlike you are doing, grant that they are imperfect and do not mean those words to be taken emphatically literal. You are like a lawyer who has a know to be guilty client trying to get his off based on a procedural technicality. Craig goes to great lengths to explain his terminology and it is very easy to see why it is a hard subject to verbalize consistently.

In fact here is a paper where he describes it in detail:
God and the Beginning of Time | Reasonable Faith

If your going to demand a hyperbolic perfection in language use when describing things the mind has trouble comprehending then no debate is possible.

 

[seeking4truth]

How do you know anything exists. 1. by by personal experience; 2. by the reports of those who have personal experience; 3. by observing the effect of something.

It works with anything. eg. fire, electricity, wind, Mars, America, atoms, etc. Whatever you choose there are only these 3 ways to know they exist.

Every day in every way God is experienced through these 3 ways.

 

[Skwim]

I am not saying they are.

Sure you are.

Not at all. It's been established that our universe originated from the BB, whose origin may lay in the transformation of a previous state of being; a previous universe of some kind, or an expression of a meta-universe, or one of the iterations of the ongoing reincarnations of previous universes.

That is not even possible. For quantum fluctuations to have produced the universe would imply a natural infinity which is impossible, an infinite regression of cause and effect which is incoherent, and it would also mean the universe should either be infinitely old or have never come into being.

And quantum fluctuations are a necessary component of any of the possibilities because ___________ fill in the blank______________ .

You said the BB came from some prior state of affairs.

No I didn't. I said it was one of the possibilities.


Never mind. Your inability to read, retain, and understand what has been said is too much to bother with. Take your irrelevancies and persistent reconstructions of posts, and annoy someone else. Have a good day.



.

 

[viole]

Actually I was surprised you responded at all to my cosmological argument since we have been through it before. I can even tell you what your counter argument will be. I could have the debate with myself if I was bored enough.

Ok, I like Sean Caroll and I have seen his theory of the history of the universe and it looks more like two out of phase AC traces. I saw no blacks. However since I like him if you give me a link to his take on block universes I will read or watch it.

I recommend S. Carroll's "from eternity to here". I believe the block universe view is in the first chapter. But the rest is equally interesting.

Nice acronym work. I knew I held you in high regard despite the last few posts for some reason. I have not thought about it but I think there is a conflict between a universe that contains our level of sophistication and a dumb God. Even listening to Atheistic biologists you will hear them constantly referring to how well this or that was designed. They talk about the sophistication of biology with a reverence that reminds my of a verse:

New Living Translation
They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.

But I am not postulating a dumb God. I am postulating an unconscious mechanism that generate random Universes without any reason whatsoever. It is dumb, but I would not call it God. Some of those Universes are bound to be any level of complexity you wish.

Of course, this is all made up and, likely, not true. But being made up does not make it any falser than God, the latter having been made up as well. But how can we exclude my version? It has the same explanatory power of a conscious being and even solves all teleological arguments, like the fine tuning (as if it needed an explanation). For sure, it has the same evidence (none) of its conscious version, but the point here is to show the lack of necessity of a conscious explanation, even under the concept of time held by Craig and company.

Keep in mind that was written long before evolution was even a word or science.

That prophecy is self fulfilling, since the author probably expected that someone would call him out as knowledge about the world increases. I would also write that if I invented a new religion from scratch. And how can people still have a problem with evolution by natural selection is mind boggling to me. It is not only theists, but some atheists doubt that as well. All this is probably due to an excessive anthropocentric case of self esteem.

We have arguments that make it a virtual necessity. We have hundreds of millions of reports to the miraculous. How ever poor you rate the evidence it still exists and none exists for your counter explanations. If there is no evidence for the supernatural why does the majority of the population (even among the greatest minds of history) believe in a higher power. It is the opposite extreme for either of your explanations.

If those miracolus events were conclusive, you would not need any additional complicated arguments on top of them, anyway. Just use the empty tomb, or Jesus walking on water, instead of venturing into modal arguments about the contingency of the universe. But we both know that they are not conclusive at all.

And sorry, these "miracolous" events happen all the time, in different religions and cultures. Hope springs eternal and everywhere.

I thought you just said not to bother thinking about it and I haven't. One good reason though is the fact I know you just invented that concept to answer a specific set of requirements. I do not know that the biblical authors made up Yahweh and they had no idea what the questions were that needed to be answered to produce a believable lie to a 20th century philosopher. So Yahweh is the better explanation even after investing less than 3 minutes of thought.

As that little girl in true grit suggested. We should not bother entertaining purely hypotheticals, the world as it is, is vexing enough.

I said not to reaserch it, not to stop thinking about it. I can find more unconscious metaphysical explanations of reality, if you want. The point is that as long you do not find a metaphysical or logical show stopper, you have no way to prove to anyone that the conscious version of this necessary explanation is the only game in town.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Sure you are.

No, I am emphatically denying it.

There are two predominant models in science.

1. The majority view is that the universe began to exist from a prior state of affairs that is a null set. Nothing.
2. The minority view is that the universe burst into existence out of energy fluctuations.

Since you countered the majority view I assumed you adopted the minority view. I then went on to explain how the minority view is impossible. Now if you deny the majority and minority views then you must present some view so it may be evaluated. Saying God is not the best explanation because "something" else might have happened is not an argument.

No I didn't. I said it was one of the possibilities.

Your counter to my best explanation was:

It's been established that our universe originated from the BB, whose origin may lay in the transformation of a previous state of being; a previous universe of some kind, or an expression of a meta-universe, or one of the iterations of the ongoing reincarnations of previous universes.

Is that not some prior state of affairs just as I said. It does not matter how you world it, a previous universe, a meta-universe, quantum fluctuation, etc........ you have the exact same problem. No infinite regression of causation is possible. Eventually you run out of natural effects and still require a non-natural cause. There is no such thing as a natural infinite.

Never mind. Your inability to read, retain, and understand what has been said is too much to bother with. Take your irrelevancies and persistent reconstructions of posts, and annoy someone else. Have a good day.

If you want to give up and punt I would have preferred you do so at the beginning of the post.

 

[1robin]

I recommend S. Carroll's "from eternity to here". I believe the block universe view is in the first chapter. But the rest is equally interesting.

I don't think God wants me to find the book. I went to one site and it would only let me see the first few pages, I got the entire PDF but when searching for "block" my computer locked up. I gave up on the book and simply looked up block universe. I went to at least a dozen sites and found them all the exact same. This is a philosophical proposition not a scientific theory. It is literally a fantasy world constructed out of a vacuum. So I next searched for evidence for block universes. The first two I saw stated a caveat in the opening statement, they said they would not be making mathematic or scientific arguments but merely logical deductions, but then they even failed to do that. In summary it seems that the block universe is simply just as much a fantasy world as the Lord of the Rings (which had far more detail). Since I could find no scientific evidence for it I can make no scientific argument against it. It is another one of those maybe's who's only virtue is it is not known to be impossible. I did find an article that stated my conclusion about this better than I can so at the risk of getting it deleted I will quote it though it may be a bit long.

This is a review in the Sunday Times by Bryan Appleyard.

The Universe: A Buyer’s Guide
Sunday Times, 04 January 2015

The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time

By Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin

A shady-looking chap pulls you into a dark alley. He is a physicist who wants to sell you a universe — well, in fact, several trillion universes. It is cheap and you ask him what the catch is.

There are, he admits, four catches. First, he doesn’t know how this universe started so he’s made up a “Big Bang”moment when time starts and beyond which none of his theories works. Second, one of his biggest ideas — the Standard Model of Particle Physics — is full of so many arbitrary numbers that he has had to invent trillions of other universes (the multiverse) in which these numbers are different. Third, his two master theories (quantum theory and relativity) both seem to be true, but they contradict each other. Finally, he hopes that his laws of physics apply all the time everywhere but he’s not sure and, frankly, he hasn’t a clue what these laws really are.

Caveat emptor! This guy must be selling you a dud. Or is he? Most physicists and, indeed, most scientists believe all of the above, which is why so many science journals and sci-fi films are full of so much weird stuff involving twisted time, quantum leaps and, their weirdest invention, the block universe.

In the block universe there is no present, past or future, everything is there all at once. Our lives are just lines in the block. I think this is what the movie Interstellar was getting at. Nothing ever really happens in the block, it just sits there, a vulgar paperweight on the desk of some strikingly unimaginative god.

Never mind, here comes Roberto Mangabeira Unger, a brilliant philosopher and prominent Brazilian politician, and Lee Smolin, an exceptional physicist, to rescue us from the grip of the block god with three statements that, if true, overturn most of contemporary physics. The statements are: time is real and therefore there are no unchanging physical laws; there is only one universe; and mathematics is of strictly limited use in explaining the cosmos. The clear implication is —that physicist in the alley really is as dodgy as he seems. He has abandoned proper science — the testing of hypotheses against nature — in favour of the invention of purely mathematical constructs (like the multiverse) which, very dodgily indeed, can never be tested against nature.
Bryan Appleyard » Blog Archive » The Universe: A Buyer’s Guide

I only quoted part of the article but I suggest reading the other two thirds. If you can give me a link to someone that shows Carrols evidence I would be happy to read it. I spent close to an hour and do not think I found a single attempt to demonstrate the block universe exists. I only found descriptions of it. I actually hope you can find it because Carol's credibility with me (not that he cares) would suffer if he has merely invented a science fiction world. In his debate with Craig I found him very credible and very willing to admit his ideas were only possibilities and no evidence exists. If he is now suggesting this alternate reality exists, he must now show some evidence.

I posted this separately so if it gets deleted the rest won't go with it. BTW I realize you said "if the block universe exists" not that it does. But keep in mind the argument has two parts.

1. The candidates that explain reality. Block universes may pass this one.
2. Of those candidates which has the most evidence. Block universes do not pass this one so far.

P.S. Have you seen the Craig Carroll debate. He put up a drawing of his alternate universe though I do not recall his calling it a block universe. It looked like two out of phase sin waves. However even that was argued with vigorously by Craig but I do not recall the arguments themselves. The debate is the only one in which I think the opponent kept up with Craig, though not on this issue.

I will get to the rest of your post soon.

 

[viole]

I don't think God wants me to find the book. I went to one site and it would only let me see the first few pages, I got the entire PDF but when searching for "block" my computer locked up. I gave up on the book and simply looked up block universe. I went to at least a dozen sites and found them all the exact same. This is a philosophical proposition not a scientific theory. It is literally a fantasy world constructed out of a vacuum. So I next searched for evidence for block universes. The first two I saw stated a caveat in the opening statement, they said they would not be making mathematic or scientific arguments but merely logical deductions, but then they even failed to do that. In summary it seems that the block universe is simply just as much a fantasy world as the Lord of the Rings (which had far more detail). Since I could find no scientific evidence for it I can make no scientific argument against it. It is another one of those maybe's who's only virtue is it is not known to be impossible. I did find an article that stated my conclusion about this better than I can so at the risk of getting it deleted I will quote it though it may be a bit long.

This is a review in the Sunday Times by Bryan Appleyard.

The Universe: A Buyer’s Guide
Sunday Times, 04 January 2015

The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time

By Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin

A shady-looking chap pulls you into a dark alley. He is a physicist who wants to sell you a universe — well, in fact, several trillion universes. It is cheap and you ask him what the catch is.

There are, he admits, four catches. First, he doesn’t know how this universe started so he’s made up a “Big Bang”moment when time starts and beyond which none of his theories works. Second, one of his biggest ideas — the Standard Model of Particle Physics — is full of so many arbitrary numbers that he has had to invent trillions of other universes (the multiverse) in which these numbers are different. Third, his two master theories (quantum theory and relativity) both seem to be true, but they contradict each other. Finally, he hopes that his laws of physics apply all the time everywhere but he’s not sure and, frankly, he hasn’t a clue what these laws really are.

Caveat emptor! This guy must be selling you a dud. Or is he? Most physicists and, indeed, most scientists believe all of the above, which is why so many science journals and sci-fi films are full of so much weird stuff involving twisted time, quantum leaps and, their weirdest invention, the block universe.

In the block universe there is no present, past or future, everything is there all at once. Our lives are just lines in the block. I think this is what the movie Interstellar was getting at. Nothing ever really happens in the block, it just sits there, a vulgar paperweight on the desk of some strikingly unimaginative god.

Never mind, here comes Roberto Mangabeira Unger, a brilliant philosopher and prominent Brazilian politician, and Lee Smolin, an exceptional physicist, to rescue us from the grip of the block god with three statements that, if true, overturn most of contemporary physics. The statements are: time is real and therefore there are no unchanging physical laws; there is only one universe; and mathematics is of strictly limited use in explaining the cosmos. The clear implication is —that physicist in the alley really is as dodgy as he seems. He has abandoned proper science — the testing of hypotheses against nature — in favour of the invention of purely mathematical constructs (like the multiverse) which, very dodgily indeed, can never be tested against nature.
Bryan Appleyard » Blog Archive » The Universe: A Buyer’s Guide

I only quoted part of the article but I suggest reading the other two thirds. If you can give me a link to someone that shows Carrols evidence I would be happy to read it. I spent close to an hour and do not think I found a single attempt to demonstrate the block universe exists. I only found descriptions of it. I actually hope you can find it because Carol's credibility with me (not that he cares) would suffer if he has merely invented a science fiction world. In his debate with Craig I found him very credible and very willing to admit his ideas were only possibilities and no evidence exists. If he is now suggesting this alternate reality exists, he must now show some evidence.

I posted this separately so if it gets deleted the rest won't go with it. BTW I realize you said "if the block universe exists" not that it does. But keep in mind the argument has two parts.

1. The candidates that explain reality. Block universes may pass this one.
2. Of those candidates which has the most evidence. Block universes do not pass this one so far.

P.S. Have you seen the Craig Carroll debate. He put up a drawing of his alternate universe though I do not recall his calling it a block universe. It looked like two out of phase sin waves. However even that was argued with vigorously by Craig but I do not recall the arguments themselves. The debate is the only one in which I think the opponent kept up with Craig, though not on this issue.

I will get to the rest of your post soon.

Evidence that this is not only metaphysics? Relativity, of course. What else? It is all there. Einstein's verdict: time is only an illusion, albeit a stubborn one.

Once you realize you can bend time like a rubber, you also realize the time is physics. Actually, timespace is physic, while time and space are not objective as separate entities. This is really rlativity 101. And that time and space are essentially the same thing, since they can be converted one into the other by using a constant. The twin "paradox" is nothing more then someone's time using someone else's space, since time and space convert one into the other all the time (or all the space, lol).

There is nothing metaphysical about that. What we also know today is that there is not such a thing like the present that separates past from future. The very concepts of past and future are parochial and, therefore, not objective.

And no. I saw Carroll vs. Craig debate. Towards the end, Craig "blames" Carroll to hold a tenseless theory of time (he does). It is obvious that the block universe is a direct consequence of tenseless time as Carroll shows in his book.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

But I am not postulating a dumb God. I am postulating an unconscious mechanism that generate random Universes without any reason whatsoever. It is dumb, but I would not call it God. Some of those Universes are bound to be any level of complexity you wish.

If your "DRUG" is a machine then your right back to the problem of there being no possible infinite regressions in nature. To ask as Dawkins did, Oh yeah well who created God is a pathetic question, but a machine which is a part of nature does beg an explanation. Natural entities do not contain their own explanations. IOW the machine is in just as much need of a creator as the universe is. BTW the acronym "DRUG" is also less funny if your talking about a machine.

Of course, this is all made up and, likely, not true. But being made up does not make it any falser than God, the latter having been made up as well. But how can we exclude my version? It has the same explanatory power of a conscious being and even solves all teleological arguments, like the fine tuning (as if it needed an explanation). For sure, it has the same evidence (none) of its conscious version, but the point here is to show the lack of necessity of a conscious explanation, even under the concept of time held by Craig and company.

We cannot establish anything to a certainty here. These arguments are concluded to best explanation. Something you or Carroll simply invented are not certainly false but they are also not the best explanation available at this point in TIME. I am not trying to disprove you, I am trying to show my explanation better.

That prophecy is self fulfilling, since the author probably expected that someone would call him out as knowledge about the world increases. I would also write that if I invented a new religion from scratch. And how can people still have a problem with evolution by natural selection is mind boggling to me. It is not only theists, but some atheists doubt that as well. All this is probably due to an excessive anthropocentric case of self esteem.

It is not a prophecy. It is a description agreed to by men in different generations and cultures which were completely ignorant of our knowledge of causation, and sufficient causation. In their days other men posited all manner of God's (virtually none) which meet the necessities of cause and effect. You might describe God like that knowing what you know now, but they didn't know what even a 5th grader knows now.

If those miracolus events were conclusive, you would not need any additional complicated arguments on top of them, anyway. Just use the empty tomb, or Jesus walking on water, instead of venturing into modal arguments about the contingency of the universe. But we both know that they are not conclusive at all.

Most people do not get faith by these types of intellectual discussions but most debates concern accumulating hundreds of arguments (some strong, some weak) to justify faith. Any one argument alone is not very convincing, but the accumulation of them is overwhelming IMO.

And sorry, these "miracolous" events happen all the time, in different religions and cultures. Hope springs eternal and everywhere.

No they do not. I for years took a special interest in gathering as much data as I could find and personally asking people of other faiths about personal miracles. They exist in significant numbers in all other faiths combined, they exist in Christianity in massive quantity. The one I was concerned about the most was experiencing a significant presence of God, being born again. Not only do most people I talked to deny ever having that event, their texts do not even offer it, even of those that did their descriptions were easily explained by simple emotions. I had to write a long paper on salvation and spent three years studying it alone. Salvation events cannot be explained away by emotion, wish fulfillment, epilepsy, or chemical imbalances. Let me take that back there is a huge amount that can't, some can.

I said not to reaserch it, not to stop thinking about it. I can find more unconscious metaphysical explanations of reality, if you want. The point is that as long you do not find a metaphysical or logical show stopper, you have no way to prove to anyone that the conscious version of this necessary explanation is the only game in town.

I am sure you could find millions of them, the question is can you find any that have any evidence? Evidence for God exists even if you think it weak or unpersuasive, I could not find any for block universes or your machine (nor do I think we ever could even if they were true). How do I access another universe?