Support NeoGAF

[Mgoblue201]

Carroll seems to be conflating "certainty" and "knowledge." Obviously, no cosmologist is certain that the Universe had a beginning, but Vilenkin claims that it's likely to be the case. Well, virtually all of what we consider "knowledge" is probabilistic; I am not certain of most of what I believe, but I think it's likely to be the case. Craig is not saying that we shouldn't be open to the possibility that the Standard Model might be falsified, for it might. His argument has only been that modern discoveries are consistent with the second philosophical premise of his argument.

Obviously, the BVG theorem might be falsified, and that's a very open possibility, but he's simply showing that it's currently the Standard Model for a reason; the fact that modern discoveries are seen as likely true by many leading scientists further confirms the reasonability in trusting the second premise of the argument.

I personally couldn't care less about the cosmology; I'm only interested in the philosophical arguments for the veridicality of the premises, for even if the Standard Model were falsified, the strength of the philosophical arguments for the finitude of the past aren't really affected, in my view.

I think that gives Craig far too much credit. His usual debate tactic is to state something that's technically true and then smuggle in several questionable conclusions along with it. For example, Craig is conflating two different things here: that the BGV theorem postulates the existence of a boundary in most inflationary models of the universe, and that Vilenkin (not even Guth, but Vilenkin) believes that the universe probably had a beginning. He almost effortlessly elides this distinction in his argument. One moment he's discussing the BGV theorem. The next it is Vilenkin's own research. The typical viewer will not be able to tell the difference between them. Perhaps Craig himself doesn't even recognize the distinction. Sure, Craig doesn't literally claim that Vilenkin's view is an immutable scientific truth, and he's careful to state only that it's "most likely true", but he clearly gives the impression that the eventual triumph of these ideas (to the point that they are elevated to the overall scientific consensus) is an inexorable fact, and that his opponent is desperately concocting implausible theories to explain it away. That is really far from reality though.

 

[typist]

I would say the Leibnizian cosmological argument.

No form of the cosmological argument justifies following one religion over another. As a Christian Craig still has to rely on feelings of extreme trust for anecdotal 'evidence' that Jesus=God.

William Lane Craig is an idiot, the guy doesn't even believe in 'macro' evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUsMHSeWvaA

He also can't represent anyone accurately.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_37cu0LXR1OH65o6rZox9ocFiagiDi0f

 

[Raist]

He's an idiot and his arguments and "demonstrations" are purely based on premises that he holds true to begin with. Like "everything which begins to exist has a cause, therefore christian god".

 

[Marlenus]

I would say the Leibnizian cosmological argument.

That fails on the second argument and is self contradictory.

Argument one states that everything has an explanation for existence. This is a useful if not necessarily true because once you assume that there is no further explanation for something you stop trying to find one.

Given one how can you then state that the explanation for the universe is god? By the first argument that means God must have a sufficient explanation. Getting around it by stating that God is a brute fact or is necessary for his own existence nullifies the first assumption.

If you allow God to have a necessary explanation then you end up in a infinite regress and you might as well just simplify it to the Universe being the one thing we cannot explain and remove God from the equation entirely.

It also infers that the universe was created or there was a point when it did not exist. Based on some popular theories such as infinite expansion theory, this is not necessarily the case which would also rule God out of the equation.

 

[Chaplain]

A three-part discussion between Prof Lawrence Krauss and Dr William Lane Craig that should be watched by all who are interested in the truth:

1. Life, the Universe and Nothing: Has science buried God?

This is the first in a three-part discussion between Prof Lawrence Krauss and Dr William Lane Craig.

Prof Krauss and Dr Craig discuss whether science has "buried" God, making him unnecessary for explaining the world we observe around us.

This video starts with interviews with Prof Krauss and Dr Craig, in which they comment on their approach to these discussions.

2. Life, the Universe and Nothing: Why is there something rather than nothing?

This is the second in a three-part discussion between Prof Lawrence Krauss and Dr William Lane Craig.

Prof Krauss and Dr Craig discuss what is perhaps the fundamental question of philosophy and science: why there is something rather than nothing.

3. Life, the Universe and Nothing: Is it reasonable to believe there is a God?

This is the third in a three-part discussion between Prof Lawrence Krauss and Dr William Lane Craig.

Prof Krauss and Dr Craig discuss whether it is reasonable to believe there is a God.

I highly recommended watching these discussions for those who want to learn more about God, philosophy, and science.

 

[Doc Holliday]

So the dude is a sophist?

I never heard of that term and promptly looked it up, it describes him perfectly!

 

[Raist]

A three-part discussion between Prof Lawrence Krauss and Dr William Lane Craig that should be watched by all who are interested in the truth:

1. Life, the Universe and Nothing: Has science buried God?



2. Life, the Universe and Nothing: Why is there something rather than nothing?



3. Life, the Universe and Nothing: Is it reasonable to believe there is a God?



I highly recommended watching these discussions for those who want to learn more about God, philosophy, and science.

I see WLC has expanded his portfolio of arguments with the exact same fallacies.