Craig vs. Dawkins?

[KingCrimson250]

First, I love philosophy and enjoy reading through this board, but I find that I haven't got enough time to post here very frequently (every post needs to be read, understood, and considered, and when it's updating faster than you can check, the arguments become difficult to follow).

Nonetheless, I wanted to ask if any of you had seen the "debate" between Dr. William Craig and Dr. Richard Dawkins (debate is in quotations because Dawkins failed to show up and so it's actually Craig dissecting The God Delusion), and if so, what you thought of it. I know The God Delusion isn't exactly considered to be the paramount of atheist philosophy in the first place, but it certainly seems to have grabbed the attention of the people.

For those who missed it, the "debate" can be found here: William Lane Craig: Is God a Delusion? Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford October 2011 - YouTube

 

[GrowingSmaller]

At over an hour it's way too long. I dont watch too muct TV. sorry.


He does start discussing a cosmological arguemnt though (roughtly 9:00 minutes into the speech)

"P1 Everything which begins to exist has a cause
P2 The universe began to exist
C Therefore the universe has a cause"

He says to deny P1 would be to give up serious metaphysics and engage in magical thinking. TI personally dont think P1 can be taken for granted so easily. Things may begin weithout a cause, that is at least logically possible. Also there may be causes other than prior events, what I call "internal " or "structural causes" for example the law of non contradiction may be such a cause with apparent metaphysical consequences.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

He says to deny P1 would be to give up serious metaphysics and engage in magical thinking. TI personally dont think P1 can be taken for granted so easily. Things may begin weithout a cause, that is at least logically possible.

Agreed.

And on top of that, it is perfectly possible for things to not "begin to exist" and yet be contigent on something else. Which, ironically, would express the relation between God and creation, at least if we pressuppose a somewhat sensible theological basis.

But where would that leave apologetic sophistry?

ETA: Sorry, haven't looked at the video. These debates are straight for the trashcan anyway. And the fact that Craig, when snubbed, feels he has to do some sort of mock debate, makes clear why much better than I ever could.

 

[Jeff4life]

Agreed.

And on top of that, it is perfectly possible for things to not "begin to exist" and yet be contigent on something else. Which, ironically, would express the relation between God and creation, at least if we pressuppose a somewhat sensible theological basis.

But where would that leave apologetic sophistry?

ETA: Sorry, haven't looked at the video. These debates are straight for the trashcan anyway. And the fact that Craig, when snubbed, feels he has to do some sort of mock debate, makes clear why much better than I ever could.

Dr. Craig is a world renowned philosopher. He is not a sophist. If you watch at least the introduction you can hear the atheist Oxford Philosopher Peter Millican talk about how when he was a student he was assigned some of Dr. Craig's serious philosophical works, and how it was clear that even then Craig was a significant philosopher.

 

[Jeff4life]

At over an hour it's way too long. I dont watch too muct TV. sorry.


He does start discussing a cosmological arguemnt though (roughtly 9:00 minutes into the speech)

"P1 Everything which begins to exist has a cause
P2 The universe began to exist
C Therefore the universe has a cause"

He says to deny P1 would be to give up serious metaphysics and engage in magical thinking. TI personally dont think P1 can be taken for granted so easily. Things may begin weithout a cause, that is at least logically possible. Also there may be causes other than prior events, what I call "internal " or "structural causes" for example the law of non contradiction may be such a cause with apparent metaphysical consequences.

I am surprised to see you disputing one of the most basic principles in philosophy. Even David Hume said, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition that anything might arise without a cause."

Your other idea about "internal" or "structural causes" seems to say something can cause itself to exist, which of course would be absurd. Perhaps you can help me understand it better.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Dr. Craig is a world renowned philosopher. He is not a sophist. If you watch at least the introduction you can hear the atheist Oxford Philosopher Peter Millican talk about how when he was a student he was assigned some of Dr. Craig's serious philosophical works, and how it was clear that even then Craig was a significant philosopher.

Does not preclude apologetic sophistry. In fact, so much the worse.

 

[Jeff4life]

Does not preclude apologetic sophistry. In fact, so much the worse.

Speaking of sophistry, your trying to convince me he is a sophist without even watching the video. The atheist philosopher Queintin Smith called him one of the great thinkers of our era, and Peter Millican the atheist oxford professor seems to think highly of him as well. Do you have any good reason to think he is a sophist? I would be interested in hearing it if you do.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Speaking of sophistry, your trying to convince me he is a sophist without even watching the video.

No. Firstly, I am not trying to convince you of anything much. And secondly, do you really think that one needs to watch this one video here to have some sort of opinion? Really? I don't believe that you do for one second. You know just as well as I do that Craig does have a distinct history as an apologist. And you know just as well as I do, that these apologetics involve ever the same old stuff; "Everything which begins to exist" et al. So, what gives?

Do you have any good reason to think he is a sophist? I would be interested in hearing it if you do.

Well, I see two plausible options. Sophistry is the more flattering of those. (But just to give you a little bit more ... What do you think is accomplished by holding some sort of ghost debate? And make no mistake, you don't have to give an answer to me, answering this to yourself is perfectly fine.)

 

[Jeff4life]

?


Well, I see two plausible options. Sophistry is the more flattering of those.

In other words, no, you have no good reason why you think he is a sophist. Btw "firstly" is not a word.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

In other words, no, you have no good reason why you think he is a sophist.

You see, this is exactly what I mean. I tell you this:
"Well, I see two plausible options. Sophistry is the more flattering of those. "
And then you go and do some sort of translation into something else entirely. I mean, you must live with the things that you do, that you say and that you conclude. If you think that my reply above can be translated in the way that you do, then that is your problem. You must live with it. You must stand by it. Even if nobody else is around. Not me.

ETA: A "Yes, I do have reasons to think that" was of course implied in my response. But you know that.

Btw "firstly" is not a word.

Of course it is.

 

[Jeff4life]

ETA: A "Yes, I do have reasons to think that" was of course implied in my response. But you know that.

You didn't give a reason. Do you have any or no? I am not going to engage your personal attacks of me because I don't care what you think about me.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You didn't give a reason.

That appears about right. But there is a difference between not having and not giving. And you know it, just as well as I do.

Do you have any or no?

What now? Do you still stand by what you told me a few posts above? What are you making of what I told you in the post that you are responding to? I think, you already stated I had no good reasons, whereas I stated that that the affirmative "Yes, I do" was already implied.

I stand by what I pointed out. It is not going to change that quickly.

I am not going to engage your personal attacks of me because I don't care what you think about me.

Why should any of what I said be a personal attack?[/rhetorical question]

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am surprised to see you disputing one of the most basic principles in philosophy. Even David Hume said, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition that anything might arise without a cause."

I dont care if it is a basic principle of philosophy. It is not logically necessary that things must have a cause. I am not sure what Hume means by "absurd" above, but I don't think it is "logically inconsistent".

Your other idea about "internal" or "structural causes" seems to say something can cause itself to exist, which of course would be absurd. Perhaps you can help me understand it better.

Maybe the world springs into being becaue of eternal logical axioms or something. According to quantum mechanics there can arise particles from nowhere (IIRC "virtual particles") and also radioactive decay is appaerntly causeless. But these depend I suppose on the laws of physics. Where do they come from? Maybe they ultimately derive from "eternal truths" of logic and maths, rather than being caused in a temporal-physical fashion by other physical events which then need explaining themselves.

 

[Jeff4life]

That appears about right. But there is a difference between not having and not giving. And you know it, just as well as I do.

Would you please share your reason with me?

 

[Jeff4life]

I dont care if it is a basic principle of philosophy. It is not logically necessary that things must have a cause. I am not sure what Hume means by "absurd" above, but I don't think it is "logically inconsistent".

It is not a contradiction, if that is what you mean by "logically consistent." However, this is also not a contraction "the number 7 is president of Russia." Also, if things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing, it requires an explanation why only universes pop into being uncaused out of nothing, why not fish or horses or squares or dirt? However, there could never be an explanation because "nothingness" cannot have any properties that causes it to favor universes over anything else. However, since there is something that cries out for an explanation and the only way there is an explanation is if there is actually a cause, then it makes far more sense to trust the immutable law of logic that nothing comes into being uncaused out of nothingness.

Maybe the world springs into being becaue of eternal logical axioms or something. According to quantum mechanics there can arise particles from nowhere (IIRC "virtual particles") and also radioactive decay is appaerntly causeless. But these depend I suppose on the laws of physics. Where do they come from? Maybe they ultimately derive from "eternal truths" of logic and maths, rather than being caused in a temporal-physical fashion by other physical events which then need explaining themselves.

As for quantum mechanics, it does not say there are uncaused events. It says, according some quantum mechanical theories, that things can come without direct material causes. However, it is not true that they are uncaused by any physical structure. They are the result of the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum energy. And the quantum vacuum has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws--it is not nothing.

Also, the assertion that the universe can be caused by an axiom is incompatible with the fact (shown by scientific and philosophical arguments that the universe had a beginning.) If an axiom just existed eternally, and it caused the universe, the universe would also have to exist eternally, for wherever the cause is, the effect must be as well. (provided we are talking about impersonal entities) A proposition cannot decide all of the sudden to create the universe. It is not alive, it is just there. And if this proposition did not exist eternally it must have had a beginning. If it had a beginning, then it must have had a cause. And if it had a cause we must wonder what sort of being could cause something like a proposition to begin to exist. And I think you know where that is going

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Would you please share your reason with me?

You mean the comment about apologetic sophistry? Well, to be honest the reasons for that opinion are not that easily shared as it is an opinion that has somewhat formed over time, sometimes based on things the particulars of which I have partly forgotten already. But this Kalaam argument is an example that would fall for me into the category of apologetic sophistry. It is so unnecessary, so underwhelming in its conclusion, and yet so contrived in all its brevity. The premises are iffy too. And that is only referring to the first half, if you wish, of the argument as it can be seen in Growing Smaller's first post. In the second half, it commits downright suicide.



(And, come to think of it most of aplologetics seems like sophistry anyway. The bulk of all those atheists leave me with hardly a better impression.)

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It is not a contradiction, if that is what you mean by "logically consistent." However, this is also not a contraction "the number 7 is president of Russia."

Nor is it a contradiction to say ""Jeff4lifes posts are logically valid".

Also, if things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing, it requires an explanation why only universes pop into being uncaused out of nothing, why not fish or horses or squares or dirt?

No I did not say outt of nothing did I? I said that existence may be dependent on eternal truths of maths and logic.

However, there could never be an explanation because "nothingness" cannot have any properties that causes it to favor universes over anything else.

Either that "eternal truth" has causal power or not. If it has no causal power, then why should we imply things about effects or consequences in the world stemming from it (or not stemming from it)? If reality is causally independent of the laws of logic then they would not matter. However it ^^ seems to me to be a candidate for a non-physical law that relates to the physical world, precisely the kind of thing I am arguing for.

However, since there is something that cries out for an explanation and the only way there is an explanation is if there is actually a cause, then it makes far more sense to trust the immutable law of logic that nothing comes into being uncaused out of nothingness.

But like I said the laws of logic are not regarded as physical antecedents as are events in the space time continuum. Ther are structural rather than temporal. In any case you seem to be agreeing tha logic, a non-physical phenomenon, can effect the being of the physical world.

As for quantum mechanics, it does not say there are uncaused events. It says, according some quantum mechanical theories, that things can come without direct material causes. However, it is not true that they are uncaused by any physical structure. They are the result of the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum energy. And the quantum vacuum has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws--it is not nothing.

Ok agreed.

Also, the assertion that the universe can be caused by an axiom is incompatible with the fact (shown by scientific and philosophical arguments that the universe had a beginning.)

Where?

If an axiom just existed eternally, and it caused the universe, the universe would also have to exist eternally, for wherever the cause is, the effect must be as well.

Ok.

(provided we are talking about impersonal entities) A proposition cannot decide all of the sudden to create the universe. It is not alive, it is just there. And if this proposition did not exist eternally it must have had a beginning.

But that would need to be demonstrated.

If it had a beginning, then it must have had a cause.

If.

And if it had a cause we must wonder what sort of being could cause something like a proposition to begin to exist. And I think you know where that is going

Where? I think propositions can express ralations. Although the propositions may depend on language, what they express does not have to. If I say the sun is hptter then an iceberg, this truth expresses a fact that remains even if the statement is not expressed. MAybe it is the same with "eternal truths" of logic and maths?

 

[variant]

At over an hour it's way too long. I dont watch too muct TV. sorry.


He does start discussing a cosmological arguemnt though (roughtly 9:00 minutes into the speech)

"P1 Everything which begins to exist has a cause
P2 The universe began to exist
C Therefore the universe has a cause"

He says to deny P1 would be to give up serious metaphysics and engage in magical thinking. TI personally dont think P1 can be taken for granted so easily. Things may begin weithout a cause, that is at least logically possible. Also there may be causes other than prior events, what I call "internal " or "structural causes" for example the law of non contradiction may be such a cause with apparent metaphysical consequences.

This is the fun with arguing with yourself, which, is much more like a sermon than anything.

The reason P1 is worded "begins to exist" is because without the "begins to" it would be a special pleading argument for God.

Essentially here we are to believe that God has and requires no beginning, but if that is true why does the Universe? P2? And, if not the universe being it's own beginning why would the cause of the universe (which can thus be anything that doesn't begin to exist) why would it need to be God?

If God can be eternal and require no beginning, then why not any other thing that is eternal and is not properly termed a God?

Why is it more magical to think that effects can happen without a cause than having an eternal and uncaused God in the first place?

Why should we believe that God is uncaused?

 

[Jeff4life]

This is going to take forever if I reply to every single sentence, so I am going to try to sum up your main points or points where we disagree that I think it is important to discuss further.

You seem to be arguing that the universe is more plausably caused by a proposition rather than God. However, as I said, this could not explain why the universe began to exist a finite time ago. You asked for proof so I will cite 1. Modern Science, and 2. Philisophical arguments.

For modern science there seems to be a great deal of agreement that the universe began to exist a finite time ago, and so was not here forever. The great cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin says,

"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 (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)."

As for philosophical arguments, it has been shown that it is impossible to have an actually infinite number of things existing.

Here is a simple explanation of one of the philosophical arguments,

Can We Have a 'Now' or a 'Today' if Time is Actually Infinite? - YouTube

But you say an axiom could cause the universe to exist. I don't see how. Axioms have no causal power. And the final proof of this is the fact that axioms are impersonal, so they cannot decide freely to do something like create the universe. If, they existed eternally then the universe would have to exist eternally alongside them. However, as we have seen, the universe has not existed eternally.

 

[Jeff4life]

This is the fun with arguing with yourself, which, is much more like a sermon than anything.

Three atheist oxford professors responded in the video. I hardly see it as arguing with yourself.

The reason P1 is worded "begins to exist" is because without the "begins to" it would be a special pleading argument for God.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is not circular and violates no laws of logic. If you say "everything that exists has a cause" then you are special pleading against a first-cause which has been seen as a real option in philosophy since before Aristotle. [/quote]

Essentially here we are to believe that God has and requires no beginning, but if that is true why does the Universe? P2? And, if not the universe being it's own beginning why would the cause of the universe (which can thus be anything that doesn't begin to exist) why would it need to be God?

Its logically impossible for anything, much less the universe, to cause itself to exist. Also, he gives scientific and philosophical arguments that the universe began to exist. Third, the reason it has to be God he gives as well, because it has to be a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and personal being of immense power. And I would ask you to watch him explain why if you think it is absurd.

If God can be eternal and require no beginning, then why not any other thing that is eternal and is not properly termed a God?

A timeless, spaceless, immaterial personal being of immense power is God. You can call it whatever you want.

Why is it more magical to think that effects can happen without a cause than having an eternal and uncaused God in the first place?

If something can come into being without a cause, than causality is ruined, and along with it about everything we know. Do you question the causal principle in your life, or just when arguments suggest God exists. If two thieves were found in your house would you think maybe they had popped into being right there in your living-room uncaused out of nothing?

Why should we believe that God is uncaused?

Why would you think that if God existed he would be caused?