Lies, Dang Lies, and Daniel Dennett -Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 4)

[Uber Genius]

Daniel Dennett, "...what Craig does it take our everyday intuitions about what is plausible, counter-intuitive, couldn't possibly be true, and he cantilevers them out into territory where they have never been tested."

Kalam

Everything that begins to exist has a "beginner" as Albert Einstein opined.

He argues from Big Bang cosmology that the universe began to exist.

He then argues from pure mathematics that an infinite regression of explanatory priors is not possible.

These premises are almost universally accepted by scholars. They are hardly "untested," but rather produce the known conclusions cosmologist have been complaining about since Eddington. They point to a very clear conclusion.

It amazes me to see how an educated person can make these claims, let alone a Professor of Philosophy.

Here he simply misrepresents Craig's approach instead of engaging the argument. This isn't a strawman as much as it is a barefaced lie!

Rhetoric rather than engaging the inference, attacking someone's characteristics rather than providing type 1 or type 2 defeaters for their argument is just propaganda. Dennett is a disgrace to atheist philosophers like J.H. Sobel, Anthony Flew, J.L. Mackey, and. Graham Oppy.

P.S. Dennett's response about his causal inference for the universe was, "Maybe the cause of the universe is the idea of an apple, or the square root of 7”. (HE LITERALLY SAID THAT!)

Ignorant of the fact that abstract object don't stand in causal relations.

Dennett is a hack philosopher. Does this post mean we should discount his arguments, absolutely not!

Dennett could be morally corrupt, and intellectually bereft and yet stumble onto true premises and strong arguments that are compelling. Weigh the arguments but fact check everything. We did not see such striking misrepresentations before Dawkins, Dennett, and don't forget Hitchens. Dennett is a philosopher and disgraces Tuffs University by demonstrating such misrepresentations as if he were the average high-school dropout rather than and academician.

 

[Skreeper]

Kalam

Everything that begins to exist has a "beginner" as Albert Einstein opined.

He argues from Big Bang cosmology that the universe began to exist.

He then argues from pure mathematics that an infinite regression of explanatory priors is not possible.

These premises are almost universally accepted by scholars. They are hardly "untested," but rather produce the known conclusions cosmologist have been complaining about since Eddington. They point to a very clear conclusion.

The version you (and Craig) present here is heavily modified from the original argument. The original Kalam isn't even a argument for the existence of god but merely an attempt to establish that the universe has a cause for its existence.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.

And I don't see how your comment about Einstein is relevant. Einstein is not the arbiter of what is true or not especially if it is merely an opinion.

 

[mark kennedy]

Daniel Dennett, "...what Craig does it take our everyday intuitions about what is plausible, counter-intuitive, couldn't possibly be true, and he cantilevers them out into territory where they have never been tested."

Kalam

Everything that begins to exist has a "beginner" as Albert Einstein opined.

He argues from Big Bang cosmology that the universe began to exist.

He then argues from pure mathematics that an infinite regression of explanatory priors is not possible.

These premises are almost universally accepted by scholars. They are hardly "untested," but rather produce the known conclusions cosmologist have been complaining about since Eddington. They point to a very clear conclusion.

It amazes me to see how an educated person can make these claims, let alone a Professor of Philosophy.

Here he simply misrepresents Craig's approach instead of engaging the argument. This isn't a strawman as much as it is a barefaced lie!

Rhetoric rather than engaging the inference, attacking someone's characteristics rather than providing type 1 or type 2 defeaters for their argument is just propaganda. Dennett is a disgrace to atheist philosophers like J.H. Sobel, Anthony Flew, J.L. Mackey, and. Graham Oppy.

P.S. Dennett's response about his causal inference for the universe was, "Maybe the cause of the universe is the idea of an apple, or the square root of 7”. (HE LITERALLY SAID THAT!)

Ignorant of the fact that abstract object don't stand in causal relations.

Dennett is a hack philosopher. Does this post mean we should discount his arguments, absolutely not!

Dennett could be morally corrupt, and intellectually bereft and yet stumble onto true premises and strong arguments that are compelling. Weigh the arguments but fact check everything. We did not see such striking misrepresentations before Dawkins, Dennett, and don't forget Hitchens. Dennett is a philosopher and disgraces Tuffs University by demonstrating such misrepresentations as if he were the average high-school dropout rather than and academician.

D. Dennett is perhaps my favorite Darwinian, for one reason. He described Darwinism as universal acid that eats through everything, including it's own premise. Brilliant guy, got to love the accidental honesty in his work even if he probably never saw the weight of it.

 

[Rebecca12]

P.S. Dennett's response about his causal inference for the universe was, "Maybe the cause of the universe is the idea of an apple, or the square root of 7”. (HE LITERALLY SAID THAT!)

Ignorant of the fact that abstract object don't stand in causal relations.

He is saying we are guessing. Especially as we are not mathematicians nor cosmologists.

He asserts he is agnostic on cosmological questions as they are not his expertise. Nor are they Craig's. That is the point. As he says, whatever the answers, they are mind-boggling.

D. Dennett is perhaps my favorite Darwinian, for one reason. He described Darwinism as universal acid that eats through everything, including it's own premise. Brilliant guy, got to love the accidental honesty in his work even if he probably never saw the weight of it.

I have read some of what Dennett has said about the analogy to a universal acid. I do not recall him saying that it eats through evolution's premise, but instead eats through many other premises. If you have a quote I would appreciate it.

 

[Rebecca12]

And I don't see how your comment about Einstein is relevant. Einstein is not the arbiter of what is true or not especially if it is merely an opinion.

Einstein tended to speak in rather flowery language. Given how awe inspiring his work, it isn't surprising. But it isn't his science.

 

[mark kennedy]

He is saying we are guessing. Especially as we are not mathematicians nor cosmologists.

He asserts he is agnostic on cosmological questions as they are not his expertise. Nor are they Craig's. That is the point. As he says, whatever the answers, they are mind-boggling.

I have read some of what Dennett has said about the analogy to a universal acid. I do not recall him saying that it eats through evolution's premise, but instead eats through many other premises. If you have a quote I would appreciate it.

He didn't say it ate through his own premise, I said it did.

 

[Rebecca12]

He didn't say it ate through his own premise, I said it did.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks for the correction.

No problem, just got a little careless with the hyperbole. Glad to clear it up.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

It seems "whatever begins to exist has a cause" makes perfect sense once time and space exist; but it seems irrational to then apply the laws of time and space to their own beginning.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

He argues from Big Bang cosmology that the universe began to exist.

He sure does. Too bad Big Bang cosmology says no such thing.

The Big Bang describes the expansion and early evolution of the universe. It says nothing at all about a beginning, because it can't. No physics currently at our disposal are capable of addressing anything prior to Planck time.

In popular level science, the Big Bang is often referred to as a 'beginning', or 'origin', or 'genesis', but that's a bit of a misnomer. While there are some models that hypothesize conditions and events prior to Planck time, nothing is actually known.

Premise 1 of Kalam is predicated on an inductive inference - things that 'begin to exist' have a cause. The precedent is in creation ex materia - a cause acting on pre-existing materials. This constitutes all known cases of things 'beginning to exist', hence why it has inductive strength.

But that is not actually the type of creation being proposed by the theistic proponents of Kalam. Their purported creation is ex nihilo - a cause acting on nothing - which is a magical claim, constituting no known cases of 'things beginning to exist'.

Premise 1 attempts to obfuscate between creation ex nihilo and ex materia, dressing up one with the inductive strength of the other.

So the premise fails. And consequently, Kalam fails.

Here he simply misrepresents Craig's approach instead of engaging the argument.

Craig's approach is garbage, predicated on an extremely basic misapprehension of cosmology. That's why he gets his rear end handed to him any time he tries to debate the subject with anyone who knows what they're talking about.

Case in point,

 

[devolved]

But that is not actually the type of creation being proposed by the theistic proponents of Kalam. Their purported creation is ex nihilo - a cause acting on nothing - which is a magical claim, constituting no known cases of 'things beginning to exist'.

That's correct.

It's a bait and switch argument.

First we are talking about the composite existence... something made from something. And then all of a sudden there's a switch to meta-existence out of nothing.

We never see things come about from nothing, therefore the premise is false... unless, of course one would argue that we are all made of some "God matter". In which case it's a mere equivocation between Universe and God.

 

[Uber Genius]

He sure does. Too bad Big Bang cosmology says no such thing.

The Big Bang describes the expansion and early evolution of the universe. It says nothing at all about a beginning, because it can't. No physics currently at our disposal are capable of addressing anything prior to Planck time.

In popular level science, the Big Bang is often referred to as a 'beginning', or 'origin', or 'genesis', but that's a bit of a misnomer. While there are some models that hypothesize conditions and events prior to Planck time, nothing is actually known.

Premise 1 of Kalam is predicated on an inductive inference - things that 'begin to exist' have a cause. The precedent is in creation ex materia - a cause acting on pre-existing materials. This constitutes all known cases of things 'beginning to exist', hence why it has inductive strength.

But that is not actually the type of creation being proposed by the theistic proponents of Kalam. Their purported creation is ex nihilo - a cause acting on nothing - which is a magical claim, constituting no known cases of 'things beginning to exist'.

Premise 1 attempts to obfuscate between creation ex nihilo and ex materia, dressing up one with the inductive strength of the other.

So the premise fails. And consequently, Kalam fails.



Craig's approach is garbage, predicated on an extremely basic misapprehension of cosmology. That's why he gets his rear end handed to him any time he tries to debate the subject with anyone who knows what they're talking about.

Case in point,

Hilarious!

In the 1980s there was one or two scientistist that still rejected Stephen Hawking's and George Ellis' 1973 paper that time began with the Big Bang. Now I can't name one. OH until your erudite post.

But you did get someone else to like and put "winner" I guess there are not too many people reading this thread that have had a course in cosmology.

Best of luck finding a cosmologist to support your claim without either equivocating the term "Nothing," or circularly assuming a B theory of time where nothing ever comes into or goes out of existence (circular)

 

[Uber Genius]

He sure does. Too bad Big Bang cosmology says no such thing.

The Big Bang describes the expansion and early evolution of the universe. It says nothing at all about a beginning, because it can't. No physics currently at our disposal are capable of addressing anything prior to Planck time.

In popular level science, the Big Bang is often referred to as a 'beginning', or 'origin', or 'genesis', but that's a bit of a misnomer. While there are some models that hypothesize conditions and events prior to Planck time, nothing is actually known.

Premise 1 of Kalam is predicated on an inductive inference - things that 'begin to exist' have a cause. The precedent is in creation ex materia - a cause acting on pre-existing materials. This constitutes all known cases of things 'beginning to exist', hence why it has inductive strength.

But that is not actually the type of creation being proposed by the theistic proponents of Kalam. Their purported creation is ex nihilo - a cause acting on nothing - which is a magical claim, constituting no known cases of 'things beginning to exist'.

Premise 1 attempts to obfuscate between creation ex nihilo and ex materia, dressing up one with the inductive strength of the other.

So the premise fails. And consequently, Kalam fails.



Craig's approach is garbage, predicated on an extremely basic misapprehension of cosmology. That's why he gets his rear end handed to him any time he tries to debate the subject with anyone who knows what they're talking about.

Case in point,

Ad hominem attacks as you not he misunderstand cosmology. For more look up Alan Guth who denies both the equivocations of Larry Krauss and the circularity of Sean's Btheory assumptions). Guth is, since you clearly are ignorant of his work, the father of inflationary cosmology, and is an atheist. Yet he and other atheists cosmologists like Bourde and Valentin, pan both Krauss, Hawking where he misrepresents an edge as no beginning, and Carroll for their philosophical misrepresentations.

I like Carrolls work, just not his fallacious approach to arguing against a beginning (because nothing ever begins to exist). Hardly an intuitive inference, also I destroys a good part of scientific knowledge if true.

 

[Uber Genius]

It seems "whatever begins to exist has a cause" makes perfect sense once time and space exist; but it seems irrational to then apply the laws of time and space to their own beginning.

Non sequitur. Not being done. Please elaborate with at last some evidence of the recursion your represent.

Lol. You did get some likes despite lack of any premises or support for your claim. You can fool some of the people all of the time it seems.

 

[Uber Genius]

That's correct.

It's a bait and switch argument.

First we are talking about the composite existence... something made from something. And then all of a sudden there's a switch to meta-existence out of nothing.

We never see things come about from nothing, therefore the premise is false... unless, of course one would argue that we are all made of some "God matter". In which case it's a mere equivocation between Universe and God.

Lol.

Perhaps the single best conflation of cosmology and philosophy I have ever read in just a handful of sentences.

Again does something come from nothing or not?

You seem to think not.

Congrats. That has been the foundation stone of philosophy since the miletians.


You are with Craig there.

Plato, Socrates, and especially well developed in Aristotle's prime mover is an efficient cause that is eternal "uncaused" and transcends the universe.

Again why are they wrong? Do you ha some explication that eliminates the ICR-problem? Have you knocked down Hilbert as well?

 

[Uber Genius]

Premise 1 attempts to obfuscate between creation ex nihilo and ex materia, dressing up one with the inductive strength of the other.

These arguments have been popularized by an untrained internet infidel posing as having had a philosophy class (called theological BS) it is rare to see Craig engage such fakers. But here is his response, "I have made a career of responding to substantive critiques by philosophers like Quentin Smith, Adolf Grünbaum, Graham Oppy, J. Howard Sobel, Wes Morriston, et al. in professional, peer-reviewed journals. There you will find substantive discussion of the objections to the kalam cosmological argument, including the present objection.

Briefly, the causal premiss of the kalam cosmological argument , namely,

1´. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

leaves it an open question whether that cause is efficient or material and is, therefore, a much more modest premiss than (1) or (1*). It is the objector, then, who has the burden to prove that every instance of efficient causation of a (physical) object must be coincident with an instance of material causation as well. TBS’s lame argument against the possibility of influencing non-existent objects was just such an attempt.

Notice that of the three arguments for (1´) that I present, namely,

(i) Something cannot come from nothing.
(ii) If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing.
(iii) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1´."



Read more: Must Everything that Begins to Exist Have a Material Cause? | Reasonable Faith

 

[Uber Genius]

The version you (and Craig) present here is heavily modified from the original argument. The original Kalam isn't even a argument for the existence of god but merely an attempt to establish that the universe has a cause for its existence.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
   Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.

And I don't see how your comment about Einstein is relevant. Einstein is not the arbiter of what is true or not especially if it is merely an opinion.

So not sure where the comprehension gap is here. The Kalam has been an argument for God existence since al-ghalazi in the 11the century.

Further Craig has been defending his version for over 30 years in professional journals with premises that are almost universally accepted in both science and philosophy.

Einstein's response just shows what intelligent atheists infer when coming across overwhelming data that demonstrates space, time, matter and energy BEGAN TO EXIST.

I'm not claiming all atheists have Einstein's intelligence, or his willingness to follow the data wherever it leads. Just that it is a reasonable inference once you have that data.

 

[Uber Genius]

Apparently watching YouTube videos is a cheap substitute for taking college physics of philosophy courses.

My post was demonstrating how philosophers like Dennett use ad hominem attacks rather than engaging their opponents arguments. This is considered dispicable and unprofessional in the philosophical community. Dennett is one of the worst. But apparently non-sequiturs and red herrings are the fallacies of choice for many respondents.

Those responses again don't reflect the early 1980s defeaters of the arguments being reraised here as if oblivious to "scholar Google's" existence. I wonder it that existence has an efficient cause or is material? No I don't.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Further Craig has been defending his version for over 30 years in professional journals with premises that are almost universally accepted in both science and philosophy.

Personally, I find that a lot of what Craig does is attempting to justify his "1+1=3" type arguments with semantic trickery in order to maintain his positions.

The fact that he's been doing it for more than 30 years says more about those that listen to him than the arguments themselves.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Non sequitur. Not being done. Please elaborate with at last some evidence of the recursion your represent.

Lol. You did get some likes despite lack of any premises or support for your claim. You can fool some of the people all of the time it seems.

If cause and effect require space and time, how can the cause of space and time be outside of space and time? At the very least, we lack the language and/or understanding to even begin to have the discussion.