NTWrightfan's forum posts

Avatar image for NTWrightfan
NTWrightfan

166

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 NTWrightfan
Member since 2008 • 166 Posts
[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]And their proof of it is...?Funky_Llama
all I can give you is a source, and I'm pretty sure their source is P.C.W Davies or Roger Penrose

Well, if that's all you can give me, I have no reason to believe it.

TMK, it (the cosmological constnat) a brute fact.
Avatar image for NTWrightfan
NTWrightfan

166

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 NTWrightfan
Member since 2008 • 166 Posts

Why?Funky_Llama

Because Being does not come from nonbeing.

Thus he doesn't exist?Funky_Llama
Thus he does not exist CONTINGENTLY

Avatar image for NTWrightfan
NTWrightfan

166

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 NTWrightfan
Member since 2008 • 166 Posts
[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Simple, if something begins to exist, then that thing has a cause. Since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. The universe cannot cause itself to exist obviously because in order to cause itself to come into existence, it would have to already exist.

Which is why I am absolutely stunned that Daniel Dennet would seriously tout this counter-argument to the first-cause argument and various cosmological arguments.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]And what created God?xaos

Since God never began to exist, God does not need a cause for his existence, unlike the universe would for the universe is a contingent entity.

Your understanding of causality is rooted in classical mechanics and does not apply at all in the quantum world. Also, centering an argument around everything having a cause but declaring a special exemption for your thesis is special pleading (the universe can't have always existed, but God can).

Xaos, I really should have you know that only according to the Copenhagen interpretation (which does not have a scientific consensus backing it up) are quantum fluctuations uncaused. But another problem is that you misunderstand the premise. It is not a physical statement, but rather a metaphysical statement. Being does not come from nonbeing.
Avatar image for NTWrightfan
NTWrightfan

166

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 NTWrightfan
Member since 2008 • 166 Posts
[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"] weak atheism purports itself to lack any claims to knowledge. hence, its agnostic. DeeJayInphinity
And the weak atheist does not believe in god, hence atheism.

so agnostics are atheists? after all, they don't believe in God either.
Avatar image for NTWrightfan
NTWrightfan

166

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 NTWrightfan
Member since 2008 • 166 Posts
[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Source for the improbability claim?Funky_Llama
my mistake, its actually one part in 10^53, and my source is JP Moreland and William Lane Craig's Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview

And their proof of it is...?

all I can give you is a source, and I'm pretty sure their source is P.C.W Davies or Roger Penrose
Avatar image for NTWrightfan
NTWrightfan

166

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 NTWrightfan
Member since 2008 • 166 Posts
[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"][QUOTE="Qooroo"]

Can you clarify how each wasn't an assumption? Cause I saw no evidence or properly basic-ness.

Qooroo

Premise 1 of the teleological argument, either the fine-tuning of the universe is due either to chance, physical necessity, or design. surely you cannot give a 4th alternative? Premise 2: It is not due to chance or physical necessity. after all, they are far too improbable (1 in 10^120 for the cosmological constant), and there isn't a shred of evidence for the many-worlds hypothesis, and there isn't a shred of evidence for any mechanism controlling these constants conclusion: therefore it is due to design none of those are assumptions.

What makes you say it's too improbable? And I think physical necessity is a completely valid premise. If the universe had not developped in a way that allowed it to be consistent, it would not exist. Can you clarify what you're referencing when you refer to the cosmological constant? Its place in your argument seems to have changed between tellings, and it makes it hard for me to understand.

You going to respond to the other three things I criticized you for assuming?

you only lobbed one accusation of assumption. Now when I say "cosmological constant", I mean the rate of expansion of the universe. too much expansion and galaxies and stars would not form, hence, no carbon. Too little expansion and the universe would have recollapsed long ago
Avatar image for NTWrightfan
NTWrightfan

166

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 NTWrightfan
Member since 2008 • 166 Posts
[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"][QUOTE="Qooroo"]

Can you clarify how each wasn't an assumption? Cause I saw no evidence or properly basic-ness.

Funky_Llama
Let us see: premise 1 of the kalam argument, whatever begins to exist has a cause. This is not an assumption, it is just a reaffirmation of the first principle of metaphysics that being does not come from nonbeing. To say otherwise is worse than magic because when the magician pulls the rabbit out of the hat, you still have the hat and you still have the magician Premise 2 of the kalam argument: the universe began to exist. This is simple, if the amount of moments before right now is infinite, then we should not be here right now because before any moment can arrive, existence must traverse the moment before it, and before that moment can arrive, existence must traverse the moment before that one. So in order to for the present moment to arrive, it must traverse an infinite amount of moments, hence we should not be here right now. Premise 1 of the teleological argument, either the fine-tuning of the universe is due either to chance, physical necessity, or design. surely you cannot give a 4th alternative? Premise 2: It is not due to chance or physical necessity. after all, they are far too improbable (1 in 10^120 for the cosmological constant), and there isn't a shred of evidence for the many-worlds hypothesis, and there isn't a shred of evidence for any mechanism controlling these constants conclusion: therefore it is due to design none of those are assumptions.

Source for the improbability claim?

my mistake, its actually one part in 10^53, and my source is JP Moreland and William Lane Craig's Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
Avatar image for NTWrightfan
NTWrightfan

166

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 NTWrightfan
Member since 2008 • 166 Posts

well for one, Borel's law of probability states that if the chance of something happening is 1 in 10^50 or lesser, then it is not going to happen.

[QUOTE="Qooroo"]And I think physical necessity is a completely valid premise. If the universe had not developped in a way that allowed it to be consistent, it would not exist. Qooroo

no, the universe would have existed, but it would not have allowed for any life.

Can you clarify what you're referencing when you refer to the cosmological constant? Its place in your argument seems to have changed between tellings, and it makes it hard for me to understand. Qooroo

The cosmological constant is the rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe. If it were lesser, then the universe would have collapsed. if it were greater, then the universe would have expanded too quickly for stars and galaxies to form.

You going to respond to the other three things I criticized you for assuming?

Qooroo
you never criticized me for assuming 3 things, I backed up all the premises to all my arguments.
Avatar image for NTWrightfan
NTWrightfan

166

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 NTWrightfan
Member since 2008 • 166 Posts
[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"] isn't it equally presumptive to say that God would be so caring as to design the universe so finely as to allow life, but at the same time be so callous as to never intervene? Hewkii
no.

sounds damn presumptive to me:?
Avatar image for NTWrightfan
NTWrightfan

166

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 NTWrightfan
Member since 2008 • 166 Posts
God is a very loaded word. Many of us use the word God to describe the Christian God. But when I use the Word God I don't use it this way. I believe in God in the sense that it's the ultimate form of energy to create what we see. The personification of God is something religion does. I refuse to go there because I believe it's really presumptive to assume God would feel, think or act like man.EMOEVOLUTION
isn't it equally presumptive to say that God would be so caring as to design the universe so finely as to allow life, but at the same time be so callous as to never intervene?