Philosophy Now Forum

wtf wrote:

Noax wrote: He is in the business of separating Christians from their money and his statement ensured his continued employment in this capacity.

Ahhhhh ... you are a cynic after my own heart. Is that Craig's thing? Honestly I don't pay him much attention and I thought he was sincere.

Is this something some people believe or is this mostly your idea? I always thought he was totally sincere but like I say I don't know much about him.

Kind of my idea, and I have no evidence of fraud, just evidence that he doesn't push a consistent position in areas where he clearly knows better, and when it obviously cost him minor points with the people who do their homework. It didn't make sense until I found a reason for the weaker stance. He wasn't speaking to the people doing their homework. He's doing job security.
This by no means is evidence of fraud or insincerity. Just evidence that pleasing his employers took precedence over what he clearly knows is the more accurate position. He does not let his personal beliefs get in the way of any points he's trying to make with the audience. In that observation, his beliefs simply cannot be determined.

I did find this:

http://religionvirus.blogspot.mx/2011/0 ... craig.html

which says: "Dr. Craig's most offensive tactic is that he relies on the ignorance of his audience. He knows they're not trained in philosophy or deductive logic. He knows they're not trained in mathematics."

OK, that sort of mirrors my observation that his arguments are aimed at the naive audience and not the opponent. I was wondering out loud why he does this, and of course it is because he's making sure he's asked to be at the next one as well, which is more important than scoring points with the likes of us who aren't paying him anyway.

Now I don't know Craig well enough to say. But that quote is incredibly consistent with my own shock to find he's using Hilbert's hotel to make a debating point. If he used formal set theory and then placed set theory in context, talked about the role of the Axiom of Infinity, and so forth, that would be one thing. But to sling the fable of Hilbert's hotel as if it were a mathematical argument is evidence of either being ignorant himself, or trying to take advantage of the ignorance of his audience.

So I find this interesting. Does Craig have a different debating style when he debates trained thinkers versus giving talks to a general audience?

I have not paid much attention to the non-debate talks. so I can't say how the style changes. But Craig, who is anything but ignorant, taking the ignorant naive stance in debates indicates he's there primarily to reinforce the views already held by the paying audience. The average knowledgeable physicist/mathematician is also not necessarily a practiced debater, and they often falter.

ken wrote:
Why would what I wrote invalidate a Universe extending into the past infinitely

I have read through it again and saw an error in my reasoning which I had not actually noticed before
There is nothing in what you wrote that would invalidate a Universe extending into the past infinitely

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
Why would what I wrote invalidate a Universe extending into the past infinitely

I have read through it again and saw an error in my reasoning which I had not actually noticed before
There is nothing in what you wrote that would invalidate a Universe extending into the past infinitely

Okay thanks for clarifying that and for your honesty. I thought that I was missing something there.

surreptitious57 wrote:

uwot wrote:
As for Scientific Method that is just another of those things you believe you can make real by capitalising it. There is no Scientific Method

Yes there is as it is the name given to the process scientists have been employing since the Enlightenment over three hundred years ago

Oh go on then. What exactly are the processes that all scientists have been following these past three hundred years, and which distinguishes the product from any other field of human endeavour?

The components taken as a whole are exclusive to science [ hence the name ] for they reference what is necessary to investigate observable phenomena. The method itself is perfect because it is self correcting so any discrepancies or ambiguities shall disappear over time. The only
weakness is with those who practice it because they are human so bias can exist even if only subconsciously so. Though they are conditioned
to be as bias free as possible. The specific components which collectively make up the scientific method are : observation / experimentation
/ repeatability / intersubjectivity / evidence / disproof / potentially falsifiable hypotheses / peer review. No other discipline has all of these

surreptitious57 wrote:The components taken as a whole are exclusive to science...

So does anything that does not include all the components not qualify as science?

surreptitious57 wrote:[ hence the name ]

It's a bit of a diversion, but we could go into the etymology of 'science'.

surreptitious57 wrote:...for they reference what is necessary to investigate observable phenomena.

I'm with you here. Frankly, if there is no observable phenomenon, there is no science, in my book.

surreptitious57 wrote:The method itself is perfect because it is self correcting so any discrepancies or ambiguities shall disappear over time. The only weakness is with those who practice it because they are human so bias can exist even if only subconsciously so.

So science is not something people actually do, it is some set of ideals would be scientists must aspire to. Really?

surreptitious57 wrote:Though they are conditioned to be as bias free as possible.

Do you really mean 'conditioned'?

surreptitious57 wrote:The specific components which collectively make up the scientific method are : observation / experimentation
/ repeatability / intersubjectivity / evidence / disproof / potentially falsifiable hypotheses / peer review. No other discipline has all of these

Observation and experimentation I entirely agree with. Repeatability? Well, that rules out evolution and cosmology. I have no idea what you mean by 'intersubjectivity'. Evidence? Of course. Disproof/potentially falsifiable hypotheses is yer basic Popper, and a pretty good criterion. Peer review? Well, yes, but then your peers are not the peerless ideals of 'science', rather they are the imperfect human beings who have been taught by other imperfect human beings.

Science is what scientists do but the less error or bias there is the more accurate the results. Now they are human and imperfect but if one
takes this argument to its logical conclusion then science would simply cease to exist. Human imperfection may be incapable of elimination
but it can be reduced. Inter subjectivity is multiple view points reaching common consensus. In science it is necessary to eliminate solipsism
and delusion and reduce bias. Single person perspectives are invalid because they have no external frame of reference outside of themselves

wtf wrote:

Justintruth wrote:a set of 5 pink elephant's is not empty

I'm afraid that's so wrong it's laughable. What ever are you thinking?

....play silly games like that. Then you'll say oh the truths of math are necessary truths but the truths of elephants are only contingent truths. And I'll say, Why is that? For all you know the laws of biology are as deep and fundamental as the laws of math.

1) God cannot be an entity posited to exist. Midieval and classical philosophers knew this.

2) If I posit a set of 5 pink elephants and assert that the intersection of that set with the set of all material existing entities in the ACTUAL world to use your term, is empty, then that does not imply that the the set of five pink elements is empty. Sets are used to describe physical possibilities all the time. In engineering we routinely posit constellations of satellites in possible orbits in sync with Newtonian physics and distinct from non- possible orbits. We use set theory all the time and there is a set of all possible trajectories that is not empty and contains many more elements than the set of actual satelite elements. Laughable is not a good description of standard processes used in hard engineering.

3) The issue is not how deep biology is over math. It is that biology is natural science and hence posits of existance of an entities is linked to sensory information and is contingent. Math is derived without regard to physical posits used to explain sensory experience. Math is not an empirical natural science but rather is abstract.

Justintruth wrote: 1) God cannot be an entity posited to exist. Midieval and classical philosophers knew this.

Was that for me? I have no position on whether God exists or what Medieval or classical philosophers believed.

Justintruth wrote: 2) If I posit a set of 5 pink elephants and assert that the intersection of that set with the set of all material existing entities in the ACTUAL world to use your term

Not my term at all. The person I was originally responding to talked about possible words; and I explained that the idea of possible worlds will not help his argument. And for what it's worth, to the best of my understanding the idea of possible worlds is a technical argument in the philosophy of language. It's not an ontological position. I could be mistaken about that.

Justintruth wrote: , is empty, then that does not imply that the the set of five pink elements is empty.

If you want to argue that a set of five pink elephants is nonempty, you are entitled to do so. I'm entitled to call such a position laughable.

Justintruth wrote: Sets are used to describe physical possibilities all the time. In engineering we routinely posit constellations of satellites in possible orbits in sync with Newtonian physics and distinct from non- possible orbits.

Ok, engineering.

Justintruth wrote: Math is not an empirical natural science but rather is abstract.

Then what is the relevance of giving examples in engineering? The set of 5 pink elephants is certainly empty in math.

Of course I will grant you that outside of math, I might consider the set of paths not taken as nonempty, or the set of impossible orbits. I'll grant you those. But I'm afraid I can't grant you five pink elephants. I may have to think awhile on why I regard those cases as different.

Maybe you can say more about those orbits. If X is the set of possible orbits, and Y is the set of things that are not possible orbits, is a pink elephant in Y? Clearly a "not possible orbit" has some property that makes it a member of a class in a way that a pink elephant is not. For example if I consider the set of all paths through space, some are orbits and some are not. But I'm starting with a well-defined set. I think that principle separates impossible orbits (which are still paths through space) from pink elephants, which do not exist.

And of course if I consider the set of all possible thoughts, pink elephants are among those thoughts even though they don't exist. So we may say that the set of IDEAS of pink elephants is not empty, while the set of pink elephants is empty. A subtle distinction to be sure.

wtf wrote:... And for what it's worth, to the best of my understanding the idea of possible worlds is a technical argument in the philosophy of language. It's not an ontological position. I could be mistaken about that. ...

I thought it also the logic behind Everett/Wheeler's physics?

wtf wrote:

Justintruth wrote:... The set of 5 pink elephants is certainly empty in math. ...

Why hasn't it got 5 pink elephants?
p.s.
Ah! Sorry, just saw the "ideas" bit.

Arising_uk wrote:

wtf wrote:... And for what it's worth, to the best of my understanding the idea of possible worlds is a technical argument in the philosophy of language. It's not an ontological position. I could be mistaken about that. ...

I thought it also the logic behind Everett/Wheeler's physics?

Yes I am not sure about that myself. My sense is that the original idea of possible worlds as a technical argument in the philosophy of language, has been co-opted/misunderstood as relating to multiverse theory or interpretations of quantum physics. My impression is from hearing about possible worlds in model logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_ ... dal_logics

"A semantics for modal logic was first introduced in the late-1950s work of Saul Kripke and his colleagues. A statement in modal logic that is possible is said to be true in at least one possible world; a statement that is necessary is said to be true in all possible worlds."

You'll note that the entire Wiki article on possible worlds does not mention physics at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world

Whether the possible worlds of philosophy are the same as the possible worlds of physics, I don't know.

surreptitious57 wrote:Science is what scientists do..

Right. So what exactly do scientists do that makes them scientists?

ken wrote:Why do you say, if the chain is infinite, then each preceding cause never happens?

If x (the present event) cannot happen until after x-1 (the causal event) has happened, and x-1 can't have happened until x-2 (the cause-causing event) has happened...and that chain stretches into infinity, then no event can happen until the preceding cause has happened; but unless there is a first uncaused-causal event the chain has no way of getting going.

And, what led you to presume that is true?

I didn't presume. No one needs to. You can see it yourself. Put infinite regress and chain of causes together, and that's what you get every time...the first event no longer has a definite time at which to happen, because it's infinitely regressed into the past.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:Why do you say, if the chain is infinite, then each preceding cause never happens?

If x (the present event) cannot happen until after x-1 (the causal event) has happened, and x-1 can't have happened until x-2 (the cause-causing event) has happened...and that chain stretches into infinity, then no event can happen until the preceding cause has happened; but unless there is a first uncaused-causal event the chain has no way of getting going.

If the Universe is infinite, then OBVIOUSLY there was NO "getting going". It always has been going, always IS going, and always will be going.

Your logic above just does not make sense.

You say no event can happen without a preceding cause, right?

If no event CAN happen without a preceding cause, then that means no event COULD HAVE happened without a preceding cause. There IS obviously a present event, therefore there WAS obviously a preceding cause.

If you want to dispute this present event, say between us right here and now, and say it is not taking place, then you can try. But unfortunately, for you, this present event is being proven and witnessed by the very fact that these words are appearing right here and right now. So, an event HAS taken place. Therefore, going by your very own logic, there MUST OF been a preceding cause which, for your information, I will say COULD GO infinitely. But by your very own words if no event can happen without a preceding cause, and AN event has happened, then it logically MUST GO infinitely.

x (the present event) IS happening, SO x-1 (the causal event) MUST OF already happened, and therefore if x-1 MUST HAVE already happened , then THAT MEANS x-2 (the cause-causing event) HAS ALSO ALREADY happened, so on and so forth, maybe forever more.

Immanuel Can wrote:

And, what led you to presume that is true?

I didn't presume. No one needs to. You can see it yourself. Put infinite regress and chain of causes together, and that's what you get every time...the first event no longer has a definite time at which to happen, because it's infinitely regressed into the past.

[/quote]

Is there anything at all I could say or do to show you HOW it is your belief that is causing you to have this confirmation biased view?

Can you really not see that if an event can only happen be-cause of a preceding cause, then that in of itself goes on infinitely?

You have to accept that there is a present event occuring NOW, so then you also have to accept that there is a preceding cause, far more likely forever infinitely.

If you want to maintain the premise that no event can happen without a preceding cause, then you can not logically come to your conclusion that there was an uncaused causer. You have only arrived at that conclusion because of of your already held belief that A God caused everything. You have absolutely nothing to back this up because you do not even know what God is, yet.

The ever-present event of NOW proves that, logically thinking, infinity is the only possible conclusion. But to reinstate what I have previously already alluded to, pure logical thought knows that what is logically thought to be correct does not necessarily mean that it is correct.

By the way your actual belief is correct. One thing did cause everything, but just NOT in the way you perceive that it happened.

To find Truth, you have to leave the beliefs behind.