William Lane Craig's Cosmological Arguments

Post Reply New Topic

You have not established why it must be one of either of these two possibilities and why they should apply to a mind that is immaterial. You are just asserting this and then moving from there, which, as I have once again pointed out since my first post, is something a libertarian need not grant.

Because, as LoveNotHate and many other members through various threads here have agreed with, it is based on solid logical grounds.

It's like asking me to establish that 2 + 2 really does equal 4.

Wow, really, you're basing your argument on a misreading of a causal dichotomy that involves only determinism and indeterminism. This is why I love the PPR, it really does force me to go to the basics. There is nothing logically incoherent with the concept of an self-created decision of will, nothing at all. I can think of situations where other factors allow such a thing to become impossible, all mechanistic and related to how those decisions are produced. To assume that they are the only two and proclaim it to be as obvious as 2+2, well thats just ridiculous because the relationship between those things and cause is not based in logic but in the reality of physics. There is nothing logically contradictory in a decision but there is something contradictory in a full determined agent decision, as suggested by deterministic interpretations of physics. You just made a massive mistake in identifying the source of your argument. Determinism is a law of physics, not a law of logic, logic exists in all possible worlds and to all possible states, a mind that exists in such a way as to cause physics, well you need another reason for thinking those laws apply to it.

Well, provide some examples then. That's what I want.

I have agreed with 91 the whole way on this thread. I read your original post like five times looking for an error, and could not find anything. So, your logic appears flawless within your "worldview".

Imagine "Euclidean Geometry" is a "worldview", source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry

Imagine "Non-Euclidean Geometry" is a "worldview", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry

We have different "worldviews".

Your logic is flawless within your worldview, and he believes his logic is flawless within his worldview.

You want to use your logic in your worldview to attack his logic in his worldview.

However, the assumptions of the world are NOT THE SAME in the worldviews.

Example: As noted in the link above, Einstein's theory of general relativity is that physical space itself is not Euclidean.
Thus, Einstein's logic may not work in a Euclidean worldview because of the assumptions that Euclidean geometry makes about
the world.

No, the logic is flawless because it is logic. A squared circle cannot exist in any worldview because it's not logical.

It's not logical that a will can occur without either being random or predetermined in some way or another. If you disagree, then the burden is on you to provide an example to illustrate.

He appears to argue ...

1. GOD has a consciousness that stores the pre-determination of creation
2. GOD has a "mental state" that is separate from consciousness
3. GOD's "mental state" has free-will to tell the consciousness to do or not do stuff

Thus, he believes GOD has pre-determination of creation, and free-will to create or not create.

As 91 pointed out, you never address this argument "worldview".

That mental state still could not logically do anything without either being random or being predetermined (even if eternally predetermined) to do so.

The onus is on you and 91 to illustrate how it is logical for a will to do something via some other means that doesn't involve randomness or determinism.

None of you have managed to do so. And as we are arguing logic, then this is essential.

Determinism and indeterminsim are contingent upon other factors, which relate to the method of causation. Neither is a necessary condition, even for a compatibilist. Thus it is not a logical law, it is not written anywhere that a universe must be deterministic, nor is it written that it must be fully indeterminisitc, our universe is probably a combination of both. To a libertarian, will is a third cause, Craig's position is smart, but less convincing because it sits dependent on people accepting his account of libertarianism and that is probably as large of an ask as accepting the Kalam.

Nope. You are making he claim that they are the only two possible forms of causation, its on you to show that there can be no more, this is your argument remember. Libertarianism is not a disproven position, even if it is unpopular, just as hard-determinism is also not a disproven position. They are interpretations of the same data similar to that within quantum mechanics. As long as it is logically coherent and fits within the data its a valid position to take, I personally do not affirm that view but you seem to be struggling with the fundamentals of philosophy on a regular basis.

I believe he believes the "mental state" is random.

There is a mechanism, it's usually by pair production and annihilation. However, there is no outside force that makes it happen, the energy just fluctuates and essentially all particles, virtual or not, are just excitations of a field.



The quantum vacuum fluctuations in a certain sense are the virtual particles rather than the the cause of them. All particles in quantum field theory are excitations of a quantised field, the fact that the field cannot remain smoothly constant in order for the Uncertainty Principle to remain valid means that this "jitteriness" of the field randomly and temporarily results changes in the energy of the field and the brief creation and annihilation of virtual particles. There is no outside force responsible. The uncertainty due to the Uncertainty Principle is not simply a lack of knowledge like what you're suggesting. In the energy-time uncertainty principle, the smaller the time interval in which you try to measure the energy, the actual energy is more and more erratic and so there simply is no definite energy. Similarly, the more precisely you know positions of particles, for example if you shine light through a slit and narrow the slit, the photons actually have to spread out in order to make their velocity less precise. There can still be cause and effect in quantum mechanics but it there is no determinism in the traditional sense ( a fact that Einstein disliked that's the origin of his "God doesn't play dice" saying).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8FTr2qMutA[/youtube]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

This is not the topic of this thread though.

When the guy in video said "the particles have to follow the equation", then it sounded like determinism, however, I will yield as a non-physicist.

Thank you.

There are both deterministic and non-deterministic interpretations of QM.

You appear to acknowledge that the particle behavior of the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal" have causality, yet, not "deterministic fate", so how do you rationalize away deterministic fate when you see that physicists have a formula for the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal" - that appears to describe deterministic particle behavior?

Further, based on this link, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

Quote: "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice".

The above quote makes it appear that Quantum Mechanics did not change his views on determinism?

Thank you.

Because the particle behaviour predicted by the Uncertainty Principle is not deterministic, in fact it's the opposite of that. Determinism means that you can define or predict precise trajectories of the particles. The Uncertainty Principle places a limit on how accurately this can be done.



Which is why Einstein never fully accepted quantum mechanics, or at least as the way it was formulated. He came up with the EPR paradox to prove his point. The point is, Einstein was wrong. Like 91 said above, there are some interpretations of quantum mechanics, like the Bohm interpretation, that are deterministic. However, those require extra assumptions like "hidden variables" in order to work, make exactly the same predictions as non-determistic interpretations and apparently can't be extended to relativistic quantum mechanics. The last point probably indicates that the deterministic interpretations are not correct.