Dr. Craig is a liar.

[robvalue]

Now we're getting somewhere!

[SteveII]

I, in turn, will try to be clearer: 

1) Carroll does not believe in God.
2) Carroll said the universe (or its quantum vacuum predecessor) always existed for infinity with no explanation (because he does not believe in God). 
3) Carroll said the universe (or its quantum vacuum predecessor) could have failed to exist and he could conceive there there could have been nothing.

How did I mis-characterize his position: A) If atheism is true, the universe (or its predecessors) has no explanation of its existence.? Are you saying he must have meant something else? 

Further, how is this a mis-characterization of other atheists?

This atheist does not believe that the universe the universe always existed for infinity with no explanation.  Lots of atheists don't believe that.  In fact, I assume that almost all of us lack the belief you are trying to attribute to all of us. 

Do some believe that the universe (predecessors) has an explanation?

There are a lot of us, and we don't agree on much, so I'm happy to stipulate that some of us have that belief.  

What is it?

Sorry, I don't have it on me. 

There's a huge difference between believing that things have causes and knowing what those causes are. 

Do some believe that the universe (predecessors) necessarily exists? 

I've heard that claim, so, yes, some of us believe that. 

I've read one or two arguments for that position.  I didn't find them compelling.  But they were at least as good as the Christian arguments that gods exist necessarily.  

On what basis?

You know you're way off base here, right?  You claimed that if "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true."  That's not a defensible claim, and you aren't approaching a defense of it.  Asking why some of us believe something is not the same as proving that none of us should believe it.

[Jehanne]

Craig earned his PhD in the Philosophy of Religion; let's just be clear about that.  Secondly, the majority to most real philosophers are atheistic, and so, they are not buying Craig's arguments.  Ditto for cosmologists.

Great scholars move their peers, such as Galileo and Darwin; Craig has moved no one, as far as I can tell.  He has simply "confirmed" evangelical Christians in their preexisting belief system.

Your hatred of Craig is getting silly. You don't answer my questions. You just come up with more straw men and red herring fallacies (genetic fallacies, ad hominem attacks, appeal to authority, appeal to motive, argumentum ad populum, and more). Stick with God is a monster", complaining about the Bible or that the NT was a conspiracy. Leave metaphysics and Craig alone--because you don't understand them.

I can hardly be accused of "hating" Craig for simply pointing out facts about him.

[SteveII]

This atheist does not believe that the universe the universe always existed for infinity with no explanation.  Lots of atheists don't believe that.  In fact, I assume that almost all of us lack the belief you are trying to attribute to all of us. 



There are a lot of us, and we don't agree on much, so I'm happy to stipulate that some of us have that belief.  



Sorry, I don't have it on me. 

There's a huge difference between believing that things have causes and knowing what those causes are. 



I've heard that claim, so, yes, some of us believe that. 

I've read one or two arguments for that position.  I didn't find them compelling.  But they were at least as good as the Christian arguments that gods exist necessarily.  




You know you're way off base here, right?  You claimed that if "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true."  That's not a defensible claim, and you aren't approaching a defense of it.  Asking why some of us believe something is not the same as proving that none of us should believe it.

Sorry, I have tried to reply to this post 3 times and it keeps eating my response.

My point is that Carroll believes that the universe (or its quantum vacuum predecessor) does not exist necessarily (could have failed to exist) and that it has existed from infinity with no explanation--a "brute fact" as he also put it. He does not believe in God so that is not an explanatory option for him. Other atheists might have a slightly different idea about universe generators, endless expansion/contraction, etc. but that does not escape the problem of eventually you have to say something always existed (brute fact) even in the face of the absurdity of a past infinite.  A) If atheism is true, the universe (or its predecessors) has no explanation of its existence.

If you believe A) to be true then you also believe B) If the universe (or its predecessor) has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true because it is the logical equivalent. You cannot affirm A) and deny B) --they rise and fall together.

[wiploc]

Sorry, I have tried to reply to this post 3 times and it keeps eating my response.

My point is that Carroll believes that the universe (or its quantum vacuum predecessor) does not exist necessarily (could have failed to exist) and that it has existed from infinity with no explanation--a "brute fact" as he also put it. He does not believe in God so that is not an explanatory option for him. Other atheists might have a slightly different idea about universe generators, endless expansion/contraction, etc. but that does not escape the problem of eventually you have to say something always existed (brute fact) even in the face of the absurdity of a past infinite.  A) If atheism is true, the universe (or its predecessors) has no explanation of its existence.

If you believe A) to be true then you also believe B) If the universe (or its predecessor) has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true because it is the logical equivalent. You cannot affirm A) and deny B) --they rise and fall together.

My point is that Carroll believes
 
Oh.  I thought you said that all atheists do believe (or should believe?) that the universe is without explanation.  That would be an absurd claim, patently false. 
 
 
that the universe (or its quantum vacuum predecessor)
 
If the universe is everything that exists, including time, then it can't have a predecessor. 
 
 
does not exist necessarily (could have failed to exist) and that it has existed from infinity with no explanation--a "brute fact" as he also put it.
 
Like your god?
 
 
He does not believe in God so that is not an explanatory option for him.
 
I don't think gods are ever explanatory.
 
 
Other atheists might have a slightly different idea about universe generators, endless expansion/contraction, etc. but that does not escape the problem of eventually you have to say something always existed (brute fact) 
 
So many ways to approach that.  Let me just ask, how is it different with gods? 
 
 
even in the face of the absurdity of a past infinite.  
 
I don't see how an unbegun infinite past is any more absurd than a begun finite past.  Both present conceptual difficulties greater than I can cope with. 
 
I can't say, "X must be true because Y is weird," when X and Y seem to be equally weird.  If Y's weirdness made X true, then X's weirdness would also make Y true, which would result in contradiction.  So I think the rational response is to say we don't  know. 
 
I wandered onto campus one day to check out this no-infinities assertion that Christians make.  I found three physics professors, and put the question to them:  Do infinities exist in real life?   None of them opined that infinities do not exist.
 
 
A) If atheism is true, the universe (or its predecessors) has no explanation of its existence.


If your claim is that this is the claim of this Carroll person, I'll have to take your word for it.  But if your claim is that this claim is logically entailed by atheism, then I'd like to see you make your case.
 
 
 

If you believe A) to be true then you also believe B) If the universe (or its predecessor) has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true because it is the logical equivalent. You cannot affirm A) and deny B) --they rise and fall together.
 
I don't want to nitpick.  I can say it this way:
 
The premise, "If there are no gods, then the universe has no explanation," logically entails the conclusion, "If the universe has an explanation, then there is at least one god." 
 
I agree that that premise entails that conclusion. 



---
off Topic
---

Can anybody tell me how to break up a quote?  On other discussion boards, I just paste in

[/quote]





[quote]

and then I can write in the gap.

[robvalue]

Yeah, that is how you do it

"If atheism is true"? That's nonsensical.

[Cyberman]

Breaking up quotes:

Code:

[quote]Large quote goes here[/quote]

Followed by your response.

[quote]Then the next part of the quote[/quote]

And so on.

Alternatively you can copy and paste the full quote code in place of the bald quote tags, like this:

Code:

[quote='Stimbo' pid='1257069' dateline='1461355750']

Personally I think that's easier to navigate the conversation.

[wiploc]

...delete...

[robvalue]

The "preview post" button is also useful, it lets you see how it will all look before submitting it to be posted. I always do that if my post is complex with quotes and such.

You can then make any alterations, and preview again. When it's good to go, then you can post it.

[Edwardo Piet]

I do like how a number of those who argued, that something could not always exist...  without a cause; have switched to arguing that things can begin to exist without a cause.

Don't worry, I personally have always believed existence itself is eternal.