Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Davian]

I'm going to stop you right here because I've read several of Craig's books and I have never seen it presented in this fashion. This is what you get when you quote from wiki, which is notoriously biased against religion.

Or, biased towards accurate descriptions of reality.

Start again from a syllogism from Craig on Reasonablefaith.org and then I'll answer your "shredding".

When I see commercial websites such as that being promoted, it prompts me to ask: What is your relationship to William Lane Craig?

 

[nonbeliever314]

I'm going to stop you right here because I've read several of Craig's books and I have never seen it presented in this fashion. This is what you get when you quote from wiki, which is notoriously biased against religion. Start again from a syllogism from Craig on Reasonablefaith.org and then I'll answer your "shredding".

Let's do this. Find the formal argument in one of Craig's books you have sitting around, post it here, and then I'll go at it again. Even though I just watched an interview with him and he basically said what I originally posted. Also if you want to do a formal debate on this, I'm totally up for it. You make the call and we'll set it up. You have your books and I have mine. Fair?

 

[Joshua260]

When I see commercial websites such as that being promoted, it prompts me to ask: What is your relationship to William Lane Craig?

Not related in any way, business, family, colleague, etc.

 

[Joshua260]

Let's do this. Find the formal argument in one of Craig's books you have sitting around, post it here, and then I'll go at it again. Even though I just watched an interview with him and he basically said what I originally posted. Also if you want to do a formal debate on this, I'm totally up for it. You make the call and we'll set it up. You have your books and I have mine. Fair?

This is the basic KCA that Craig offers:

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.

If the syllogism is sound, we can extrapolate some probable traits of the universe's cause.

 

[Davian]

Not related in any way, business, family, colleague, etc.

Thanks. We have had in here someone claiming to be family.

 

[Davian]

This is the basic KCA that Craig offers:

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.

If the syllogism is sound, we can extrapolate some probable traits of the universe's cause.

Sean Carroll explained, in response to WLC's "causality" argument, how the reality is that astrophysicists do not talk about "cause and effect", they talk of "models and equations".

Your syllogism is not sound.

 

[nonbeliever314]

This is the basic KCA that Craig offers:

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.

If the syllogism is sound, we can extrapolate some probable traits of the universe's cause.

1) Alright
2) Is a huge assumption
3) Since 2 is huge assumption, you can't conclude that there is a cause for the universe's existence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Post #509 where you said:
"you are in no position to negotiate a response with me given that you haven't responded to my comments here. So it's "after you..."

Yes. And? I was pointing out that you really are in position to bargain here. You have had weeks to respond to those comments. Despite your lack of response, I haven't gone so far as to hijack another thread in an attempt to negotiate your response, which is what you are doing here.

No that's fine. If you still refuse to answer, that' okay. But I have bent over backwards trying to answer your objections in the original thread where I first asked about the problem of evil argument, but you would not listen there so when the thread closed you continued to ask your questions in private message. All throughout I kept telling you that you were not understanding the question correctly so I created a thread dedicated to the question I posed and worded it specifically to address your concerns.

Yes, I opened that conversation in order to demonstrate to you that you were equivocating. I even invited you to share the contents of that conversation in the newly opened thread, as I wasn't willing to cover the same ground again. You refused.

You still kept bugging me in pm and I kept advising you to look at the new thread I created just for you and you refused to do so. Instead you kept on making the same confused objection in pm. While doing so, you accused me of changing my question, which I did not, you accused me of pretending to be someone who I'm not, and then you also flatly accused me of lying.

If you think my objection has no merit, then it should be no trouble to reproduce the conversation in the relevant thread. I demonstrated that you were equivocating in the now closed thread, and even in the conversation itself.

So we get in this thread and you say I haven't addressed all the objections here. Then I ask which ones and you point me to your post which does include material that I addressed in other's posts. Note that I did look at it, but like I said, I know I've answered similar objections from others in this thread. So I tell you that and you reply "I don't think you have answered them. You have dismissed them." That's simply not true, but I've accommodated you a lot and you have not responded in a profitable manner. I'm actually known to be quite patient and I'm willing to go and retread old ground again, but after all I've done to accommodate you, I would like to see some progress on your part, so I offered the deal after you gave me the idea.

I don't think you understand how this works. You responding to comments that you should have responded to weeks ago is not "accommodating me." The very fact that you think you are doing me a favour by responding to my comments is condescending. So let me dispel this misconception for you, before it inflates your ego: I'm not here, waiting with anticipation, to receive your attention. I'm not anguished by your lack of response. I only bring your lack of response here to attention because of your desperation to have me respond to your thread.

So, even though I spent a lot of time on this thread already answering similar objections, I would be willing to retread old ground again, but first you have to show me an act of good faith by answering my OP that I created almost solely for you. If you don't feel like it, then ok. But don't expect me to retread old ground just for you then because I feel that my time would be better used answering other member's posts.

I don't expect you to. Spend your time however you wish. But don't come here and stomp your feet petulantly, demanding that I respond to your OP. Don't assume that you would be doing me a "favour" or "accommodating" me by responding to posts that you should have responded to weeks ago.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is the basic KCA that Craig offers:

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.

If the syllogism is sound, we can extrapolate some probable traits of the universe's cause.

Depends on the meaning assigned to the terms 'cause' and 'begins to exist.' We can only examine whether the argument is sound once the meaning of those terms is made clear. As I noted earlier:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. [An efficient and material cause?]
2. The universe began to exist. [Sure, in the sense that the expansion of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago. But what happened before then, if "before" even makes sense, is unknown to us. The universe may have always existed in some form.]
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. [I presume you really to mean say "Therefore, creatio ex nihilo." That conclusion doesn't appear to follow from either (1) or (2).]

If the syllogism is sound, we can extrapolate some probable traits of the universe's cause.

We can speculate.

 

[Joshua260]

2) Is a huge assumption

"Huge" is a subjective comment which seems unjustified to me. I might agree with you if I lacked evidence to support my view, but in fact, I have plenty of support for my belief that the premise that the universe began to exist is much more plausible than not.

First, I'd like to remind you that there is a difference between Cosmology and Cosmogony. Cosmology is the empirical (i.e., present observations-based) study of the cosmos as it exists today. Cosmogony, however, is the non-empirical study of how the cosmos began in the unobservable past. So we have to theorize and take note of secondary evidences in order to come to a reasonable belief of what most likely happened in the distant past.

So the following is a list of support for premise two which should lead to a reasonable conclusion that premise two is more plausible than not:
1. The philosophical arguments against infinite regress.
2. The 2nd law of thermodynamics suggests that if time was infinite, then the universe surely would have fully expended all of it's usable energy by now.
3. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity suggests a beginning of the universe. He originally tried to create a "fudge factor" to avoid that conclusion but later had to retract it and called it the biggest blunder of his life.
4. The discovery of the red-shift suggest the expansion of the universe and implies a beginning.
5. The discovery of the background radiation also matched the level of what was predicted by earlier theories.
6. Various scientists have tried to create models of the universe in order to avoid a beginning, but the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem showed that none of the models available, including the multiverse model, cannot avoid a beginning. Alexander Vilenkin said:

""It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

So I feel quite comfortable in my belief that premise 2 is much more plausible than not.

 

[Joshua260]

Thanks. We have had in here someone claiming to be family.

Just curious...do you have an issue with someone related to Craig posting in here?

 

[Davian]

Just curious...do you have an issue with someone related to Craig posting in here?

Not if all of the appropriate disclosures have been made.

 

[Davian]

"Huge" is a subjective comment which seems unjustified to me. I might agree with you if I lacked evidence to support my view, but in fact, I have plenty of support for my belief that the premise that the universe began to exist is much more plausible than not.

First, I'd like to remind you that there is a difference between Cosmology and Cosmogony. Cosmology is the empirical (i.e., present observations-based) study of the cosmos as it exists today. Cosmogony, however, is the non-empirical study of how the cosmos began in the unobservable past. So we have to theorize and take note of secondary evidences in order to come to a reasonable belief of what most likely happened in the distant past.

So the following is a list of support for premise two which should lead to a reasonable conclusion that premise two is more plausible than not:
1. The philosophical arguments against infinite regress.
2. The 2nd law of thermodynamics suggests that if time was infinite, then the universe surely would have fully expended all of it's usable energy by now.
3. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity suggests a beginning of the universe. He originally tried to create a "fudge factor" to avoid that conclusion but later had to retract it and called it the biggest blunder of his life.
4. The discovery of the red-shift suggest the expansion of the universe and implies a beginning.
5. The discovery of the background radiation also matched the level of what was predicted by earlier theories.
6. Various scientists have tried to create models of the universe in order to avoid a beginning, but the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem showed that none of the models available, including the multiverse model, cannot avoid a beginning. Alexander Vilenkin said:

""It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

So I feel quite comfortable in my belief that premise 2 is much more plausible than not.

Do you accept the standard model of physics/cosmology, the theory of evolution, and mainstream science in general? No global flood, no ark, no literal Adam and Eve?

 

[Joshua260]

Not if all of the appropriate disclosures have been made.

So what if they weren't? What does any of that have to do with the philosophical arguments themselves? Is an argument any less valid because of the source?

 

[nonbeliever314]

"Huge" is a subjective comment which seems unjustified to me. I might agree with you if I lacked evidence to support my view, but in fact, I have plenty of support for my belief that the premise that the universe began to exist is much more plausible than not.

First, I'd like to remind you that there is a difference between Cosmology and Cosmogony. Cosmology is the empirical (i.e., present observations-based) study of the cosmos as it exists today. Cosmogony, however, is the non-empirical study of how the cosmos began in the unobservable past. So we have to theorize and take note of secondary evidences in order to come to a reasonable belief of what most likely happened in the distant past.

So the following is a list of support for premise two which should lead to a reasonable conclusion that premise two is more plausible than not:
1. The philosophical arguments against infinite regress.
2. The 2nd law of thermodynamics suggests that if time was infinite, then the universe surely would have fully expended all of it's usable energy by now.
3. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity suggests a beginning of the universe. He originally tried to create a "fudge factor" to avoid that conclusion but later had to retract it and called it the biggest blunder of his life.
4. The discovery of the red-shift suggest the expansion of the universe and implies a beginning.
5. The discovery of the background radiation also matched the level of what was predicted by earlier theories.
6. Various scientists have tried to create models of the universe in order to avoid a beginning, but the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem showed that none of the models available, including the multiverse model, cannot avoid a beginning. Alexander Vilenkin said:

""It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

So I feel quite comfortable in my belief that premise 2 is much more plausible than not.

Sure the universe could have had a beginning, sure the multiverse could have had a beginning, but still that doesn't necessarily mean the universe is ALL OF REALITY. Also Vilenkin's models start off with an empty geometry, not absolute nothingness. So his models actually start with "something" at the "beginning". And WLC's infinity arguments are ridiculous. He always refers to Hilbert's Hotel, it's a veridical paradox. "A veridical paradox is a counter-intuitive result which can be demonstrated to be true", just like Schrodinger's Cat, and we all know (I hope) that quantum theory is for lack of a better word(s) "dead on".

 

[ToddNotTodd]

This is the basic KCA that Craig offers:

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.

If the syllogism is sound, we can extrapolate some probable traits of the universe's cause.

Premise one, which was changed from the original cosmological argument, involves the exact same special pleading, just thinly veiled.

The syllogism isn't sound. And WLC is a moron.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"Huge" is a subjective comment which seems unjustified to me. I might agree with you if I lacked evidence to support my view, but in fact, I have plenty of support for my belief that the premise that the universe began to exist is much more plausible than not.

First, I'd like to remind you that there is a difference between Cosmology and Cosmogony. Cosmology is the empirical (i.e., present observations-based) study of the cosmos as it exists today. Cosmogony, however, is the non-empirical study of how the cosmos began in the unobservable past. So we have to theorize and take note of secondary evidences in order to come to a reasonable belief of what most likely happened in the distant past.

So the following is a list of support for premise two which should lead to a reasonable conclusion that premise two is more plausible than not:
1. The philosophical arguments against infinite regress.
2. The 2nd law of thermodynamics suggests that if time was infinite, then the universe surely would have fully expended all of it's usable energy by now.
3. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity suggests a beginning of the universe. He originally tried to create a "fudge factor" to avoid that conclusion but later had to retract it and called it the biggest blunder of his life.
4. The discovery of the red-shift suggest the expansion of the universe and implies a beginning.
5. The discovery of the background radiation also matched the level of what was predicted by earlier theories.
6. Various scientists have tried to create models of the universe in order to avoid a beginning, but the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem showed that none of the models available, including the multiverse model, cannot avoid a beginning. Alexander Vilenkin said:

""It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

So I feel quite comfortable in my belief that premise 2 is much more plausible than not.

From Sean Carroll (well worth reading in its entirety):

The other argument from Craig in favor of the universe having a beginning comes from the fact that entropy is increasing, in accordance with the Second Law. This is another case where it took me a while to understand the point he was trying to get at. To me, it is perfectly obvious and well-understood that the Second Law comes about because of the configuration of matter in our local region of universe, not because of some ironclad fundamental law. (Otherwise Ludwig Boltzmann lived in vain — and I have his tombstone right up there on my blog header.) A theory like my model with Jennifer Chen tries to explain how the Second Law emerges in local regions of the universe, by showing how a universe with no equilibrium state can evolve forever (rather than settling down), and entropy will naturally increase both in the far past and the far future. Craig seems to think that the Second Law should be absolute, so that models like ours are ruled out because entropy doesn’t increase monotonically — i.e. they “violate” the Second Law. (Unless I’m still misunderstanding his point — his presentation was uncharacteristically muddled here.) This is a pretty straightforward misunderstanding of the origin of the Second Law and the point of our model, although to be fair I caught on too late to present a strong counterargument.

...

On my part, I knew that WLC liked to glide from the BGV theorem (which says that classical spacetime description fails in the past) to the stronger statement that the universe probably had a beginning, even though the latter is not implied by the former. And his favorite weapon is to use quotes from Alex Vilenkin, one of the authors of the BGV theorem. So I talked to Alan Guth, and he was gracious enough to agree to let me take pictures of him holding up signs with his perspective: namely, that the universe probably didn’t have a beginning, and is very likely eternal. Now, why would an author of the BGV theorem say such a thing? For exactly the reasons I was giving all along: the theorem says nothing definitive about the real universe, it is only a constraint on the classical regime. What matters are models, not theorems, and different scientists will quite naturally have different opinions about which types of models are most likely to prove fruitful once we understand things better. In Vilenkin’s opinion, the best models (in terms of being well-defined and accounting for the data) are ones with a beginning. In Guth’s opinion, the best models are ones that are eternal. And they are welcome to disagree, because we don’t know the answer! Not knowing the answer is perfectly fine. What’s not fine is pretending that we do know the answer, and using that pretend-knowledge to draw premature theological conclusions. (Chatter on Twitter reveals theists scrambling to find previous examples of Guth saying the universe probably had a beginning. As far as I can tell Alan was there talking about inflation beginning, not the universe, which is completely different. But it doesn’t matter; good scientists, it turns out, will actually change their minds in response to thinking about things.)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"Huge" is a subjective comment which seems unjustified to me. I might agree with you if I lacked evidence to support my view, but in fact, I have plenty of support for my belief that the premise that the universe began to exist is much more plausible than not.

What do you mean by the "the universe began to exist"? Once again, we can only examine whether that claim is tenable after its meaning is made clear. If you mean that the expansion of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, then the premise is supported. If you mean something else, however, then it might not be.

 

[Davian]

So what if they weren't? What does any of that have to do with the philosophical arguments themselves? Is an argument any less valid because of the source?

No. Your protestations and WLC's denials notwithstanding, his arguments have been dismantled six ways to Sunday.

I ask because if you were posting here for the purposes of promoting a commercial website, you would be in violation of this site's spamming rule. As bad as his arguments are, they still sell books.

 

[nonbeliever314]

I just sent Joshua260 a message inviting him to formally debate me. Stay tuned...