Dropping a dime on W.L. Craig

[Felasco]

While I appreciate your style of skepticism, mine is different from yours,

Well, science deserves the same skepticism as theism and atheism, imho.

There are too many of your premises with which I disagree,

You aren't yet in a position to agree or disagree. What's the big rush?

Here I am suspicious of the quality of your mind.

Ok, fair enough. So test the quality of my mind by challenging the proposals I'm articulating and seeing if you can defeat them. You will discover that's not as easy as it might first appear.

You refuse to set a standard for conversation, yet claim to have a reasoned argument.

If I don't have a reasoned argument, it should be easy to defeat. Go for it! I'm hoping you will challenge my remarks, and not content yourself with just characterizing them.

Where exactly is the reasoning by which you conclude that all of us are ignorant about the ultimate nature of everything?

Please define "everything". What is it's size, shape, coordinates, boundaries etc, that would be a start. If you can not define "everything" in even this most basic manner, upon what basis would you then make big assertions about this "everything" which you can not define?

Where are your evaluations of ignorance, which seems to me to be a relative term?

Yes, of course. There are many things we are not ignorant of. However this is a religion thread, and religion concerns itself with questions of "infinite scale" that is, questions about the ultimate nature of all reality. As example, does reality spring from some form of intelligence?

You are comparing our intelligence to the other life forms around us, and it's true beyond doubt that we are more intelligent than donkeys.

I am comparing our intelligence to the scale of the questions that religion addresses, and it's clear to me that hairless apes that were only recently living in caves, apes with thousands of nuclear missiles aimed down their own throats (a situation we rarely find worthy of comment), a single species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies, are quite unlikely to understand the ultimate nature of everything. Thus, I reason that we are ignorant, in regards to such questions.

Because you are ignorant of fundamental physics, does that mean that everyone else is equally ignorant?

This is the classic science arrogance at work. Please show us the proof that fundamental physics and other natural laws apply to EVERYTHING in all of reality, the arena you wish to address, but can not define in even the most basic manner.

I've asked you for a conversational standard. You reject science and logic, and seem not to understand the relevance of mathematics. The only thing that you propose as a standard is ignorance. I'm not interested in ignorance.

Yes, this lack of interest in the fact of our ignorance (in regards to this set of questions) is very common. It's a very understandable form of bias built in to human beings which has to be overcome if one wishes to squarely face the reality of our situation and deal with that reality constructively.

If I wanted to communicate by such a standard I would buy a gerbil and argue with it.

I know this is supposed to be a clever remark, but if you did actually live inside a wildlife hospital as I do (really) then you would see that you are actually on to something with your comment. A subject for another day perhaps...

You are clearly a religionist, pretending to be a philosopher.

You clearly have not known me long enough to know what I am, and are quite eagerly jumping to conclusions based on very little evidence, the same mistake you appear poised to make in regards to "everything".

I think that religion is important to people who cannot think analytically for themselves, who have no problem with cognitive dissonance, or who cannot understand science.

You will soon see that your core assumptions are built upon a foundation of faith just as the religionists are, and that the religionists at least are clear minded and honest enough to know they are using faith.

I can only hope that you've chosen your religion wisely, after having considered the thousands of conflicting alternatives. The choice of religion is important, because it will determine the outcome of all life decisions that you imagine to actually be choices.

Please show us the evidence of my religion.

You and I should not exchange information again.

Run and hide if you wish, I don't object, it's your reading/writing experience to manage.

I have made it clear that I have a philosophical agenda, whereas you have been dishonest about yours.

Please provide evidence of my dishonesty, or admit that yet again you are jumping to huge conclusions based on little to no evidence, and then proclaiming yourself loyal to reason.

Therefore I do not trust you, and this will be my last reply to you.

Run and hide little boy, run and hide. That's probably best if it will embarrass you to not be able to keep up with my inferior abilities.

Clearly you are a liberal progressive, an Obama voter. I am so dreadfully tired of such people, having found my fill of them on Fox News.

Yes, I voted for Obama. And George Bush, both of them. What this has to do with anything is a mystery to me.

Moreover, when I request standards, you demand evidence. I've argued with guys like you before. To your credit, you had me going for way too long. Goodbye. Good luck on your quest for irreconcilable cognitive dissonance.

Good luck hiding from challenges you don't know how to meet, and calling that philosophy.

[Kuznetzova]

IMO a "personal" God is an entity who has specifically, deliberately created the "soul" of each human being, and cares about the composite being (soul plus body) throughout its sojourn through life. This personal God is essentially the Catholic God, an entity who is always watching, always judging. He listens to your every lie, grades every exam or quiz you ever take. He watches you shit, piss, and masturbate, and knows exactly how many sulfur-based stinky molecules you emit with every fart. And he keeps a permanent list.

Yes. Nailed it.

To your specific question, "why did Craig insert the adjective 'personal'?" The answer is dreadfully simple. Craig is a successful writer and bullshit artist. His literary audience consists of religionists who believe in a God who dotes upon their every prayer. He needs to suck up to that audience to maintain his literary prominence.

Took the words out of my mouth.

He used (IMO) the term God in his writings and spoken thoughts very much like I do in my writings. He saw through the complexity of the universe, and found its core simplicities. He understood the universe well enough to realize that it cannot be the consequence of randomly occurring events. His "God" concept was a generalization of a Creator, or a word that stood for a concept that he did not personally generate, but that he knew was real, awaiting discovery, as he knew that more physics concepts awaited discovery.

You may be correct about Einstein in particular. I really agree with what Lawrence Krauss says about this. "All scientists are functionally atheists, to first approximation." The way I see it, is that given any southern baptist evangelical, they are totally unaware that there is another meaning to the word "God" particularly when it is used casually in conversation by esteemed scientists and physicists.

I like the use the example of Steven Weinberg, who like Big Al was both a nobel laureate and a physicist. In his case, the word "God" would be placeholder in a conversation which substitutes for those mysteries about the world and the universe which science cannot ever possibly resolve. One example is the question "Why are things the way they are?" In other words "Why does our universe have these sets of laws and not others?" It's a mystery for sure. And "God" acts as a placeholder for that mystery. It's a label on a bottle. It is not referencing any woo-woo spirit in the sky.

Big Al was asked, "If you could ask God any question, what would it be?" ( Einstein wanted to know if God had a choice to make the universe this way, or if ours is the only way to make a universe). Neither interviewer nor Big Al was talking about a bearded ghost on a throne up in heaven who watches you masturbate. We all know the interviewer intended meaning was: "What is the one question you would like to really know the true answer to?" And the word "God" was tossed around, but so what? No one got hurt. No harm, no foul.

[Greylorn Ell]

Mmm the distinction perhaps being Einstein a pantheist as opposed to being a panentheist.....there is a Mighty difference

Alas, I'm unfamiliar with panentheism. I could look it up on Wikipedia if it is defined there, and pursue an argument with you at some arcane level, but then the hundreds of readers perusing this thread would have to bother the Wiki site if they wanted to follow our argument.

Why don't you save all of us from such bullshit by simply defining what you mean by panetheism?

While you are about it, perhaps you'd consider asking a definitive question, instead of posing a statement, as if expecting a reply. More of this kind of garbage posting will not elicit replies from me. Is "mmm" a word? Are we supposed to imagine you thoughtfully mulling over some deep thoughts? I imagine you mulling over the size of your latest turd, wondering if you should eat more rutabagas.

And what's with your capitalized "Mighty?" Are you pretending to know something profound, or simply occupying your little white throne, imagining the size of your next Mighty Turd?

Pantheism as i understand it is God is all and has no personable attributes.
Panentheism as i understand it is God is all, but also has the distinction of being a personable, lets say, interacting with man 'God', the ability to seperate its being into an entity capable of addressing man on some personal level.
I consider this type of 'God', and was poking a stick at the saying, The Almighty God....since otherwise there is really nothing mighty in such an entity if man can not know it.

I feel you have aquired some bitterness towards me already, and this does sadden me some. Thanyou for reignighting the metaphysics thread of mine, i really do appreciate your insight there.
I don't pretend to know something profound, i know 'God' exists which i feel yes is rather profound.
Sorry if my post or my obvious lack of education offended you in some way.

Atto,

Kindly accept my apology for my last post to you. It was unkind and thoughtless.

I mean to accept honest questions and ideas, but was not doing that last night.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

IMO a "personal" God is an entity who has specifically, deliberately created the "soul" of each human being, and cares about the composite being (soul plus body) throughout its sojourn through life. This personal God is essentially the Catholic God, an entity who is always watching, always judging. He listens to your every lie, grades every exam or quiz you ever take. He watches you shit, piss, and masturbate, and knows exactly how many sulfur-based stinky molecules you emit with every fart. And he keeps a permanent list.

Yes. Nailed it.

To your specific question, "why did Craig insert the adjective 'personal'?" The answer is dreadfully simple. Craig is a successful writer and bullshit artist. His literary audience consists of religionists who believe in a God who dotes upon their every prayer. He needs to suck up to that audience to maintain his literary prominence.

Took the words out of my mouth.

He (Big Al) used (IMO) the term God in his writings and spoken thoughts very much like I do in my writings. He saw through the complexity of the universe, and found its core simplicities. He understood the universe well enough to realize that it cannot be the consequence of randomly occurring events. His "God" concept was a generalization of a Creator, or a word that stood for a concept that he did not personally generate, but that he knew was real, awaiting discovery, as he knew that more physics concepts awaited discovery.

You may be correct about Einstein in particular. I really agree with what Lawrence Krauss says about this. "All scientists are functionally atheists, to first approximation." The way I see it, is that given any southern baptist evangelical, they are totally unaware that there is another meaning to the word "God" particularly when it is used casually in conversation by esteemed scientists and physicists.

I like the use the example of Steven Weinberg, who like Big Al was both a nobel laureate and a physicist. In his case, the word "God" would be placeholder in a conversation which substitutes for those mysteries about the world and the universe which science cannot ever possibly resolve. One example is the question "Why are things the way they are?" In other words "Why does our universe have these sets of laws and not others?" It's a mystery for sure. And "God" acts as a placeholder for that mystery. It's a label on a bottle. It is not referencing any woo-woo spirit in the sky.

Big Al was asked, "If you could ask God any question, what would it be?" ( Einstein wanted to know if God had a choice to make the universe this way, or if ours is the only way to make a universe). Neither interviewer nor Big Al was talking about a bearded ghost on a throne up in heaven who watches you masturbate. We all know the interviewer intended meaning was: "What is the one question you would like to really know the true answer to?" And the word "God" was tossed around, but so what? No one got hurt. No harm, no foul.

I wasn't aware that Big Al had been asked such a question. The reply you quoted seems perfectly consistent with his writings. But the question asked him is not really the same as the question you offered, "What is the one question you would like to really know the true answer to?" Your version of the question is a reduction of the original to pure physics.

Years ago I devised my own version of that kind of question. You find an ancient oil lamp, and upon rubbing off the dust a djinn (or genie) appears. But instead of granting three wishes, he proposes to give you the true and correct answer to one question, provided that an answer exists. What is yours?

Until your comments I had not thought about including God in this proposal, and it seems that the introduction of God changes the character and focus of the question significantly. It must also affect the answer.

Years ago I posed my version of this question to an astronomer, who later became the first shuttle scientist to cuss out the nits in the NASA control room, open mike. He posed an ingenious question: "What experiment can I perform to determine the density of matter in the universe?" The reply would not only answer an important cosmological question (the density value) but the selection of a particular experiment would also select the best theory, from at least a dozen different proposals, about the structure of the universe. (Or, it could invalidate all current proposals and set him on a path to better ideas.)

Introducing God into the question instead of a god-like knowledgeable djinn presupposes that God exists, but has an iffyness about it, in that it fails to define the properties of God.

In the interest of complete communication, I personally have concluded that the evidence points clearly to the idea that we live in a created universe. My concept of the creators is well-defined, and defined in the context of basic physics principles. It is quite different from conventional God-concepts. So for me, the word "God" is a placeholder not for a physics-mystery, but for my particular concepts (or for better concepts that may eventually replace them).

Finally, I believe that Einstein's God-concept was also that of a real entity, which he declined to define. When I drink enough I fancy that he'd have liked my ideas on the subject.

[3Sum]

Just for those who might not know, saying that because some famous person/expert says something that it must be true is an argument from authority logical fallacy.

IMO Einstein was an atheist. But he was also a pop-icon, an extremely popular and famous figure. Declaring his atheism would significantly reduce his popularity and make him INFAMOUS in minds of the sheepish religious majority. Kinda like Neil deGrasse Tyson. They're just scientists who don't care too much for philosophical discussions and affiliations so they try to avoid such conflicts.

Most of his quotes about religion or god seem to be of pantheistic or deistic nature at best.

[Kuznetzova]

, saying that because some famous person/expert says something that it must be true is an argument from authority logical fallacy.

Well the argument doesn't even get that far off the ground. When it comes to evangelical Christians, the sophistication of the argument never exceeds something like "LOOK EINSTEIN SAID THE WORD 'GOD'! HE MUSTA' WENT TO CHURCH THREE TIMES A WEEK AND WAS A BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIAN BAPTIST LIKE ME AND MY GRAMA-MA!"

Of course Einstein was no such thing. This whole situation is really not as sophisticated as you are making it out. These evangelicals don't really care to read anything Einstein wrote in any deep, scholarly manner. They just want to see the word "God" somewhere so they can grab it and run around the room hollering at everyone with their talking stick.

[Felasco]

The question seems to be...

Is there something intelligent at the heart of reality?

Some people say yes, others say no, and the debate goes round and round for centuries.

By "intelligent" we seem to mean a human-like intelligence, just much bigger. Or to put it more broadly, intelligence such as we see displayed in various levels and forms in creatures on Earth.

Imagine an alien civilization a million years ahead of us, which exists a million light years away. What are the chances that these aliens would have a human or Earth-type intelligence?

It seems more likely that the human conception of "intelligence" based as it is on such a limited experience from such a tiny corner of the universe, would probably be an entirely inadequate word with which to describe these aliens. It seems more likely that humans would not be capable of creating an apt word or definition that would begin to fit.

Perhaps that is the state of affairs in regards to the God question as well.

We think we are forming a useful question by asking if reality springs from intelligence. But our experience is so small in comparison to the scale of reality, our understanding and definition of intelligence so limited, that our God question is most likely meaningless, rendering all the various answers and the debate they generate pointless.

Ants live in sophisticated, organized and successful civilizations, just as we do. But ants would not be capable of asking useful questions about the concept "San Francisco". Every species on Earth is very capable within it's niche, or it wouldn't be in that niche. But the impressive abilities of species are limited to what is necessary for survival in their niche. It seems most likely that we are in this same basic situation.

It seems true that, as best we can tell, our niche is much broader than other Earth species. We love this comparison as it's flattering to us, but isn't this a basically useless comparison when considering questions about the fundamental nature of all reality? After all, we can't define "all reality" in even the most basic manner, right? So what that we are smarter than donkeys?

Some physicists like to play at the religion game, based on the impression that their field has developed useful understandings about the nature of reality. A simple question sweeps this arrogance aside...

What is your sample size? What is the relationship between the "observed universe" and "all of reality"?

The answer of course is, nobody has the slightest clue. We don't know if the "laws of nature" so proudly hailed by science apply to all of reality, or such a small sample of reality that human don't yet have the math to express how small.

The fundamental problem is that we are not yet intelligent enough to grasp how ignorant we truly are, in respect to the infinite scale of the questions religions, and now science too, typically attempt to address.

The wiser theists have long known this, not because they are necessarily so much smarter than the rest of us, but because religion is an ancient enterprise which has been chewing on these questions endless centuries before the birth of science, the newest "religion" to come to town.

These wiser theists came up with faith as a solution, because as threads like this so perfectly illustrate, lots and lots and lots of people really, really, really, really want to feel they have an answer to ultimate questions.

This need is very much a part of the human condition. It's not universal to all humans, but has been a driver of much of human civilization, it is the biggest cultural event in human history.

As I see it, the wiser theists are serving this fundamental human need in a quite practical manner. They are in effect telling us a comforting bed time story, much as our parents would have done when we were children. They are providing reassurance that somebody knows what's going on and that all will be well if we just follow the rules. I would agree that not all theists are wise, and that many or most are just repeating memorized slogans.

Atheists will now shout triumphantly, "Ha! Just like we said, a bed time story!" What these celebrating atheists don't realize apparently is that they are buying the bed time story being told by the newest religion to come to town, science. Science is the new Jehovah, the new savior, the new all knowing authority whom we can trust, all will be well if we just follow the rules etc.

If we were intelligent, we would see and accept the obvious fact that we simply don't know, most likely can't know, and instead of seeing this as a failure, we would see our ignorance as an asset and put it to good use.

But we aren't intelligent, so let the carnival music continue...

[Greylorn Ell]

....
But we aren't intelligent, so let the carnival music continue...

What you mean, "we," Kemosabe?

__________________________________________

(For youngsters and the culturally-deprived, this reference has its origin in the 1950's radio and TV western series, "The Lone Ranger." The Ranger was an altruistic do-gooder who killed bad guys with silver bullets way before the advent of vampires, roaming the US western territories in the late 19th century with his American Indian friend, Tonto, who called the Ranger "Kemosabe," a respectful title meaning "wise one."

An aftermarket story tells of a time when the Lone Ranger and Tonto were chased into a blind canyon by a band of angry Apaches, and cornered. The Ranger said, "Tonto, this looks bad. We seem to be surrounded by Indians."

Tonto replied, "What you mean, 'we,' Kemosabe?"

[Felasco]

Thank you for your carnival music.

[Felasco]

More evidence of our ignorance...

Here's a simple question which relies only on common logic, no religious anything involved.

1) When will science end? That is, when will the scientists call a press conference to announce that they've learned everything and are closing up shop? Most people I've asked this of think it will be a long time, maybe never.

2) Is science accelerating? Is it true that the more we learn, the faster we can learn new things? The development of computers serves as a handy example here.

If it is true that science will continue for a long time at an accelerating rate, it follows that what we know now is very small in comparison to what humans can know.

The relationship between what humans can know and all information about reality is unknown, and likely to remain so.

See? Using only common logic we can quickly assemble a pretty compelling argument that it's unlikely we are currently in a position to come to meaningful conclusions about the ultimate nature of everything, the central question addressed by religion and science. That is, we are ignorant.

Anybody can do this common sense logic, even a bright high school kid. No esoteric language or reasoning is required.

The next step one can take with this could be to ask why scientists, who seem to proclaim themselves master of reason, sometimes give the impression that they are on the edge of being able to explain the ultimate nature of everything, an arena they can not yet define in even the most basic manner.

My theory is that science is becoming a new form of religion (serving many of the same purposes as religion) and that scientists are becoming intoxicated by the social power they are accumulating, just as priests and shamans etc have experienced since the beginning of time.

Because science is relatively new to this central role in society, it might be compared to a twenty something emerging adult who is filled with confidence and energy, but lacking in the perspective and wisdom which has accumulated within the senior citizen of religion over a much longer time period.

[attofishpi]

Atto,

Kindly accept my apology for my last post to you. It was unkind and thoughtless.

I mean to accept honest questions and ideas, but was not doing that last night.

Greylorn

Hey thats totally accepted.

I'm being a total ass in the Metaphysics thread anyway. I wasn't planning on posting on this forum again, but i still like to check in every now and then and was really surprised when i saw my thread back.
I was actually toward the tail end of a bottle of J & B and decided to post without any consideration other than having you digest some of my ''weird'' shit, just in the off chance you might comprehend with your rational mind something i've been banging on about for quite some time.
Anyway, i'll get that thread re-posted\edited soon to something more palatable!!
Cheers.

[attofishpi]

1) When will science end? That is, when will the scientists call a press conference to announce that they've learned everything and are closing up shop?

The day a scientist can tell us that precisely 1 year, two months, 11hrs and 3 minutes and 3 attoseconds every event that is about to happen at 1 year, two months, 11hrs and 3 minutes and 4 attoseconds

[Felasco]

If we pay attention to the laws of thermodynamics, we find that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Think about that for a moment. Energy cannot be created.

This fundamental law of classical physics declares that the stuff of the universe, energy, that from which everything else seems to be made, cannot be created. Therefore energy cannot be "contingent" upon anything.

The First Law of Thermodynamics makes a liar out of Craig. Of course he is a religionist and does not allow reality to get in the way of an established belief.

The First Law of Thermodynamics may make Craig incorrect, but it does not make him a liar, unless we are to presume that Craig somehow knows for sure that the laws of nature as we understand them are binding upon all reality, including any gods within.

As explained above, we can observe how the poster assumes that The First Law of Thermodynamics is binding upon all of reality, without being able to define in even the most basic manner what "all of reality" is. This passionately held unexamined faith based belief reveals the degree to which science is becoming a new form of religion.

Not a new religion exactly, that would be stretching the word religion too far. A new form of religion, a religion-like enterprise, a process which performs many of the same functions as religion.

The god that Craig proposes is defined as being supernatural. The word supernatural means "outside the laws of nature". Although this assertion is far from proven, it is what makes religion interesting, the proposal that reality may be bigger than natural law.

To use logic and natural law to disprove and debunk such a supernatural entity, we would first have to establish that the rules of logic and natural law are binding on everything in all reality, including any gods within. Or, we would at least have to establish that such rules are binding on gods. That is, we would have to somehow prove that there is nothing supernatural.

The reasoning can be summarized as follows:

There is no god, therefore there is no god.

Not so impressive once we boil away the details, is it?

As you can see, this is just another competing faith based belief system, as it is built upon the premise that natural law is binding on everything, an arena the advocates of this point of view can not even begin to define.

It's interesting that such advocates don't seem to realize they are making wildly speculative assertions about arenas they can not define, and yet they often feel comfortable lecturing us about their superior ability to reason. Typically, such advocates position themselves as razor sharp fact based reasoners, while they declare the religious to be hopelessly clueless blind believers etc. Isn't this flattering identity just another case of self delusion and fantasy?

This is another example of a religious-like mindset that has developed around the power of science. For many science has become an ideology, a "one true way", a system of belief overtaken by ego, emotion and the social competition agendas which are so much a part of what it is to be human.

The realm of religion is of course widely infected with all these same maladies. The point of this post is not that science is bad and religion is good, but that we all are human, quite flawed and largely ignorant, and this fact unites us, despite the passionate objections of the competing ideologues.

The big debate is built upon a fantasy of a fundamental difference which doesn't actually exist. It's much sound and fury, signifying close to nothing.

[Greylorn Ell]

Atto,

Kindly accept my apology for my last post to you. It was unkind and thoughtless.

I mean to accept honest questions and ideas, but was not doing that last night.

Greylorn

Hey thats totally accepted.

I'm being a total ass in the Metaphysics thread anyway. I wasn't planning on posting on this forum again, but i still like to check in every now and then and was really surprised when i saw my thread back.
I was actually toward the tail end of a bottle of J & B and decided to post without any consideration other than having you digest some of my ''weird'' shit, just in the off chance you might comprehend with your rational mind something i've been banging on about for quite some time.
Anyway, i'll get that thread re-posted\edited soon to something more palatable!!
Cheers.

Atto,

My reply was lubricated by E & J brandy. Perfect timing! I'll show up on the metaphysics thread later, after getting my day job under control.

[Greylorn Ell]

"The god that Craig proposes is defined as being supernatural. The word supernatural means "outside the laws of nature". Although this assertion is far from proven, it is what makes religion interesting, the proposal that reality may be bigger than natural law."

I disagree. The "supernatural" label does not make religions interesting, it makes them stupid.

It allows any pinhead to declare what God did, what his/their purposes in creation are, and to declare that only inspired religionists are qualified to explain God. In particular it allows these nitwits to explain, irrespective of the level of motivational logic behind a daytime soap-opera plot, why God created mankind and what he, she, it, or they expect of us.

If you cannot agree upon the usefulness of good science, common sense and mathematical logic, consider posting on the Catholic Answers Forum, where you will be among like-minded (using the "minded" word loosely) souls.