Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[omit]

Unfortunately for WLC the kalam argument presupposes and infact requires a god to exist. I wrote this a few months ago

The kalam argument relies on the controversial a-theory of time (tensed theory). that the present is intrinsically real and other moments cease to exist or have not yet existed.

From William Lane Craig "the nature of time"
Quote:
The moments of time are ordered by past present and future, and that these are real and objective aspects of reality. The past is gone, it no longer exists. The present is real. The future has not yet existed and is not real.
Craig further explains how the kalam argument relies on a-theory time in "the Blackwell companion to natural theology" (p. 183 - 184)
Quote:
from start to finish the kalam argument is predicated upon a-theory time. On b-theory time the universe does not infact come into being or become actual at the big bang. It just exists tenselessy as a 4 dimentional space-time block which is infinitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless then the universe never really came into being. Therefor a quest for a cause of it's coming into being are misconceived.

Ok cool. The problem with this is that a-theory time is not compatible with Einstiens theory of special relativity which tells us that you cannot place absolute values on time as time is relative. The present is no more reality than the past or the future.

From Einstiens "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies" (1905)
Quote:

So we can see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneousity, but that two events, which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisanged from a system which is in motion relatively to that

In response to this, Craig wrote a number of books on time and put forward neo-lorentzian relativity, which Craig claims is as observationally correct as Einstiens theory (albeit a lot more complicated)

So what reason do we have to believe neo-lorentzian relativity over Einstiens simpler theory?

Craig from "time and metaphysics of reality" (p179)
Quote:
we have good reason for believing neo-lorentzian theory is correct, namely, the existence of god in a-theory time implies it.

Hooray for deductive reasoning with circular logic

 

[MojoRising]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

Unfortunately for WLC the kalam argument presupposes and infact requires a god to exist. I wrote this a few months ago

Can you explain how the kalam cosmological presupposes that God exists?

I've never heard that objection to it before.

The kalam argument relies on the controversial a-theory of time (tensed theory). that the present is intrinsically real and other moments cease to exist or have not yet existed.

I'm not sure whether I'd call the A-theory of time controversial.

On the A-theory of time the future does not yet exist in reality. A person who is going to be born in the year 2050 does not yet exist.

On the B-theory of time the future (and the past) exist in reality. All events in time are equally real and temporaral "becoming" is just an illusion of human consciousness. There is no objective flow of time, future events already exist, etc - all events exist in a four dimensional "block". So our friend from the year 2050 exists right now in reality.

Obviously the A-theory of time is the "common sense" interpretation of time. While that doesn't mean it's right, I find that theory to make more sense. I'm sympathetic to the philosopher John Lucas' arguments against B-Theory.

From William Lane Craig "the nature of time"
Quote:
The moments of time are ordered by past present and future, and that these are real and objective aspects of reality. The past is gone, it no longer exists. The present is real. The future has not yet existed and is not real.

Right, this is the common sense interpretation of our experience, ie the future hasn't happened yet, the past is the past and no longer exists in reality.

If you are a B-theorist you believe that that the future, the present and the past are all equally real.

Craig further explains how the kalam argument relies on a-theory time in "the Blackwell companion to natural theology" (p. 183 - 184)
Quote:
from start to finish the kalam argument is predicated upon a-theory time. On b-theory time the universe does not infact come into being or become actual at the big bang. It just exists tenselessy as a 4 dimentional space-time block which is infinitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless then the universe never really came into being. Therefor a quest for a cause of it's coming into being are misconceived.

Yep. If the B-theory is correct then the first premise of the kalam cosmological argument (Everything that begins to exist has a cause) is false, because the past, like the future, exists tenselessly and there is no sequential ordering of events (cause>effect) because everything exists at once.

Ok cool. The problem with this is that a-theory time is not compatible with Einstiens theory of special relativity which tells us that you cannot place absolute values on time as time is relative. The present is no more reality than the past or the future.

This is where we part ways...

The B-theory of time / tenseless theory (ie Minkowksi interpretation of STR) is one of 2 main interpretations of the equations of the Special Theory of Relativity. I think you are right that it is more popular than the A-Theory with physicists (but maybe not philosophers?).

But that doesn't mean that the A-Theory is not compatible with STR, it's just not compatible with the alternative interpretation.

From Einstiens "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies" (1905)
Quote:

So we can see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneousity, but that two events, which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisanged from a system which is in motion relatively to that

Didn't Einstein abandon his interpretation of STR in 1905 after he became of aware of Minkowski's interpretation of STR (4 dimensional space time block)? Pretty sure he did.

The 2 rival current interpretations of STR are the Minkowkian / Einstein interpretation (B-theory / tenseless time) and the Lorentzian interpretation (A-theory / tensed time).

Both theories are currently empirically equivalent.

In response to this, Craig wrote a number of books on time and put forward neo-lorentzian relativity, which Craig claims is as observationally correct as Einstiens theory (albeit a lot more complicated)

That is correct though isn't it? What physical observations are confirmatory of B-theory as opposed to A-theory?

There's actually been a recent development that supports A-Theory of time:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/218...-light-speed-time-travel-debate-to-return.htm

So what reason do we have to believe neo-lorentzian relativity over Einstiens simpler theory?

Craig from "time and metaphysics of reality" (p179)
Quote:
we have good reason for believing neo-lorentzian theory is correct, namely, the existence of god in a-theory time implies it.

Hooray for deductive reasoning with circular logic

Is that really a quote from the book?

He's not saying that he has a deductive argument to show that the A-Theory of time is correct.

Edit: Yep, the quote is correct.

 

[MojoRising]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

The very best arguments for God still boil down to "s**t is complicated, don't know how it happened." Even the fine tuning argument boils down to a 'God of the Gaps' argument.

1. Our universe needs specific conditions to exists.
2. The conditions are very focused and to alter them on a cosmic level is beyond our scientific comprehension.
3. Therefore God did it.
4. To do it God needed to exist, thus God exists.

But that is not WLC's argument. You've just erected a straw man. Did you miss my post above where I set out the argument?

 

[Max zero]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

But that is not WLC's argument. You've just erected a straw man. Did you miss my post above where I set out the argument?

No I didn't read that post (must of missed it).

Premise 1: The fine tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design.
Premise 2: It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

God could only design it if it were a supernatural being.

This is of course you accept the premise that the universe is fine tuned.

But I would appreciate his arguments as to why it was not chance or physical necessity.

 

[rayven]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

A theory is just abelief system unproven, like God. All be it its the oldest un proven theory there is, but still its unproven.

Theories to scientists are like sex is to are lives, we all started with it...


But then this bloke got a nobel prize for finding this black blurry thing ripping apart the universe in an unprecedented manner..

 

[TheStinger]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

Is it ok for someone to believe that science and God are inextricably linked? Or are we so entrenched in our stringent dogma that neither side can agree that the other has any merit whatsoever?

I laugh when an atheist is challenged on the theory of evolution, they invariably come back with "Well gravity is a theory, so you don't believe in gravity then?"

The argument is petty and deliberately dismissive of the other person as a fruitcake and able to be mocked with a simple use of an example which is so basic in its understanding that we all take it for granted. It seems to be the way for atheists, when they can't be bothered debating the point because of some preconceived notion that they can't debate against something that doesn't exist they then make some glib remark and hope that other people will laugh and let them away with it.

I believe that science has many answers and is a testament to mans strive for knowledge and to understand how we came to be here and what lies in store for us. But most scientists will say that we do not have all the answers and probably never will. Some questions are almost impossible to answer.

There is also the missing pieces of theories which end up being called, somewhat tongue in cheek, the God Particle. But what if that is exactly what it is? Can I not strive to understand how things came to be and how they are but also believe it is because that is the way God intended it to be?

There are many things that lay unanswered and when scientists are asked why they throw their hands up and say because we don't know. WE are trying to figure it out but at the moment it is a mystery. But when confronted with "well then it might be God", they say no of course it isn't. You can't prove it so it doesn't exist.

Well, most of science throughout the course of history has ended up being disproven by someone else who discovered more information. What if the ultimate source of information is unattainable to science? Our level of understanding of the universe will then never be fulfilled.

So, in conclusion I believe that science has taught us many things but it will never have all the answers. I choose as a matter of course to believe that there is a higher power out there that put everything in motion and that my life has some meaning outside of a transient period of time on earth which will in the grand scheme of things amount to a drip in the ocean.

How do I know if I am right or if I am being crazy? I guess you find out when you die, when you either enter another plane of existence or you become worm food and nothing more. Until then, I choose to have faith and hope that other people choose not to ridicule my choice due to their own academic prejudice.

 

[rayven]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

So, in conclusion I believe that science has taught us many things but it will never have all the answers. I choose as a matter of course to believe that there is a higher power out there that put everything in motion and that my life has some meaning outside of a transient period of time on earth which will in the grand scheme of things amount to a drip in the ocean.

It's record that souls are reincarnated, people recalling things from a time they could never unless they were??? .The school of thought that your life has meaning would be correct because you'll take your lessons or instinct with you.

But the school of thought there is a conspiracy to whats happening being contolled by a higher power? That doesn't add up in way like say the theory of gravity.

But then one could argue that the theory of gravity is flawed because of all that footage of the twin towers collapsing..

 

[TheStinger]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

It's record that souls are reincarnated, people recalling things from a time they could never unless they were??? .The school of thought that your life has meaning would be correct because you'll take your lessons or instinct with you.

But the school of thought there is a conspiracy to whats happening being contolled by a higher power? That doesn't add up in way like say the theory of gravity.

But then one could argue that the theory of gravity is flawed because of all that footage of the twin towers collapsing..

I don't think I have ever heard God being called a conspiracy before. Well, maybe Dan Brown said it but no-one takes him seriously anyway.

 

[omit]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

The B-theory of time / tenseless theory (ie Minkowksi interpretation of STR) is one of 2 main interpretations of the equations of the Special Theory of Relativity. I think you are right that it is more popular than the A-Theory with physicists (but maybe not philosophers?).

Both theories are currently empirically equivalent.

That is correct though isn't it? What physical observations are confirmatory of B-theory as opposed to A-theory?
Is that really a quote from the book?

Edit: Yep, the quote is correct.

from wiki (hooray for the great source that is wiki)

Because of the same mathematical formalism it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment. However, in LET the existence of an undetectable ether is assumed and the validity of the relativity principle seems to be only coincidental, which is one reason why SR is commonly preferred over LET. Another important reason for preferring SR is that the new understanding of space and time was also fundamental for the development of general relativity.

I'm going to assume this undetectable ether is what WLC was referring to as "god"

Regardless of what you call it however. its still circular logic.

my undetectable ether proves Lorenzian relativity, which proves a-time theory, which proves that my undetectable ether exists

 

[Rassilon]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

I laugh when an atheist is challenged on the theory of evolution, they invariably come back with "Well gravity is a theory, so you don't believe in gravity then?"

Just like I laughed when asked "If evolution is true and we evolved from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?".

There are many things that lay unanswered and when scientists are asked why they throw their hands up and say because we don't know. WE are trying to figure it out but at the moment it is a mystery. But when confronted with "well then it might be God", they say no of course it isn't. You can't prove it so it doesn't exist.

They are scientists. As a scientist it is an extraordinary contortion of logic to say because science can't answer a question yet, it's God. God lives in the gaps of our knowledge, which we are forever filling in.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

Funny article from Cracked.com relevant to religion threads on this Board (contains course language)

http://www.cracked.com/article_19474_4-idiots-who-show-up-wherever-religion-discussed-online.html

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

WLC's full of contractions in thought and falls for repetitive theological positions that are completly absurd. He's good for laughs.

 

[cancat]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

Dawkins presents very strong arguments for evolution and against organised religion. But his argument for why there almost certainly is no God is weak. He's no philosopher. He should stick to what he is good at.

 

[nicky]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

Dawkins presents very strong arguments for evolution and against organised religion. But his argument for why there almost certainly is no God is weak. He's no philosopher. He should stick to what he is good at.

Absolutely agree

 

[buddy23]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

As I understand it the creation of the universe is not proven, and therefore one of the possible answers is that there is a 'creator'.

How is WLC sure that this is a Christian God who dislikes homosexuals and divorce (but not equally), used to dislike shellfish and is all forgiving and judgemental at once?

 

[Si Botak]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

That's the point though isn't it? He will debate the likes of Kirk Cameron and the Banana Man but not a real scholar. Why not?

Why does he need to? He's an athiest, that's his belief. Now, it might be my opinion that it's also his loss, but that's neither by the by.

I'm a Christian and I see no need to debate my faith with anyone, quite simply because I refuse to recognise the moral, spiritual or intellectual authority of any fallible imperfect human being to enter into such an exercise with me. The one being that can correct me is God, and I'm sure that when the time comes he will take my no doubt fallible understanding and correct it as he sees fit.

I would not be so arrogant and lacking humility to presume that my interpretation of spiritual Christian belief is so untainted and perfect that I must debate it with, or try to convert, an Atheist.

Regardless of who we are, or what we believe, we'll all be put to rights eventually. In thea meantime, we're simply doing the best we can with the understanding each of us has.

 

[nicky]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

What Dawkins puts forwarded isn't a faith, that would imply no evidence exists to what he is a proponent of.

There is no evidence to what he is a proponent of. I'm with him up until he emphatically states there is no god. Quite frankly I lean toward that myself but I'm agnostic about it. To say "no god" is definitely true is as dogmatic as fundamental religious types. There's a leap of faith you need to take to get there.

Science can't explain the universe, there's no guarantee that math is inherent in the universe. We might reach a roadblock with it before we can say we know for certain how, why and when OR we will keep uncovering the truth and realise that mathematics is inherent in the universe.

At this stage anything beyond being agnostic requires a leap of faith. And a leap of faith is fine and good but don't call people stupid for not leaping with you.

Dawkin's problem is that he does come across as an arogant condescending prat and even though he is right, people are going to be put off the facts by his attitude. I've read the Blind Watchmaker and it's a brilliant book, but at times when he writes like he talks it gets tedious.

Read 'Demon Haunted World' by Carl Sagan, he did it much better than Dawkins does in bringing science to the masses.

Without knowing much about him I think Dawkins muddies the waters by lumping people who believe in god with creationists? (malifice, worst poster on big footy, does a similar thing when arguing this kind of thing). I know of christian physicists, the pope believes in evolution and i think einstein said something along the lines of 'the more you learn about the universe the more you're sure there is something out there'

As i said earlier, dawkins to me is about as interesting as a fundamental creationist christian. Even though I have more in common with his beliefs he loses me when he claims to know all the answers when us humans have not progressed that far, we have so much more to learn (which is so enjoyably fascinating and why people like him bore me). He's claiming more than science is therefore should concede that he's taken a leap of faith himself.

 

[Max zero]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

There is no evidence to what he is a proponent of. I'm with him up until he emphatically states there is no god. Quite frankly I lean toward that myself but I'm agnostic about it. To say "no god" is definitely true is as dogmatic as fundamental religious types. There's a leap of faith you need to take to get there.

Science can't explain the universe, there's no guarantee that math is inherent in the universe. We might reach a roadblock with it before we can say we know for certain how, why and when OR we will keep uncovering the truth and realise that mathematics is inherent in the universe.

At this stage anything beyond being agnostic requires a leap of faith. And a leap of faith is fine and good but don't call people stupid for not leaping with you.



Without knowing much about him I think Dawkins muddies the waters by lumping people who believe in god with creationists? (malifice, worst poster on big footy, does a similar thing when arguing this kind of thing). I know of christian physicists, the pope believes in evolution and i think einstein said something along the lines of 'the more you learn about the universe the more you're sure there is something out there'

As i said earlier, dawkins to me is about as interesting as a fundamental creationist christian. Even though I have more in common with his beliefs he loses me when he claims to know all the answers when we as humans have not progressed that far. He's claiming more than science is sure of so he should also concede that he's taken a leap of faith himself.

Actually to the bolded, no he does not. He has specifically spoken on this point. He thinks it is highly unlikely.

 

[cancat]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

I'm a Christian and I see no need to debate my faith with anyone, quite simply because I refuse to recognise the moral, spiritual or intellectual authority of any fallible imperfect human being to enter into such an exercise with me. The one being that can correct me is God, and I'm sure that when the time comes he will take my no doubt fallible understanding and correct it as he sees fit.

You don't wish to debate your faith because faith is the belief in something without recourse to reason. As Dawkins says (borrowed from the great man Pirsig) "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion".

Tell me about this God you believe in. You seem to think it is male. What properties does it have? What does it look like? Why would a being as powerful and all knowing enough to create an immense and complex universe reveal itself only to one desert tribe of an infinitely lesser species? What was God doing for billions of years before mankind came along? Are the Gods of the other religions all false?

Surely you acknowledge that the bible was written by men? And by your own words human beings are fallible and imperfect, hence the bible, on which I assume your faith depends, lacks moral, spiritual or intellectual authority.

 

[MojoRising]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?



These ads are rolling out on Oxford buses over the next few weeks to coincide with the Reasonable Faith Tour.

A bit of friendly ribbing by the Christian group arranging the tour. You may remember a few years ago Dawkins was involved in promoting ads in London that read 'There's probably no God - so stop worrying and enjoy your life'.

 

[MojoRising]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

WLC's full of contractions in thought and falls for repetitive theological positions that are completly absurd. He's good for laughs.

Care to give an example of WLC contradicting himself? Should be easy since he is so full of them.

 

[Summer Nights]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

Actually to the bolded, no he does not. He has specifically spoken on this point. He thinks it is highly unlikely.

Exactly. And further to that, he talks about it with respect to the gods described by the world's religions. You can logically state that the god described in the bible doesn't exist due to all the contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in the bible. But that doesn't mean there is no god at all, outside of what humans have portrayed God as. Dawkins acknowledges his soft atheism/agnosticism constantly. It would be great if people could get their facts right before peddling myths and untruths.

 

[MojoRising]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

Tell me about this God you believe in. You seem to think it is male. What properties does it have? What does it look like? Why would a being as powerful and all knowing enough to create an immense and complex universe reveal itself only to one desert tribe of an infinitely lesser species? What was God doing for billions of years before mankind came along? Are the Gods of the other religions all false?.

You're asking what an immaterial entity looks like and whether "he" is male?

Surely not serious?

 

[Summer Nights]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

It's obvious that God is old with a long grey beard and sounds like Mufasa from The Lion King. Every Christian knows that.

 

[MojoRising]

Re: Is God Delusion author Richard Dawkins a coward for refusing to debate the existence of God?

Common misconception.

It's not that we don't believe in no Gods. It's that we believe the evidence for God or Gods is not sufficient to make the case that said Gods exist.

It's an important distinction to make. Just because we don't believe A to be true does not mean we believe in B. It just means we don't believe in A.

Actually that is not the usual definition of atheism.


If you're an atheist you believe that God does not exist, not merely that there is no evidence for God, which is a much more modest position which is consistent with a variety of other positions including agnosticism.

[YOUTUBE]5TyI6Hxa4R4[/YOUTUBE]