(April 13, 2016 at 6:06 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(April 13, 2016 at 4:53 pm)SteveII Wrote: From the same link: 

Objection #4: The first premise is based upon the fallacy of composition. It fallaciously infers that because everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the whole universe has a cause.

Response to #4: In order to understand this objection we need to understand the fallacy of composition. This is the fallacy of reasoning that because every part of a thing has a certain property, therefore the whole thing has that same property. While wholes do sometimes possess the properties of their parts (for example, a fence, every picket of which is green, is also green), this is not always the case. For example, every little part of an elephant may be light in weight, but that does not imply that the whole elephant is light in weight.

Now I have never argued that because every part of the universe has a cause, therefore the whole universe has a cause. That would be manifestly fallacious. Rather the reasons I have offered for thinking that everything that begins to exist has a cause are these:

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being out of nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you've got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1) you've got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

The error he is making here, is that he is not using the physicist's meaning of the term "nothing". Which tends to be different than he way theists define the term. 

Nothing, to physicists is not complete nonexistence. 

That is utter nonsense. Nothing means "not anything". If a physicist means anything else, than it is something.

Quote:

Quote:2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don't bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can pop into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can't be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn't have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, since there isn't anything to be constrained!

This is quite laughable. 

He is trying to refute the accusation of the fallacy of composition, with the fallacy of division.

If the universe popped into existence from nothing (the physicist's definition, not Craig's), doesn't mean we would expect bicycles, root beer or Beethoven to also pop into existence within the universe. 

Seriously Craig?! 

You misunderstand the answer because you are changing the definition of nothing.

Quote:

Quote:3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise (1). Premise (1) is constantly verified and never falsified. It is hard to understand how any atheist committed to modern science could deny that premise (1) is more plausibly true than false in light of the evidence.[7]

The truth of premise 1 is only confirmed within the universe. When it comes to the universe itself, we don't know if there was a cause or not, no matter how much "common experience" tells us.

So you think that being can come from non-being? That we should reject all of our observations, intuition, and logic and simply say the opposite is just as likely? An inductive argument like this deals with probabilities of the truth of its premises. It should also be noted that your objection is not a rebutting defeater, it us an undercutting defeater--at most you would be diminishing the warrant for the premise.

*borked formatting*

(April 14, 2016 at 7:08 am)SteveII Wrote:

(April 13, 2016 at 6:06 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: The error he is making here, is that he is not using the physicist's meaning of the term "nothing". Which tends to be different than he way theists define the term. 

Nothing, to physicists is not complete nonexistence. 

That is utter nonsense. Nothing means "not anything". If a physicist means anything else, than it is something.

You do realize that words have more than one meaning, right?
'Prime' steak; 'prime' the pump. Same word, "prime", two different meanings.
"Theory", in science and common usage, two different meanings.
In German, "spiel" can be a verb, 'to play', or a noun, 'a game'. In English it means a long winded speech, something entirely different from its German meanings.

So... 'nothing' may mean something different in physics than it does in common usage.

(April 13, 2016 at 8:47 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 13, 2016 at 4:46 pm)SteveII Wrote: zero, 1, or any number.

You should listen to Craig's debate with Professor Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the prestigious California Institute of Technology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8

Craig does not understand general relativity nor quantum cosmology nor has he ever published any paper in any physics journal.  I invite you to show me otherwise.  Craig is a rank less amateur, a pure spectator who pontificates on topics for which he has only a limited understanding.  I asked you in an earlier post to describe how any observer in a lab who is motionless with respect to a test charge in the lab would observe no magnetic field, and yet, another observer who was passing through the lab would observe a magnetic field.  How can it be that one observer would observe no magnetic field and another observer would observe a magnetic field?  Is a magnetic field both present and absent at the same time?

I have read the transcript. You made a  statement "Craig does not understand general relativity nor quantum cosmology nor has he ever published any paper in any physics journal." To prove your point, please highlight what specific point or topic you think he missed.

(April 14, 2016 at 9:55 am)LostLocke Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 7:08 am)SteveII Wrote: That is utter nonsense. Nothing means "not anything". If a physicist means anything else, than it is something.

You do realize that words have more than one meaning, right?
'Prime' steak; 'prime' the pump. Same word, "prime", two different meanings.
"Theory", in science and common usage, two different meanings.
In German, "spiel" can be a verb, 'to play', or a noun, 'a game'. In English it means a long winded speech, something entirely different from its German meanings.

So... 'nothing' may mean something different in physics than it does in common usage.

No, nothing means "not anything". If you want to use the term to mean "the lowest energy state of a quantum vacuum", then you mean "the lowest energy state of a quantum vacuum"--which is something.

(April 14, 2016 at 1:12 am)robvalue Wrote: This all just shows the difference between a scientist, and a bad philosopher.

You can't just bullshit your way around the scientific method. Nor can you pick up bits of science and just make up your own extra conclusions.

So you then have some specific examples of where WLC does not understand what Carroll is talking about? Or are you just making unsupported statements?

(April 14, 2016 at 11:27 am)SteveII Wrote: No, nothing means "not anything". If you want to use the term to mean "the lowest energy state of a quantum vacuum", then you mean "the lowest energy state of a quantum vacuum"--which is something.

'Prime' steak, prime means the best type of steak. So, in 'prime' the pump, prime means to make the pump the best type of pump, right? Since once 'prime' has been given that one meaning, the best of, it can't have a different meaning or usage, just like 'nothing'.

(April 14, 2016 at 12:21 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 11:27 am)SteveII Wrote: No, nothing means "not anything". If you want to use the term to mean "the lowest energy state of a quantum vacuum", then you mean "the lowest energy state of a quantum vacuum"--which is something.

'Prime' steak, prime means the best type of steak. So, in 'prime' the pump, prime means to make the pump the best type of pump, right? Since once 'prime' has been given that one meaning, the best of, it can't have a different meaning or usage, just like 'nothing'.

Anyway...what is your point? That the universe popped into being out of nothing that meant something other than "not anything"? Where did that nothing come from? Or, do you want to switch back the definition so you can say "that makes no sense"?

I was only arguing about the use of the word 'nothing'. It was others who were talking about a 'universe from nothing'.

(April 13, 2016 at 4:46 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 13, 2016 at 3:25 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Fallacy - Affirming the consequent.

What this premise does, is say there are 2 sets: 1 is the set of everything that begins to exist. The other is the set of everything that does not begin to exist. 

So Steve, how many members are in the set of everything that does not begin to exist, and what are they?

zero, 1, or any number.

So...

Are you admitting that there are more than one possible thing in the set of things that did not begin to exist?

I was under the impression, considering the argument you are making, that your god is the only thing that did not begin to exist.