Burden of Proof for God's existence
29 Nov 2011, 12:57 am
91 wrote:
01001011 wrote:
What ridiculous objection? You still haven't shown that how existence of universe is not timeless, or how to define cause in the context of your singularity model. It is funny that you claim 'singularity models' support the KAC but these models essentially use B-theory of time.
Firstly, your objection related to simultaneous causation, based on the assertion that causation implies time but we have been over that enough.
Singularity models do support the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) they do not 'essentially use b-theory'. That statement does not come close to capturing the nuance of the contemporary debate over time. Theoretical thinkers on the subject of time have mostly forgone McTaggart's a-theory and b-theory encapsulation of time. The Kalam does work with a-theory of time and not with b-theory but that is mostly moot, given the status of the present debate.
Moving past McTaggart's definition we come to three major interpretations of Special Relativity* with regards to time.
1. The Relativity Interpretation
2. The Spacetime Interpretation
3. The Lorentzian Interpretation
*Please note that all three draw on a compatibility with Special Relativity.
William Lane Craig is a known defender of the third option (the Lorentzian Interpretation) but that work really ought to be seperated as much as possible from his work on the Kalam. There certainly is an overlap, but stating that the Kalam is dependent on his defense of the Lorentzian Interpretation is highly inaccurate. Further stating that the Kalam is incompatible with Special Relativity is plain wrong; since the theories of time are compatible with the Kalam are, at least in the contemporary discourse, all compatible with SR. Until very recently all three have been empirically EQUAL.
At present most thinkers have not committed themselves to simply one of the three interpretations as the debate between the three is very contemporary. One interesting demonstration of just how contemporary the debate is the Lorentzian Interpretation, favoring the a-theory of time is likely about to receive a massive boost from CERN. If the results the recent discoveries at CERN hold up, then physicists will have seen the verification of the Lorentzian Equations (which may not work with b-theory but certainly do with a) in the results. I will explain in the next paragraph.
The line of simultaneity under STR is measured by light. A beam of light is sent to a point and reflected; if the outgoing speed matches the incoming speed then the events are simultaneous. Under the first interpretation the 'Relativity Interpretation' this would be the absolute limit that one can conclude simultaneity from. This leads to some truly strange things like two events passing one another by existing in separate time until the stop; at which point they share simultaneity. However, the CERN results show us that the line of simultaneity would have to be much broader than we thought. If they hold up the line of simultaneity could actually be total in all directions; hence the Lorentzian Interpretation would be proven and the objection to the Kalam from b-theory would be dead. That however is purely theoretical and we must simply accept that, at least for the present, that all three schools of thought are empirically equal.
Craig says that he "scienctifically doubts evolution", is and is not "open to what the evidence shows", and he "knows what's true by his self-authenticating beliefs and will ignore contrary evidence". This is about 5-and-a -half minutes into this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JQD6uVVqf0
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JQD6uVVqf0[/youtube]
What 91 has listed as #3. "The Lorentzian Interpretation" is discussed more simply in the paper below. Experimental observations have invalidated William Lane Craig's attempt to stick his God into Relativity Theory, but 91 will probably cite something like "William Lane Craig is not a Differential Geometrist" as another distracting excuse for WLC's bold & bumbling prestidigitations of deception.
http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m3 ... rell1.html
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8836/4/ ... ignals.pdf
http://www.guspepper.net/electro/Segund ... /Funez.pdf
Tadzio
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JQD6uVVqf0[/youtube]
29 Nov 2011, 1:19 am
@Tadzio
Quote:
Experimental observations have invalidated William Lane Craig's attempt to stick his God into Relativity Theory
If you want to claim that the Lorentzian Interpretation of the Special Theory of Relativity does not work then you will need to provide more of an argument than that (the second paper you referenced simply concludes that 'Therefore, one is free to choose between presentism and eternalism for some reason other than STR', it also points out 'it is unclear whether eternalism remains simpler than presentism', so it is at best agnostic with regards to parsimony. It does not really question that the Lorentzian Interpretation of the Special Theory of Relativity is incompatible with relativity; that would be a contradiction since the Lorentzian Interpretation is drawn from relativity. The article you cited seems to agree with me, so I may be mistaken in thinking that you are in disagreement with me overall. You seem to be expressing explicitly contradictory sentiments.
As I stated previously the Lorentzian Interpretation does not guarantee absolute presentism as absolute presentism is a subset of the Lorentzian Interpretation.
As to Dr. Craig's position with regards to evolution, he is agnostic, as you can see in the video I posted in the other thread on the subject.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
29 Nov 2011, 2:11 am
91 wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
That being said, do I disagree with you here? Probably. If a set of explanations is repeatedly used, and in every use has found to fail without ever arriving at success, then we are probably not justified in using it first in the future.
I refer you to my previous statement, you added nothing of use to the discussion here.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
1) If God is responsible for creating the universe(construed as the set of times t1-tx because of B theory) then God created t1, t2, ... tx, aka every moment.
2) If God creates every moment, then he ordains what happens in every moment.
3) If God ordains what happens in every moment, then there is no way for unordained free volition to cause an undesired event to occur.
4) God is responsible for creating the universe.
5) Therefore, there is no way for unordained free volition to cause an undesired event to occur.
2) If God creates every moment, then he ordains what happens in every moment.
3) If God ordains what happens in every moment, then there is no way for unordained free volition to cause an undesired event to occur.
4) God is responsible for creating the universe.
5) Therefore, there is no way for unordained free volition to cause an undesired event to occur.
This must be your own argument. Dr. Craig interacted in a way that sort of discusses what you are raising. The argument is pretty solidly bad; for example the third premise is actually just the supporting argument for the second and the second actually contains supporting argument as well. So basically it is a bit of a shambles.
Further, your entire argument is predicated on what you mean by 'free volition' you don't give us any reason to think that god creating every moment in time does not allow for free will, you just assume that this is the case. As I mentioned previously, Dr. Craig admits that some formations of free will do not work on b-theory, all you really lose is the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (Molinism mostly rules this out anyway). Your conclusion 'therefor there is no way', simply does not follow.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
And the EAAN fails to recognize that the development of our epistemic function is heterogeneous and would be very likely to work in certain contexts given that most truths are simpler than Plantinga's bizarre constructs of frogs wanting to turn into princes. I mean, the idea of treating each epistemic claim as equally probable and independent is just frankly absurd. It makes no sense when we think about an organism as an economizing being.
I mentioned proper function not the EAAN they are not the same thing. I think that if you pick up the book 'Warrant and Proper Function' you will find a detailed account of how proper function cannot be substantiated through naturalistic means. Dr. Glenn Peoples has a really good podcast series on warrant, proper function and naturalism available for free on itunes.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Except if YOU read the article, you'd realize that they were doing a criticism of the neo-Lorentzian view. They end the conclusion saying: "We have argued that relativity theory—and the physical evidence supporting it—point strongly in the direction of the tenseless B-theory of time." as their summary statement. Craig's article was still ABOUT the neo-Lorentzian view and the A theory of time: "But if a neo-Lorentzian interpretation is philosophically preferable (as I suspect that it is), then the rug is pulled from beneath the feet of theories of divine eternity appealing to STR in order to justify notions like ET-simultaneity or the presence of all things to God in timeless eternity." http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... eftow.html In fact, that's REALLY what you were trying to get at when referencing the article. So, my article, which criticizes the neo-Lorentzian view is perfectly valid, you just didn't actually READ IT, as the later article is contradicting what Craig said about the parsimony of Craig's assumptions.
I don't think what is being said here equates in any serious way with what you think is being said. Lets break it down a bit. The summary statement is simply a statement of the position I already mentioned; the STR works best with b-theory of time. It does not follow from this that a-theory of time does not work with STR.
There is nothing decisive in this comment. Craig's article was not simply 'about the neo-lorentzian view' the article you put forward only deals with a small and non-vital aspect of Craig's philsophy of time and even if all of its objections were granted would not prove that a-theory of time is incompatible with STR. The conclusion of the article is that STR works best with b-theory, something Craig is quite open about in both his writings and interviews. Neo-Lorentzian and a-theory are not the same thing. The Neo-Lorentzian view is an interpretation of general relativity the relationship between a-theory and the Special Theory of Relativity is a different matter, it would help a great deal if you could distinguish. McCall's attack was quite particular, not a general attack on a-theory and STR.
Also, you should note two things;
1) Dr. Craig has rebutted McCall and Balasov
2) McCall writes on the compatibility of libertarian free will with b-theory (kind of reinforces what I stated with regards to molinism), one of his articles on the subject is 'the determinist's have run out of luck'... I guess you are too.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Yeah, given that you haven't really shown we have to accept A theory, I don't have to do jack squat. The burden of proof isn't on me to disprove A theory. If physicists all say "this is physics" and physics entails B theory, that's sufficient evidence for me against it. And if B theory is true, then the Kalam becomes rather useless as an independent argument.
Physics no doubt works well with b-theory. STR can also work with a-theory; Dr. Craig claims that a-theory and 'Neo-Lorentzian' works better but that is a different question all together. My argument only requires that the subjects are compatible... if you want to show them to be incompatible, that is your burden to uphold.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
91, the issue is that you're regarded as "the apologist".
ad hominem, says nothing of the truth or falsity of my views. You are an atheist, I am a theist, neither of us can claim to be objective or non-partisan.
@Tadzio
Sorry, I missed your request, I am being bombarded a bit at the moment;
I forget them all but there is the Bohmian, Hidden variables, transactional, relational, ensemble, consciouness-caused, many-worlds, stochastic (not sure of spelling). Thats all I can name off the top of my head though.
Hi 91,
I guess you listed the following, with some of my notes following
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie ... ohm_theory
Bohm is clear that this theory is non-deterministic (th
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory
Einstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactio ... rpretation
A transaction is a genuinely stochastic event, and therefore does not obey a deterministic equation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational ... _mechanics
observer-dependent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_interpretation
interpretation was Albert Einstein, but does not attempt to justify, or otherwise derive, or explain
quantum mechanics from any deterministic process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mi ... dy_problem
the point of collapse is largely arbitrary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
Many-worlds claims to reconcile the observation of non-deterministic events, such as the random
radioactive decay, with the fully deterministic equations of quantum physics.where the particles are
likely to be observed, in the limit where the number of measurements went to infinity.
very vague about the ways to determine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_interpretation
small-scale structure of spacetime is undergoing both metric and topological fluctuations
When "determinism" is cited by model supporters, except by "less than new" Einstein modified, "determinism" is taken as a "separated numbers' count of identified locations per total numbers" of not out-lying locations in "shapes of graphs", with the "shape of the graphs" being what is "deterministic". The words "frequency" and "probability" are usually used, but they are easily confusing in the details. The book
"The Picture Book of Quantum Mechanics" by Siegmund Brandt & Hans Dieter Dahmen has illustrations representing 3-D graphs of the "count" distributions. The "deterministic sameness" is about the shape, as in "The Bell Curve", with the individual members in the built curve of limited maximally summed instances still having this mysterious "randomness" for each member, a "randomness" that I don't like. With the
"randomness" noted by Feynman, it's not "noise", measurement, classical probability problems, or other "The Man on the Street and Presentism" direct issues. WLC defends obfuscating this for "simplicity" to/for the people in the Public, but the attempted "simplification" makes conceptualization more difficult, and with the difficulties providing opportunities for blaming or introducing "supernatural" magic, which philosophies of science frown upon in the protocols. That is one reason he reminds me of a further tainted Garner Ted Armstrong.
Craig Does The Yes-No Bunny Hop
Craig says that he "scientifically doubts evolution", is and is not "open to what the evidence shows",
and he "knows what's true by his self-authenticating beliefs and will ignore contrary evidence". This
is about 5-and-a-half minutes into this video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JQD6uVVqf0[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JQD6uVVqf0
What 91 has listed as #3. "The Lorentzian Interpretation" is discussed more simply in the paper below.
Experimental observations have invalidated William Lane Craig's attempt to stick his God into Relativity
Theory, but 91 will probably cite something like "William Lane Craig is not a Differential Geometrist" as
another distracting excuse for WLC's bold & bumbling prestidigitations of deception.
http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m3 ... rell1.html
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8836/4/ ... ignals.pdf
http://www.guspepper.net/electro/Segund ... /Funez.pdf
Tadzio
29 Nov 2011, 11:53 am
91 wrote:
01001011 wrote:
What ridiculous objection? You still haven't shown that how existence of universe is not timeless, or how to define cause in the context of your singularity model. It is funny that you claim 'singularity models' support the KAC but these models essentially use B-theory of time.
Here is a video for you to watch
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fSluNqGxRA[/youtube]
Those 'bad' arguments has NOTHING to do with any objection I raised.
Quote:
Firstly, your objection related to simultaneous causation, based on the assertion that causation implies time but we have been over that enough.
1) My objection was initially against b9 who DID made the error of regarding 'cause of universe' as temporal.
2) 'The universe begins' implies some concept of time. In particular by YOUR definition timeless objects have no beginning. The singularity model says time breaks down in some part of the universe. Therefore the universe is timeless in the sense the universe does not exist 'in' time.
I posted this earlier but you did not answer. It is you who doesn't move.
Quote:
Singularity models do support the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
Baseless assertion.
Quote:
they do not 'essentially use b-theory'.
If anything they make stronger use of b-theory than SR. What can a-theory say about the 'absolute flow of time' when time breaks down at the singularity?
Quote:
The line of simultaneity under STR is measured by light. A beam of light is sent to a point and reflected; if the outgoing speed matches the incoming speed then the events are simultaneous. Under the first interpretation the 'Relativity Interpretation' this would be the absolute limit that one can conclude simultaneity from. This leads to some truly strange things like two events passing one another by existing in separate time until the stop; at which point they share simultaneity. However, the CERN results show us that the line of simultaneity would have to be much broader than we thought. If they hold up the line of simultaneity could actually be total in all directions; hence the Lorentzian Interpretation would be proven and the objection to the Kalam from b-theory would be dead. That however is purely theoretical and we must simply accept that, at least for the present, that all three schools of thought are empirically equal.
Source please? The second sentence is wrong. Speed of light in vacuum is constant. And if both a-theory and b-theory produce the same prediction than how can CERN find evidence for any of them?
30 Nov 2011, 4:40 am
01001011 wrote:
'The universe begins' implies some concept of time. In particular by YOUR definition timeless objects have no beginning. The singularity model says time breaks down in some part of the universe. Therefore the universe is timeless in the sense the universe does not exist 'in' time.
What nonsense. Saying 'in some singularity models time gives way to space' is nowhere near anything like saying 'the universe dose not exist in time'.
01001011 wrote:
If anything they make stronger use of b-theory than SR. What can a-theory say about the 'absolute flow of time' when time breaks down at the singularity?
Most conceptions of a-theory do not involve an absolute present.
01001011 wrote:
Speed of light in vacuum is constant. And if both a-theory and b-theory produce the same prediction than how can CERN find evidence for any of them?]
If you look at the second sentence again it is not the speed of light that changes but the distance between the points. If you want more info check out the link.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=9089
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
30 Nov 2011, 5:26 am
91 wrote:
01001011 wrote:
'The universe begins' implies some concept of time. In particular by YOUR definition timeless objects have no beginning. The singularity model says time breaks down in some part of the universe. Therefore the universe is timeless in the sense the universe does not exist 'in' time.
What nonsense. Saying 'in some singularity models time gives way to space' is nowhere near anything like saying 'the universe dose not exist in time'.
01001011 wrote:
If anything they make stronger use of b-theory than SR. What can a-theory say about the 'absolute flow of time' when time breaks down at the singularity?
Most conceptions of a-theory do not involve an absolute present.
01001011 wrote:
Speed of light in vacuum is constant. And if both a-theory and b-theory produce the same prediction than how can CERN find evidence for any of them?]
If you look at the second sentence again it is not the speed of light that changes but the distance between the points. If you want more info check out the link.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=9089
William Lane Craig says "With the collapse of verificationism": _____Fill In Any Nonsense From Craig You Want, Since Verification Is Not Required, and in fact prohibited by "True-Believers" off in La-La Land.
"Collapse of Verificationism" exploitations: http://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sour ... icationism
Tadzio
P.S.: In William Lane Craig's "Response", about the middle down the web-page, linked by 91's link.
30 Nov 2011, 11:34 am
91 wrote:
01001011 wrote:
'The universe begins' implies some concept of time. In particular by YOUR definition timeless objects have no beginning. The singularity model says time breaks down in some part of the universe. Therefore the universe is timeless in the sense the universe does not exist 'in' time.
What nonsense. Saying 'in some singularity models time gives way to space' is nowhere near anything like saying 'the universe dose not exist in time'.
Quote:
If you look at the original paper
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50735227/hart ... -2960-2975
there is no such mention of 'time gives way to space'. Indeed such statement already implies time and hence all the same fallacy over again.
To say that the universe has a beginning you need to show that the universe is not timeless. Is it so hard to understand?
Quote:
01001011 wrote:
If anything they make stronger use of b-theory than SR. What can a-theory say about the 'absolute flow of time' when time breaks down at the singularity?
Most conceptions of a-theory do not involve an absolute present.
We are talking about the whole idea of time breaking down.
30 Nov 2011, 11:48 am
91 wrote:
01001011 wrote:
'The universe begins' implies some concept of time. In particular by YOUR definition timeless objects have no beginning. The singularity model says time breaks down in some part of the universe. Therefore the universe is timeless in the sense the universe does not exist 'in' time.
What nonsense. Saying 'in some singularity models time gives way to space' is nowhere near anything like saying 'the universe dose not exist in time'.
01001011 wrote:
If anything they make stronger use of b-theory than SR. What can a-theory say about the 'absolute flow of time' when time breaks down at the singularity?
Most conceptions of a-theory do not involve an absolute present.
01001011 wrote:
Speed of light in vacuum is constant. And if both a-theory and b-theory produce the same prediction than how can CERN find evidence for any of them?]
If you look at the second sentence again it is not the speed of light that changes but the distance between the points. If you want more info check out the link.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=9089
91,
the universe does ain all theoretical predictions not exist in time, there is time in it but what is around is something quite different entirely(according to what theories you read of course)
in a braneworld time has little meaning, it is a local effect of our universe and it isnt even a physical prerequisite for a stable system.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
30 Nov 2011, 12:39 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Wake up guys! Philosophy is bu** sh*t.
ruveyn
ruveyn
But this is a philosophy forum. There are other forums you can post to if you don't like this one. If philosophy is BS, then great--we have a special BS corner on WP. But there are other BS forums on WP. If you don't like this particular brand of BS, you may go find another corner where the odor is more to your liking.
30 Nov 2011, 4:52 pm
AngelRho wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Wake up guys! Philosophy is bu** sh*t.
ruveyn
ruveyn
But this is a philosophy forum. There are other forums you can post to if you don't like this one. If philosophy is BS, then great--we have a special BS corner on WP. But there are other BS forums on WP. If you don't like this particular brand of BS, you may go find another corner where the odor is more to your liking.
Philosophical arguments for God are a bunch of bullshit, enough with the bullshit and come up with tangible data, such as observationable and verifiable evidence, you can't, so you have to resort to ontological and metaphysical jargon.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Burden of proof for god's existence in a legal setting? |
01 Dec 2011, 7:33 pm |
| The Burden Of Proof Should Be For... |
22 May 2009, 11:14 am |
| Burden of proof of Laden's responsability for 911. |
10 May 2011, 5:26 pm |
| Burden of proof that Bill Clinton was ever president. |
06 May 2011, 1:24 am |
