| JohnQuin |
| Posted 04/22/12 at 05:37 AM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
Hi all just a heads up that Krauss will be on the show next week. I'm not sure who they will get to oppose him yet. I haven't read Krauss's book yet but I'm fairly sure he is still calling the quantum vacuum 'nothing'. http://www.premierradio.org.uk/shows/saturday/unbelievable.aspx |
| Loading... | |
| Maxeo |
| Posted 04/22/12 at 09:57 AM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
| Yeah, I saw this on Justin's Twitter. I hope he really pushes Krauss' equivocation. At least Hawking recognizes there's a contradiction but Krauss actually tries to get away with it. He's worse than Hawking. I guess blatant contradictions are about as good as these arguments are getting nowadays. Oh yeah, 2 + 2 = 5 right? |
| Loading... | |
| jonahbear |
| Posted 04/23/12 at 07:30 AM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
I'll definitely be listening to that podcast! Thanks! |
| Loading... | |
| Alexander |
| Posted 04/23/12 at 09:26 AM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
Dumb question: why do some people make such a big deal about Krauss' version of 'nothing'? Is there something I don't know about that has shown this to not be the case? From my lay point of view I've always found Craig's version of 'nothing' to be implausible if not impossible.
|
| Loading... | |
| depthcharge623 |
| Posted 04/23/12 at 09:29 AM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Alexander, He uses the word "nothing" to trick people into thinking he's somehow solved the problem of contingency of the universe-- when you understand the actual definition he uses, he has done nothing of the sort. He's purposely employing an incorrect or ambiguous word to confuse people. |
| Loading... | |
| tcampen |
| Posted 04/25/12 at 10:12 PM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
| oh boy, the "nothing" argument again. Nobody wins this one. Not the scientists, not the theists. The notion the universe came from non-material-energy-forces seems to me as curious as the notion God could be without any material-energy-forces, yet still somehow create a universe with nothing but a powerful, immaterial mind. Both seem whacked to me.
But I do think Unbelievable! is one of the best shows out there exploring these issues, and Justin is exceedingly fair in his moderation of discussions despite his unambiguous position on the evangelical-apologetic Christian side of things. He's the kind of guy I'd love to talk over a pint with. It's a regular on my iphone podcast. Good stuff. |
| Loading... | |
| Rostos |
| Posted 04/25/12 at 10:31 PM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by tcampenoh boy, the "nothing" argument again. Nobody wins this one. Not the scientists, not the theists. The notion the universe came from non-material-energy-forces seems to me as curious as the notion God could be without any material-energy-forces, yet still somehow create a universe with nothing but a powerful, immaterial mind. Both seem whacked to me. You are equivocating. Do you know any of the laws of the "definition of the supernatural"? If naturalism is true, we would / should be in a much much better situation to describe how the universe came into being. If theism is true, then how would we ever know the mechanics God used to create the universe? We will never know. You are basically saying the rules of naturalism also apply to God. This is flawed logic.
But I do think Unbelievable! is one of the best shows out there exploring these issues, and Justin is exceedingly fair in his moderation of discussions despite his unambiguous position on the evangelical-apologetic Christian side of things. He's the kind of guy I'd love to talk over a pint with. It's a regular on my iphone podcast. Good stuff. |
| Loading... | |
| tcampen |
| Posted 04/25/12 at 10:48 PM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RostosQuote: Originally Posted by tcampenoh boy, the "nothing" argument again. Nobody wins this one. Not the scientists, not the theists. The notion the universe came from non-material-energy-forces seems to me as curious as the notion God could be without any material-energy-forces, yet still somehow create a universe with nothing but a powerful, immaterial mind. Both seem whacked to me. You are equivocating. Do you know any of the laws of the "definition of the supernatural"? If naturalism is true, we would / should be in a much much better situation to describe how the universe came into being. If theism is true, then how would we ever know the mechanics God used to create the universe? We will never know. You are basically saying the rules of naturalism also apply to God. This is flawed logic.
But I do think Unbelievable! is one of the best shows out there exploring these issues, and Justin is exceedingly fair in his moderation of discussions despite his unambiguous position on the evangelical-apologetic Christian side of things. He's the kind of guy I'd love to talk over a pint with. It's a regular on my iphone podcast. Good stuff.
No. I am not equivocating. I'm applying the same definition of "nothing" to both sides. By saying the rules are different for both sides, you are moving the goal posts in the middle of the game. You have NO RULES with he supernatural, in your game, making any attempt at an argument invoking it pointless. Without rules, you can't have a coherent dialogue on the issue. And if you can just make up your rules for the supernatural willy-nilly (that's a technical term) then where are we?
I was trying to be logically consistent. Something I thought was valued in these parts. |
| Loading... | |
| snoochies |
| Posted 04/25/12 at 11:26 PM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
| So does nothing exist? |
| Loading... | |
| idunno |
| Posted 04/25/12 at 11:31 PM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by snoochies
So does nothing exist?
yes, yes it does  |
| Loading... | |
| OrdinaryClay |
| Posted 04/25/12 at 11:34 PM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by tcampenNo. I am not equivocating. I'm applying the same definition of "nothing" to both sides. By saying the rules are different for both sides, you are moving the goal posts in the middle of the game. You have NO RULES with he supernatural, in your game, making any attempt at an argument invoking it pointless. Without rules, you can't have a coherent dialogue on the issue. And if you can just make up your rules for the supernatural willy-nilly (that's a technical term) then where are we?
I was trying to be logically consistent. Something I thought was valued in these parts. And this is another example of the inevitable atheist position. You simply beg the question by assuming the supernatural is not possible. You know full well the KCA is based on philosophical arguments with grounding in the natural world and then deduce the supernatural.
|
| Loading... | |
| Rostos |
| Posted 04/26/12 at 02:10 AM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by tcampenQuote: Originally Posted by RostosQuote: Originally Posted by tcampenoh boy, the "nothing" argument again. Nobody wins this one. Not the scientists, not the theists. The notion the universe came from non-material-energy-forces seems to me as curious as the notion God could be without any material-energy-forces, yet still somehow create a universe with nothing but a powerful, immaterial mind. Both seem whacked to me. You are equivocating. Do you know any of the laws of the "definition of the supernatural"? If naturalism is true, we would / should be in a much much better situation to describe how the universe came into being. If theism is true, then how would we ever know the mechanics God used to create the universe? We will never know. You are basically saying the rules of naturalism also apply to God. This is flawed logic.
But I do think Unbelievable! is one of the best shows out there exploring these issues, and Justin is exceedingly fair in his moderation of discussions despite his unambiguous position on the evangelical-apologetic Christian side of things. He's the kind of guy I'd love to talk over a pint with. It's a regular on my iphone podcast. Good stuff.
No. I am not equivocating. I'm applying the same definition of "nothing" to both sides. By saying the rules are different for both sides, you are moving the goal posts in the middle of the game. You have NO RULES with he supernatural, in your game, making any attempt at an argument invoking it pointless. Without rules, you can't have a coherent dialogue on the issue. And if you can just make up your rules for the supernatural willy-nilly (that's a technical term) then where are we? Hang on, are you trying to say that the laws of naturalism are the SAME as the supernatural? You are in no position to apply any rules to the supernatural, none of us are. If the universe does not exist OR anything that is naturalistic does not exist, ie, nothing, does that mean the supernatural also does not exist? You cant apply the same rules of this naturalism to the supernatural. We are talking about 2 completely different realms. What you are trying to say is this. In this world, to survive, a living being needs food. There is no food outside outside naturalism, therefore God ( a living being) cannot survive. You are basically trying to equivocate the rules in our world / naturalism, to that of the supernatural, you have no basis to do so.
I was trying to be logically consistent. Something I thought was valued in these parts. Your logic is flawed with equivocations. |
| Loading... | |
| JohnQuin |
| Posted 04/26/12 at 06:25 AM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
If the creation of a universe without a material cause works against the theist then what situation can people envisage that would actually favor the theist wrt the beginning of the universe? |
| Loading... | |
| tcampen |
| Posted 04/26/12 at 02:42 PM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by OrdinaryClayQuote: Originally Posted by tcampenNo. I am not equivocating. I'm applying the same definition of "nothing" to both sides. By saying the rules are different for both sides, you are moving the goal posts in the middle of the game. You have NO RULES with he supernatural, in your game, making any attempt at an argument invoking it pointless. Without rules, you can't have a coherent dialogue on the issue. And if you can just make up your rules for the supernatural willy-nilly (that's a technical term) then where are we?
I was trying to be logically consistent. Something I thought was valued in these parts. And this is another example of the inevitable atheist position. You simply beg the question by assuming the supernatural is not possible. You know full well the KCA is based on philosophical arguments with grounding in the natural world and then deduce the supernatural.
First of all, I am NOT an atheist. Second, I do NOT assume the supernatural is not possible. Third, thank you for jumping to conclusions to further illustrate my point.
And I don't disagree with your general characterization of the KCA. Its the validity of the premises and the steps taken after its conclusion that I find problems with. |
| Loading... | |
| Lawlessone777 |
| Posted 04/26/12 at 02:54 PM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
| I've always found Krauss' equivocation to be a bit self evident. If the quantum vacuum is nothing, why is it a thing which you study? The very linguistics of nothing implies that there is no thing that you should be able study the mechanics of. |
| Loading... | |
