Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

God & Cosmology Debate

Vernich
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 2:40:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Craig-Carroll
Youtu.be/07QUPuZg05I?t=24m4s

Maudlin
Youtube.com/watch?v=zwcm74aOw8Q&feature=share&t=9m6s

The Rest
Youtube.com/watch?v=RQoYEWXPxrA&feature=share

Well... are you more of a theist or naturalist after understanding this exchange?
Thou sayeth becoming is eternal, feel then my scythe and see.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 6:36:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 2:40:45 AM, Vernich wrote:
Craig-Carroll
Youtu.be/07QUPuZg05I?t=24m4s

Maudlin
Youtube.com/watch?v=zwcm74aOw8Q&feature=share&t=9m6s

The Rest
Youtube.com/watch?v=RQoYEWXPxrA&feature=share

Well... are you more of a theist or naturalist after understanding this exchange?

Have only watched Craig-Carroll so far. Which I think id probably the only debate I've seen Craig lose on both presentation and arguments. I initially criticised Sean Carroll's Gish Gallop at the end of his opening but I think it highlights pretty clearly that god is not well defined, and therefore is not a good scientific theory.

Furthermore the Q&A session highlighted Craig's view on making god a theory, when he admitted it would not be possible to test it predictively. I think Sean Carroll needed to jump on that admission like a tonne of bricks, as that's one of the crucial differences between following the evidence where it leads rather than leading the evidence (he did this effectively in less direct ways but that was he main chance).

I came out of that one no more or less a naturalist, but more on that theistic explanations are really not making any progress in attempting to formalize their ideas, and therefore not to be taken seriously.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 5:26:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 6:36:50 AM, Sswdwm wrote:

I came out of that one no more or less a naturalist, but more on that theistic explanations are really not making any progress in attempting to formalize their ideas, and therefore not to be taken seriously.

Depends, on what you mean by formalize. If you mean to give clear reasons as to why they are viable I think Aquinas did an good job of that (for his time) with his Five Ways especially as written in Summa Theologica, not in popular summaries of it.

Then again, I hardly see the need to argue with a scientist on his terms as Craig tries to do, and failed to do in this debate. My preferred method is to shift the topic to the metaphysical (as consciousness is) or concepts not recognized to be so (energy, force, time etc) and argue why that explanatory gap can never be crossed and is a valid basis to infer God from. Then what you tend to get are obfuscations, appeals to authority, question-begging etc as the likes of Carroll are wont to do when faced with good idealist arguments like Zeno's paradox.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2014 9:55:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Maudlin appears conflicted about a telos.

Interestingly, he grants scientific discovery a telos - and by default a truth-vector, yet finds fault with the history of philosophy & theology.

Ironic.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 1:35:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I find it extremely bizarre that both Carrol and Craig had such contempt for the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Sean Carrol actually had the nerve to say no thinking person would adhere to it, yet, a recent poll shows that the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most adhered to interpretation by experts [http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...], Sean Carrol is just mad because his Many-Worlds Interpretation isn't as popular. Craig only wants the Copenhagen Interpretation to be false because it is indeterministic, and Atheists keep using Quantum Mechanics to attack the Kalam and it pisses him off. Regardless, Anton Zeilinger is a thinking person, and his experiments actually rule out interpretations (at least by showing them to be extremely ad hoc) in which collapse does not occur upon observation (the Many-Worlds Interpretation) [http://phys.org...]. His experiments vindicate the Copenhagen Interpretation [http://www.newscientist.com...]

"This experiment lends more support to the Copenhagen interpretation." - Anton Zeilinger (regarding the above)
Vernich
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 7:27:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 6:36:50 AM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/5/2014 2:40:45 AM, Vernich wrote:
Craig-Carroll
Youtu.be/07QUPuZg05I?t=24m4s

Maudlin
Youtube.com/watch?v=zwcm74aOw8Q&feature=share&t=9m6s

The Rest
Youtube.com/watch?v=RQoYEWXPxrA&feature=share

Well... are you more of a theist or naturalist after understanding this exchange?

Have only watched Craig-Carroll so far. Which I think id probably the only debate I've seen Craig lose on both presentation and arguments.

I thought that at first too but now the more I watch it I feel as if Craig kept the lead in arguments. But presentation was boring because it was so... usual. Although it was good he cited the new paper by Waal that came out last summer, that was a big win for the theists who believe in a beginning. Carroll brushed by that one.

I initially criticised Sean Carroll's Gish Gallop at the end of his opening but I think it highlights pretty clearly that god is not well defined, and therefore is not a good scientific theory.

I still don't know what he means by "well defined" ... I was surprised Craig never pressed him on this, does he mean scientifically defined? Does he mean predictable in terms of falsifiability? What does he mean? If he means anything that sounds like it should be defined naturalistically then it's question-begging, so I don't see how else he would be arguing here.

Furthermore the Q&A session highlighted Craig's view on making god a theory, when he admitted it would not be possible to test it predictively. I think Sean Carroll needed to jump on that admission like a tonne of bricks, as that's one of the crucial differences between following the evidence where it leads rather than leading the evidence (he did this effectively in less direct ways but that was he main chance).

I guess that just doesn't make sense. Carroll admitted that God isn't a scientific hypothesis, and so when it comes to treating him as one he's playing a double game. (And predicting God? ... We can hardly predict humans let alone a limitless being), the terms of the debate were, does cosmology render God's existence more plausible. All Craig needed to defend was that a beginning did so. That was his best.

I'm biased against the fine-tuning since I'm agnostic about that argument, the debate further entrenched my agnosticism over fine v course tuning for me.

I came out of that one no more or less a naturalist, but more on that theistic explanations are really not making any progress in attempting to formalize their ideas, and therefore not to be taken seriously.

Again what do you mean by formalize ideas? ... Have you seen the project of natural theology? That's ALL philosophers since Plato have seemed to have been doing. God is pretty well defined. A maximally great mind who created the universe, 3 omni's, revealed through Christ... I don't understand what's so ill defined about that other than a question begging import of what counts as definitions by naturalism.
Thou sayeth becoming is eternal, feel then my scythe and see.
Vernich
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 7:29:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/5/2014 9:55:59 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
Maudlin appears conflicted about a telos.

Interestingly, he grants scientific discovery a telos - and by default a truth-vector, yet finds fault with the history of philosophy & theology.

Ironic.

Maudlin baffles me... he's my favorite source on philosophy of physics, I had him for undergrad. When it comes to theology he's just... he should have stuck to cosmology.
Thou sayeth becoming is eternal, feel then my scythe and see.
Vernich
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 7:38:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 1:35:11 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I find it extremely bizarre that both Carrol and Craig had such contempt for the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

Who doesn't in academia.. oh ya, Zeilinger hahaha

Sean Carrol actually had the nerve to say no thinking person would adhere to it, yet, a recent poll shows that the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most adhered to interpretation by experts [http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...],

Ya there's a reason that post is called the most embarrassing graph in physics I guess. Fun aside just because it's the most adhered to doesn't mean the ones who accept it believe it. In science there's a difference between acceptance and belief. And the CH theory (not interpretation, that's a misnomer, they're all theories regarding the standard formalism, common mistake, see Maudlin 2008), may well be useful because that's just the one everyone else is using, hence the simple cross talk.

Sean Carrol is just mad because his Many-Worlds Interpretation isn't as popular.

It actually is, lately, because of the decoherence. I think the whole of Kings college worships it.

Craig only wants the Copenhagen Interpretation to be false because it is indeterministic,

It actually really doesn't matter for him or any theist for that matter, it still fails to undercut the causal principle even if it were true. See Pruss on the matter.

and Atheists keep using Quantum Mechanics to attack the Kalam and it pisses him off.

That's because it's the lamest objection really.
Thou sayeth becoming is eternal, feel then my scythe and see.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 1:53:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 7:38:56 AM, Vernich wrote:
At 3/6/2014 1:35:11 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I find it extremely bizarre that both Carrol and Craig had such contempt for the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

Who doesn't in academia..

Most people, as the Copenhagen is the most adhered to interpretation.

oh ya, Zeilinger hahaha

Zeilinger, Seth Lloyd, Xiao-song Ma, Johannes Kofler, Angie Qarry, Nuray Tetik, Thomas Scheidl, Rupert Ursin, Sven Ramelow, Thomas Herbst, Lothar Ratschbacher, Alessandro Fedrizzi, Thomas Jennewein...

Most working physicists adhere to a Copenhagen interpretation...


Sean Carrol actually had the nerve to say no thinking person would adhere to it, yet, a recent poll shows that the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most adhered to interpretation by experts [http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...],

Ya there's a reason that post is called the most embarrassing graph in physics I guess.

Yes there is, which is the fact that more physicists don't agree on what the best interpretation is, it has nothing to do with the fact that more physicists adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation than any other interpretation.

Fun aside just because it's the most adhered to doesn't mean the ones who accept it believe it.

Who would adhere to something they don't believe? That seems pretty stupid.

In science there's a difference between acceptance and belief.

Perhaps, but they go hand in hand.

And the CH theory (not interpretation, that's a misnomer, they're all theories regarding the standard formalism, common mistake, see Maudlin 2008), may well be useful because that's just the one everyone else is using, hence the simple cross talk.

Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that it is more adhered to than any other interpretation.

The point is that MANY thinking people believe it, and I can quote countless physicists who believe it. So, Sean Carrol saying no thinking person would adhere to it (or believe it) is false.


Sean Carrol is just mad because his Many-Worlds Interpretation isn't as popular.

It actually is, lately, because of the decoherence. I think the whole of Kings college worships it

Well, The Many-Worlds interpretation is riddled with problems (such as the fact that it violates Probability Law). Also, Zelinger's experiments show us the Copenhagen interpretation is probably correct. I can cite at least 3 experiments from which support that interpretation.


Craig only wants the Copenhagen Interpretation to be false because it is indeterministic,

It actually really doesn't matter for him or any theist for that matter, it still fails to undercut the causal principle even if it were true. See Pruss on the matter.


and Atheists keep using Quantum Mechanics to attack the Kalam and it pisses him off.

That's because it's the lamest objection really.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2014 3:05:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/6/2014 1:35:11 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I find it extremely bizarre that both Carrol and Craig had such contempt for the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Sean Carrol actually had the nerve to say no thinking person would adhere to it, yet, a recent poll shows that the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most adhered to interpretation by experts [http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...], Sean Carrol is just mad because his Many-Worlds Interpretation isn't as popular. Craig only wants the Copenhagen Interpretation to be false because it is indeterministic, and Atheists keep using Quantum Mechanics to attack the Kalam and it pisses him off. Regardless, Anton Zeilinger is a thinking person, and his experiments actually rule out interpretations (at least by showing them to be extremely ad hoc) in which collapse does not occur upon observation (the Many-Worlds Interpretation) [http://phys.org...]. His experiments vindicate the Copenhagen Interpretation [http://www.newscientist.com...]

"This experiment lends more support to the Copenhagen interpretation." - Anton Zeilinger (regarding the above)

Because it seems to lead to idealism, or a mind-constructed reality. They're both realists, but one believes in God, and the other doesn't.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."