Philosophy Now Forum

William Lane Craig is not a philosopher, and is unqualified to express ideas about God, and probably about anything else. Consider his statement in the PNow God issue:

So what is the explanation of the existence of the universe (by ‘the universe’ I mean all of spacetime reality)? The explanation of the universe can lie only in a transcendent reality beyond it – beyond space and time – the existence of which transcendent reality is metaphysically necessary (otherwise its existence would also need explaining). Now there is only one way I can think of to get a contingent entity like the universe from a necessarily existing cause, and that is if the cause is an agent who can freely choose to create the contingent reality. It therefore follows that the best explanation of the existence of the contingent universe is a transcendent personal being – which is what everybody means by ‘God’.

Note that there is only one way Craig can think of to get a contingent entity (reality that seems to require an origin to its existence) from a necessarily existing cause (i.e. a cause that we have to invent out of thin air) which is to have the cause create the reality. That Craig can only imagine "one way," or one explanation, this is his problem. Unless you are equally unimaginative, why make Craig's problem your own?

He's saying that the universe seems to have a beginning (as Big Bang proponents would agree) and declaring that this beginning must have a cause. I agree with that opinion. We live in a cause-effect universe, after all, and basic physics is all about the mathematical relationships between forces and events (causes and effects).

But then Craig begins to insert ideas, without cause, without justification. Is not the logic of common philosophy also subject to the same principles of cause and effect that govern physics? In philosophy these are called premises and conclusion, and the idea is to get from premise to conclusion by use of common logic. That is not Craig's style.

He pulls from thin air the claim, "the cause is an agent who can freely choose to create the contingent reality." Who says? He knows nothing about his "agent" other than the little he has gleaned from religious lore. The agent could be multiple agents, and they may have been forced to create the universe in order to insure their own survival as independent, conscious entities.

Put simply and in Craig's language, God might be a consortium of entities who created our universe only to continue their own lives, and may not necessarily have been in full agreement that universe-creation was a good idea.

Craig is an apologist for Christianity, so he includes its belief that "God" created the universe for the benefit of humanity. Therefore his logically unsupported opinions incorporate the idea that the universe was created "freely," implying no constraints or external motivations on the part of its creators, thus implying absolute altruism.

This claim follows the teachings of the Catholic Church and all other Christian sects (probably Jewish, Muslim, and Mormons as well) which do not take the question of God's motivations very seriously. The only explanation I've ever heard for the creation of human beings is that we are created to know God, love God, and serve God in heaven forever. Given that the IQ ratio between human beings and God is mathematically identical to the IQ ratio between gerbils and God (zero), how does that make sense?

Finally, Craig makes this absurd and unsupported claim: "It therefore follows that the best explanation of the existence of the contingent universe is a transcendent personal being – which is what everybody means by ‘God’."

First, he has not introduced any logic that would justify use of "therefore." He just pulled this crap out of some not-too-mysterious orifice.

Secondly, note his insertion of the adjective "personal." This is a Christian code word that means a caring God, personally attentive to each human life. Where did it come from? There is no logical justification for the insertion of Craig's adjective, except his implicit appeal to religionists who have been programmed to believe such things.

Why could God not be impersonal, and completely unaware of the existence of planet earth? If a God created this magnificent, complex universe, with more galaxies than grains of sand on our beaches, can we afford the comfy belief that it was all done for our benefit? That is a notion for the mindless, and if you buy into that crap, come visit my church and be sure to fill your wallet aforehand.

Because Craig has not proposed alternative explanations of the universe, his use of "best explanation" is an example of ordinary high-school level illiteracy, something that a sophomore English teacher would correct by pointing out that his "best" is best of nothing.

If that English teacher were inclined to give Craig at least a "D" grade on his little thesis (after all, he did use "spacetime" in a coherent sentence), the grade would be moved to a "F" by Craig's egregiously ignorant claim-- "a transcendent personal being – which is what everybody means by ‘God’."

"Everybody?" I don't think so. I believe in "God," but not in a God who is watching my every move, who knows my thoughts, and who passes his judgment upon my choices while he, she, or they sit on their fat asses and laugh, as if my life was an effing reality show conducted for their, or their silly offsprings' ongoing amusements.

The idea of a "personal" God is logically absurd (too much information to deal with), but I dislike it on personal reasons. When I want a personal relationship with God I'll hobble out into the night sky, looking up into where I imagine the center of the universe might be, and thanking God for all his benefits and support, and for his "gift" of consciousness, by giving him the finger. I will call Him bad names and invite him to smite the shit out of me, again. (I learned to do this after the first smitings, so as to make God right, which is what he seems to be.) God honors me by regularly obliging. I guess that we have what Craig might call a "personal" relationship.

Up the road from me a quarter mile is a Buddhist teacher. He and his students have entirely different God-concepts from mine, or from Craig's. I could walk into any city and find a thousand counter-examples to Craig's assertion that "everybody" shares his puerile opinion about the nature of God.

He makes this kind of statement because he is not a philosopher, but an evangelist. His job is to gather up the programmed belief systems of others and put them into his own little basket, like Lil' Abner gathering up hapless shmoos for a steak dinner.

Finally, let's do a quick analysis of Craig's "summaries of (what he passes off as) reasoning."

We can summarize this reasoning as follows:

1. Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.

Correct grammar would adjust this sentence to read, "There must be an explanation for the existence of things that are the effects of causes. We may not know these explanations. The things that we observe in this universe do not come prepackaged with explanations for them, like shirts come with washing instructions. Most of the explanations we have consist of some theories and beliefs that we invented.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is a transcendent, personal being.
Nonsense! There are lots of other explanations, and most of them fall into the same category-- more nonsense. I can offer explanations that are derived from experimentally established evidence. Your "transcendent, personal being" notion is the same old rabbit pulled from the worn hat of conventional Catholicism.

3. The universe is a contingent thing.
Religionists think so. Some scientists think so. Nobody actually knows enough to proclaim with certainty about the universe.

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.


4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
A literate writer, interested in promoting clarity, would have said, "There is an explanation for the existence of the universe." (The universe does not have its explanation. It did not come with a user's guide.

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being.
– which is what everybody means by ‘God’.

This simplistic conclusion does not follow, because there is no coherent set of logical statements that lead the mind to it. Craig makes a set of statements designed to confuse minds that cannot distinguish logic from simpleminded assertions that are presented in a pattern similar to that of genuinely logical arguments.

In his initial argument, Craig stated that there is only one way he can think of to explain things. I get the same assertion from every fundamentalist I encounter, every Jehovah's Witless who knocks on my door. Do you chose to limit your ideas to the "only things" that an illogical religionist can think of? If so, get your ass into Sunday Mass and invest in "indulgences" (get out of jail fast cards) or buy a prayer rug.

Otherwise, let's get together and examine ideas that incorporate creation with physics and common sense. Let's start thinking about the physics of God, and the purposes behind creation. Ask why an omnipotent God would have created you, and perhaps adjust the adjective accordingly.

Craig is a master at manipulating the limited minds of people who cannot distinguish common sense from cognitive dissonance. The Vatican should hire him forthwith, if they have not done so already.

The atheist critique of theism depends on the premise that natural law and logic are binding on all of reality.

This premise establishes a rule book by which all things, including god proposals, can be evaluated. So for example, if a god can be shown to be illogical and contradictory etc (in violation of the rules), then that god can be denied.

Unfortunately for atheist ideologues, faith is required to make the assertion that all of reality is bound by natural law, as there is currently no proof that natural law is binding on all reality, an arena which we can not yet even define.

Assertions lacking proof are reasonably called faith, whether they are theist or atheist assertions. While god proposals will seem highly speculative to some, assertions of the ability to know what doesn't exist in an arena one can't define are also reasonably labeled as being highly speculative.

If one is not willing accept faith based assertions as the basis for a review of god proposals, then one is left without a reliable rule book one can count on, and the ability to debunk god proposals is gone.

Atheists face a choice. Do they believe in the validity of faith or not? If yes, they may proceed to assert pretty much anything they want, just as the theists do. If no, then intellectual honesty requires them to replace all of their adamant dogmas with three simple words...

I don't know.

Felasco wrote:The atheist critique of theism depends on the premise that natural law and logic are binding on all of reality.

This premise establishes a rule book by which all things, including god proposals, can be evaluated. So for example, if a god can be shown to be illogical and contradictory etc (in violation of the rules), then that god can be denied.

Unfortunately for atheist ideologues, faith is required to make the assertion that all of reality is bound by natural law, as there is currently no proof that natural law is binding on all reality, an arena which we can not yet even define.

Assertions lacking proof are reasonably called faith, whether they are theist or atheist assertions. While god proposals will seem highly speculative to some, assertions of the ability to know what doesn't exist in an arena one can't define are also reasonably labeled as being highly speculative.

If one is not willing accept faith based assertions as the basis for a review of god proposals, then one is left without a reliable rule book one can count on, and the ability to debunk god proposals is gone.

Atheists face a choice. Do they believe in the validity of faith or not? If yes, they may proceed to assert pretty much anything they want, just as the theists do. If no, then intellectual honesty requires them to replace all of their adamant dogmas with three simple words...

I don't know.

Felasco,

It is rare to encounter a comment that is so logical and cogent that I cannot shred it, much less find a small flaw within to nibble at. If I had to choose something it is that your comments do not directly address my OP, but so what? You address them indirectly, immediately broadening the subject.

It appears that you may have assumed that I'm an atheist. Not so. I am an uncategorized variety of theist who regards current popular theist and atheist beliefs to be about as relevant to honest understanding as the distinction between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Let's take a look at where your observations might lead. You wrote, "The atheist critique of theism depends on the premise that natural law and logic are binding on all of reality."

Yes, but does not theism, atheistic scientism, and this simple discussion between you and I depend upon the same premise? Our electronic conversation depends upon your computer and the satellite transmissions connecting it to mine following the same laws of physics at different points in space.

Moreover, I doubt that you would have generated your comments if you found my OP to be illogical. I certainly would not have replied to you if you wrote like some of the folks on these threads who cannot form sentences. I'd not have commented upon Craig, except that he was granted valuable, preeminent article-space in PNow.

It turns out that my critiques of atheism depend upon the same premises that you cite. Consider, without those premises, there are no constraints upon what people are allowed to make up and declare to be truth.

You then wrote, "...if a god can be shown to be illogical and contradictory etc (in violation of the rules), then that god can be denied."

Yes, but does the denial of a particular God-version mean that there is no God? A few millennia
past, your comments might have applied to Zeus, Aphrodite, Baal, or Ra. Those gods were merely constructs of human imagination, stand-ins for the idea that some kind of deliberate intelligence created the world. Craig's Christian God is, I believe, as fictitious as Zeus-- operating as a stand-in until we figure things out.

Logic operates upon many levels, and is dependent upon the premises it uses. Science has greatly expanded the range of legitimate premises, and I find it useful to employ those in any consideration of the nature of God and of ourselves. They have brought me to these conclusions:

1. The currently popular God notion as exemplified by Craig's assertions is an absurd belief, in that it is not grounded in logic or information.

2. Big Bang theory, Darwinism, and conceptual abiogenesis are absurd beliefs, for the same reason.

3. We live in a created universe. It is time to undertake a serious study of the creators, especially in terms of their relationship to natural law (and what that actually is), while paying at least as much attention to their potential motivations as we do to the motivations of characters in movies.

4. Figuring things out is not all that difficult; but if the mind trying to do the figuring is committed to ideas developed by the cognitively dissonant, the process will be like dancing a Viennese-waltz with a 600 pound woman who travels by forklift, and about as much fun.


You wrote this clear and profound observation: "Unfortunately for atheist ideologues, faith is required to make the assertion that all of reality is bound by natural law, as there is currently no proof that natural law is binding on all reality, an arena which we can not yet even define. "

I wish you'd been around in my younger days when I was arguing these points with atheist astronomers. They insisted upon the universal binding of natural law, but one of them, just one, admitted that his opinion was equivalent to an act of faith.

I noticed that about 15 years ago a pair of cosmologists actually tried to develop the math that might describe the Big Bang, instead of waving hands over the problem. To make their equations work, they "temporarily" fudged the speed of light. Their work morphed into what cosmologists now call "inflation." So much for fundamental constants and natural law, which by the way, goes into the biffy when Big Bang cosmology is involved.

You proceeded, "If one is not willing accept faith based assertions as the basis for a review of god proposals, then one is left without a reliable rule book one can count on, and the ability to debunk god proposals is gone."

In light of your other comments it would seem that the ability to debunk all proposals about the beginning would be gone as well.

It seems to me that some humans are doomed by their nature to adopt beliefs about the beginnings of all things, and about the vague sense of purpose which they often attribute to themselves. We must have some standard for evaluating these beliefs, and proposals for their improvements. I propose two levels of faith:

1. Logic, particularly mathematical logic, is not something that can be created. It can only be discovered, and thus its validity is independent of its discoverers or employers. For me this is an act of faith.

2. If there is a creator or creators, the only valid evidence for their existence, actions, and purpose lies within the available record of those actions. Thus, the only valid sacred scripture is the physical universe, its truths best described in the only language that is universal to all men-- mathematics.

You finished with this eloquent close, "Atheists face a choice. Do they believe in the validity of faith or not? If yes, they may proceed to assert pretty much anything they want, just as the theists do. If no, then intellectual honesty requires them to replace all of their adamant dogmas with three simple words...

I don't know."

Can't argue that. Of course you know that they won't be doing that until around the same time that Muslims shave their beards and open strip clubs in Jerusalem featuring their wives dancing to the cheery glow of burning prayer rugs.

Of greater interest is what can people like you and I do? My position is that I like the ideas I've developed, while noting that they are improvements on previous ideas that I also liked at the time. So, I don't know, but I'm doing my damnedest to find out.

Greylorn

If I had to choose something it is that your comments do not directly address my OP, but so what? You address them indirectly, immediately broadening the subject.

Apologies. Having made my opening statement I will now attend more carefully to the specifics of what you have to offer here.

It appears that you may have assumed that I'm an atheist. Not so.

Guilty as charged your honor, thanks for the correction.

I am an uncategorized variety of theist who regards current popular theist and atheist beliefs to be about as relevant to honest understanding as the distinction between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Oooh, that sounds good, looking forward to going in to this together, as I have similar sentiments.

You wrote, "The atheist critique of theism depends on the premise that natural law and logic are binding on all of reality."

Yes, but does not theism, atheistic scientism, and this simple discussion between you and I depend upon the same premise?

To me, it seems entirely reasonable to propose that human understandings are most likely quite limited. There is evidence to suggest natural law is binding everywhere, but everywhere is a very big place which we've only begun to glimpse. I don't see why we would,at this point have to assume natural law, as we currently understand it, is universally binding.

It turns out that my critiques of atheism depend upon the same premises that you cite. Consider, without those premises, there are no constraints upon what people are allowed to make up and declare to be truth.

I would suggest that there are constraints, within the realms where we have good data. As example, many thousands of bridges have been built all over the world, and we can now conclude with great confidence that bridges should be built using science, not passages from the Bible.

When it comes to subjects of "infinite scale" such as the God proposal, yes, people can make any declarations they wish, as there is no way to prove or disprove any theory.

You then wrote, "...if a god can be shown to be illogical and contradictory etc (in violation of the rules), then that god can be denied."

Yes, but does the denial of a particular God-version mean that there is no God? A few millennia
past, your comments might have applied to Zeus, Aphrodite, Baal, or Ra. Those gods were merely constructs of human imagination, stand-ins for the idea that some kind of deliberate intelligence created the world. Craig's Christian God is, I believe, as fictitious as Zeus-- operating as a stand-in until we figure things out.

I don't know if there is a God or not, or what it's nature might be if there is one, just to put that on the record.

The Christian God that Craig believes in is defined as being supernatural, that is, above the laws of nature. Thus, to declare the Christian God illogical etc is to agree with Craig, not debunk him. As I see it, the only way to debunk the Christian God is to first establish a higher rule system such a God would be bound by.

1. The currently popular God notion as exemplified by Craig's assertions is an absurd belief, in that it is not grounded in logic or information.

I would counter it's equally absurd to presume any of us can know such a thing.

3. We live in a created universe.

This is a reasonable understandable theory to come to, still lacking anything close to proof though.

4. Figuring things out is not all that difficult;

My theme is to question whether "figuring things out" should be the goal of the religious inquiry.

You wrote this clear and profound observation: "Unfortunately for atheist ideologues, faith is required to make the assertion that all of reality is bound by natural law, as there is currently no proof that natural law is binding on all reality, an arena which we can not yet even define. "

I wish you'd been around in my younger days when I was arguing these points with atheist astronomers. They insisted upon the universal binding of natural law, but one of them, just one, admitted that his opinion was equivalent to an act of faith.

Imho, atheism is very understandable in human terms, but it also seems an argument with itself. The simplest bit of reasoning can unravel it, but forum atheists at least (probably not a representative sample of all atheists) seem to only be interested in reason if it can be used to support the position they've already reached via faith. That is, they tend to confuse reason with ideology.

It seems to me that some humans are doomed by their nature to adopt beliefs about the beginnings of all things, and about the vague sense of purpose which they often attribute to themselves.

Knowing things about our environment is how humans make our living, so it's understandable that everybody wants to know The Answer, but wishful thinking is still sloppy.

1. Logic, particularly mathematical logic, is not something that can be created. It can only be discovered, and thus its validity is independent of its discoverers or employers. For me this is an act of faith.

I would counter that logic is a creation of the human mind, and is thus subject to any distortions introduced by the properties of thought.

Thus, the only valid sacred scripture is the physical universe,

Yes, agreed!

its truths best described in the only language that is universal to all men-- mathematics.

No, not agreed!

Of greater interest is what can people like you and I do? My position is that I like the ideas I've developed, while noting that they are improvements on previous ideas that I also liked at the time. So, I don't know, but I'm doing my damnedest to find out.

This is an interesting question, agreed. I am infected with the notion that I can do something, but given the lack of evidence of my doing accomplishing anything, that notion is probably best labeled a fantasy.

However, it depends on the definition of "accomplishment". I like typing, and here I am typing, mission accomplished. In those moment when I'm sane, I look at it like that.

Nice to meet you! I predict many fine conversations ahead.

(Should I vanish for days at a time, it's not lack of interest, but my computer overdosed body demanding a rest.)

Have a good one!

Felasco,

This will be a partial reply, lest this conversation become unwieldy.

Felasco wrote: "The atheist critique of theism depends on the premise that natural law and logic are binding on all of reality."

Greylorn wrote: Yes, but does not theism, atheistic scientism, and this simple discussion between you and I depend upon the same premise?

To me, it seems entirely reasonable to propose that human understandings are most likely quite limited. There is evidence to suggest natural law is binding everywhere, but everywhere is a very big place which we've only begun to glimpse. I don't see why we would,at this point have to assume natural law, as we currently understand it, is universally binding.

You've not exactly responded to my simple question. I'd really like to know your answer to that. Does our conversation depend upon the same premises, or not? If not, I'd like to know how your premises differ from mine.

I ask this twice because I've learned that way too many conversations become oblique, counterproductive, and ultimately worthless, because those conversing are operating from a different set of core beliefs. I don't want to do that with you. We'd simply end up pissing one another off.

Before we can even begin to discuss the universality of natural law, we'd have to decide on exactly what a natural law is.

After learning more laws of physics than I could possibly have tattooed on my belly in ultrafine print, much less scribbled on a forearm, pre-exam, I've concluded that there are only two sets of genuinely natural laws.

My personal definition of a "natural law" differs from the usual: It is a law by which any and all Creators are bound, because it is not created.

Consider the First Law of Thermodynamics, which implies that energy cannot be created or destroyed. I regard this as a Natural Law, meaning that no God can create energy or destroy energy. The best that a Creator can do is to change the forms of energy.

The ability to change the forms of energy is all that is needed to create a universe. There are interesting implications to this at the physics level, and one particularly notable implication regarding the relationships between religion, physics, and philosophy.

The First Law declares that no Creator can possibly be omnipotent. God cannot create Energy, nor can he, she, it, or they destroy Energy.

I invite you to discuss these fundamentals, expecting that this will render many other exchanges between us, such as those I've omitted, mostly moot.

Hi again Greylorn,

Consider the First Law of Thermodynamics, which implies that energy cannot be created or destroyed. I regard this as a Natural Law, meaning that no God can create energy or destroy energy.

In reply to you, I would propose that we actually have no idea whether the First Law of Thermodynamics and other such laws are binding on everything, given that we don't even know what we are referring to with the word "everything".

Both theism and atheism are attempts to make sweeping assertions about an arena they can't define in even the most basic manner. This is a problem for atheism particularly, given the atheist's stated loyalty to reason.

Does this answer the question you wished for me to address?

Felasco wrote:Hi again Greylorn,

Consider the First Law of Thermodynamics, which implies that energy cannot be created or destroyed. I regard this as a Natural Law, meaning that no God can create energy or destroy energy.

In reply to you, I would propose that we actually have no idea whether the First Law of Thermodynamics and other such laws are binding on everything, given that we don't even know what we are referring to with the word "everything".

Both theism and atheism are attempts to make sweeping assertions about an arena they can't define in even the most basic manner. This is a problem for atheism particularly, given the atheist's stated loyalty to reason.

Does this answer the question you wished for me to address?

Felasco,

No, and thank you for asking. I'll restate the question which seems to me to be at the core of this discussion, and any interesting discussions.

"Yes, but does not theism, atheistic scientism, and this simple discussion between you and I depend upon the same premise?" That premise is that there are some standards for the opinions that humans hold, and for the conversations we exchange.

You are correct at the empirical/evidential level that we cannot verify some core assumptions. Physicists assume that the laws of physics are the same elsewhere in the universe, but cannot perform the elsewhere experiments that could verify this assumption. Thus, the assumption is a belief. That's where philosophy shows up. It cannot perform the requisite experiments either, but can consider whether the belief is reasonable and logical.

Likewise logic, and particularly its mathematical forms. Is logic a valid criterion for evaluating ideas? I think so, and try to write and think accordingly. But if you do not agree, then what basis do we have for the exchange and evaluation of ideas?

If you go to the Catholic Answers Forum, philosophy section, you will find a bizarre mix of confused posters who claim to respect and use logic, and to accept the principles of science. Yet when one uses logic or science to invalidate their beliefs, they revert to the usual and customary religious dogmas. For them, faith supersedes logic. On such a site, anyone who accepts the basic beliefs of that Church can have a convivial conversation about the interpretation of certain biblical passages, or share opinions about the latest Pope. However, it is impossible to have an honest conversation that tries to integrate a Creator-concept with our current knowledge of physics, astronomy, and microbiology.

My question to you (and to anyone lurking) can we have such a conversation? If so, can we establish these standards for it:

1. Logic.

2. Mathematics.

3. Some fundamental laws of physics known as "natural laws." These will be the most difficult standards to settle upon. I would want to include very few of these, such as the aforementioned First Law of Thermodynamics. (Also the 2nd and 3rd.)

Now I'm as aware as you that the First Law may not be a certainty. However, it is the most tested principle in all of physics, and many have claimed its violation. Such claims have been disproved. I learned to use this principle very early in solving physics problems, as do applied physicists and all engineers. Without this principle, physics would not work, and our computers would not be connected.

There are some absurd additions to the laws that physics has put into its repertoire, all of them related to statistics--- the mathematics of ignorance. I dismiss them freely, particularly the statistical indeterminance principles of quantum physics. They will be corrected, in time, when a suitably qualified physicist, perhaps the reincarnation of Max Planck, appears.

Back in the days when I actually solved physics and engineering problems, I worked with a diverse group of individuals who agreed upon nothing-- except the laws of physics and logic. This agreement was all that was required to get the first space telescope working, and to make sense of the data it received. We did briefly have a technician who seemed not to understand these principles, and could not build useful instruments according to the designs given. He kept interjecting his own versions of how things ought to work, and tweaking the electronics accordingly. He never produced a useful instrument, and we could not get rid of him because of State Civil Service regulations, so we learned to give the important designs to undergraduate engineering students, and give the pinhead some irrelevant make-work project.

This is another observation on the point of my query. Are you one of those philosophers who will never contribute to the field because your time is engaged upon quibbling with fundamental principles, like the technician who had his own version of electronic design concepts, or can you accept some principles and put them to work?

It does not matter if the accepted principles are incorrect, because we are not dealing with religious dogma. Ultimately, since we will be working with physics principles, they will be found out if wrong.

Suppose, for example, that the First Law of Thermodynamics is incorrect. It means that whatever conclusions we might derive that depend upon its validity are just bullshit. (It also means that the complex theory I've been developing for decades is utter garbage, and that I'll not win any prize for its creation. But planning ahead, I've kept my day job.)

Even better, suppose that you and I and others on this Forum get together and prove that the Fist Law is wrong. This itself would transform physics! Prizes galore, probably to some lurker to thought well enough of our arguments to formalize them and write a serious paper on her own without a word to any of us. And so what? The contribution to human understanding will be made, and we'll know who did the work.

My question also applies to logic, of course. Do you agree that common logic is a reasonable standard for explaining ideas in the context of facts, and of other ideas? Do you believe that false facts can be found out by the use of scientific data and logic? (Example: If Christ had really transformed water into wine, he would have had to use thermonuclear reactions to create carbon, nitrogen, sulphur, and other atoms from the original mix of oxygen and hydrogen. This would have released enough energy to vaporize Jerusalem and ruin the wine. Since the wine was reportedly excellent, we can assume that no transformation took place.)

I've diverged too much. Regarding your first comment, I'm thinking that it may explain much of your difficulty. It contains an incorrect assumption.

Laws of physics tend to be specific. The First Law applies not to "everything," but to energy, and to its known forms (Matter, velocity, electric charge, gravitational potential, etc.) I do not know what the opinions are on the most recently discovered form, dark energy, but have my own notions.

For those unimaginative folks who actually believe that reality is limited to energy forms, consciousness included, your assumption is correct that the First Law applies to everything. But that would be their assumption, and yours. I regard it as incorrect. There must be something else besides energy. Nonetheless, with respect to energy, I like the First Law.

Re; your middle paragraph: "Both theism and atheism are attempts to make sweeping assertions about an arena they can't define in even the most basic manner. This is a problem for atheism particularly, given the atheist's stated loyalty to reason. "

I appreciate your use of the adjective, "stated" loyalty. I find that atheists are only reasonable when their opinions are compared to those of religionists, which is like me being proud because I can score better on IQ tests than many cretins.

I have developed a theistic theory which ignores the standards you've set in the above paragraph, but it is not your grand-dad's theism. I do not make sweeping assertions. I make only three very small assertions, all of which are supported by logic, reason, and physics. Each assertion is absolutely simple, and each is empirically verifiable. I am careful about definitions, and do not hypothesize the existence of things that cannot be verified, or locally detected.

I apologize for not going back to cut and edit this. Way too busy today.

Greylorn,

As best I can tell, it's your intent to do just what the Catholic Answers folks would have us do. First we have to accept your faith based assumptions, and only then can we proceed together.

Is logic a valid criterion for evaluating ideas? I think so, and try to write and think accordingly. But if you do not agree, then what basis do we have for the exchange and evaluation of ideas?

Using only logic, I would propose that you have no conclusive evidence that natural law or human logic is binding on all of reality, an arena none of us can define in even the most basic manner.

The best we'd be able to do is accept the universal authority of natural law and human logic as a matter of faith in the same way that Catholics might accept the universal authority of their God and the Bible.

If you go to the Catholic Answers Forum, philosophy section, you will find a bizarre mix of confused posters who claim to respect and use logic, and to accept the principles of science. Yet when one uses logic or science to invalidate their beliefs, they revert to the usual and customary religious dogmas.

Yes, I've been to Catholic Answers. And can report the very same thing happens on atheist forums too. There is little difference between the two, other than the different color of the flags they are each waving.

Do you agree that common logic is a reasonable standard for explaining ideas in the context of facts, and of other ideas?

Do you agree that you have no compelling evidence that common logic is qualified to provide reliable answers to questions of the scale that religion addresses, questions about the ultimate nature of everything? Do you agree that we currently can't even define "everything"?

I am happy to proceed if it should interest you, but out of respect I should admit up front that I am generally skeptical of scientists who think they can improve upon religion. I don't mean my mind is closed, only that I have a bias that will have to be overcome.

...or can you accept some principles and put them to work?

Here's a quick summary...

Using only reason I conclude that in regards to questions about the ultimate nature of everything all of us are ignorant.

I support accepting this inconvenient fact, embracing it, and working constructively with what we actually have, our ignorance, instead of continuing the pursuit of fantasy knowings which characterize both theism and atheism.

Hope that helps.

Felasco wrote:Greylorn,

As best I can tell, it's your intent to do just what the Catholic Answers folks would have us do. First we have to accept your faith based assumptions, and only then can we proceed together.

Is logic a valid criterion for evaluating ideas? I think so, and try to write and think accordingly. But if you do not agree, then what basis do we have for the exchange and evaluation of ideas?

Using only logic, I would propose that you have no conclusive evidence that natural law or human logic is binding on all of reality, an arena none of us can define in even the most basic manner.

The best we'd be able to do is accept the universal authority of natural law and human logic as a matter of faith in the same way that Catholics might accept the universal authority of their God and the Bible.

If you go to the Catholic Answers Forum, philosophy section, you will find a bizarre mix of confused posters who claim to respect and use logic, and to accept the principles of science. Yet when one uses logic or science to invalidate their beliefs, they revert to the usual and customary religious dogmas.

Yes, I've been to Catholic Answers. And can report the very same thing happens on atheist forums too. There is little difference between the two, other than the different color of the flags they are each waving.

Do you agree that common logic is a reasonable standard for explaining ideas in the context of facts, and of other ideas?

Do you agree that you have no compelling evidence that common logic is qualified to provide reliable answers to questions of the scale that religion addresses, questions about the ultimate nature of everything? Do you agree that we currently can't even define "everything"?

I am happy to proceed if it should interest you, but out of respect I should admit up front that I am generally skeptical of scientists who think they can improve upon religion. I don't mean my mind is closed, only that I have a bias that will have to be overcome.

...or can you accept some principles and put them to work?

Here's a quick summary...

Using only reason I conclude that in regards to questions about the ultimate nature of everything all of us are ignorant.

I support accepting this inconvenient fact, embracing it, and working constructively with what we actually have, our ignorance, instead of continuing the pursuit of fantasy knowings which characterize both theism and atheism.

Hope that helps.

Felasco,

While I appreciate your style of skepticism, mine is different from yours, and it seems unlikely that any of my ideas will meet your approbation. So, please don't read any of them.

There are too many of your premises with which I disagree, especially our ignorance (which is inevitably as relative as a pair of photons crossing in the aether just outside the gravitational field of a black hole). That's okay. I've learned to let such differences remain different.

Consider these comments of yours:
Using only reason I conclude that in regards to questions about the ultimate nature of everything all of us are ignorant.

I support accepting this inconvenient fact, embracing it, and working constructively with what we actually have, our ignorance, instead of continuing the pursuit of fantasy knowings which characterize both theism and atheism.

Here I am suspicious of the quality of your mind. You refuse to set a standard for conversation, yet claim to have a reasoned argument. What are your standards for reasoning? Where exactly is the reasoning by which you conclude that all of us are ignorant about the ultimate nature of everything? Where are your evaluations of ignorance, which seems to me to be a relative term? Because you are ignorant of fundamental physics, does that mean that everyone else is equally ignorant?

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

You've given yourself away with this statement,
"I am happy to proceed if it should interest you, but out of respect I should admit up front that I am generally skeptical of scientists who think they can improve upon religion. I don't mean my mind is closed, only that I have a bias that will have to be overcome."

You are clearly a religionist, pretending to be a philosopher. That's okay, but overcoming your bias is your problem, not mine. I don't want the job. 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. (BTW, I regard atheists exactly as religionists. Mostly good people trying to find answers, but getting their answers from illogical agreement-systems that ignore the available factual information.) 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.

You and I should not exchange information again. I have made it clear that I have a philosophical agenda, whereas you have been dishonest about yours. Therefore I do not trust you, and this will be my last reply to you. You answer honest questions with questions, or divert the conversation into another topic. 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.

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.

How long has the Philosophy Now magazine been publishing articles written by William Lane Craig?

Greylorn Ell,

First of all, I don't think you are reading this correctly. Let me point out something that you might have missed.

So what is the explanation of the existence of the universe (by ‘the universe’ I mean all of spacetime reality)? The explanation of the universe can lie only in a transcendent reality beyond it – beyond space and time – the existence of which transcendent reality is metaphysically necessary (otherwise its existence would also need explaining). Now there is only one way I can think of to get a contingent entity like the universe from a necessarily existing cause, and that is if the cause is an agent who can freely choose to create the contingent reality. It therefore follows that the best explanation of the existence of the contingent universe is a transcendent personal being – which is what everybody means by ‘God’.

I have highlighted "transcendent personal being" in red above. My first question to you is the following: Are you familiar enough with theological debates to know why Craig inserted the word "personal" before the word "being" there?

I am asking you about the whole rigamarole involving how when famous scientists such as Einstein would use the word "God" in casual conversation. Historians emphasize that when Einstein said "God", he did not mean a bearded ghost being sitting on a throne in heaven. The way you will see this in history books is "Einstein did not believe in a personal God". Or that "many scientists do not believe in a personal God". There is that word, personal, again.

Just wondering if you were aware of this distinction.

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

Kuznetzova wrote:Greylorn Ell,

First of all, I don't think you are reading this correctly. Let me point out something that you might have missed.

So what is the explanation of the existence of the universe (by ‘the universe’ I mean all of spacetime reality)? The explanation of the universe can lie only in a transcendent reality beyond it – beyond space and time – the existence of which transcendent reality is metaphysically necessary (otherwise its existence would also need explaining). Now there is only one way I can think of to get a contingent entity like the universe from a necessarily existing cause, and that is if the cause is an agent who can freely choose to create the contingent reality. It therefore follows that the best explanation of the existence of the contingent universe is a transcendent personal being – which is what everybody means by ‘God’.

I have highlighted "transcendent personal being" in red above. My first question to you is the following: Are you familiar enough with theological debates to know why Craig inserted the word "personal" before the word "being" there?

I am asking you about the whole rigamarole involving how when famous scientists such as Einstein would use the word "God" in casual conversation. Historians emphasize that when Einstein said "God", he did not mean a bearded ghost being sitting on a throne in heaven. The way you will see this in history books is "Einstein did not believe in a personal God". Or that "many scientists do not believe in a personal God". There is that word, personal, again.

Just wondering if you were aware of this distinction.

Zdrastvoi Kuznetzova,

I believe that I am keenly aware of the distinction you wish to make, but perhaps fifty years of arguing with confused religionists has left me even more confused. Here's my understanding. Feel free to correct me, or to share a different viewpoint.

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.

IMO the personal-God concept is religionist nonsense, invented by churches to create a sense of security and promise among their members. But that is only my opinion.

The personal-God concept works only if God is also omnipotent. There are logical reasons to discredit the notions of omnipotence and omniscience, and modify the God-concept to embrace the idea of a limited creator. That is one of the concepts that my book and other freely available writings espouse.

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.

While you highlighted "transcendent personal being," you only queried me about the "personal" component. Other components of that phrase can be addressed in the context of another thoughtfully-phrased question.

Next phase, but same subject...

Misquoting Big Al has become a more popular internet practice than actually quoting him has ever been. I believe that this is because his name has become almost god-like to those who have not graded out in Physics 101a, but who had thought about maybe taking the course. Misquoting works because almost no one has read Einstein's non-physics writings. I have, as well as his physics-- shy of general relativity, which I lacked the mathematical skills to follow.

Whether Big Al was properly quoted or not is only slightly relevant to this conversation. He was a theoretical physicist, not a God. Like all of us, he made mistakes, some of which were rather significant. Some of his mistakes involved admitting that he was wrong the first time, and should not have backtracked his own ideas.

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.

Thank you for your questions. They seem both legitimate and thoughtful. My other writings address your queries in exhaustive (meaning: boring) detail.

Greylorn

attofishpi wrote: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?

Greylorn Ell wrote:

attofishpi wrote: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.