statistical argument used by apologists

[Cheerful Charlie]

remez,

Would you go over each of those five arguments with me individually? That a way I will know exactly where you are coming from and not bring some other well meanings persons misuse or misrememberance to the table. If you want we can do it in pm.

Probably not, no point in doing so. Its easy enough to understand as none of these arguments are new.

The basic argument, God is transcedent and created all de novo is basic theological dogma, all else derives from that directly or indirectly. All the rest is meant to bolster that claim, directly or indirectly. As science demonstrates that no god is needed to explain the physical Universe, theology tries to undermine that claim. Theological dogmas from revelation create problems for the concept of God, the notion of natural religion does not do much better.

Everybody on this forum seems to know this so no need to do the wall of text crap to support the basics at length.

The basic claims made about God soon cause contradictions and problems for the concept of God. Nothing really to argue about here.

 

[Juma]

Wrong, the fine tuning argument is not a hypothesis, as it cannot be falsified. It cannot be falsified because it is based on assumptions about the constants of the universe that have not been adequately established. The so called 'scientific facts' you speak of are in fact assumptions.

We can't know if life is impossible if the conditions of the universe were different, because we can't know if it is possible for these conditions to be different, as I alluded to in my first post.

The fact that there are numerous constants that have to be in a very narrow range for the Universe to exist is fact, and may or may not be explainable.

It's after the fact. We are already here. How unlikely the events ever was that brought us here they still did.
It is no indicitation of a creator.

 

[BH]

Well, I was looking over this website about the Leibnizian Cosmological argument:

http://www.maverick-christian.org/2012/05/leibnizian-cosmological-argument-for.html


It's a doozy of a read and I am probably going to read over it a few times again when I get home for work. My question to reza and lion is if it is possible does the principles behind the argument apply only to god and the creation of the universe, or could the argument in principle be adapted, say, to argue how a long piece of wood got placed across a small creek so you could walk over it and not get wet. Did god put it there? Or did some human put it there, or is it possible a high wind blew it up in the air and it just happened to land where it did? I know of a case where this happened. It wasn't a creek but in a flooding street. A long board got blown in such a way it landed over the flowing water on the curve to were part of it landed on the grass and part landed on the street where it was not puddled.

I just wonder how well such an argument like the one linked to could hold up if converted to some other issue using the same principles in the original argument.

 

[BH]

remez,

Would you go over each of those five arguments with me individually? That a way I will know exactly where you are coming from and not bring some other well meanings persons misuse or misrememberance to the table. If you want we can do it in pm.

Probably not, no point in doing so. Its easy enough to understand as none of these arguments are new.

The basic argument, God is transcedent and created all de novo is basic theological dogma, all else derives from that directly or indirectly. All the rest is meant to bolster that claim, directly or indirectly. As science demonstrates that no god is needed to explain the physical Universe, theology tries to undermine that claim. Theological dogmas from revelation create problems for the concept of God, the notion of natural religion does not do much better.

Everybody on this forum seems to know this so no need to do the wall of text crap to support the basics at length.

The basic claims made about God soon cause contradictions and problems for the concept of God. Nothing really to argue about here.

He can pm me links to each of the arguments if he wishes. If he does not wish to then that is his perogative. Be Cheerful Charlie, you are alive and doing fine.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Well, I was looking over this website about the Leibnizian Cosmological argument:

http://www.maverick-christian.org/2012/05/leibnizian-cosmological-argument-for.html


It's a doozy of a read and I am probably going to read over it a few times again when I get home for work. My question to reza and lion is if it is possible does the principles behind the argument apply only to god and the creation of the universe, or could the argument in principle be adapted, say, to argue how a long piece of wood got placed across a small creek so you could walk over it and not get wet. Did god put it there? Or did some human put it there, or is it possible a high wind blew it up in the air and it just happened to land where it did? I know of a case where this happened. It wasn't a creek but in a flooding street. A long board got blown in such a way it landed over the flowing water on the curve to were part of it landed on the grass and part landed on the street where it was not puddled.

I just wonder how well such an argument like the one linked to could hold up if converted to some other issue using the same principles in the original argument.

Parmenides: "Nothing can come from nothing, so something must have always existed".

Now we are arguing about what that something is. Nature or God?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

Liebnez: Principle of Sufficient Reason


"The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground. This simple demand for thoroughgoing intelligibility yields some of the boldest and most challenging theses in the history of philosophy. In this entry we begin with explaining the Principle, and then turn to the history of the debates around it. We conclude with an examination of the emerging contemporary discussion of the Principle."

Does the PSF apply to God? Or does God get an opt out for PSF?

And then on top of this is the dogma of God's simplicity. Aristotle came up with the idea of abstract thinking about things as substances, that have essences. A hamster is a substance that has essences that make it a hamster, not a table and not God. How then do the essences we associate with God's attributes come about and combine to create God? To avoid dealing with that, Plotinus, and Philo and others declared God is simple, without parts and God's substance, and essences and aseity (existence, being) are one.

Special pleading or not? All of this is a tangled series of propositions involving the proposition of God. Plus other arguments related to this.

Is God a brute fact? Do brute facts exist?

 

[Lion IRC]

remez,

Would you go over each of those five arguments with me individually? That a way I will know exactly where you are coming from and not bring some other well meanings persons misuse or misrememberance to the table. If you want we can do it in pm.

Good idea.
remez has simply pointed out that if one wants to philosophically contend against a given argument, one ought to stick to the argument as it stands - not erect a straw argument the premisses of which even WLC doesn't assert.

 

[Lion IRC]

Properly basic belief.
Principle of sufficient reason.
Brute facts.
Theories which are so “sufficiently elegant and explanatory” that they are exempt from Baconian verificationism.

These are permanent fixtures in ontology as far as I can tell.

Cogito ergo sum

 

[remez]

Citation for the Guth theory please.

https://www.amazon.com/Inflationary-Universe-Alan-Guth/dp/0201328402

Alan Guth's "The Inflationary Universe" book.

Google Alan Guth, inflationary Universe, you tube for numerous Guth video's explaining the concept.

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2010.web.dir/Hannah_Bilafer/Alan Guth Homepage.html
Alan Guth's website. The horses mouth.

Plus about a billion online sites explaining Guth's theories.


From his book, "The Inflationary Universe":

He asserts, “such a localized big bang does not yet have an accepted name… I will call such a region a ‘pocket universe’… our entire observed universe is believed to be only a minute fraction of one of these pocket universes. The pocket universe… is only a minute fraction of all that exists… The process… goes on forever, producing an infinite number of pocket universes at an ever-increasing rate… Thus, a region of false vacuum does not produce merely one universe, but instead produces an infinite number of universes! In the cosmic shopping mall, an infinity of pocket universes can be purchased for the price of one… As the pocket universes live out their lives and recollapse or dwindle away, new universes are generated to take their place… While life in our pocket universe will presumably die out, life in the universe as a whole will thrive for eternity… eternal inflation … implies a panoramic view of the whole universe that captures the same emotional appeal as the steady-state theory.” (Pg. 246-248)

Thanks.
That is what I was looking for.
It is not the page number but the publish date that is critical here.

I can hear you now ............... WHHHHHAAAAT?
The book predates the watershed 2003. It's an old theory that is struggling to keep up with the math. At the moment ...no way. It is wild speculation without any empirical evidence.

Even if it could somehow get past the BGV, it still would need an explanation for it's fine-tuning anyway. Reasonably it only kicks the can down the road.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

It's a nature of the gaps pursuit.

Please note. I did not quote any scripture or assume God exists to refute your model.

 

[remez]

remez,

Would you go over each of those five arguments with me individually? That a way I will know exactly where you are coming from and not bring some other well meanings persons misuse or misrememberance to the table. If you want we can do it in pm.

Your request is sincere. It always good to read up on the opposition. But I would need a sizable book to present it all in full.
So I created a list of resources to share here. But had concerns about violating the proselytizing rules. I'll attempt to PM the resource list.

But here is just one (very brief) for you all regarding conflating the LCA and KCA. Both arguments are presented.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/confusing-the-leibnizian-and-kalam-cosmological-arguments

If my PM fails just google. It is all there at the "Reasonable Faith" website.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.amazon.com/Inflationary-Universe-Alan-Guth/dp/0201328402

Alan Guth's "The Inflationary Universe" book.

Google Alan Guth, inflationary Universe, you tube for numerous Guth video's explaining the concept.

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2010.web.dir/Hannah_Bilafer/Alan Guth Homepage.html
Alan Guth's website. The horses mouth.

Plus about a billion online sites explaining Guth's theories.


From his book, "The Inflationary Universe":

He asserts, “such a localized big bang does not yet have an accepted name… I will call such a region a ‘pocket universe’… our entire observed universe is believed to be only a minute fraction of one of these pocket universes. The pocket universe… is only a minute fraction of all that exists… The process… goes on forever, producing an infinite number of pocket universes at an ever-increasing rate… Thus, a region of false vacuum does not produce merely one universe, but instead produces an infinite number of universes! In the cosmic shopping mall, an infinity of pocket universes can be purchased for the price of one… As the pocket universes live out their lives and recollapse or dwindle away, new universes are generated to take their place… While life in our pocket universe will presumably die out, life in the universe as a whole will thrive for eternity… eternal inflation … implies a panoramic view of the whole universe that captures the same emotional appeal as the steady-state theory.” (Pg. 246-248)

Thanks.
That is what I was looking for.
It is not the page number but the publish date that is critical here.

I can hear you now ............... WHHHHHAAAAT?
The book predates the watershed 2003. It's an old theory that is struggling to keep up with the math. At the moment ...no way. It is wild speculation without any empirical evidence.

Even if it could somehow get past the BGV, it still would need an explanation for it's fine-tuning anyway. Reasonably it only kicks the can down the road.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

It's a nature of the gaps pursuit.

Please note. I did not quote any scripture or assume God exists to refute your model.

Guth's Inflation is accepted to have been proven. The WMAP sattelite verified that the predicted state of the backround microwave radiation of inflation theory matched the predictions.


This is what science, physics, is about. Evidence. Testing hypotheses. And if you want to know how that theory came about, and why, and how it was tested. Read the literature widely available to you.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

remez,

Would you go over each of those five arguments with me individually? That a way I will know exactly where you are coming from and not bring some other well meanings persons misuse or misrememberance to the table. If you want we can do it in pm.

Your request is sincere. It always good to read up on the opposition. But I would need a sizable book to present it all in full.
So I created a list of resources to share here. But had concerns about violating the proselytizing rules. I'll attempt to PM the resource list.

But here is just one (very brief) for you all regarding conflating the LCA and KCA. Both arguments are presented.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/confusing-the-leibnizian-and-kalam-cosmological-arguments

If my PM fails just google. It is all there at the "Reasonable Faith" website.

Just why are you here? What's your point? What do you want to demonstrate? You seem to be aggressive but pointless.

 

[Lion IRC]

I love it when people (at a discussion forum) ask others 'why' they are here
...having a discussion.

 

[remez]

Thanks.
That is what I was looking for.
It is not the page number but the publish date that is critical here.

I can hear you now ............... WHHHHHAAAAT?
The book predates the watershed 2003. It's an old theory that is struggling to keep up with the math. At the moment ...no way. It is wild speculation without any empirical evidence.

Even if it could somehow get past the BGV, it still would need an explanation for it's fine-tuning anyway. Reasonably it only kicks the can down the road.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

It's a nature of the gaps pursuit.

Please note. I did not quote any scripture or assume God exists to refute your model.

Guth's Inflation is accepted to have been proven. The WMAP sattelite verified that the predicted state of the backround microwave radiation of inflation theory matched the predictions.


This is what science, physics, is about. Evidence. Testing hypotheses. And if you want to know how that theory came about, and why, and how it was tested. Read the literature widely available to you.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with his great work on the inflationary epic of the early universe. Guth is brilliant. My contention was his eternal inflationary model bubbling into the MV hypothesis. That hypothesis fails the math exam and as I have already stated, it still needs and explanation of its own fine-tuning. It only kicks the can down the road. So with regards to the FTA it (at the moment) fails its enhancement of chance or it still has an incredible amount of fine-tuning to account for.

 

[remez]

Your request is sincere. It always good to read up on the opposition. But I would need a sizable book to present it all in full.
So I created a list of resources to share here. But had concerns about violating the proselytizing rules. I'll attempt to PM the resource list.

But here is just one (very brief) for you all regarding conflating the LCA and KCA. Both arguments are presented.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/confusing-the-leibnizian-and-kalam-cosmological-arguments

If my PM fails just google. It is all there at the "Reasonable Faith" website.

Just why are you here? What's your point? What do you want to demonstrate? You seem to be aggressive but pointless.

Just why are you here?

I enjoy discussing theism, philosophy and science. To learn. To support. To defend.

What's your point?

Address bad theism, philosophy and science. Support good theism, philosophy and science. Learn from the opposition.

What do you want to demonstrate?

Hopefully good theism, philosophy and science.

You seem to be aggressive

Is that bad?
Generally I match the tone of poster I'm addressing. Fair?

but pointless.

Sorry.
I really did try and I have learned greatly from you in our exchanges here.


Now....... it is your turn.
Be Fair.
Same questions.
Minus the "aggressive" and "pointless" part, because I'm not THAT aggressive.

 

[remez]

I love it when people (at a discussion forum) ask others 'why' they are here
...having a discussion.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm more aggressive than remez.
Atheists go..."oh how unChristian of you Lion IRC"

...I say, isn't that what you wanted?

 

[bilby]

I'm more aggressive than remez.
Atheists go..."oh how unChristian of you Lion IRC"

...I say, isn't that what you wanted?

On the contrary, you are one of the most Christian people I have encountered in years.

Of course, it would be a dreadful error to imagine that that's a compliment.