I looked into the videos you provided and will reply to the points raised in them right after making a notice. It being both a proclamation and a warning. I am all up for answering whatever objections you may have to anything I said but writing down the objection and simply linking me to random videos are two very different things. I could in the very same fashion simply link you to some other video (a 2 hour debate right next to it for example!) and we could keep doing that only to have the thread closed for spam.
If you wanna make a point do so in your own words. It's not practical to make notes in a mostly fluff-conversation that may not even touch on the topic and it is pretty lame as we would just be linking videos until they don't have anything to do with each other at all. For these and more reasons I am not inclined to share, please do not link any other videos unless absolutely necessary. I take the time to write sentences down, I expect my opponets to do the same.
Having said that I will now first focus on the Peter Millican video you provided which is actually an excerpt from a debate with William Lane Craig. He raises a multitude of points most of which I strongly disagree with. First to deal with his attacks on the premise 1.
He says that we never really witness anything coming into existence but only matter rearranging. This, I find to be merely a semantic delay. If you're going to say that rearrangements of matter are the deal than all I have to do is say that no rearrangement of matter occurs without a cause, going back right where we started. A bit contradictivelly, he goes on to say that quantum mechanics give an account of creation ex nihilo (which btw isn't required for a theistic origin of the universe) and this one is uncaused so the only occurance of it we have happens uncaused therefore crushing the intuitions underlying the support for belief that all beginnings have a cause.
This is false on 2 fronts:
- Quantum mechanics don't show something coming out of nothing. The "spontaneous" creation is merely caused by the sea of energy that is quantum flunctuations. Energy is not nothing. It's a whole lot of something.
- These flunctuations aren't uncaused, they're simply indeterministic. Causalty doesn't imply determinism.
His further objections include noting that time began with the Big Bang therefore making causation (concieved as temporal) an inappropriate concept. However, causation need not be temporal. A cause may coincide with the effect it produces it simply needs to be logically prior to it. For example, a ball on a cousion will cause pressure on the cousion simultaniously with it being placed on the cousion. The cause here being the placement of the ball, the cause is simultanious with the effect. A real absurdity would be the effect preceeding cause, which doesn't even happen in the Big Bang.
He also makes a distinction between our universe and a greater multiverse, stating that the Big Bang only applies to our universe leaving matter and energy as eternal origins tied to the non-temporal multiverse. This is completely unsound to me. If we're going to accept the Big Bang how can we say matter and energy existed prior to it? Matter and energy are our universe and they are what makes our spacetime. Talking about a multiverse would require a transcendant cause which is exactly what the Kalam postulates. If you wish to avoid this, you can say that the multiverse has matter and energy but this intuitive view would bring back the problem of infinite time as matter and energy are crucial to space and you cannot have space without having time. Atleast not if you're talking matter and energy in a sense we're aware of and if you aren't why call it matter and energy at all?
As for what Dawkins says, his case is a lot less interesting (as I come to expect from him). He basically raises 2 points that aren't science fiction:
1. Saying "God did it" doesn't provide a viable account for fine-tuning and is therefore not helpful as a true explanation would give insight to how things happened
2. The chance argument doesn't apply if we're to consider the notion of a multiverse which would create every combination of constants possible one of which would allow for sustaining of life
The first statement I find very misguided. What the argument from fine-tuning does isn't explaining how fine-tuning occurs but rather why it occurs. It is a metaphyisical question rather than empirical. In such circumstances there is no conflict.
The second statement I find equally poor. The very notion of the multiverse would do no more than simply set the question one step back from "Is our universe fine-tuned" to "Is the multiverse fine-tuned" which I would say it logically has to be since it is what permits the combination of life-permitting constants to occur in our universe which would in turn allow for the origin of life.
Never said you did. I'm saying I did that.
And Man, you might as well be an atheist, your condescending tone is on point so far.
But you clearly did:
"You claimed my second point was a straw man, which it wasn't. The structure of the argument is arranged so that you literally can insert anything into the second point and therefore, justify the premise."
You said that it wasn't a straw man therefore that I actually have commited the fallacy you made in your argument. That's what not being a straw man means. You've also called the argument circular and self-gratifying which means exactly that - assuming what one intends to argue for.
"Simply saying that the universe as a cause doesn't imply god is the only possible answer". There's the flaw in Kalam, you pointed it out yourself.
It isn't a flaw as I clearly mentioned already. Re-read (assuming you've read it the first time):
"The argument, as presented here, indeed doesn't lead to a direct conclusion that God is the cause of the universe but rather that given the nature of the universe and what we know so far, the cause (whatever it is) would have to be one of a transcendent kind. The argument's purpose here is to merely illustrate that God fits perfectly in the category of things that could've caused the universe and is as such a viable option to take. But this doesn't mean we don't have evidence for God, on the contrary, this is a basic example of circumstantial evidence. (That is to say, we can interpret it in multiple ways all of which are, given the isolated case, supported equally by the matter at hand.)
Circumstantial evidence is more than enough to justify a belief and refute the notion that there is no evidence."
"you're wrong" is not an argument. bad meme
Saying "you're wrong" or "you don't know what you're talking about", isn't really a counter argument. bad meme
I feel like you didn't even read what I wrote in those paragraphs. How exactly is my response inadequate and even more so how on earth do you equote it with casually dismissing anything you sad?
When you believe neither side is right of an argument is right because they lack the knowledge to prove the other side of the argument wrong, I think it's safe to wait until further evidence is found.
Again with "proof". What else can I do but redirect you to the first part in my essay?
When religious apologists can only bring logical arguments to the table that question what science has not yet answered, I think it's only reasonable to wait until science answers them.
Why exactly is logic inappropriate? Have you even bothered to refute my points before disagreeing with them?
Physicists, who provide the basis for the fined tuned argument (ironically), lack complete knowledge of physics, so for you to come and answers the physicists conundrum with "It was god", only sets us back. No true scientist touches that answer with a 10 foot pole. Richard Dawkins doesn't even give religious apologist the pleasure of even spending 1 minute on questioning the possibility of god.
"True scientist", really? And who would that be? A naturalist? A materialist? Do you even know how subjective this sounds?
As for Dawkins, I really hold his opinion to be of little worth seeing how his greatest work on matter of theism is The God Delusion which is no more than a museum of mistakes.
That's a faulty argument, one side of the argument (the flatter-earthers?) believe the earth is flat while ignoring evidence that debunks the entire premise.....oh wait, that's not too far off to atheism vs theism actually. Maybe you're on to something. Now you've got me talking in a condescending tone, lol
Indeed, they do ignore it, that's the point. Simply ignoring other people's legitimate infference doesn't make yours true and likewise it doesn't mean both are wrong. Theism and atheism are mutually exclusive. Either there is or isn't a God. No middle position. That said, this isn't even a question of whether there is or isn't a God. Such a question can indeed never be answered but that doesn't mean we shouldn't refute fallacious accounts for either side, which is exactly what my thread aims to do - criticize an attitutude I find dishonest and lazy.
Proving God is something I have no intention of doing, be it through philosophy or some other means.
To indulge myself, to challenge my beliefs, to point out flaws and fallacies in others arguments, to test whether or not any of my arguments hold any buoyancy and see where I can perfect them, etc. I'm someone who likes to keep his beliefs constantly in check. I may enter a discussion that I find interesting, throw in my input, and see reactions and responses; then I readjust my beliefs accordingly should I find them based in logic and reasoning. If I'm not content with the responses I receive, I persist until I receive a satisfying response whether it be for or against my beliefs, or realize that I will not receive a satisfying response (at least from this one argument), and go about my way. But some people mistake my honesty for fallacy, me not wanting to argue because I can't. Nah mate, I prefer losing to winning, it benefits me in the long run.
Then this attitude if nothing else should convince you to not dismiss all debates as pointless as you have when agreeing with Illuminater right there. It is this exact rational discourse that helps us shed light on these matters even if we will never know anything with certainty.
Atheists and theists try to give answers to questions beyond human comprehension and claim they're correct based on theories that coincide with reality (in most cases), but these theories do not prove the existence of God nor do they disprove the existence of god. You'd think theism would be dead after the theory of evolution conflicts with every timeline of every major religion on this planet, but that does not seem to be the case.
We seem to be on the same page here yet completely disagree on anything at the same time (if that makes any sense at all). I too believe these questions are far above our capacity to understand and I too believe there can be no definite resolution but I repeat for the uptenth time: I do not aim to prove God, I simply advocate rationality of basic theistic belief.
As for evolution, it has never bothered me and I find it of no threat what so ever to my religious beliefs. In fact I find it all the more in tune.
Since you make the time, I'll do the same. I honestly don't care for neither side of the argument, which is why I avoid this debate. But if me choosing not to debate jeopardizes my integrity in your eyes, I'll continue this debate for the sake of my pride.
I indeed doubt the integrity of people who casually dismiss things but if you're debating out of pride you can stop right away. I have no interest in debating for the sake of it.
