Since it means so much to you.
Mintaka
Aaaw Irreverend, I can give you a star as well if it will make you feel a little more speshulz. You deserve it :D, here you go >:D.
Smarmy superciliousness from Teleological is hardly unexpected or new, but do you really think your response addresses Irreverend’s meaning, Mintaka?
'Luthon64
Muffles, you still have to make a convincing argument for the notion that certain phenomena actually violate the principle of causality as per the Kalam argument. You are either appealing to some special or limited notion of cause or appealing to ignorance about the systems you describe.
Smarmy superciliousness from Teleological is hardly unexpected or new, but do you really think your response addresses Irreverend’s meaning, Mintaka?
No, guess it doesn’t. I suppose on some level I was hoping to ruffle him up a bit, as it seems to bring out his best and most enjoyable prose. >:D My apologies to the forum for this flippancy.
Still, I really don’t see ( perhaps an argument from ignorance ) how one member can prescribe to another on the execution of something as obviously subjective and unimportant as a karma change! (wtf!!) :
Mintaka
I do? I can see how a selective reading might engender the off-the-mark impression that I haven’t raised grave problems about what causality is, or that there are phenomena that are, as far as we can tell, causeless. Moreover, my apologies, but I had the perhaps mistaken notion that the burden is on him or her who puts forward positive claims, i.e. those who put Kalamny forward as irrefutable proof of god.
Yes, I can see how a selective reading might engender such an off-the-mark impression.
I’m afraid I don’t see any prescription, only a questioning of the apparently strange criteria that were involved. But let’s see what Irreverend has to say.
'Luthon64
I think you need to explain how it poses a problem in terms of Craig’s argument about causality. More importantly, it is the person that tries to attack a positive claim to actually understand what the positive claim is about, and in this case, you need to show that your understanding of the principle of causality as per the Kalam argument and Craig’s understanding are compatible in order to prevent you from building and burning straw men.
Please, inform us about Craig’s understanding of causality as per the argument and how some phenomena are supposed to pose “grave” problems.
Sooo … is anybody coming tonight?
Some questions:
-
What would clocks show if clocks were around during the first “second” of the Big Bang? Would they not run almost infinitely slowly close to that Bang?
-
If you want something created out of nothing, it’s happening all the time is it not, as space-time expands ( much more space at least )?
Essentially yes, but you would need a separate frame of reference to gauge this. Clocks in high-intensity gravitational fields run slower relative to clocks in lower-intensity fields. (As long as we are above the Planck time ≈ 5.4×10-44 seconds after the BB, before which point the known laws of physics break down.) However, during the early stages of the BB, for each observer time will appear to pass normally, but someone at the “edge” observing “distant” action at the “centre” will report it as slow motion, while an observer at the “centre” will report action at the “edge” as speeded up. (I have put those terms in quotes because they are meaningful as viewed in a 4-D spacetime sense, not our usual geometrical understanding of them.)
Physics has no definite answer to this question as yet because the physical nature of spacetime is not well understood, assuming it is even physically explicable by some more basic physical concepts. The “expansion” of spacetime – and bear in mind that it’s a rather limited analogy – should be thought of more in terms of a balloon that is being inflated: we don’t get more balloon ex nihilo; instead, the existing “quota” of balloon is stretched to present more surface area.
Nevertheless, as long as the Heisenberg uncertainty limits are not violated, particles can spring spontaneously from “empty” space – or “nothing,” if you will – before disappearing into “nothing” again within a definite time interval. These so-called “virtual” particles are important in several areas. For one example, Feynman paths, which describe the quantum state outcomes(s) of particle interactions, are the summation over an infinitude of possible paths leading from initial to final state, including those that involve such virtual particles. For another, they are essential to Hawking radiation which describes a mechanism for bleeding mass-energy from a black hole, something that was thought to be impossible. The theory behind virtual particles also raises the possibility that if the total energy content of the uni- or multiverse is zero, it is, in Alan Guth’s words, “the Ultimate Free Lunch.”
'Luthon64
So I didn’t make the event but I’m curious how it went, who attended?
I was there along with about 500 other people - it was packed. Dr Craig spoke well but with his usual proof that there cannot be a starting point to time an infinity ago and ending with his so-called Occam’s Razor deduction that the ONLY explanation for the beginning of the universe is a being that is uncaused, changeless, timeless, spaceless and omnipotent (which he reckons is the God of Christianity). He had the audience, mostly theology and philosophy students eating out of his hands, but he spoke absolute BS.
Then some engineering professor gave a lecture on Freewill - long and boring and totally off topic. I told the Prof organizing the affair that, had I been the second speaker, I would have hammered Dr Craig and she said yes, that’s one of the reasons they got someone else coz they didn’t want to embarrass their guest.
Then Prof Mabille gave a lecture taking Richard Dawkin’s arguments to pieces followed by a masters student telling us why Memes cannot be real.
All in all guys I don’t think you missed too much. I went to the black-board and wrote, “Skeptics.za please meet HERE” with an arrow pointing at where I was standing but … nobody. Oh well - I think tomorrow will be better (the debate about the Resurrection) but I can’t make it.
I got a cool photo of me with Dr Craig - I’m gonna send it to Dan Barker for a laugh.
file:///C:/Users/Admin/Pictures/Phone%20Pics/Me%20and%20Dr%20Craig.jpg
This is supposed to be the picture - how do I post it?
Sounds like round one to the religionists??
There is obviously a reason for you putting “nothing” in quotation marks. It looks like you do not want to commit yourself to the obvious logical fallacy that some things come from pure nothingness in the proper sense that it does not even have the potential to be something (like virtual particles).
Unless of course you believe virtual particles are nothing (in the proper sense of the word) as well, in which case you need to be a bit of explaining to do.
I am curious how you would have hammered Dr Craig? What kind of objections do you have and what kind of points will you make? Apologies if I missed them.
I’d disagree, Brian. It sounds like they didn’t want to embarrass their guest, which is about par for the religious course innit?
“We demand respect, please no probing questions, have some faith”
It is bloody ridiculous and it boggles the mind why people fall for this bullshit.
One doesn’t need any degree in philosophy for instance, to know this silly silly argument for what it really is. The only argument for the existence of God stupider is the ontological argument. Seriously, their anecdotal “evidence” holds more water.
Btw, which Prof organized the affair?
Maybe I should have used the word “attacked” in this context (the debate is tonight - Wednesday, last night was just “delivering papers” on various subjects). I would not have given a talk on “Freewill” - I would have delivered a paper refuting Dr Craig’s claim directly. Maybe I would have called it “Why Dr Craig is talking bullocks” (not really, but you know what I mean).
The majority of his talk was on why infinity is only a mathematical theory and cannot actually exist in relation to time. His “proof” for God was that abstract mathematical numbers couldn’t have created the world so it must have been Gawd. Shit Teleo, even you could refute that one - and should (whether you believe in God or not) - it’s bad logic. Dr Craig’s PhD is in theology, not cosmology or mathematics and it’s my view he should stick to his field of expertise.
I won’t give an entire “paper” here but one thing I would have ended with is, “How does Dr Craig reach the conclusion, even if we accept his flawed logic as proof of a divine Being, that this God is the God of Christianity? A God who has all the attributes claimed in the Bible (like shedding innocent blood for “reconciliation”, genocidal maniac) cannot be deduced from the argument of temporal succession vs infinity. A God like this can only be deduced from faith which is based on things that cannot be known.”
It was Prof Louise Mabille (PhD in Nietzsche) from the dept of Philosophy.
I am just curious which particular claim in the argument you are referring to.
He does make an argument for the intuitive impossibility of actual infinite events stretching backwards in time. I would like to see an argument for why it is possible.
Just take the example of you sitting in front of your computer right now. The particular arrangement of matter is at least possible once, since you are in fact sitting in front of your computer. If actual infinite events stretch backwards in time then the event of you sitting in front of your computer (just like you are now at this particular arrangement of matter) right now would be possible to occur an infinite amount of times in the past and it will happen an infinite amount of times in the future. It is basically like believing in reincarnation an infinite amount of times. Craig seems to basically argue against this.
Interesting. So how did she rip Dawkins’ arguments to pieces? And what are her opinions (any specific points?) about Dr Craig’s arguments?
What I’d like to know is wtf god did to amuse itself for the infinity of “time” prior to its hitting that big red Big Bang button.